Author Topic: The Jeff Green thread  (Read 127409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #495 on: April 04, 2013, 09:44:52 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
See the last paragraph, that's predictive. With (albeit optimistic) projections based on actual evidence. Good explanation Tim.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #496 on: April 04, 2013, 09:57:33 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
And of course, then there's Green's defense which can be superb at times, as well.
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #497 on: April 04, 2013, 10:05:04 PM »

Offline CelticsFan9

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1571
  • Tommy Points: 116
  • Everyone's excited for the new era.
And of course, then there's Green's defense which can be superb at times, as well.

Green's shot-blocking has really impressed me this year.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #498 on: April 05, 2013, 08:19:20 AM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
I'm not a fan od the per36 measurement.

What are you against?

in this circumstance, there's an attempt to make a case about fga per game with and without a person, when the per minute difference is a difference of a couple of fractions...per 36 it's a difference of .8.

I also don't see how, in the argument, it's not a predictive kind of thing, and I'm being told it's not. You're telling me at the averaged per minute rate, with statistics from 3 months ago, Rondo would have given the ball to green .8 more than what he's getting now. Or that per minute, he was touching the ball .2 more.


  There's no *would have*. The word you're looking for is "did". I'm not saying "Rondo would have passed to Green" I'm saying "Rondo did pass to Green when they played together. Rondo and Green *did* play together for almost 500 minutes and Green shot the ball more frequently during those minutes than he shoots the ball without Rondo on the court.

For example, in the 43 games that Rondo played, Jeff Green was assisted by Rondo 28 times...in 43 games. Compared to 102 to Paul Pierce. I just think it's half an argument.

  On the surface it looks like Rondo passes the ball much more often to PP than he does to Green. But there are a few factors you aren't considering. For starters Rondo played under 500 minutes with Green and almost 1200 minutes with Pierce.

  Aside: *This* is why I'm talking about per minute stats, because most of the difference between the 28 and 102 is the huge difference in minutes the two players are on the court with Rondo. The difference in assists is 102-28, if you adjusted for minutes it would be closer to 102-68. Still a big difference, but a much smaller difference than you seem to think.

  A few other adjustments should be made. First of all PP hit a higher percentage of his shots playing with Rondo than Green (who shot poorly earlier this season) did. If Rondo passes to Green and he misses his shot then Rondo doesn't get an assist, so it will probably take Rondo more passes to Green than to PP to get the same number of assists. You also have to take into account that Pierce takes more shots than Green to begin with so you'd expect Rondo to have somewhat more passes to PP than Green.

  If you adjusted Green's 28 assists for the differencein minutes, fg% and the fact that PP takes more shots than Green whether Rondo's in the game or not you'd get a number close to 95 compared to 102 for Pierce, so the real difference is fairly insignificant. In fact the difference would be small enough that you'd never notice it by watching the games.

Really good post, per usual.  TP.



And of course, then there's Green's defense which can be superb at times, as well.

Green's shot-blocking has really impressed me this year.

Yeah the man defense has been great and I did see and kind of expect that (the potential was certainly there, a full year under our system should get that out of him) but the shot blocking I didn't see coming.  He has a great combo of speed, agility, length for it so it's nice to see.
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #499 on: April 05, 2013, 08:47:30 AM »

Offline bfrombleacher

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3343
  • Tommy Points: 367
I'm not a fan od the per36 measurement.

What are you against?

in this circumstance, there's an attempt to make a case about fga per game with and without a person, when the per minute difference is a difference of a couple of fractions...per 36 it's a difference of .8.

I also don't see how, in the argument, it's not a predictive kind of thing, and I'm being told it's not. You're telling me at the averaged per minute rate, with statistics from 3 months ago, Rondo would have given the ball to green .8 more than what he's getting now. Or that per minute, he was touching the ball .2 more.


