BS Report: Lowe on Rondo

[guava_wrench]

Mavs look like they're about to go 2-2 with Rondo tonight.

Waiting for Rondo haters to dissect this one and undoubtedly point to the W only the result of playing the Lakers...probably the same members who will ignore how bad the Mavs defense was before Rondo and still is with Rondo, and the fact that the Lakers beat the league's best team and stayed competitive on Christmas.

The Mavs barely beat the Lakers without Kobe.
The Lakers grabbed 63 rebounds.

Some would argue the Lakers are currently a better team without Kobe playing.  I'm sure your failure to mention Rondo's stat line (21 pts, 7 ast, 8 reb) was an oversight.  Rondo's starting to establish a good rapport with Tyson Chandler.  The Mavs biggest problem is Chandler can't play all 48 minutes.  The Lakers turned into an offensive rebounding juggernaut with Chandler on the bench.  The Mavs aren't going anywhere if they don't get a backup defense/rebounding big.

There isn't a need to talk about Rondo's individual stats when someone's point is that his stats come at the expense of production from other players and overall team efficiency.

Still a small sample size regardless.

The offensive rebound problem you mention is partly due to trading away their best backup big to us. It is also greatly due to them already being horrible on defense, which is not Rondo's fault.

[D.o.s.]

It's also worth pointing out that the Lakers without Kobe are way, way better than the Lakers with Kobe this season.

[BballTim]

And if Rondo played with the same defensive effort as Smart, the love for him in this forum would have been neverending, no matter how poorly he shot from the field.

Mike

  His 4 years on all defense teams show the opposite to be the case. There was very little differentiation between the criticisms of his defense last year and the years he was first team all-defense. And there was no difference in the type or number of complaints about his shooting.

Agreed. Bill Russell's fg and ft% was horrid. If he had played in the Celtics Blog era people would have continually called for trading him.

Please explain how Rondo is on the same level as Bill Russell.

No. You explain it. Why should I explain something I didn't say?

I was being facetious.

Don't bring up stats of completely different players to defend Rondo.  Try a similar player.  Apples to apples.

It's apples to apples in terms of how Bill would be treated on this blog if he played today. Omg....look at his free throw percentage! Omg!

No... a poor man's Russell was Ben Wallace in his prime.  He had a quantifiable impact on his team.  Every time he stepped on the court, the defense was dramatically better.  You can look at advanced stats that will show you that Ben Wallace was one of the 5 best players in the league the year the Pistons won the title with him.  He made a major impact on the game.  His skill set was crucial in producing wins.

Rondo is an interesting player.  He's fun to watch.  He's definitely a skilled player, but his skills (empty assists, point guard rebounding) are not necessarily priority NBA skills.  He doesn't impact the game nearly as much as we wanted to believe.  The advanced stats do not favor him in any way.  There's some limited examples that back up the idea that he actually makes an offense worse.  The over team success post-Rondo will be about even, imo.

Forget about Rondo vs Russell.   Ben Wallace in his prime was a far more significant player than Rondo in his prime.

  According to basketballreference on/off numbers Wallace's regular season on/off numbers during that title year was +4.4. Rondo's had 4 seasons in his career better than "a top 5 player who makes a major impact on the game". Unsurprising if you've followed much of his career. If you look at Wallace and Rondo's career on/off numbers Wallace is a little better during the season and Rondo's a little better in the playoffs (again, unsurprising if you've seen much of their respective play).

 Also, I'd be curious about why you think Rondo's assists are empty, despite the ample evidence we've seen over the years that the team scores better off of his passes than they do otherwise. Repeating hyperbolic claims made by others who don't like him, or just an attempt to dismiss numbers you don't like?

Wait.

We've got more than 50 games left this season.  That's more than enough time for Rondo's absence to register in the stats.  If Rondo has the impact on the game you believe, it should be obvious in the stats for both Dallas and Boston.

Mike

  There's 50 games left but he's played over 500. I don't think that the great change in his numbers that you're hoping for will come to pass this season.

