Some interesting notes on Rondos jumpshooting from ESPN

[cman88]

theres nothing wrong with a PG who can score...but my point is that Rondo doesnt look to score as much as other PG's in the league...at least not this year(probably due to injuries)

in the post-season, when he does look to score more in games, he can be dominant...as we saw in 2009 when garnett was out, 2010's Cleveland and magic series and this year against the knicks(before he was injured)

if he played like he does in the post-season all year long, I suspect his PER would be higher..

but unlike Rose who basically has to do it all for his team, Rondo is surrounded by guys like pierce, garnett, allen, BBD who all are going to get their shots as well in the offense..so, he looks at what the defense is giving him..

[bfrombleacher]

but unlike Rose who basically has to do it all for his team, Rondo is surrounded by guys like pierce, garnett, allen, BBD who all are going to get their shots as well in the offense..so, he looks at what the defense is giving him..

I think there is a lot of misconception about the Bulls. Rose does not have a bad support cast at all. They took the Jazz and dismantled it for parts, good parts. If Rose had a pass first mentality, I'm pretty sure Deng and Boozer can do damage. Plus, Noah is a very serviceable center who does so much dirty work. Like us, they only lost to the Heat because LeBron James and Dwyane Wade were playing probably the best basketball of their career.

[PosImpos]

but unlike Rose who basically has to do it all for his team, Rondo is surrounded by guys like pierce, garnett, allen, BBD who all are going to get their shots as well in the offense..so, he looks at what the defense is giving him..

I think there is a lot of misconception about the Bulls. Rose does not have a bad support cast at all. They took the Jazz and dismantled it for parts, good parts. If Rose had a pass first mentality, I'm pretty sure Deng and Boozer can do damage. Plus, Noah is a very serviceable center who does so much dirty work. Like us, they only lost to the Heat because LeBron James and Dwyane Wade were playing probably the best basketball of their career.

well, the Bulls are really lacking in terms of outside shooting.  that's what prevented them from being a stronger, more efficient offensive team.  they made up for it by being really great at defense and having a player who could grind out baskets / free throws very reliably (Rose).

if they had better outside shooting and a more balanced, reliable offensive system i think the Bulls would have had a shot at beating the Heat, even with LBJ and Wade playing out of their minds.

[bfrombleacher]

well, the Bulls are really lacking in terms of outside shooting.  that's what prevented them from being a stronger, more efficient offensive team.  they made up for it by being really great at defense and having a player who could grind out baskets / free throws very reliably (Rose).

if they had better outside shooting and a more balanced, reliable offensive system i think the Bulls would have had a shot at beating the Heat, even with LBJ and Wade playing out of their minds.

Funny how the Celtics and the Bulls are almost like exact opposites that you mentioned that.

[BballTim]

but unlike Rose who basically has to do it all for his team, Rondo is surrounded by guys like pierce, garnett, allen, BBD who all are going to get their shots as well in the offense..so, he looks at what the defense is giving him..

I think there is a lot of misconception about the Bulls. Rose does not have a bad support cast at all. They took the Jazz and dismantled it for parts, good parts. If Rose had a pass first mentality, I'm pretty sure Deng and Boozer can do damage. Plus, Noah is a very serviceable center who does so much dirty work. Like us, they only lost to the Heat because LeBron James and Dwyane Wade were playing probably the best basketball of their career.

well, the Bulls are really lacking in terms of outside shooting.  that's what prevented them from being a stronger, more efficient offensive team.  they made up for it by being really great at defense and having a player who could grind out baskets / free throws very reliably (Rose).

if they had better outside shooting and a more balanced, reliable offensive system i think the Bulls would have had a shot at beating the Heat, even with LBJ and Wade playing out of their minds.

  Their mid-range shooting (10-15 feet) wasn't that good, their outside shooting was close to average.

[ballin]

Well since this is an indirect referral to my original point I think I'll respond.

PER isn't everything but it's something you can measure players by.

  Measuring players by PER will tell you that Zach Randolph is a better player than Bill Russell was.

Yeah, that's why I also mentioned win shares. By that measure Bill Russell was twice as good as Zach Randolph, so what's your point?

 

You can basically take any measure you want (such as EPSN's ranking which they just call ESPN) and the results are more or less the same.  

  That would be because they're generally similar formulas. And, again, they mainly measure individual offensive production.

Again, you should read up on win shares (or even better, wins produced).

They were designed SPECIFICALLY to address the fact that scoring is over-emphasized in other statistical models.

[BballTim]

Well since this is an indirect referral to my original point I think I'll respond.

PER isn't everything but it's something you can measure players by.

  Measuring players by PER will tell you that Zach Randolph is a better player than Bill Russell was.

Yeah, that's why I also mentioned win shares. By that measure Bill Russell was twice as good as Zach Randolph, so what's your point?

  So we move on to win shares, where Manu is a better player than Russell, Bird, Oscar, West and a host of others? And since you mentioned win shares we're ignoring the fact that PER isn't the be all and end all? My point is that your stats measure certain things and ignore others. Same as it was before.

 

You can basically take any measure you want (such as EPSN's ranking which they just call ESPN) and the results are more or less the same.  

  That would be because they're generally similar formulas. And, again, they mainly measure individual offensive production.

Again, you should read up on win shares (or even better, wins produced).

They were designed SPECIFICALLY to address the fact that scoring is over-emphasized in other statistical models.