  There's no *would have*. The word you're looking for is "did". I'm not saying "Rondo would have passed to Green" I'm saying "Rondo did pass to Green when they played together. Rondo and Green *did* play together for almost 500 minutes and Green shot the ball more frequently during those minutes than he shoots the ball without Rondo on the court.

For example, in the 43 games that Rondo played, Jeff Green was assisted by Rondo 28 times...in 43 games. Compared to 102 to Paul Pierce. I just think it's half an argument.

  On the surface it looks like Rondo passes the ball much more often to PP than he does to Green. But there are a few factors you aren't considering. For starters Rondo played under 500 minutes with Green and almost 1200 minutes with Pierce.

  Aside: *This* is why I'm talking about per minute stats, because most of the difference between the 28 and 102 is the huge difference in minutes the two players are on the court with Rondo. The difference in assists is 102-28, if you adjusted for minutes it would be closer to 102-68. Still a big difference, but a much smaller difference than you seem to think.

  A few other adjustments should be made. First of all PP hit a higher percentage of his shots playing with Rondo than Green (who shot poorly earlier this season) did. If Rondo passes to Green and he misses his shot then Rondo doesn't get an assist, so it will probably take Rondo more passes to Green than to PP to get the same number of assists. You also have to take into account that Pierce takes more shots than Green to begin with so you'd expect Rondo to have somewhat more passes to PP than Green.

  If you adjusted Green's 28 assists for the differencein minutes, fg% and the fact that PP takes more shots than Green whether Rondo's in the game or not you'd get a number close to 95 compared to 102 for Pierce, so the real difference is fairly insignificant. In fact the difference would be small enough that you'd never notice it by watching the games.

Really good post, per usual.  TP.



And of course, then there's Green's defense which can be superb at times, as well.

Green's shot-blocking has really impressed me this year.

Yeah the man defense has been great and I did see and kind of expect that (the potential was certainly there, a full year under our system should get that out of him) but the shot blocking I didn't see coming.  He has a great combo of speed, agility, length for it so it's nice to see.

I have been trying to think of a counterpoint when people say he's "still the same player".

Not to say I haven't noticed his shot blocking though. Funny how my brain didn't connect the two dots.

So now, when people say "meh, he's still the same player", I can go like:
I know his rebounding is still suspect but he's been playing GREAT defense ALL YEAR (even earlier in the season when he was still recovering). His FG% is also up, even when including the early season inconsistencies. I don't remember his jumper being this good. Oh, and he blocks shots like a big, as a small forward.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #500 on: April 05, 2013, 11:18:27 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
First let me say, BBall is right. Jeff Green didn't get better because Rondo was holding him back. The adjusted stats for context reveals that. Face it people, Jeff Green got better because Jeff Green got better. It had nothing to do with how Doc used him or who he played with or any of that. Jeff Green simply got better so he's earned the right to more minutes and a larger role.

One thing that bothers me about what's been happening. He's blocking more shots and more weak side shots. That's effort and timing. You know what else is effort and timing, rebounding. The 6'1" Rondo in 37 MPG this year averaged 5.6 RPG. The playing-much-better, 6'9" Jeff Green is averaging 4.8 RPG. If he can put so much effort into blocking shots, he can put that much effort into rebounding.

Rebounding, depending on how you view the game of basketball, could be the second or third most important thing a team does after scoring and/or defense. If Green doesn't want to put in the effort to rebound better, that bothers me. It tells me something about the guy and it ain't good.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #501 on: April 05, 2013, 12:24:14 PM »

Offline kgainez

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1126
  • Tommy Points: 54
I'm not a fan od the per36 measurement.

What are you against?

in this circumstance, there's an attempt to make a case about fga per game with and without a person, when the per minute difference is a difference of a couple of fractions...per 36 it's a difference of .8.

I also don't see how, in the argument, it's not a predictive kind of thing, and I'm being told it's not. You're telling me at the averaged per minute rate, with statistics from 3 months ago, Rondo would have given the ball to green .8 more than what he's getting now. Or that per minute, he was touching the ball .2 more.


