Interesting article on Celtics offense last year.

[ianboyextreme]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1330510-boston-celtics-why-dont-rajon-rondo-and-the-cs-have-an-elite-offense

All this stuff has been discussed to some extent on here before, but the author gives us a single stat that proves Rondo is the only reason we werent dead last in team offense last year (which is a popular theory among Rondo doubters)- we were 7.2 points better when Rondo was on the floor. That is the biggest offensive impact of anybody on the team As it should be, he is our point guard.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Considering that the alternative to him were having two players who were poor ball-handlers, and couldn't run the offense in any fashion (Dooling and Bradley), I'd say this is not much of a distinction to make.

[Roy H.]

He got the numbers wrong, I think.  The Celts were +5.7 (per 100 possessions) when Rondo was on the floor.  The offense was +7.9.  I think the +7.2 he cited was PER differential (a less relevant stat in my mind).

The Celts were actually +11.3 per 100 possessions with KG on the floor, and +9.6 points on offense, so if you value that stat, KG might be your man.

This is a microcosm of why people don't respect Bleacher Report:

The numbers show Rondo's importance: the Celtics offense was 7.2 points better when Rondo was on the court (via 82games.com). That's the greatest positive impact of anyone on the team.

Two sentences, two incorrect "facts".

[ianboyextreme]

Considering that the alternative to him were having two players who were poor ball-handlers, and couldn't run the offense in any fashion (Dooling and Bradley), I'd say this is not much of a distinction to make.

90% of teams in the nba dont even have a player who can run an offense, nevermind a backup who can.

[ianboyextreme]

He got the numbers wrong, I think.  The Celts were +5.7 (per 100 possessions) when Rondo was on the floor.  The offense was +7.9.  I think the +7.2 he cited was PER differential (a less relevant stat in my mind).

The Celts were actually +11.3 per 100 possessions with KG on the floor, and +9.6 points on offense, so if you value that stat, KG might be your man.

This is a microcosm of why people don't respect Bleacher Report:

The numbers show Rondo's importance: the Celtics offense was 7.2 points better when Rondo was on the court (via 82games.com). That's the greatest positive impact of anyone on the team.

Two sentences, two incorrect "facts".

Im confused on how your separating offensive stats from over all stats. Like how is there +11 and +7.9 when KG is on the floor? Im not disputing the numbers I just dont understand them.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Considering that the alternative to him were having two players who were poor ball-handlers, and couldn't run the offense in any fashion (Dooling and Bradley), I'd say this is not much of a distinction to make.

90% of teams in the nba dont even have a player who can run an offense, nevermind a backup who can.

You were drawing comparisons to players within the same team and their impact, which is directly correlated to their subs.

[Roy H.]

He got the numbers wrong, I think.  The Celts were +5.7 (per 100 possessions) when Rondo was on the floor.  The offense was +7.9.  I think the +7.2 he cited was PER differential (a less relevant stat in my mind).

The Celts were actually +11.3 per 100 possessions with KG on the floor, and +9.6 points on offense, so if you value that stat, KG might be your man.

This is a microcosm of why people don't respect Bleacher Report:

The numbers show Rondo's importance: the Celtics offense was 7.2 points better when Rondo was on the court (via 82games.com). That's the greatest positive impact of anyone on the team.

Two sentences, two incorrect "facts".

Im confused on how your separating offensive stats from over all stats. Like how is there +11 and +7.9 when KG is on the floor? Im not disputing the numbers I just dont understand them.

See here:  http://www.82games.com/1112/11BOS13.HTM#onoff

There are three numbers:  a player's "offensive" differential, a player's "defensive" differential, and a net number.

So, let's say a player makes his team 10 points better on offense, but they also make their team 10 points worse on defense.  That means their net differential is zero.

In KG's case, the team is +9.6 when he's playing offense.  They're also 1.6 points better on defense.  Overall, that means they're +11.3 points better overall (the numbers must have rounded up).

[ianboyextreme]

Considering that the alternative to him were having two players who were poor ball-handlers, and couldn't run the offense in any fashion (Dooling and Bradley), I'd say this is not much of a distinction to make.

90% of teams in the nba dont even have a player who can run an offense, nevermind a backup who can.

You were drawing comparisons to players within the same team and their impact, which is directly correlated to their subs.

Actually I wasnt, I was simply showing that Rondo has a positive impact on the offense because some blame Rondo for our poor offensive output last year. I wasnt comparing him to anybody, only his presence vs absence.