Not in Rondo's numbers.  In the teams' numbers.  If Boston, in particular, can score at the same rate and same efficiency without Rondo as with, that would seem fairly strong proof that Rondo's stats were empty and his impact on winning and losing negligible.

Mike

  You could make that argument if everyone else on the team plays at the same (generally inconsistent) inconsistent level for the rest of the year that they've played at thus far. That doesn't really show that his stats were empty though. If they rebound better with Rondo in the game it's hard to claim his rebounding stats are empty. If they score better off of Rondo's passes than they otherwise score it's hard to argue that the assists are empty.

[MBunge]

And if Rondo played with the same defensive effort as Smart, the love for him in this forum would have been neverending, no matter how poorly he shot from the field.

Mike

  His 4 years on all defense teams show the opposite to be the case. There was very little differentiation between the criticisms of his defense last year and the years he was first team all-defense. And there was no difference in the type or number of complaints about his shooting.

Agreed. Bill Russell's fg and ft% was horrid. If he had played in the Celtics Blog era people would have continually called for trading him.

Please explain how Rondo is on the same level as Bill Russell.

No. You explain it. Why should I explain something I didn't say?

I was being facetious.

Don't bring up stats of completely different players to defend Rondo.  Try a similar player.  Apples to apples.

It's apples to apples in terms of how Bill would be treated on this blog if he played today. Omg....look at his free throw percentage! Omg!

No... a poor man's Russell was Ben Wallace in his prime.  He had a quantifiable impact on his team.  Every time he stepped on the court, the defense was dramatically better.  You can look at advanced stats that will show you that Ben Wallace was one of the 5 best players in the league the year the Pistons won the title with him.  He made a major impact on the game.  His skill set was crucial in producing wins.

Rondo is an interesting player.  He's fun to watch.  He's definitely a skilled player, but his skills (empty assists, point guard rebounding) are not necessarily priority NBA skills.  He doesn't impact the game nearly as much as we wanted to believe.  The advanced stats do not favor him in any way.  There's some limited examples that back up the idea that he actually makes an offense worse.  The over team success post-Rondo will be about even, imo.

Forget about Rondo vs Russell.   Ben Wallace in his prime was a far more significant player than Rondo in his prime.

  According to basketballreference on/off numbers Wallace's regular season on/off numbers during that title year was +4.4. Rondo's had 4 seasons in his career better than "a top 5 player who makes a major impact on the game". Unsurprising if you've followed much of his career. If you look at Wallace and Rondo's career on/off numbers Wallace is a little better during the season and Rondo's a little better in the playoffs (again, unsurprising if you've seen much of their respective play).

 Also, I'd be curious about why you think Rondo's assists are empty, despite the ample evidence we've seen over the years that the team scores better off of his passes than they do otherwise. Repeating hyperbolic claims made by others who don't like him, or just an attempt to dismiss numbers you don't like?

Wait.

We've got more than 50 games left this season.  That's more than enough time for Rondo's absence to register in the stats.  If Rondo has the impact on the game you believe, it should be obvious in the stats for both Dallas and Boston.

Mike

  There's 50 games left but he's played over 500. I don't think that the great change in his numbers that you're hoping for will come to pass this season.

Not in Rondo's numbers.  In the teams' numbers.  If Boston, in particular, can score at the same rate and same efficiency without Rondo as with, that would seem fairly strong proof that Rondo's stats were empty and his impact on winning and losing negligible.

Mike

  You could make that argument if everyone else on the team plays at the same (generally inconsistent) inconsistent level for the rest of the year that they've played at thus far. That doesn't really show that his stats were empty though. If they rebound better with Rondo in the game it's hard to claim his rebounding stats are empty. If they score better off of Rondo's passes than they otherwise score it's hard to argue that the assists are empty.

And if the opposite happens, you can.

Mike

[No Nickname]

Yes, he is. He gambles way too much, allows players to drive past him in order to get the reach around steal, and too often switches or gets hung up on pick and rolls because he doesn't fight through them.