  There's no *would have*. The word you're looking for is "did". I'm not saying "Rondo would have passed to Green" I'm saying "Rondo did pass to Green when they played together. Rondo and Green *did* play together for almost 500 minutes and Green shot the ball more frequently during those minutes than he shoots the ball without Rondo on the court.

For example, in the 43 games that Rondo played, Jeff Green was assisted by Rondo 28 times...in 43 games. Compared to 102 to Paul Pierce. I just think it's half an argument.

  On the surface it looks like Rondo passes the ball much more often to PP than he does to Green. But there are a few factors you aren't considering. For starters Rondo played under 500 minutes with Green and almost 1200 minutes with Pierce.

  Aside: *This* is why I'm talking about per minute stats, because most of the difference between the 28 and 102 is the huge difference in minutes the two players are on the court with Rondo. The difference in assists is 102-28, if you adjusted for minutes it would be closer to 102-68. Still a big difference, but a much smaller difference than you seem to think.

  A few other adjustments should be made. First of all PP hit a higher percentage of his shots playing with Rondo than Green (who shot poorly earlier this season) did. If Rondo passes to Green and he misses his shot then Rondo doesn't get an assist, so it will probably take Rondo more passes to Green than to PP to get the same number of assists. You also have to take into account that Pierce takes more shots than Green to begin with so you'd expect Rondo to have somewhat more passes to PP than Green.

  If you adjusted Green's 28 assists for the differencein minutes, fg% and the fact that PP takes more shots than Green whether Rondo's in the game or not you'd get a number close to 95 compared to 102 for Pierce, so the real difference is fairly insignificant. In fact the difference would be small enough that you'd never notice it by watching the games.

No its definitely a would have. I mean, we're arguing over percentage points. And I think the latter part of your argument makes more sense than the Per36. Personal preference.

moving along.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #502 on: April 05, 2013, 12:44:46 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
I still say ...Green was able to finally show what he has at the expense of Sully and Rondo being out.

The ball movement between players minus rondo is so much more dramatic.  Rondo would walk up court, stand there and bounce the ball till one of his favorite targets got free for a shot....PP , RAY ALLEN, KG or BASS ....if it was a miss.. END of play.no rebounds on offense ,nothing but one pass and out with a usual jumper.  small suck ball.

I like the ball movement without Rondo .  It allows more people ...ie Jeff Green to take over more control and make a play than stand around waiting on Rondo to do something. This hesitation on Rondos parts allows the defense to lock down to easy...too predictable.



Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #503 on: April 05, 2013, 01:07:47 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
I'm not a fan od the per36 measurement.

What are you against?

in this circumstance, there's an attempt to make a case about fga per game with and without a person, when the per minute difference is a difference of a couple of fractions...per 36 it's a difference of .8.

I also don't see how, in the argument, it's not a predictive kind of thing, and I'm being told it's not. You're telling me at the averaged per minute rate, with statistics from 3 months ago, Rondo would have given the ball to green .8 more than what he's getting now. Or that per minute, he was touching the ball .2 more.


  There's no *would have*. The word you're looking for is "did". I'm not saying "Rondo would have passed to Green" I'm saying "Rondo did pass to Green when they played together. Rondo and Green *did* play together for almost 500 minutes and Green shot the ball more frequently during those minutes than he shoots the ball without Rondo on the court.

For example, in the 43 games that Rondo played, Jeff Green was assisted by Rondo 28 times...in 43 games. Compared to 102 to Paul Pierce. I just think it's half an argument.

  On the surface it looks like Rondo passes the ball much more often to PP than he does to Green. But there are a few factors you aren't considering. For starters Rondo played under 500 minutes with Green and almost 1200 minutes with Pierce.

  Aside: *This* is why I'm talking about per minute stats, because most of the difference between the 28 and 102 is the huge difference in minutes the two players are on the court with Rondo. The difference in assists is 102-28, if you adjusted for minutes it would be closer to 102-68. Still a big difference, but a much smaller difference than you seem to think.