[ianboyextreme]

He got the numbers wrong, I think.  The Celts were +5.7 (per 100 possessions) when Rondo was on the floor.  The offense was +7.9.  I think the +7.2 he cited was PER differential (a less relevant stat in my mind).

The Celts were actually +11.3 per 100 possessions with KG on the floor, and +9.6 points on offense, so if you value that stat, KG might be your man.

This is a microcosm of why people don't respect Bleacher Report:

The numbers show Rondo's importance: the Celtics offense was 7.2 points better when Rondo was on the court (via 82games.com). That's the greatest positive impact of anyone on the team.

Two sentences, two incorrect "facts".

Im confused on how your separating offensive stats from over all stats. Like how is there +11 and +7.9 when KG is on the floor? Im not disputing the numbers I just dont understand them.

See here:  http://www.82games.com/1112/11BOS13.HTM#onoff

There are three numbers:  a player's "offensive" differential, a player's "defensive" differential, and a net number.

So, let's say a player makes his team 10 points better on offense, but they also make their team 10 points worse on defense.  That means their net differential is zero.

In KG's case, the team is +9.6 when he's playing offense.  They're also 1.6 points better on defense.  Overall, that means they're +11.3 points better overall (the numbers must have rounded up).

Ok I understand, but the point still stands that Rondo has a positive impact on the offense (this is common sense but for those that claim that Rondo was the source of our offensive inefficiency, this is proof to the contrary).

[ianboyextreme]

On a similar note, after looking at some other plus/minus numbers from 82 games, its pretty astonishing the impact Avery Bradley had on our defense. We were 4.4 pts better on the defensive end with him on the floor. Thats substantially more than even KG's impact on the defensive end, statistically speaking. Clearly KG is a quarterback on defense which numbers cant show. But for all those who keep bringing him up in trade rumors, just take a look at that number.

[ianboyextreme]

Another interesting number is that the Sun's were plus 7.7 with Steve Nash on the floor last year. We were +7.9 with Rondo on the floor. This is important because Nash is widely regarded as  the maestro of an efficient offense and rightfully so, but that also shows Rondo's impact on our offense

[BudweiserCeltic]

Considering that the alternative to him were having two players who were poor ball-handlers, and couldn't run the offense in any fashion (Dooling and Bradley), I'd say this is not much of a distinction to make.

90% of teams in the nba dont even have a player who can run an offense, nevermind a backup who can.

You were drawing comparisons to players within the same team and their impact, which is directly correlated to their subs.

Actually I wasnt, I was simply showing that Rondo has a positive impact on the offense because some blame Rondo for our poor offensive output last year. I wasnt comparing him to anybody, only his presence vs absence.

Well you claimed it was the "biggest offensive impact on the team", so yes, it's a comparison to the impact of his teammates. And once again, this is a measure that directly correlates to who is subbing for Rondo when he goes out and takes upon his responsibilities. It's not the sole factor, but an important factor.

When Pierce came off the floor, you still had Ray Allen on the floor with Pietrus for example. When Ray Allen came off the floor, Bradley came in which high success in his SG role (while a poor success in the PG role when Rondo came off). So it all matters.

It's for this very same reason that part of KG's influence on the floor in a +/- analysis had him scoring on a high mark because there wasn't much of a substitute for him for much of the year.

As it relates to this year, I think the biggest impact we'll see is still KG's even though we've strengthened our big man rotation. I don't think Rondo will score as high this year with guys like Jason Terry and Barbosa ready to fill his role as needed.

[ianboyextreme]

Considering that the alternative to him were having two players who were poor ball-handlers, and couldn't run the offense in any fashion (Dooling and Bradley), I'd say this is not much of a distinction to make.

90% of teams in the nba dont even have a player who can run an offense, nevermind a backup who can.

You were drawing comparisons to players within the same team and their impact, which is directly correlated to their subs.

Actually I wasnt, I was simply showing that Rondo has a positive impact on the offense because some blame Rondo for our poor offensive output last year. I wasnt comparing him to anybody, only his presence vs absence.

Well you claimed it was the "biggest offensive impact on the team", so yes, it's a comparison to the impact of his teammates. And once again, this is a measure that directly correlates to who is subbing for Rondo when he goes out and takes upon his responsibilities. It's not the sole factor, but an important factor.