This is my biggest complaint.  He didn't even TRY to get around picks and would just point to his man yelling for a teammate to pick him up while he didn't even switch to covering the guy that picked him.  Just a fundamentally poor defensive player that got his rep on steals and the occasional tough defense when he was on national tv.

[tazzmaniac]

Not in Rondo's numbers.  In the teams' numbers.  If Boston, in particular, can score at the same rate and same efficiency without Rondo as with, that would seem fairly strong proof that Rondo's stats were empty and his impact on winning and losing negligible.

Mike

I agree that team numbers are what tell the real story. If the team sees a decline in efficiency on offense or defense without a player, that is a clearer story than the player's actual numbers since players can rack up numbers at the team's expense. If we see inverse trends in Dallas, than we have good reason to accept a particular narrative.

While I'm not sure where we are, Dallas is still having issues. A close win at home against LAL without Kobe and a close win at home against SA without Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Leonard, Green, or Splitter bookending 2 losses is not yet a vote of confidence. I believe Dallas had their full roster for those games, though Dirk has dealt with some illness in the last games.

The only reason that the LAL game was close was because the Dallas defense rebounding was terrible especially with Chandler off the floor.  Rondo grabbed 8 rebounds so I'd say he did more than his fair share in the rebounding department.  Comparing team numbers seems reasonable but I don't think it paints a true and complete picture.  Kevin Durant's first two seasons were quite good as far as individual numbers but his teams still only won 20 and 23 games.  Were his numbers meaningless?  Kobe, with all his baggage, is still the best Laker but the team plays as well without him on the court.  Basketball is a team game.  Simply putting a good player on a bad team isn't going to convert the team into a good team.   You can have multiple good players on a team but if they don't mesh well together the team in not going to be good.   

[Eja117]

It's also worth pointing out that the Lakers without Kobe are way, way better than the Lakers with Kobe this season.

Maybe they should trade him for a horrible player and a horrible pick.

[Eja117]

And if Rondo played with the same defensive effort as Smart, the love for him in this forum would have been neverending, no matter how poorly he shot from the field.

Mike

  His 4 years on all defense teams show the opposite to be the case. There was very little differentiation between the criticisms of his defense last year and the years he was first team all-defense. And there was no difference in the type or number of complaints about his shooting.

Agreed. Bill Russell's fg and ft% was horrid. If he had played in the Celtics Blog era people would have continually called for trading him.

Please explain how Rondo is on the same level as Bill Russell.

No. You explain it. Why should I explain something I didn't say?

I was being facetious.

Don't bring up stats of completely different players to defend Rondo.  Try a similar player.  Apples to apples.

It's apples to apples in terms of how Bill would be treated on this blog if he played today. Omg....look at his free throw percentage! Omg!

No... a poor man's Russell was Ben Wallace in his prime.  He had a quantifiable impact on his team.  Every time he stepped on the court, the defense was dramatically better.  You can look at advanced stats that will show you that Ben Wallace was one of the 5 best players in the league the year the Pistons won the title with him.  He made a major impact on the game.  His skill set was crucial in producing wins.

Rondo is an interesting player.  He's fun to watch.  He's definitely a skilled player, but his skills (empty assists, point guard rebounding) are not necessarily priority NBA skills.  He doesn't impact the game nearly as much as we wanted to believe.  The advanced stats do not favor him in any way.  There's some limited examples that back up the idea that he actually makes an offense worse.  The over team success post-Rondo will be about even, imo.

Forget about Rondo vs Russell.   Ben Wallace in his prime was a far more significant player than Rondo in his prime.

This is a great great example. Rondo is a lot like Ben Wallace in his prime. Now Rondo played at that level a lot longer, but people have been doing the whole "trade Rondo" thing since he joined the team. Not sure if Ben Wallace was treated like that in his prime, but Rondo was. So imagine Ben Wallace playing at his prime for a long time, and the entire time people saying "trade Wallace". Now give him an injury, and then return him to a very similar level, then trade him for a handful of beans. That's what happened here. And the ridiculousness of it makes me fairly confident that if Bill Russell played today (or if CB existed in the 50s) there would be "trade Russell" people, and some of them would absolutely overlap with the people happy with the handful of beans we got for Rondo (aka Wallace in his near prime).