  A few other adjustments should be made. First of all PP hit a higher percentage of his shots playing with Rondo than Green (who shot poorly earlier this season) did. If Rondo passes to Green and he misses his shot then Rondo doesn't get an assist, so it will probably take Rondo more passes to Green than to PP to get the same number of assists. You also have to take into account that Pierce takes more shots than Green to begin with so you'd expect Rondo to have somewhat more passes to PP than Green.

  If you adjusted Green's 28 assists for the differencein minutes, fg% and the fact that PP takes more shots than Green whether Rondo's in the game or not you'd get a number close to 95 compared to 102 for Pierce, so the real difference is fairly insignificant. In fact the difference would be small enough that you'd never notice it by watching the games.

No its definitely a would have. I mean, we're arguing over percentage points. And I think the latter part of your argument makes more sense than the Per36. Personal preference.

moving along.

  The top part is definitely *not* a would have. It's what Green *did* playing with Rondo compared to what Green *did* playing without Rondo. And we're not really arguing percentage points, the fact that the numbers are close enough that you'd need to argue percentage points shows that Rondo wasn't overly reluctant to pass to Green.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #504 on: April 05, 2013, 01:12:25 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
I still say ...Green was able to finally show what he has at the expense of Sully and Rondo being out.

The ball movement between players minus rondo is so much more dramatic.  Rondo would walk up court, stand there and bounce the ball till one of his favorite targets got free for a shot....PP , RAY ALLEN, KG or BASS ....if it was a miss.. END of play.no rebounds on offense ,nothing but one pass and out with a usual jumper.  small suck ball.

I like the ball movement without Rondo .  It allows more people ...ie Jeff Green to take over more control and make a play than stand around waiting on Rondo to do something. This hesitation on Rondos parts allows the defense to lock down to easy...too predictable.

  Rondo walked the ball down on occasion because he wanted to slow the pace of the game but more often because there was no fast break opportunity on offense. The Celts made quite an effort to rush up court on offense right after Rondo was injured. Rondo's teammates showed no such sense of urgency when he was playing.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #505 on: April 05, 2013, 02:17:33 PM »

Offline CelticG1

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4201
  • Tommy Points: 288
First let me say, BBall is right. Jeff Green didn't get better because Rondo was holding him back. The adjusted stats for context reveals that. Face it people, Jeff Green got better because Jeff Green got better. It had nothing to do with how Doc used him or who he played with or any of that. Jeff Green simply got better so he's earned the right to more minutes and a larger role.

One thing that bothers me about what's been happening. He's blocking more shots and more weak side shots. That's effort and timing. You know what else is effort and timing, rebounding. The 6'1" Rondo in 37 MPG this year averaged 5.6 RPG. The playing-much-better, 6'9" Jeff Green is averaging 4.8 RPG. If he can put so much effort into blocking shots, he can put that much effort into rebounding.

Rebounding, depending on how you view the game of basketball, could be the second or third most important thing a team does after scoring and/or defense. If Green doesn't want to put in the effort to rebound better, that bothers me. It tells me something about the guy and it ain't good.

Where do u get this idea that rebounding is mostly about effort? I think it has nore to do with talent and skill than anything.

You'll have a hard time convincing me thatvDwight Howard, zach Randolph, Carlos Boozer, demarcus Cousins, and JJ hickson are giving more effort than other guys.

Jeff green may become a better rebounder but effort isn't going to just turn him into a monster rebounder. I see him give a lot of effort on rebounds when i watch the game but just isn't a good rebounder.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing how yyou rate someone's effort other than looking at stats and a guys height.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #506 on: April 05, 2013, 02:33:19 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
First let me say, BBall is right. Jeff Green didn't get better because Rondo was holding him back. The adjusted stats for context reveals that. Face it people, Jeff Green got better because Jeff Green got better. It had nothing to do with how Doc used him or who he played with or any of that. Jeff Green simply got better so he's earned the right to more minutes and a larger role.

