Rondo has been looking bad in crunch time

[bleedGREENdon]

Rondos defense looked terrible at the game vs the Suns and every game I've watched, stats aside, rondo is not having a good year.

[Tr1boy]

The truth is maybe he won't be ever the same again.  His knee surgery/recovery has turned him into a 35 year old like player. 

The "jump" is missing.  I bet he can't even dunk anymore.  But he has to stop playing the way he used to play D (gamble), bc he can't recover like he did in the past and focus on preventing his man getting by him. I can live with him getting beat by the jump shot. Just not getting beat by the dribble and making it hard for everyone else

[eugen]

Rondo should not start.  His talent equals a mediocre role player.  So tired on his ragged game. 

Nobody else wants him, so its time to let him walk.  Many ignorant fans do not know any better.  If the fans were more educated, the Celtics wouldn't even consider giving him a max contract - he wouldn't even be on the team.

In order for the Celtics to compete again, a huge talent upgrade is needed.  Bradley and Green are already overpaid.  Don't make things worse by overpaying Rondo.

Keeping Rondo and trading PP+KG was absolutely big mistake made by DA. Rondo is not an elite player who can transmit leadership. If Cs trade him is better to do it now in order to get some important player in exchange…

[BballTim]

Rondo should not start.  His talent equals a mediocre role player.  So tired on his ragged game. 

Nobody else wants him, so its time to let him walk.  Many ignorant fans do not know any better.  If the fans were more educated, the Celtics wouldn't even consider giving him a max contract - he wouldn't even be on the team.

In order for the Celtics to compete again, a huge talent upgrade is needed.  Bradley and Green are already overpaid.  Don't make things worse by overpaying Rondo.

Keeping Rondo and trading PP+KG was absolutely big mistake made by DA. Rondo is not an elite player who can transmit leadership. If Cs trade him is better to do it now in order to get some important player in exchange…

  How exactly was trading PP and KG a mistake?

[Tr1boy]

Rondo should not start.  His talent equals a mediocre role player.  So tired on his ragged game. 

Nobody else wants him, so its time to let him walk.  Many ignorant fans do not know any better.  If the fans were more educated, the Celtics wouldn't even consider giving him a max contract - he wouldn't even be on the team.

In order for the Celtics to compete again, a huge talent upgrade is needed.  Bradley and Green are already overpaid.  Don't make things worse by overpaying Rondo.

Keeping Rondo and trading PP+KG was absolutely big mistake made by DA. Rondo is not an elite player who can transmit leadership. If Cs trade him is better to do it now in order to get some important player in exchange…

Rondo was injured and we would of prob got leftovers for him if we traded him when we did KG/PP.  Ainge prob also wanted to make sure the 2012-2013 wasn't just badluck or something. Well so far it has not been badluck and Rondo as the main guy = loses piling up.  He is just waiting for someone to overpay for Rondo. 

Maybe he made a mistake passing over Sacs offer of Ben Mclemore and 8th pick (rumor). Even Andy Katz was going to announce that a trade occurred between the two teams and then nothing happened

[mmmmm]

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

Not sure about that. He also had 5 turnovers, shot 2-10 from the FT line, and was a minus 10 in +/- in 33 minutes. Pressey was a plus 6 in 17 minutes. The team doesn't exactly fall apart when he's not in.

Why is it so difficult to actually look into the details when plus/minus numbers look odd?

Green's +/- was also -10.  Yet by all accounts he played awesome for this game.   Doesn't that even make you stop for a second look at what the numbers actually _mean_?

Rondo was on the floor for 33 minutes and overall, yep - the team posted a -10 on the scoreboard.

Well, a glance at the other starters shows that, whuddayaknow?  Kelly Olynyk posted a big fat -15 in just 13 minutes of play!  Now, what positives and negatives did Kelly bring to the floor last night to result in such a number?  Oh yeah, he missed his two shots, committed 4 fouls, turned the ball over 3 times, played horrible defense and earned a seat on the bench - which didn't help much because Bass then came in and also played pretty bad.  Just not AS bad.