When on Earth has good free throw percentage ever won a championship? When have you ever heard "oh man. That guy. He just has such good free throw percentage. He totally led his team to the championship and he did it at the line". Conversely, when have you heard people say "Oh man. That key player. He just can't hit free throws. His team lost the championship because that guy just can't hit free throws".

Has that ever happened? Did it happen to Shaq or Wilt or Barry or Russell or Wallace or Rondo?

[hpantazo]

And if Rondo played with the same defensive effort as Smart, the love for him in this forum would have been neverending, no matter how poorly he shot from the field.

Mike

  His 4 years on all defense teams show the opposite to be the case. There was very little differentiation between the criticisms of his defense last year and the years he was first team all-defense. And there was no difference in the type or number of complaints about his shooting.

Agreed. Bill Russell's fg and ft% was horrid. If he had played in the Celtics Blog era people would have continually called for trading him.

Please explain how Rondo is on the same level as Bill Russell.

No. You explain it. Why should I explain something I didn't say?

I was being facetious.

Don't bring up stats of completely different players to defend Rondo.  Try a similar player.  Apples to apples.

It's apples to apples in terms of how Bill would be treated on this blog if he played today. Omg....look at his free throw percentage! Omg!

No... a poor man's Russell was Ben Wallace in his prime.  He had a quantifiable impact on his team.  Every time he stepped on the court, the defense was dramatically better.  You can look at advanced stats that will show you that Ben Wallace was one of the 5 best players in the league the year the Pistons won the title with him.  He made a major impact on the game.  His skill set was crucial in producing wins.

Rondo is an interesting player.  He's fun to watch.  He's definitely a skilled player, but his skills (empty assists, point guard rebounding) are not necessarily priority NBA skills.  He doesn't impact the game nearly as much as we wanted to believe.  The advanced stats do not favor him in any way.  There's some limited examples that back up the idea that he actually makes an offense worse.  The over team success post-Rondo will be about even, imo.

Forget about Rondo vs Russell.   Ben Wallace in his prime was a far more significant player than Rondo in his prime.

This is a great great example. Rondo is a lot like Ben Wallace in his prime. Now Rondo played at that level a lot longer, but people have been doing the whole "trade Rondo" thing since he joined the team. Not sure if Ben Wallace was treated like that in his prime, but Rondo was. So imagine Ben Wallace playing at his prime for a long time, and the entire time people saying "trade Wallace". Now give him an injury, and then return him to a very similar level, then trade him for a handful of beans. That's what happened here. And the ridiculousness of it makes me fairly confident that if Bill Russell played today (or if CB existed in the 50s) there would be "trade Russell" people, and some of them would absolutely overlap with the people happy with the handful of beans we got for Rondo (aka Wallace in his near prime).

When on Earth has good free throw percentage ever won a championship? When have you ever heard "oh man. That guy. He just has such good free throw percentage. He totally led his team to the championship and he did it at the line". Conversely, when have you heard people say "Oh man. That key player. He just can't hit free throws. His team lost the championship because that guy just can't hit free throws".

Has that ever happened? Did it happen to Shaq or Wilt or Barry or Russell or Wallace or Rondo?

I have to admit, I expected a significantly better return for Rondo, but when you consider that he was only going to re-sign in a small number of places, and that he was likely to leave this summer and the whole league knew it, the options were limited.

[LarBrd33]

And if Rondo played with the same defensive effort as Smart, the love for him in this forum would have been neverending, no matter how poorly he shot from the field.

Mike

  His 4 years on all defense teams show the opposite to be the case. There was very little differentiation between the criticisms of his defense last year and the years he was first team all-defense. And there was no difference in the type or number of complaints about his shooting.

