(Merged) Celtics better with/without Rondo debate

[BballTim]

I'd be very interested to see a link where Doc admits he's the architect of the "Rondo-centric" offense.

Until then, you'll have to excuse me if I view that as a laughable rationalization, rather than an explanation.

  Just out of curiosity, what are you claiming is the case if you don't think Doc is the architect of the offense? That he didn't install an offense and Rondo decided what kind of offense to run, or that Doc tells the team to run a certain type of offense and the players just ignore him?

[Eddie20]

By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

[celtics2]

Like everyone is saying there are lots of variables. Bradley comes back. Lee and Terry get more minutes with Rondo out. Wilcox and Green playing more minutes with Sullinger down. Crawford is also a better scorer than Barbosa. Ball movement and uptempo game replace Rondo centric approach. Doc does not like change; but when it is forced on him often proves that he can actually be a good coach when he has to be.

more like forces of nature forcing Doc's hand. He'd run Rondo till we were out of the Playoffs. Doc doesn't make gutty decisions. He likes CYA situations.

[ejk3489]

I'd be very interested to see a link where Doc admits he's the architect of the "Rondo-centric" offense.

Until then, you'll have to excuse me if I view that as a laughable rationalization, rather than an explanation.

Rivers told Yahoo! Sports that his decisions to relegate Allen to a sixth-man role and give point guard Rajon Rondo complete freedom with the ball and leadership were ultimately what helped lead Allen to leave Boston.

"People can use all the Rondo stuff – and it was there, no doubt about that – but it was me more than Rondo," said Rivers, who is working as an NBC analyst during the Olympics. "I'm the guy who gave Rondo the ball. I'm the guy who decided that Rondo needed to be more of the leader of the team. That doesn't mean guys liked that – and Ray did not love that – because Rondo now had the ball all the time.

"Think about everything [Allen] said when he left, 'I want to be more of a part of the offense.' Everything was back at Rondo. And I look at that, and say, 'That's not Rondo's fault.' That's what I wanted Rondo to do, and that's what Rondo should've done. Because that's Rondo's ability. He's the best passer in the league. He has the best feel in the league. He's not a great shooter, so he needs the ball in his hands to be effective. And that bothered Ray.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympics--doc-rivers-takes-blame-for-ray-allen-leaving-celtics-for-heat-.html

[BballTim]

By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

[nickagneta]

By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

And if you break down the numbers to the ridiculous like stating

It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't

I mean anyone can do that for anything to minimize its effects. Heck, my son in his part time job just got a $2000 a year raise and only makes $10,000 a year there. Now a 20% raise seems really good but if I told him that a 3 cent raise per minute doesn't sound so hot, he might get discouraged. But a 20% raise is really good.

Personally I think this passes the stat test and the eye test. Rondo appears to play better or give a better effort during nationally televised games and now there is a study that shows he is slightly better statistically during those games.

I actually think that is awesome that he can raise the level of his game during those games, which tend to be against better opponents and more important games(playoffs). His regular game and stats are All-Star worthy. His games on national tv even better. I think that is a positive for Rondo not a negative. I want my players to be able to raise the level of their play during big games. Don't you?

[kozlodoev]

Actually, this study shows exactly the opposite of what the author is trying to claim. You test for difference of means precisely because the eyeball test isn't always conclusive.

And yes, it is appropriate to say that more sophisticated analysis is needed (e.g. controlling for opponent record, playoff game, etc). But I guess you can stick Harvard on your blog, and forgo methodological rigorousness altogether.

 

[slamtheking]

I'd be very interested to see a link where Doc admits he's the architect of the "Rondo-centric" offense.

Until then, you'll have to excuse me if I view that as a laughable rationalization, rather than an explanation.

  Just out of curiosity, what are you claiming is the case if you don't think Doc is the architect of the offense? That he didn't install an offense and Rondo decided what kind of offense to run, or that Doc tells the team to run a certain type of offense and the players just ignore him?

because, (to use one of his own lines that has stuck with me) "as a coach", he must have no control over his team's offense and must be projecting that lack of control to Doc since he's the coach.

[fairweatherfan]

Actually, this study shows exactly the opposite of what the author is trying to claim. You test for difference of means precisely because the eyeball test isn't always conclusive.

And yes, it is appropriate to say that more sophisticated analysis is needed (e.g. controlling for opponent record, playoff game, etc). But I guess you can stick Harvard on your blog, and forgo methodological rigorousness altogether.

 

Yeah, holy cow what a bad "study".  No description of criteria - not even an N for each group - no statistical significance and he even manages to misrepresent the directional differences, saying all of Rondo's averages are higher on TV when his assists are clearly lower. 

