They are actually inching towards .500 which is good for Rondo... and I guess bad for our hopes of landing Cousins.
I never doubted Rondo's ability to rack up stats on a system that catered to him. As long as he's playing big minutes and controlling the ball at all times, he can be a statistical beast.
If you intend to run a modern "pace-and-space" offense built around ball movement and shooting, Rondo will prove to be a liability. It was clear that we were better without him 3 years in a row and instead of seeing him successfully adapt to playing Brad's system, Boston basically just let Rondo keep doing Rondo things during his final days... to the detriment of the team and the system they were trying to implement. Then he ends up in Dallas... which was at the time the shining example of a "pace and space" offense... and Rondo was predictably a disaster.
But as long as you give him the keys and let him run the show, he'll get you lots of assists. His 35% three point shooting deserves credit. Shooting 50% from the line and his team being 6 games under .500 is a problem, but they are actually 1.5 games out of the playoffs.
The years we "were worse with Rondo" were ones where he was recovering from knee surgery, right?
I seem to recall that the team actually got better when Rondo went out the year he got injured, too, though I also recall that there was a lot of controversy at the time about why that might be.
Yep. There were quite a few words spilled over this exact issue. The facts showed the celtics winning more games without rondo, aNd a higher winning percentage, than with him. He was healthy for a fair amount of this.
As to why, as brought out by pho, each poster's opinion held sway.
It's because Rondo was chasing an assist streak, the offense was predictable and his stats were empty. As soon as healthy Rondo went down, the ball flowed through Pierce, the team started sharing the ball and hitting shots, and we crawled from a below .500 team to making the playoffs. It was the first sign of many that the team played better without him. The point was hammered home when Rondo went to Dallas and ruined the league's best offense while subsequently Boston crawled from 17 games under .500 to make the playoffs.
ROndo's still capable of putting up those empty stats. Why wouldn't he? He's the same player as he's always been. But the Kings are 6 games under .500 and Rondo still has the same flaws. Credit him for the stats. Credit him for the Kings only being 1.5 games out of sneaking into the playoffs. Credit him for hitting threes this year at a surprising clip... but let's not pretend like there's something new to learn about the guy at this point. Teams need to cater to him for him to be successful. The Kings are one of the two worst-managed franchises in the league... if they were a well run team, ROndo wouldn't even be getting this opportunity to inflate stats. Who knows how long it will last. Most modern offenses are built around ball movement and shooting... we have plenty of proof that Rondo is incapable of playing that style. He's a relic of a forgotten time in the same way Kobe Bryant jacking up 30 shots a night is a relic of a forgotten time. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Rondo is clearly not the reason the Kings are sub .500
He's been their most productive and consistent player all year.
Injuries and immaturity and coaching/player chemsitry issues plus a zero defense mentality is why that team struggles so much to win games.
You're actually dead wrong.
"The Kings have been pretty bad with Rondo on the court. The team has been outscored by 5.4 points per 100 possessions with Rondo on the floor, and surprisingly (for some) the Kings have actually outscored teams by 1.5 points without Rondo – equivalent to the difference in net rating between the Chicago Bulls and the New Orleans Pelicans.
For comparison, the Kings are 8.2 points better with Cousins on the court than with him on the bench."
So, in point of fact, the Kings improve when Rondo sits.
Now how about on the Mavs?
"Dallas was off to a 19-8 start with a historically elite offensive rating of 113.6 points per 100 possessions before the trade, but there was a consensus opinion within the organization that they needed to upgrade from Nelson, particularly defensively, to have a legitimate chance to be a Western Conference contender.
The Mavs averaged only 101.7 points per 100 possessions and had a negative net rating with Rondo on the floor."
Same deal. He dramatically hurt their offense -- liberal passing was replaced with his 15-second-of-shot-clock-pounding-at-the-top-of-the-key-looking-for-his-assist -- then pouted and was let go before his contract was finished.
None of this is news. Why is it so hard to accept? Is that behind the back fake really that exciting still? Or maybe folks like the fact that he tried to belittle the Celtics organization on his way out. Or that we was suspended by the league recently for being a bigot.
It's bizarre.
First of all, your hate/dislike of Rondo as a person is clear. You don't like his personality, his ball fakes, or anything else about him, and you keep mixing it up with your basketball analysis, and that will of course skew your analysis (but don't worry it won't skew the stats you hold in pocket).
You are still over-simplifying and using your favorite individual marker to bash a player who has already proven his value
when games matter most. You are ignoring team dynamics completely. Your use of plus minus/win loss to claim factual proof of Rondo's sucktitude is similar to saying Carmelo must suck because Denver was better without him for a while, or that Nash must suck because Dallas got better without him. Maybe Blake Griffin sucks because the Clippers are finally winning back to back games regularly...without him. I am not arguing that the above examples invalidate any markers you are using. All stats have some level of validity. I am simply pointing out that you are committing a big oversimplification.
So, I already admitted some of Rondo's weaknesses. He's a terrible fit for what Brad Stevens wants to do and a terrible fit for how a Rick Carlisle team functions. And he's a terrible fit for what sspence wants to do with his hypothetical team. Fine. Play Collison. But good luck keeping your best player happy.
Which brings us to Boogie. In an interview with Bill Simmons a year ago Boogie called Rondo the best PG in the game. We know this isn't true but it meant: let me play with this guy, didn't it? This was during Rondo's worst period of basketball in his career. It was recently reported that Boogie admires Rondo's toughess/demeanor/attitude..whatever. Do you think Boogie cares about your stat which "proves" that Boogie himself is worse with Rondo on the floor? No, he doesn't give a crap. And that gets into the area of leadership, chemistry and team dynamics (all of which you toss out the window, as so much is always tossed when one falls in love with a stat that supports a strong dislike...or like). Yes I like what Rondo brings, but I'm not so blind as you that I can't admit he has weaknesses. You might consider an exercise where you list some Rondo strengths, (I know...that would bore you) which will balance our discussion and improve your position believe it or not.
Let's say you run the Kings. You need a better starting SG. And you need a Crowder type contributor to offset what Gay can't deliver. And finally, you have to keep Boogie happy. That means you either play Rondo or risk a Boogie melt down/trade demand, etc.. Would GM Spence trade them both?
Let's watch the Kings and possibly see Collison, in your eyes and analysis, outperform Rondo and better effect the King's chances of making the playoffs. Then let's hope they get into the playoffs, and then let's compare Rondo and Collison again.
bball Tim is right you have no answer to why Doc and Karl and Stevens continued to play Rondo big minutes even after his admitted drop off. I guess you think coaches (and Boogie) will catch up to your thinking and next year Rondo will be a back up?