The point is, when Kelly was in the game, he was just plain and obviously having a horrible game.   Thats not to say he's a bad player.  He's had mostly good games this season.  He'll probably play great in his next game.  But last night?  He stunk.  Eye test.  Stats test.  Coach-putting-him-on-the-bench-test.  He stunk.

Well, 12 of Kelley's minutes came with Rondo on the floor.  During that time, the team was -12.

In the other 21 minutes Rondo was on the floor, the team was +2.

But go on blaming Rondo.  It's what you do.

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism? My reason for citing +/- is in response to him saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. The eye test doesn't indicate that, the +/- doesn't indicate that, and to go further neither does our record the last 4 seasons.

  Not for nothing, but you weren't responding to someone saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. You were responding to someone saying that Rondo being in the game had something to do with the game being close. Which it obviously did.

Seriously? Talk about semantics.

  Shockingly, most people see quite a difference between "had something to do with" and "the only reason".

He used the words "nothing to do" in a sarcastic way as if Rondo had everything to do with it. Again, it's semantics. Sometimes you argue just for the sheer sake of argument. What are we even arguing about? You must quite be a gem to deal with on a personal level.

Wow.  Fiction is fun!

Again - would it kill you to do just 10 seconds of fact checking before you dig yourself further in?

My specific words were:

"Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ..."

Yes, that is indeed _sarcasm_.  You got that part correct.  But there is no way any one schooled properly in reading the English language should be able to translate that into "Rondo had everything to do with it."

"had anything" != "had everything"

Different words.  Different meanings.

Here.  Useful reference:  http://www.dictionary.com

[pokeKingCurtis]

The truth is maybe he won't be ever the same again.  His knee surgery/recovery has turned him into a 35 year old like player. 

The "jump" is missing. I bet he can't even dunk anymore. But he has to stop playing the way he used to play D (gamble), bc he can't recover like he did in the past and focus on preventing his man getting by him. I can live with him getting beat by the jump shot. Just not getting beat by the dribble and making it hard for everyone else

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NrmCZTgs8I

[Eddie20]

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

Not sure about that. He also had 5 turnovers, shot 2-10 from the FT line, and was a minus 10 in +/- in 33 minutes. Pressey was a plus 6 in 17 minutes. The team doesn't exactly fall apart when he's not in.

Why is it so difficult to actually look into the details when plus/minus numbers look odd?

Green's +/- was also -10.  Yet by all accounts he played awesome for this game.   Doesn't that even make you stop for a second look at what the numbers actually _mean_?

Rondo was on the floor for 33 minutes and overall, yep - the team posted a -10 on the scoreboard.

Well, a glance at the other starters shows that, whuddayaknow?  Kelly Olynyk posted a big fat -15 in just 13 minutes of play!  Now, what positives and negatives did Kelly bring to the floor last night to result in such a number?  Oh yeah, he missed his two shots, committed 4 fouls, turned the ball over 3 times, played horrible defense and earned a seat on the bench - which didn't help much because Bass then came in and also played pretty bad.  Just not AS bad.

The point is, when Kelly was in the game, he was just plain and obviously having a horrible game.   Thats not to say he's a bad player.  He's had mostly good games this season.  He'll probably play great in his next game.  But last night?  He stunk.  Eye test.  Stats test.  Coach-putting-him-on-the-bench-test.  He stunk.

Well, 12 of Kelley's minutes came with Rondo on the floor.  During that time, the team was -12.

In the other 21 minutes Rondo was on the floor, the team was +2.

But go on blaming Rondo.  It's what you do.

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism? My reason for citing +/- is in response to him saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. The eye test doesn't indicate that, the +/- doesn't indicate that, and to go further neither does our record the last 4 seasons.

  Not for nothing, but you weren't responding to someone saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. You were responding to someone saying that Rondo being in the game had something to do with the game being close. Which it obviously did.

Seriously? Talk about semantics.

  Shockingly, most people see quite a difference between "had something to do with" and "the only reason".