  Wins produced from wagesofwins, or a different version? In any case, offensive win shares are pretty heavily based on scoring. But this still doesn't address the fact that the numbers basically show individual production. For instance, Ray hits a significantly higher percentage of his threes with Rondo playing than when Rondo's out of the game. Where does that figure into your numbers for Rondo? Answer, nowhere. Does the fact that it isn't a part of PER or WS mean that it doesn't affect the game? Of course not. Does it mean that your numbers don't reflect Rondo's value to the team? I'd say so.

[ballin]

Well since this is an indirect referral to my original point I think I'll respond.

PER isn't everything but it's something you can measure players by.

  Measuring players by PER will tell you that Zach Randolph is a better player than Bill Russell was.

Yeah, that's why I also mentioned win shares. By that measure Bill Russell was twice as good as Zach Randolph, so what's your point?

  So we move on to win shares, where Manu is a better player than Russell, Bird, Oscar, West and a host of others? And since you mentioned win shares we're ignoring the fact that PER isn't the be all and end all? My point is that your stats measure certain things and ignore others. Same as it was before.

 

You can basically take any measure you want (such as EPSN's ranking which they just call ESPN) and the results are more or less the same.  

  That would be because they're generally similar formulas. And, again, they mainly measure individual offensive production.

Again, you should read up on win shares (or even better, wins produced).

They were designed SPECIFICALLY to address the fact that scoring is over-emphasized in other statistical models.

  Wins produced from wagesofwins, or a different version? In any case, offensive win shares are pretty heavily based on scoring. But this still doesn't address the fact that the numbers basically show individual production. For instance, Ray hits a significantly higher percentage of his threes with Rondo playing than when Rondo's out of the game. Where does that figure into your numbers for Rondo? Answer, nowhere. Does the fact that it isn't a part of PER or WS mean that it doesn't affect the game? Of course not. Does it mean that your numbers don't reflect Rondo's value to the team? I'd say so.

1. Nice cherrypicking attempt there, but it's a little too easy to see through. Obviously you're make the statement about Manu having a higher W/S 48 than those other players based on their career numbers, while ignoring the fact that the players you were putting Manu up against have all played literally double the minutes that Manu has. So once Manu squeezes in NINE MORE SEASONS (which would make him 42 years old playing his final season) we'll see how far below Bird, Oscar, etc. his career W/S 48 drops.

2. Actually, the fact that Ray shoots a higher percentage on threes while Rondo is in the game fits EXACTLY into Rondo's stats. Assists. Duh.

[BballTim]

Well since this is an indirect referral to my original point I think I'll respond.

PER isn't everything but it's something you can measure players by.

  Measuring players by PER will tell you that Zach Randolph is a better player than Bill Russell was.

Yeah, that's why I also mentioned win shares. By that measure Bill Russell was twice as good as Zach Randolph, so what's your point?

  So we move on to win shares, where Manu is a better player than Russell, Bird, Oscar, West and a host of others? And since you mentioned win shares we're ignoring the fact that PER isn't the be all and end all? My point is that your stats measure certain things and ignore others. Same as it was before.

 

You can basically take any measure you want (such as EPSN's ranking which they just call ESPN) and the results are more or less the same.  

  That would be because they're generally similar formulas. And, again, they mainly measure individual offensive production.

Again, you should read up on win shares (or even better, wins produced).

They were designed SPECIFICALLY to address the fact that scoring is over-emphasized in other statistical models.

  Wins produced from wagesofwins, or a different version? In any case, offensive win shares are pretty heavily based on scoring. But this still doesn't address the fact that the numbers basically show individual production. For instance, Ray hits a significantly higher percentage of his threes with Rondo playing than when Rondo's out of the game. Where does that figure into your numbers for Rondo? Answer, nowhere. Does the fact that it isn't a part of PER or WS mean that it doesn't affect the game? Of course not. Does it mean that your numbers don't reflect Rondo's value to the team? I'd say so.

1. Nice cherrypicking attempt there, but it's a little too easy to see through. Obviously you're make the statement about Manu having a higher W/S 48 than those other players based on their career numbers, while ignoring the fact that the players you were putting Manu up against have all played literally double the minutes that Manu has. So once Manu squeezes in NINE MORE SEASONS (which would make him 42 years old playing his final season) we'll see how far below Bird, Oscar, etc. his career W/S 48 drops.

  Congratulations on figuring out I was cherry picking, I don't think the fact I was could have been more blindingly obvious. Should I bother pointing out that players like Dirk, Stockton, Malone and Barkley (among others) have literally double the minutes Manu has and have higher (and sometimes significantly higher) WS/48 than Russell? So either you think that these players are well better than Russell was or you'll come to the realization that those numbers aren't an absolute measure of a player's value or his impact on a game.

2. Actually, the fact that Ray shoots a higher percentage on threes while Rondo is in the game fits EXACTLY into Rondo's stats. Assists. Duh.

  You're missing the point. Say (just example numbers) Ray hits 50% of his threes on passes from Rondo and 25% of his threes on passes from Nate. Nate passes the ball to Ray 20 times and Ray makes 5 threes. Rondo makes 10 passes to Ray and Ray makes 5 threes. Rondo's passes got the Celts the same number of points on half the possessions. How do those extra points per possessions for those sequences fit into Rondo's numbers?

  Different scenario. Rondo directs people around on offense and dribbles around enough to create a mismatch for KG. He swings the ball over to Ray, who makes the entry pass. KG gets an easy basket. Ray gets an assist. Rondo was largely responsible for the play. How does that fit EXACTLY into Rondo's stats?