Agreed. Bill Russell's fg and ft% was horrid. If he had played in the Celtics Blog era people would have continually called for trading him.

Please explain how Rondo is on the same level as Bill Russell.

No. You explain it. Why should I explain something I didn't say?

I was being facetious.

Don't bring up stats of completely different players to defend Rondo.  Try a similar player.  Apples to apples.

It's apples to apples in terms of how Bill would be treated on this blog if he played today. Omg....look at his free throw percentage! Omg!

No... a poor man's Russell was Ben Wallace in his prime.  He had a quantifiable impact on his team.  Every time he stepped on the court, the defense was dramatically better.  You can look at advanced stats that will show you that Ben Wallace was one of the 5 best players in the league the year the Pistons won the title with him.  He made a major impact on the game.  His skill set was crucial in producing wins.

Rondo is an interesting player.  He's fun to watch.  He's definitely a skilled player, but his skills (empty assists, point guard rebounding) are not necessarily priority NBA skills.  He doesn't impact the game nearly as much as we wanted to believe.  The advanced stats do not favor him in any way.  There's some limited examples that back up the idea that he actually makes an offense worse.  The over team success post-Rondo will be about even, imo.

Forget about Rondo vs Russell.   Ben Wallace in his prime was a far more significant player than Rondo in his prime.

  According to basketballreference on/off numbers Wallace's regular season on/off numbers during that title year was +4.4. Rondo's had 4 seasons in his career better than "a top 5 player who makes a major impact on the game". Unsurprising if you've followed much of his career. If you look at Wallace and Rondo's career on/off numbers Wallace is a little better during the season and Rondo's a little better in the playoffs (again, unsurprising if you've seen much of their respective play).

 Also, I'd be curious about why you think Rondo's assists are empty, despite the ample evidence we've seen over the years that the team scores better off of his passes than they do otherwise. Repeating hyperbolic claims made by others who don't like him, or just an attempt to dismiss numbers you don't like?

Wait.

We've got more than 50 games left this season.  That's more than enough time for Rondo's absence to register in the stats.  If Rondo has the impact on the game you believe, it should be obvious in the stats for both Dallas and Boston.

Mike

This might be my favorite running storyline of the season.  By the end of it, we will know for sure who was right and wrong in the endless Rondo debate.  When the dust settles, we will have an answer. 

If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it.  I wouldn't bet my life on being right about Rondo being overrated.  It's just what seems to be the case from what I've observed.  Let's see if I was right.  By the end of the season, we should have a very clear answer.  Either the "apologists" or "haters" will have no choice but to shut their pie holes.  I'm looking forward to it either way.

[RJ87]

Mavs look like they're about to go 2-2 with Rondo tonight.

Waiting for Rondo haters to dissect this one and undoubtedly point to the W only the result of playing the Lakers...probably the same members who will ignore how bad the Mavs defense was before Rondo and still is with Rondo, and the fact that the Lakers beat the league's best team and stayed competitive on Christmas.

The Mavs barely beat the Lakers without Kobe.
The Lakers grabbed 63 rebounds.

Some would argue the Lakers are currently a better team without Kobe playing.  I'm sure your failure to mention Rondo's stat line (21 pts, 7 ast, 8 reb) was an oversight.  Rondo's starting to establish a good rapport with Tyson Chandler.  The Mavs biggest problem is Chandler can't play all 48 minutes.  The Lakers turned into an offensive rebounding juggernaut with Chandler on the bench.  The Mavs aren't going anywhere if they don't get a backup defense/rebounding big.

There isn't a need to talk about Rondo's individual stats when someone's point is that his stats come at the expense of production from other players and overall team efficiency.

Still a small sample size regardless.

The offensive rebound problem you mention is partly due to trading away their best backup big to us. It is also greatly due to them already being horrible on defense, which is not Rondo's fault.

Rondo actually helps they're defensive rebounding more than Wright did. They've been pretty bad in that area all season. Behind Tyson, Rondo is probably now their 2nd best rebounder.