One thing that bothers me about what's been happening. He's blocking more shots and more weak side shots. That's effort and timing. You know what else is effort and timing, rebounding. The 6'1" Rondo in 37 MPG this year averaged 5.6 RPG. The playing-much-better, 6'9" Jeff Green is averaging 4.8 RPG. If he can put so much effort into blocking shots, he can put that much effort into rebounding.

Rebounding, depending on how you view the game of basketball, could be the second or third most important thing a team does after scoring and/or defense. If Green doesn't want to put in the effort to rebound better, that bothers me. It tells me something about the guy and it ain't good.

Where do u get this idea that rebounding is mostly about effort? I think it has nore to do with talent and skill than anything.

You'll have a hard time convincing me thatvDwight Howard, zach Randolph, Carlos Boozer, demarcus Cousins, and JJ hickson are giving more effort than other guys.

Jeff green may become a better rebounder but effort isn't going to just turn him into a monster rebounder. I see him give a lot of effort on rebounds when i watch the game but just isn't a good rebounder.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing how yyou rate someone's effort other than looking at stats and a guys height.

  Look at Dennis Rodman, who went from being a very good rebounder to arguably the most dominant ever when he was 30 or so. That's effort, not a tremendous change in talent and skill. Or look at PP, who goes through stretches every couple of years where he suddenly gets double figures in rebounds for a stretch of games. Those are cases of more effort producing more rebounds. It's not that better rebounders try harder than everyone else but some of them try harder to get rebounds than everyone else (like maybe Evans). This doesn't mean that Green could rebound like Rodman if he tried to but he could probably do at least a little better than he does.

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #507 on: April 05, 2013, 02:46:03 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
I still say ...Green was able to finally show what he has at the expense of Sully and Rondo being out.

The ball movement between players minus rondo is so much more dramatic.  Rondo would walk up court, stand there and bounce the ball till one of his favorite targets got free for a shot....PP , RAY ALLEN, KG or BASS ....if it was a miss.. END of play.no rebounds on offense ,nothing but one pass and out with a usual jumper.  small suck ball.

I like the ball movement without Rondo .  It allows more people ...ie Jeff Green to take over more control and make a play than stand around waiting on Rondo to do something. This hesitation on Rondos parts allows the defense to lock down to easy...too predictable.

  Rondo walked the ball down on occasion because he wanted to slow the pace of the game but more often because there was no fast break opportunity on offense. The Celts made quite an effort to rush up court on offense right after Rondo was injured. Rondo's teammates showed no such sense of urgency when he was playing.

I think this was something that was on both Rondo, the other players, and the coaches.  And I think it had more to do with Rondo hitting the defensive boards, and then the habit that everyone got into of getting the ball to Rondo, no matter what.

If you want to run, you need to get the ball up court fast with a pass.  That means you either need Rondo leaking out, or you need to bypass the PG and get it to someone else leaking out.

But, when Rondo was playing, they would look off the outlet pass, in order to get it to Rondo, and by that time, it was too late to get numbers. 

Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #508 on: April 05, 2013, 02:54:11 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
First let me say, BBall is right. Jeff Green didn't get better because Rondo was holding him back. The adjusted stats for context reveals that. Face it people, Jeff Green got better because Jeff Green got better. It had nothing to do with how Doc used him or who he played with or any of that. Jeff Green simply got better so he's earned the right to more minutes and a larger role.

One thing that bothers me about what's been happening. He's blocking more shots and more weak side shots. That's effort and timing. You know what else is effort and timing, rebounding. The 6'1" Rondo in 37 MPG this year averaged 5.6 RPG. The playing-much-better, 6'9" Jeff Green is averaging 4.8 RPG. If he can put so much effort into blocking shots, he can put that much effort into rebounding.

Rebounding, depending on how you view the game of basketball, could be the second or third most important thing a team does after scoring and/or defense. If Green doesn't want to put in the effort to rebound better, that bothers me. It tells me something about the guy and it ain't good.