The best thing I can say about that article is that it could make a decent jumping-off point for a much better analysis, but anyone who knows enough to make a proper attempt isn't going to make those kinds of mistakes anyway.

[Greenback]

If Rondo is clutch, why is the Celtics over time record much better without him?

Just like the regular season record, its below .500 with Rondo, 3-4.  And the Celtics are something like 4-0 without Rondo. 

How do you explain that?

[kgainez]

u guys sure do like stats until it's anti-'whatever-your-claim-is'
smh

[BballTim]

Personally I think this passes the stat test and the eye test. Rondo appears to play better or give a better effort during nationally televised games and now there is a study that shows he is slightly better statistically during those games.

I actually think that is awesome that he can raise the level of his game during those games, which tend to be against better opponents and more important games(playoffs). His regular game and stats are All-Star worthy. His games on national tv even better. I think that is a positive for Rondo not a negative. I want my players to be able to raise the level of their play during big games. Don't you?

  Personally I think this is the opposite of passing the eye test. Nobody ever claimed that Rondo played better on national tv until some announcer made a comment about it (based mainly on Rondo's play in the playoffs). Now everyone comments on it and talks about how obvious it is when they watch the games. It's not so obvious that people were actually able to notice it on their own, but once it was pointed out to them they started looking for signs of it in games and therefore they "see" it.

[Eddie20]

By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

I actually think Rondo is a hell of a player and I want him to get healthy and continue performing well for us. However, I do not have Rondo on that delusional pedestal you have him firmly on. He's a player that takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration for a player with his athleticism.

Your unwavering admiration for Rondo leaves you with little ability to see his faults. Out of curiosity how long have you been watching the C's?

[SHAQATTACK]

By Ryan Fortin

Throughout Rajon Rondo’s career, he has always shone under the spotlight. He is, of course, Boston’s best point guard and arguably the best player on the team. But as Grantland’s Bill Simmons has noted on occasion, he seems to save his best games for when he appears on national television, including many of his triple-doubles. Is it true that Rondo actually tries harder or performs better when he is in front of the entire country?

I decided to test this theory by compiling data over the past two years and running a t-test, using his non-nationally televised stats and his nationally televised stats to see if the two groups were significantly different. The results seem to back up the critics:

continued here...

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/national-tv-rondo-actually-exists/

BballTim, aka Rondo's hype man, didn't you say on several occasions that this wasn't true? Also, the level of competition is much higher for the nationally televised games, so it makes the rise in performace even more peculiar.

  How did he pick the data for the study? Which networks did he choose as nationally televised? Did he include the playoffs? I'd guess that he did. A good apples to apples comparison would be regular season nationally televised games vs regular season locally televised games. I'm guessing he added in the playoff games to skew the results towards what he's trying to prove.

  Do you have the answers to any of these questions? Did the questions even occur to you? I'd guess that your interest in the subject began and ended with whether it made Rondo look bad. Knowing enough to ask these things doesn't necessarily make me a "hype machine".

  I've never denied that he puts up better numbers in the playoffs than in the regular season. It's due to the importance of the game, not the size of the audience. It's very unlikely that you could look at his play or the box scores for two games vs Philly or Atl and be able to tell which one was on csn and which one wasn't despite the fact that you've probably convinced yourself that you can.

  As for Rondo's play holding up well against stiff competition, that's generally seen as a good thing. Most fans love having players that come up big in big games, this blog seems to be the exception in calling that a flaw.

I actually think Rondo is a hell of a player and I want him to get healthy and continue performing well for us. However, I do not have Rondo on that delusional pedestal you have him firmly on. He's a player that takes plenty of nights off, dribbles the ball too much, doesn't attack the basket like he should, is unreliable at the free throw line, has a questionable jumper with little range, gambles too much on D, doesn't fight through screens and instead often takes the easy way out by switching, and too often fails to prevent dribble penetration for a player with his athleticism.

Your unwavering admiration for Rondo leaves you with little ability to see his faults. Out of curiosity how long have you been watching the C's?

And yet somehow fans think we are gonna get a star quaility big on trade 

[Galeto]

The simple fact is without Rondo the Celtics would've been like 12-31.  He CARRIED us.  He was by FAR the best Celtic to start this season.  Just because the rest of the team had to actually start doing some work and putting in some effort after the guy who was doing everything went out, some how it becomes Rondo's fault?  If the players played with the same intensity when Rondo was still healthy, we would be one of the best teams in the league.  The only people to blame are Green and Wilcox's recovery, Bass and Terry's slump and Pierce's and Bradley's injuries.  That's it.

[dang], 12-31.  That's only a 28 percent winning percentage!  That would have been awful .  I'm sure glad Rondo kept the Celtics from falling that low  .  We can say we've been unlucky with injuries but we could've been 12-31 so I thank our lucky stars!!