Rondo and Celtics now 2-0 on the PG Road Trip From Hell.

[BigAlTheFuture]

If Rondo develops a jumpshot, I don't see that many point guards in the league stopping him.

[cordobes]

so the only question to answer is: what is the impact that he has as a complete player (pluses and minuses) and that I would argue at the very very least, he is not a detriment to the team.

and that is a different question than whether or not the team would be better is certain aspects of his game were better....

Sure, but no one in this entire thread said Rondo was a net negative to the team. I don't know anyone who thinks that way, even fans from other teams, so I believe the question you brought up to the debate is kind of useless.

i'm just responding to the point you made about the team winning in spite of Rondo's shooting....

that observation would only be significant if Rondo didn't do other things exceptionally well and wasn't contributing to winning in other ways....

if you acknowledge that Rondo is a net positive, then i think you have answered whether or not he is a detriment to the team or not...

whether or not the team would be better if he was a better shooter is an entirely different question with an obvious "yes" answer....

other than noting that the team would be better, i'm not sure what else you can get out of that fact....

So, are you saying that the fact that teams are allowed to sag off of Ben Wallace or Dampier doesn't put a huge burden on their teams' offences? However, they contribute to win in other ways - his lack of offensive ability didn't stop Ben Wallace from winning a ring.

I'm not sure what's your point. Who are players you consider as a net negative for their team?

who is arguing that the team wouldn't be better if Rondo was a better shooter?

No one, everybody agrees with me. That's why I don't understand  - and I keep asking - what's wrong about what my evaluation of Rondo. I'm happy to see no one is able to say where I am incorrect.

[winsomme]

 I'm happy to see no one is able to say where I am incorrect.

maybe the thing you are incorrect about is the weight you are giving to his shooting in relation to what he does well....

maybe the "magnitude" of the burden is what people disagree with...

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

All it tells you, really, is that in terms of picking your poison, teams would rather make Rondo take jumpers than give open, uncontested looks to the Big 3.

Are you serious? Why would the teams give open, uncontested looks to the Big 3? Because their other option would be to double Rondo's jump-shots? That's truly bizarre, I don't know what to say. Why wouldn't they just not sag off of Rondo so much and keep a man guarding him when he's off-the-ball? I mean, like it happens with almost every NBA guard...

In fact, as has been repeatedly said, Rondo's weakness affects more the game of his teammates (allowing early doubles and a more clogged paint) than his own. I think people often forget that.

Are you serious?  You completely misunderstood what I was getting at, which was: with the Big 3 out there, teams are going to cheat off non-Big 3 players when possible or advantageous.  So, for example, Kobe's going to play off Rondo and double other players because it's smarter from a defensive position to let Rondo beat you with open Js than it is for Paul Pierce to beat someone off the dribble in a one-on-one matchup.  That's why I said they were 'picking their poison,' saying in essence that if anyone's going to beat them it better be Rondo.

Of course, the way to beat this is to keep the ball in Rondo's hands and make them guard him, taking jumpers or floaters in the lane when necessary (like towards the end of the shot clock).

Of course, Rondo's unwillingness to take the jumper affects his teammates.  Nobody's saying it doesn't.  What I'm saying is that with any true point guard, teams would defend the Cs the same way, making the point guard into the one that has to hit the jumpers, since that upsets the flow of the offense and also keeps the Big 3 from scoring.  His hesitancy to take jumpers is not as BIG a problem as you are making it out to be.  It's a weakness, something he needs to improve upon, but it's a small weakness in the overall package that is Rajon Rondo. 

Cordobes, you earlier called Rondo 'wildly inconsistent.'  Do you care to back that up with any evidence?  I mean, it's pretty well-established that the Cs go as Rondo goes.  If we can accept that as a truism, then at 44-11, Rondo has played 4 good games for every bad one.  That doesn't sound 'wildly inconsistent' to me. 

Sure, but what kind of evidence would be convincing enough from your perspective? For some reason, I tend to believe that you just won't allow yourself to be convinced. I don't buy those truisms - I'm pretty sure this team has won plenty of games where Rondo was mediocre. 

So, has he been 'wildly inconsistent' or just 'mediocre'?  I know you realize these are different terms.  To me, it's fair to say that he's had some mediocre games, especially in the first 8 games of the season (pretty mediocre for the most part, except for the first 2 games, which were fantastic) and during the 2 and 7 stretch (a couple bad ones, a couple good ones, a couple mediocre ones).  But other than that, he's been fantastic and playing at an elite level.  To me, he's the perfect point guard for this team and when he's playing very very well--which he has been this season in more than half of his games--we're unstoppable, even without a good jumpshot (as I said above, there are ways to play around his unwillingness to shoot the jumper).  To call him 'wildly inconsistent' is simply incorrect.

And just to reiterate a point another poster made: people often disagree with you because your tone and attitude.  You've made many unassailable points about Rondo's game (and several with which I take issue), but those points get hidden behind your attitude.  You need to ask myself: do I want my point to win out, or do I want to just argue with people.  If it's the former, then you need to look within and reassess the way you communicate.