As far as Dallas overall, they'll be fine. Integrating Rondo was never going to be on overnight process and they haven't had a ton of down time to practice. But there's been flashes of it working and he's looking more comfortable as he gets to know his teammates better. Rondo himself pointed out how he's forming a better connection with Tyson; he hasn't played with an athletic big in about 5 years, so he had to remind himself that he can throw lobs again instead of forcing bounce passes.

[LarBrd33]

And if Rondo played with the same defensive effort as Smart, the love for him in this forum would have been neverending, no matter how poorly he shot from the field.

Mike

  His 4 years on all defense teams show the opposite to be the case. There was very little differentiation between the criticisms of his defense last year and the years he was first team all-defense. And there was no difference in the type or number of complaints about his shooting.

Agreed. Bill Russell's fg and ft% was horrid. If he had played in the Celtics Blog era people would have continually called for trading him.

Please explain how Rondo is on the same level as Bill Russell.

No. You explain it. Why should I explain something I didn't say?

I was being facetious.

Don't bring up stats of completely different players to defend Rondo.  Try a similar player.  Apples to apples.

It's apples to apples in terms of how Bill would be treated on this blog if he played today. Omg....look at his free throw percentage! Omg!

No... a poor man's Russell was Ben Wallace in his prime.  He had a quantifiable impact on his team.  Every time he stepped on the court, the defense was dramatically better.  You can look at advanced stats that will show you that Ben Wallace was one of the 5 best players in the league the year the Pistons won the title with him.  He made a major impact on the game.  His skill set was crucial in producing wins.

Rondo is an interesting player.  He's fun to watch.  He's definitely a skilled player, but his skills (empty assists, point guard rebounding) are not necessarily priority NBA skills.  He doesn't impact the game nearly as much as we wanted to believe.  The advanced stats do not favor him in any way.  There's some limited examples that back up the idea that he actually makes an offense worse.  The over team success post-Rondo will be about even, imo.

Forget about Rondo vs Russell.   Ben Wallace in his prime was a far more significant player than Rondo in his prime.

  According to basketballreference on/off numbers Wallace's regular season on/off numbers during that title year was +4.4. Rondo's had 4 seasons in his career better than "a top 5 player who makes a major impact on the game". Unsurprising if you've followed much of his career. If you look at Wallace and Rondo's career on/off numbers Wallace is a little better during the season and Rondo's a little better in the playoffs (again, unsurprising if you've seen much of their respective play).

 Also, I'd be curious about why you think Rondo's assists are empty, despite the ample evidence we've seen over the years that the team scores better off of his passes than they do otherwise. Repeating hyperbolic claims made by others who don't like him, or just an attempt to dismiss numbers you don't like?

Wait.

We've got more than 50 games left this season.  That's more than enough time for Rondo's absence to register in the stats.  If Rondo has the impact on the game you believe, it should be obvious in the stats for both Dallas and Boston.

Mike

This might be my favorite running storyline of the season.  By the end of it, we will know for sure who was right and wrong in the endless Rondo debate.  When the dust settles, we will have an answer. 

If I'm proven wrong, I'll admit it.  I wouldn't bet my life on being right about Rondo being overrated.  It's just what seems to be the case from what I've observed.  Let's see if I was right.  By the end of the season, we should have a very clear answer.  Either the "apologists" or "haters" will have no choice but to shut their pie holes.  I'm looking forward to it either way.

Just to add on to this...

In the unlikely event that Tim is proven right that Rondo was a superstar talent (Boston falls apart and Dallas wildly improves... Rondo goes ham in the playoffs and leads them to contention)...  It's going to change my entire view of Danny Ainge.   Danny clearly agrees with me in the Rondo debate... otherwise he wouldn't have dumped him for mediocre backup talent and a protected late 1st.   

If Tim is proven right in this endless debate, I'll be ready to lead the "fire Danny" train.  You don't give up a superstar talent for that garbage deal.   Based on what I (and Ainge and apparently the majority of the league) believe about Rondo... that package was fine.

[D.o.s.]