He used the words "nothing to do" in a sarcastic way as if Rondo had everything to do with it. Again, it's semantics. Sometimes you argue just for the sheer sake of argument. What are we even arguing about? You must quite be a gem to deal with on a personal level.

Wow.  Fiction is fun!

Again - would it kill you to do just 10 seconds of fact checking before you dig yourself further in?

My specific words were:

"Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ..."

Yes, that is indeed _sarcasm_.  You got that part correct.  But there is no way any one schooled properly in reading the English language should be able to translate that into "Rondo had everything to do with it."

"had anything" != "had everything"

Different words.  Different meanings.

Here.  Useful reference:  http://www.dictionary.com

You might find this hard to fathom, but I'm not exactly hanging on your every word. I quoted your post because the gist of it was incorrect. Forgive me for not remembering it verbatim. Not sure why your post turned so defensive though. Rough day?

[Greenback]

Let's see if Rondo can be a hero tonight against Philadelphia. 

Maybe the Celtics do keep Rondo around to help them tank.

Will Rondo find a new way to choke?  Will he miss more bunnies than Elmer Fudd? 

Let's see what Mr. Max Contract will do against the powerful Philadelphia 76ers....

[tarheelsxxiii]

Seems notable to point out that Rondo is leading the league in assists (11. by a relatively large margin for that statistic (Paul at 9.7). He's also playing on a team that arguably does not have an NBA starter on a contender (including Green). Isn't our leading scorer Olynyk? C'mon man. That old "Rondo benefits so much from being surrounded by HOFers" argument is dead to me. He's working with next to nothing, and qualitatively, he's making some remarkable passes to get scrubs easy baskets. He's also fresh off injury and has had a significant amount of time off the court.

[mmmmm]

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

Not sure about that. He also had 5 turnovers, shot 2-10 from the FT line, and was a minus 10 in +/- in 33 minutes. Pressey was a plus 6 in 17 minutes. The team doesn't exactly fall apart when he's not in.

Why is it so difficult to actually look into the details when plus/minus numbers look odd?

Green's +/- was also -10.  Yet by all accounts he played awesome for this game.   Doesn't that even make you stop for a second look at what the numbers actually _mean_?

Rondo was on the floor for 33 minutes and overall, yep - the team posted a -10 on the scoreboard.

Well, a glance at the other starters shows that, whuddayaknow?  Kelly Olynyk posted a big fat -15 in just 13 minutes of play!  Now, what positives and negatives did Kelly bring to the floor last night to result in such a number?  Oh yeah, he missed his two shots, committed 4 fouls, turned the ball over 3 times, played horrible defense and earned a seat on the bench - which didn't help much because Bass then came in and also played pretty bad.  Just not AS bad.

The point is, when Kelly was in the game, he was just plain and obviously having a horrible game.   Thats not to say he's a bad player.  He's had mostly good games this season.  He'll probably play great in his next game.  But last night?  He stunk.  Eye test.  Stats test.  Coach-putting-him-on-the-bench-test.  He stunk.

Well, 12 of Kelley's minutes came with Rondo on the floor.  During that time, the team was -12.

In the other 21 minutes Rondo was on the floor, the team was +2.

But go on blaming Rondo.  It's what you do.

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism? My reason for citing +/- is in response to him saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. The eye test doesn't indicate that, the +/- doesn't indicate that, and to go further neither does our record the last 4 seasons.

  Not for nothing, but you weren't responding to someone saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. You were responding to someone saying that Rondo being in the game had something to do with the game being close. Which it obviously did.

Seriously? Talk about semantics.

  Shockingly, most people see quite a difference between "had something to do with" and "the only reason".

He used the words "nothing to do" in a sarcastic way as if Rondo had everything to do with it. Again, it's semantics. Sometimes you argue just for the sheer sake of argument. What are we even arguing about? You must quite be a gem to deal with on a personal level.

Wow.  Fiction is fun!

Again - would it kill you to do just 10 seconds of fact checking before you dig yourself further in?

My specific words were:

"Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ..."

Yes, that is indeed _sarcasm_.  You got that part correct.  But there is no way any one schooled properly in reading the English language should be able to translate that into "Rondo had everything to do with it."