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

 I'm happy to see no one is able to say where I am incorrect.

maybe the thing you are incorrect about is the weight you are giving to his shooting in relation to what he does well....

maybe the "magnitude" of the burden is what people disagree with...

You said it winsomme.  That IS where he's incorrect.  TP for clarity.

[Toine43]

The funny thing is, after reading all of the back-and-forths in this thread, I still do not know what Cordobes' point is. So...Rondo's a very bad jumpshooter. Is that a negative for the team? Yes. Does it make life harder for Rondo's teammates? Yes. Would the Celtics be better if Rondo could shoot better? Yes.

Cordobes, I sense that your opinion of Rondo is lower than most others'. But you haven't told me anything I don't know about the kid and the team, so I don't even know why your opinion is what it is. That seems to be what is so frustrating to everyone who disagrees with you.

I'm sorry, but you disagree with me about what? To me, it seems you agree with everything I said.

It's truly fantastic that you accuse me because you can't disagree with anything I said. 

Hey, read my post again. I never said I personally disagreed with you. I think people were mostly just turned off by the tone of your posts.

Sure, because I (and others, I basically repeated what Sluggers first said) mentioned that Rondo has flaws in his game and people here are so extremely homeristic that any criticism of Boston players makes them feel uncomfortable. I could have said absurd things - e.g. this would be a bottom 5 team in the league without Rondo, Rondo is that good! - and nobody would care. I wrote things that are true, yet negative, and people get frustrated.

The fact that you made a post saying that you agree with everything I said but you were frustrated with that is enough evidence.

What you call "the tone" of my posts is merely stating negative aspects about Rondo that are irrefutable. The funny thing is that if Rondo was playing for any other NBA team, people would be really quickly pointing out his flaws and how important they are.

Calling Rondo "wildly inconsistent" is more than just pointing out his flaws, and it is not true. And in terms of the tone of your posts, most people when talking about a given subject attempt to talk about the entire picture. I don't think you made much of an effort to do that. In most of your posts you just bashed Rondo's flaws without acknowledging any of his positives. Once again, I never said that I was personally frustrated with you, and I'm not saying you're in the wrong here, but don't try to pretend that your opinion is the gold standard of Rondo opinions, and everyone else is just a stupid homer.

[cordobes]

 I'm happy to see no one is able to say where I am incorrect.

maybe the thing you are incorrect about is the weight you are giving to his shooting in relation to what he does well....

maybe the "magnitude" of the burden is what people disagree with...

I think the most important thing is to understand how bad is his shooting - often people don't entirely assimilate that, hence the Lebron James, Tony Parker, Jason Kidd, etc comparisons. Then the effect that his lack of shooting has on the team -  and I refer you to Jaycelts post. I always have to laugh when people like Nickcagneta use Rondo stats to prove that his lack of shooting is not that important. That's completely nonsensical. Ideas like "it doesn't make a difference" or that this team would be a lottery team without Rondo are completely absurd and grossly underestimate Rondo's flaws.

[winsomme]

 I'm happy to see no one is able to say where I am incorrect.

maybe the thing you are incorrect about is the weight you are giving to his shooting in relation to what he does well....

maybe the "magnitude" of the burden is what people disagree with...

You said it winsomme.  That IS where he's incorrect.  TP for clarity.

yeah. i was just reading your post and you basically summed up my feelings about Rondo too when you said:

His hesitancy to take jumpers is not as BIG a problem as you are making it out to be.  It's a weakness, something he needs to improve upon, but it's a small weakness in the overall package that is Rajon Rondo.

Rondo's ability to control the pace of the game and get the ball to GPA where they like and need it, for me, is way more important than his jumpers.

It's much harder to find a PG that can do what Rondo does well. plus, you can tell the kid hates losing. big time competitor IMO.

[winsomme]

 I'm happy to see no one is able to say where I am incorrect.

maybe the thing you are incorrect about is the weight you are giving to his shooting in relation to what he does well....

maybe the "magnitude" of the burden is what people disagree with...

I think the most important thing is to understand how bad is his shooting - often people don't entirely assimilate that, hence the Lebron James, Tony Parker, Jason Kidd, etc comparisons. Then the effect that his lack of shooting has on the team -  and I refer you to Jaycelts post. I always have to laugh when people like Nickcagneta use Rondo stats to prove that his lack of shooting is not that important. That's completely nonsensical. Ideas like "it doesn't make a difference" or that this team would be a lottery team without Rondo are completely absurd and grossly underestimate Rondo's flaws.

well at least we have isolated the core of the debate.

unfortunately we are kinda in no-man's land at this point as far as the effect of his shooting relative to the things he does well.

but that does get back to the point that the team is an elite team coming off a Title with him as PG.

also you have comments from Doc about what would happen to this team without him running the point.

you also have the scarcity of pure Points around the league.....