It's also worth pointing out that the Lakers without Kobe are way, way better than the Lakers with Kobe this season.

Maybe they should trade him for a horrible player and a horrible pick.

I think they would, if he wasn't worth his weight in whatever valuable alloy you can pick multiplied by the largest number you can think of ever to the franchise in ticket sales and other merch.

Not trying to get too off topic but Rondo was never in the same stratosphere as Kobe when it comes to the makings of a franchise superstar.

[BballTim]

In the unlikely event that Tim is proven right that Rondo was a superstar talent (Boston falls apart and Dallas wildly improves... Rondo goes ham in the playoffs and leads them to contention)...  It's going to change my entire view of Danny Ainge.   Danny clearly agrees with me in the Rondo debate... otherwise he wouldn't have dumped him for mediocre backup talent and a protected late 1st.   

If Tim is proven right in this endless debate, I'll be ready to lead the "fire Danny" train.  You don't give up a superstar talent for that garbage deal.   Based on what I (and Ainge and apparently the majority of the league) believe about Rondo... that package was fine.

   I didn't say Dallas would be wildly better with Rondo or the Celts would fll apart without him. I suppose I could make some equally foolish claim about how I'd win the debate if Rondo doesn't drag the Mavs to mediocrity and the Celts don't surge to a mid-tier playoff team without him, but then I'm not you.

  Beyond that, you've been predicting Rondo's imminent trade since about 2009, so I'd imagine the "Clearly Danny agrees with me" comments are for the benefit of the people who haven't read enough of your posts to see the "stopped clock" nature of your correctness. If you're going to claim that Danny trading Rondo means that he agrees with your opinion, you'd have to accept the likelihood that Danny's not trading him for the last 3-4 or so years you've been hoping to ship him out of Boston meant that he didn't agree with your position during all that time.

[MBunge]

Mavs look like they're about to go 2-2 with Rondo tonight.

Waiting for Rondo haters to dissect this one and undoubtedly point to the W only the result of playing the Lakers...probably the same members who will ignore how bad the Mavs defense was before Rondo and still is with Rondo, and the fact that the Lakers beat the league's best team and stayed competitive on Christmas.

The Mavs barely beat the Lakers without Kobe.
The Lakers grabbed 63 rebounds.

Some would argue the Lakers are currently a better team without Kobe playing.  I'm sure your failure to mention Rondo's stat line (21 pts, 7 ast, 8 reb) was an oversight.  Rondo's starting to establish a good rapport with Tyson Chandler.  The Mavs biggest problem is Chandler can't play all 48 minutes.  The Lakers turned into an offensive rebounding juggernaut with Chandler on the bench.  The Mavs aren't going anywhere if they don't get a backup defense/rebounding big.

There isn't a need to talk about Rondo's individual stats when someone's point is that his stats come at the expense of production from other players and overall team efficiency.

Still a small sample size regardless.

The offensive rebound problem you mention is partly due to trading away their best backup big to us. It is also greatly due to them already being horrible on defense, which is not Rondo's fault.

Rondo actually helps they're defensive rebounding more than Wright did. They've been pretty bad in that area all season. Behind Tyson, Rondo is probably now their 2nd best rebounder.

As far as Dallas overall, they'll be fine. Integrating Rondo was never going to be on overnight process and they haven't had a ton of down time to practice. But there's been flashes of it working and he's looking more comfortable as he gets to know his teammates better. Rondo himself pointed out how he's forming a better connection with Tyson; he hasn't played with an athletic big in about 5 years, so he had to remind himself that he can throw lobs again instead of forcing bounce passes.

I would be very surprised if Dallas falls apart.  Rondo isn't Josh Smith.  However, Wright and Crowder were essentially Dallas' best big and wing off the bench and Rondo still can't shoot.  They've got to rebuild their bench with very few options and it's going to be very hard to make it through the playoffs with two non-scorers on the court in the fourth quarter.  Rondo's going to have to be Playoff Rondo probably 75% of the time to make them a title contender.

Mike