Where do u get this idea that rebounding is mostly about effort? I think it has nore to do with talent and skill than anything.

You'll have a hard time convincing me thatvDwight Howard, zach Randolph, Carlos Boozer, demarcus Cousins, and JJ hickson are giving more effort than other guys.

Jeff green may become a better rebounder but effort isn't going to just turn him into a monster rebounder. I see him give a lot of effort on rebounds when i watch the game but just isn't a good rebounder.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing how yyou rate someone's effort other than looking at stats and a guys height.

  Look at Dennis Rodman, who went from being a very good rebounder to arguably the most dominant ever when he was 30 or so. That's effort, not a tremendous change in talent and skill. Or look at PP, who goes through stretches every couple of years where he suddenly gets double figures in rebounds for a stretch of games. Those are cases of more effort producing more rebounds. It's not that better rebounders try harder than everyone else but some of them try harder to get rebounds than everyone else (like maybe Evans). This doesn't mean that Green could rebound like Rodman if he tried to but he could probably do at least a little better than he does.

It might come with a downside, though.

Rodman's improved rebounding came with a decline in his offense, and even his hustle stats (blocks and steals).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rodmade01.html

That's an extreme case, but I wonder whether Green would have to make some sacrifice in another area of his game to improve as a rebounder.

Evidence is harder to see for Pierce, but the very fact that he seems to pick his spots suggests that he thinks that there's some downside.

I am frustrated by Green's low rebounding though. It just adds to the picture of him as passive. And we are already a team that is small and struggles to rebound to begin with.


Re: Jeff Green - top 5 SF in 2 years
« Reply #509 on: April 05, 2013, 02:55:22 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
I still say ...Green was able to finally show what he has at the expense of Sully and Rondo being out.

The ball movement between players minus rondo is so much more dramatic.  Rondo would walk up court, stand there and bounce the ball till one of his favorite targets got free for a shot....PP , RAY ALLEN, KG or BASS ....if it was a miss.. END of play.no rebounds on offense ,nothing but one pass and out with a usual jumper.  small suck ball.

I like the ball movement without Rondo .  It allows more people ...ie Jeff Green to take over more control and make a play than stand around waiting on Rondo to do something. This hesitation on Rondos parts allows the defense to lock down to easy...too predictable.

  Rondo walked the ball down on occasion because he wanted to slow the pace of the game but more often because there was no fast break opportunity on offense. The Celts made quite an effort to rush up court on offense right after Rondo was injured. Rondo's teammates showed no such sense of urgency when he was playing.

I think this was something that was on both Rondo, the other players, and the coaches.  And I think it had more to do with Rondo hitting the defensive boards, and then the habit that everyone got into of getting the ball to Rondo, no matter what.

If you want to run, you need to get the ball up court fast with a pass.  That means you either need Rondo leaking out, or you need to bypass the PG and get it to someone else leaking out.

But, when Rondo was playing, they would look off the outlet pass, in order to get it to Rondo, and by that time, it was too late to get numbers.
I think they did leak Rondo out but many times the outlet pass wasn't made or wasn't available, which then made Rondo come back to get the ball. The amount of times I saw Rondo returning back towards his basket to get the ball from about his team's three point line is too many to count.

Fast break basketball, as Chris alludes to, is a team effort and a coaching philosophy that must be adhered to to be truly successful. The first half of this season, the entire team(Rondo included) refused to run or get out on the break. There was zero effort to do this. Much of the "Rondo is just pounding the ball" observations comes from Rondo being up the floor and waiting because he was on a 1 on 2, 3 or 4, 2 on 3, 4 or 5 or 3 on 4 or 5. Him needing to wait on players was at least half the problem with ball movement. So was the lack of off the ball movement by others once the half court offense was started.

I do agree that the problem though was on everybody on the team as effort and movement off the ball and overall willingness to run got better after the injury to Rondo.