[cordobes]

And in terms of the tone of your posts, most people when talking about a given subject attempt to talk about the entire picture. I don't think you made much of an effort to do that. In most of your posts you just bashed Rondo's flaws without acknowledging any of his positives.

Really? I advise you to re-read the thread. I expressly pointed that Rondo makes up for his flaws due to how good he's doing everything else. Then, I invite you to show us where's the "entire picture" in the hyperbolic OP. I mean, saying that without Rondo this team would be 12/43, or that he "easily bested" Chris Paul, or that leaving him out of the ASG was a "colossal mistake", or that his flaws aren't notorious because "LeBron James isn't a great jump-shooter either" doesn't bother you but stating things you don't disagree with does because I don't drop a "oh, but Rondo is great" line in every freaking post?

[cordobes]

All it tells you, really, is that in terms of picking your poison, teams would rather make Rondo take jumpers than give open, uncontested looks to the Big 3.

Are you serious? Why would the teams give open, uncontested looks to the Big 3? Because their other option would be to double Rondo's jump-shots? That's truly bizarre, I don't know what to say. Why wouldn't they just not sag off of Rondo so much and keep a man guarding him when he's off-the-ball? I mean, like it happens with almost every NBA guard...

In fact, as has been repeatedly said, Rondo's weakness affects more the game of his teammates (allowing early doubles and a more clogged paint) than his own. I think people often forget that.

Are you serious?  You completely misunderstood what I was getting at, which was: with the Big 3 out there, teams are going to cheat off non-Big 3 players when possible or advantageous.  So, for example, Kobe's going to play off Rondo and double other players because it's smarter from a defensive position to let Rondo beat you with open Js than it is for Paul Pierce to beat someone off the dribble in a one-on-one matchup.  That's why I said they were 'picking their poison,' saying in essence that if anyone's going to beat them it better be Rondo.

Oh, I'm sorry then. I quoted someone who said "(...)teams would rather make Rondo take jumpers than give open, uncontested looks to the Big 3", but apparently someone else logged in with your username.

Of course, Rondo's unwillingness to take the jumper affects his teammates.  Nobody's saying it doesn't.  What I'm saying is that with any true point guard, teams would defend the Cs the same way, making the point guard into the one that has to hit the jumpers, since that upsets the flow of the offense and also keeps the Big 3 from scoring. 

Really? Can you name some other point-guards in the history of the game who were defended this way? Honest question, it's very uncommon to see teams defend players like this - from active players, I only remember guys like Ben Wallace or Erick Dampier, but it seems it's much more common that what I thought. 

So, has he been 'wildly inconsistent' or just 'mediocre'?  I know you realize these are different terms. 

He has been wildly inconsistent because sometimes he's mediocre, sometime he's excellent, sometimes he's average.

[winsomme]

Really? Can you name some other point-guards in the history of the game who were defended this way? Honest question, it's very uncommon to see teams defend players like this - from active players, I only remember guys like Ben Wallace or Erick Dampier, but it seems it's much more common that what I thought. 

maybe not exactly the same, but there was sagging of GP in Miami's Title run and Avery in SASs Title run....

and remember Cor that the question isn't is it unusual to sag off a PG like they do on Rondo, it is the burden created by that relative to the things he does well...

[cordobes]

Really? Can you name some other point-guards in the history of the game who were defended this way? Honest question, it's very uncommon to see teams defend players like this - from active players, I only remember guys like Ben Wallace or Erick Dampier, but it seems it's much more common that what I thought. 

maybe not exactly the same, but there was sagging of GP in Miami's Title run and Avery in SASs Title run....

Not exactly the same is an understatement. Teams double off of opponent players all the time; completely ignoring a guard off-the-ball every half-court set is quite more uncommon.

[winsomme]

Really? Can you name some other point-guards in the history of the game who were defended this way? Honest question, it's very uncommon to see teams defend players like this - from active players, I only remember guys like Ben Wallace or Erick Dampier, but it seems it's much more common that what I thought. 

maybe not exactly the same, but there was sagging of GP in Miami's Title run and Avery in SASs Title run....

Not exactly the same is an understatement. Teams double off of opponent players all the time; completely ignoring a guard off-the-ball every half-court set is quite more uncommon.

maybe i added this to the post a little too late, but remember the argument is the effect of this sag relative to his overall effect on the game.

nobody is arguing that they don't sag off Rondo due to his shooting.

[cordobes]

and remember Cor that the question isn't is it unusual to sag off a PG like they do on Rondo, it is the burden created by that relative to the things he does well...

Haven't I answered this already? There's not a quantitative way of answering this type of question, if that's what you're looking for. I mean, what's exactly your answer to that question? That we couldn't have a better PG than Rondo?

And you can't keep on trying to limit the spectrum of the conversation. If someone argues that any other point-guard in this team would be guarded the same way , my question is more than fair and appropriate.