"had anything" != "had everything"

Different words.  Different meanings.

Here.  Useful reference:  http://www.dictionary.com

You might find this hard to fathom, but I'm not exactly hanging on your every word. I quoted your post because the gist of it was incorrect. Forgive me for not remembering it verbatim. Not sure why your post turned so defensive though. Rough day?

No, you got the "gist" of it totally incorrect.  My post "turned defensive" because your actions (willful or just incompetent) completely misrepresented what I stated.

You want say stupid, incorrect things?  Go ahead.  But please don't misquote me or misrepresent what I posted.

It would have taken you all of a handful of seconds to look at the actual posting before misrepresenting what I stated.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

Not sure about that. He also had 5 turnovers, shot 2-10 from the FT line, and was a minus 10 in +/- in 33 minutes. Pressey was a plus 6 in 17 minutes. The team doesn't exactly fall apart when he's not in.

Why is it so difficult to actually look into the details when plus/minus numbers look odd?

Green's +/- was also -10.  Yet by all accounts he played awesome for this game.   Doesn't that even make you stop for a second look at what the numbers actually _mean_?

Rondo was on the floor for 33 minutes and overall, yep - the team posted a -10 on the scoreboard.

Well, a glance at the other starters shows that, whuddayaknow?  Kelly Olynyk posted a big fat -15 in just 13 minutes of play!  Now, what positives and negatives did Kelly bring to the floor last night to result in such a number?  Oh yeah, he missed his two shots, committed 4 fouls, turned the ball over 3 times, played horrible defense and earned a seat on the bench - which didn't help much because Bass then came in and also played pretty bad.  Just not AS bad.

The point is, when Kelly was in the game, he was just plain and obviously having a horrible game.   Thats not to say he's a bad player.  He's had mostly good games this season.  He'll probably play great in his next game.  But last night?  He stunk.  Eye test.  Stats test.  Coach-putting-him-on-the-bench-test.  He stunk.

Well, 12 of Kelley's minutes came with Rondo on the floor.  During that time, the team was -12.

In the other 21 minutes Rondo was on the floor, the team was +2.

But go on blaming Rondo.  It's what you do.

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism? My reason for citing +/- is in response to him saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. The eye test doesn't indicate that, the +/- doesn't indicate that, and to go further neither does our record the last 4 seasons.

  Not for nothing, but you weren't responding to someone saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. You were responding to someone saying that Rondo being in the game had something to do with the game being close. Which it obviously did.

Seriously? Talk about semantics.

  Shockingly, most people see quite a difference between "had something to do with" and "the only reason".

He used the words "nothing to do" in a sarcastic way as if Rondo had everything to do with it. Again, it's semantics. Sometimes you argue just for the sheer sake of argument. What are we even arguing about? You must quite be a gem to deal with on a personal level.

Wow.  Fiction is fun!

Again - would it kill you to do just 10 seconds of fact checking before you dig yourself further in?

My specific words were:

"Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ..."

Yes, that is indeed _sarcasm_.  You got that part correct.  But there is no way any one schooled properly in reading the English language should be able to translate that into "Rondo had everything to do with it."

"had anything" != "had everything"

Different words.  Different meanings.

Here.  Useful reference:  http://www.dictionary.com

You might find this hard to fathom, but I'm not exactly hanging on your every word. I quoted your post because the gist of it was incorrect. Forgive me for not remembering it verbatim. Not sure why your post turned so defensive though. Rough day?

No, you got the "gist" of it totally incorrect.  My post "turned defensive" because your actions (willful or just incompetent) completely misrepresented what I stated.

You want say stupid, incorrect things?  Go ahead.  But please don't misquote me or misrepresent what I posted.

It would have taken you all of a handful of seconds to look at the actual posting before misrepresenting what I stated.

This calls for an intervention. And possibly citations.

[Surferdad]

Seems notable to point out that Rondo is leading the league in assists (11. by a relatively large margin for that statistic (Paul at 9.7). He's also playing on a team that arguably does not have an NBA starter on a contender (including Green). Isn't our leading scorer Olynyk? C'mon man. That old "Rondo benefits so much from being surrounded by HOFers" argument is dead to me. He's working with next to nothing, and qualitatively, he's making some remarkable passes to get scrubs easy baskets. He's also fresh off injury and has had a significant amount of time off the court.

This. Rondo is our best player by a pretty wide margin. 11.8 apg on a team with no go-to scores is pretty impressive. That translates to 24ppg even without his own scoring. 

But let's trade him. Totally illogical.

Oh and let's trade Brandon Bass too, perhaps our most steady player who knocks down jumpers in his sleep, always hits his free throws, and is willing to come off the bench in favor of starting young guys, without complaint.  This is a guy who was STARTING when KG/PP/RA were here.

[Eddie20]

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

Not sure about that. He also had 5 turnovers, shot 2-10 from the FT line, and was a minus 10 in +/- in 33 minutes. Pressey was a plus 6 in 17 minutes. The team doesn't exactly fall apart when he's not in.

Why is it so difficult to actually look into the details when plus/minus numbers look odd?

Green's +/- was also -10.  Yet by all accounts he played awesome for this game.   Doesn't that even make you stop for a second look at what the numbers actually _mean_?

Rondo was on the floor for 33 minutes and overall, yep - the team posted a -10 on the scoreboard.

Well, a glance at the other starters shows that, whuddayaknow?  Kelly Olynyk posted a big fat -15 in just 13 minutes of play!  Now, what positives and negatives did Kelly bring to the floor last night to result in such a number?  Oh yeah, he missed his two shots, committed 4 fouls, turned the ball over 3 times, played horrible defense and earned a seat on the bench - which didn't help much because Bass then came in and also played pretty bad.  Just not AS bad.

The point is, when Kelly was in the game, he was just plain and obviously having a horrible game.   Thats not to say he's a bad player.  He's had mostly good games this season.  He'll probably play great in his next game.  But last night?  He stunk.  Eye test.  Stats test.  Coach-putting-him-on-the-bench-test.  He stunk.

Well, 12 of Kelley's minutes came with Rondo on the floor.  During that time, the team was -12.

In the other 21 minutes Rondo was on the floor, the team was +2.

But go on blaming Rondo.  It's what you do.

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism? My reason for citing +/- is in response to him saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. The eye test doesn't indicate that, the +/- doesn't indicate that, and to go further neither does our record the last 4 seasons.

  Not for nothing, but you weren't responding to someone saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. You were responding to someone saying that Rondo being in the game had something to do with the game being close. Which it obviously did.

Seriously? Talk about semantics.

  Shockingly, most people see quite a difference between "had something to do with" and "the only reason".

He used the words "nothing to do" in a sarcastic way as if Rondo had everything to do with it. Again, it's semantics. Sometimes you argue just for the sheer sake of argument. What are we even arguing about? You must quite be a gem to deal with on a personal level.

Wow.  Fiction is fun!

Again - would it kill you to do just 10 seconds of fact checking before you dig yourself further in?

My specific words were:

"Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ..."

Yes, that is indeed _sarcasm_.  You got that part correct.  But there is no way any one schooled properly in reading the English language should be able to translate that into "Rondo had everything to do with it."

"had anything" != "had everything"

Different words.  Different meanings.

Here.  Useful reference:  http://www.dictionary.com

You might find this hard to fathom, but I'm not exactly hanging on your every word. I quoted your post because the gist of it was incorrect. Forgive me for not remembering it verbatim. Not sure why your post turned so defensive though. Rough day?

No, you got the "gist" of it totally incorrect.  My post "turned defensive" because your actions (willful or just incompetent) completely misrepresented what I stated.

You want say stupid, incorrect things?  Go ahead.  But please don't misquote me or misrepresent what I posted.

It would have taken you all of a handful of seconds to look at the actual posting before misrepresenting what I stated.

Do you realize how unstable you sound? To take such a defensive stance on a message board, of all things, over being "misrepresented" speaks volumes. I apologize if I misrepresented you. I now hope I don't find myself in a long civil suit for slandering the good name of mmmmmmmm on Celtics blog message board.

Lighten up, don't take yourself so seriously.

[BballTim]

Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ...

Not sure about that. He also had 5 turnovers, shot 2-10 from the FT line, and was a minus 10 in +/- in 33 minutes. Pressey was a plus 6 in 17 minutes. The team doesn't exactly fall apart when he's not in.

Why is it so difficult to actually look into the details when plus/minus numbers look odd?

Green's +/- was also -10.  Yet by all accounts he played awesome for this game.   Doesn't that even make you stop for a second look at what the numbers actually _mean_?

Rondo was on the floor for 33 minutes and overall, yep - the team posted a -10 on the scoreboard.

Well, a glance at the other starters shows that, whuddayaknow?  Kelly Olynyk posted a big fat -15 in just 13 minutes of play!  Now, what positives and negatives did Kelly bring to the floor last night to result in such a number?  Oh yeah, he missed his two shots, committed 4 fouls, turned the ball over 3 times, played horrible defense and earned a seat on the bench - which didn't help much because Bass then came in and also played pretty bad.  Just not AS bad.

The point is, when Kelly was in the game, he was just plain and obviously having a horrible game.   Thats not to say he's a bad player.  He's had mostly good games this season.  He'll probably play great in his next game.  But last night?  He stunk.  Eye test.  Stats test.  Coach-putting-him-on-the-bench-test.  He stunk.

Well, 12 of Kelley's minutes came with Rondo on the floor.  During that time, the team was -12.

In the other 21 minutes Rondo was on the floor, the team was +2.

But go on blaming Rondo.  It's what you do.

The other players you mentioned aren't in Rondo's league though. So if Rondo is going to get a max deal and be built around, like many think, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard? Or is he exempt from criticism? My reason for citing +/- is in response to him saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. The eye test doesn't indicate that, the +/- doesn't indicate that, and to go further neither does our record the last 4 seasons.

  Not for nothing, but you weren't responding to someone saying Rondo being in the game was the only reason it was close. You were responding to someone saying that Rondo being in the game had something to do with the game being close. Which it obviously did.

Seriously? Talk about semantics.

  Shockingly, most people see quite a difference between "had something to do with" and "the only reason".

He used the words "nothing to do" in a sarcastic way as if Rondo had everything to do with it. Again, it's semantics. Sometimes you argue just for the sheer sake of argument. What are we even arguing about? You must quite be a gem to deal with on a personal level.

Wow.  Fiction is fun!

Again - would it kill you to do just 10 seconds of fact checking before you dig yourself further in?

My specific words were:

"Let's ignore whether his TEN defensive rebounds, 9 assists and 14 points (on 60% shooting) had anything to do with why the game was even close ..."

Yes, that is indeed _sarcasm_.  You got that part correct.  But there is no way any one schooled properly in reading the English language should be able to translate that into "Rondo had everything to do with it."

"had anything" != "had everything"

Different words.  Different meanings.

Here.  Useful reference:  http://www.dictionary.com

You might find this hard to fathom, but I'm not exactly hanging on your every word. I quoted your post because the gist of it was incorrect. Forgive me for not remembering it verbatim. Not sure why your post turned so defensive though. Rough day?

No, you got the "gist" of it totally incorrect.  My post "turned defensive" because your actions (willful or just incompetent) completely misrepresented what I stated.

You want say stupid, incorrect things?  Go ahead.  But please don't misquote me or misrepresent what I posted.

It would have taken you all of a handful of seconds to look at the actual posting before misrepresenting what I stated.

Do you realize how unstable you sound? To take such a defensive stance on a message board, of all things, over being "misrepresented" speaks volumes. I apologize if I misrepresented you. I now hope I don't find myself in a long civil suit for slandering the good name of mmmmmmmm on Celtics blog message board.

Lighten up, don't take yourself so seriously.

  This seems like a much better path to go down than just apologizing for misrepresenting him and moving on. You knew when you posted it you were attributing things he didn't say to him.