When Pierce came off the floor, you still had Ray Allen on the floor with Pietrus for example. When Ray Allen came off the floor, Bradley came in which high success in his SG role (while a poor success in the PG role when Rondo came off). So it all matters.

It's for this very same reason that part of KG's influence on the floor in a +/- analysis had him scoring on a high mark because there wasn't much of a substitute for him for much of the year.

As it relates to this year, I think the biggest impact we'll see is still KG's even though we've strengthened our big man rotation. I don't think Rondo will score as high this year with guys like Jason Terry and Barbosa ready to fill his role as needed.

Ok, I understand what your saying now. If your backup isnt very good, it makes you look that much better.
Conversely, though, Rondo could be so effective, that he still maintains a high score. Still, though, Westbrook did not have a very competent backup the whole year, and still only posted a +2.7, so it definitely has some merit in showing the impact of a player on their team.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Considering that the alternative to him were having two players who were poor ball-handlers, and couldn't run the offense in any fashion (Dooling and Bradley), I'd say this is not much of a distinction to make.

90% of teams in the nba dont even have a player who can run an offense, nevermind a backup who can.

You were drawing comparisons to players within the same team and their impact, which is directly correlated to their subs.

Actually I wasnt, I was simply showing that Rondo has a positive impact on the offense because some blame Rondo for our poor offensive output last year. I wasnt comparing him to anybody, only his presence vs absence.

Well you claimed it was the "biggest offensive impact on the team", so yes, it's a comparison to the impact of his teammates. And once again, this is a measure that directly correlates to who is subbing for Rondo when he goes out and takes upon his responsibilities. It's not the sole factor, but an important factor.

When Pierce came off the floor, you still had Ray Allen on the floor with Pietrus for example. When Ray Allen came off the floor, Bradley came in which high success in his SG role (while a poor success in the PG role when Rondo came off). So it all matters.

It's for this very same reason that part of KG's influence on the floor in a +/- analysis had him scoring on a high mark because there wasn't much of a substitute for him for much of the year.

As it relates to this year, I think the biggest impact we'll see is still KG's even though we've strengthened our big man rotation. I don't think Rondo will score as high this year with guys like Jason Terry and Barbosa ready to fill his role as needed.

Ok, I understand what your saying now. If your backup isnt very good, it makes you look that much better.
Conversely, though, Rondo could be so effective, that he still maintains a high score. Still, though, Westbrook did not have a very competent backup the whole year, and still only posted a +2.7, so it definitely has some merit in showing the impact of a player on their team.

Oh, I agree. Just saying that context matters. As for Westbrook, well they also had this guy called Kevin Durant. And more importantly, someone who you might recall was the 6th man of the year called James Harden... so, not as simple as it looks.

[ianboyextreme]

Considering that the alternative to him were having two players who were poor ball-handlers, and couldn't run the offense in any fashion (Dooling and Bradley), I'd say this is not much of a distinction to make.

90% of teams in the nba dont even have a player who can run an offense, nevermind a backup who can.

You were drawing comparisons to players within the same team and their impact, which is directly correlated to their subs.

Actually I wasnt, I was simply showing that Rondo has a positive impact on the offense because some blame Rondo for our poor offensive output last year. I wasnt comparing him to anybody, only his presence vs absence.

Well you claimed it was the "biggest offensive impact on the team", so yes, it's a comparison to the impact of his teammates. And once again, this is a measure that directly correlates to who is subbing for Rondo when he goes out and takes upon his responsibilities. It's not the sole factor, but an important factor.

When Pierce came off the floor, you still had Ray Allen on the floor with Pietrus for example. When Ray Allen came off the floor, Bradley came in which high success in his SG role (while a poor success in the PG role when Rondo came off). So it all matters.

It's for this very same reason that part of KG's influence on the floor in a +/- analysis had him scoring on a high mark because there wasn't much of a substitute for him for much of the year.

As it relates to this year, I think the biggest impact we'll see is still KG's even though we've strengthened our big man rotation. I don't think Rondo will score as high this year with guys like Jason Terry and Barbosa ready to fill his role as needed.

Ok, I understand what your saying now. If your backup isnt very good, it makes you look that much better.
Conversely, though, Rondo could be so effective, that he still maintains a high score. Still, though, Westbrook did not have a very competent backup the whole year, and still only posted a +2.7, so it definitely has some merit in showing the impact of a player on their team.

Oh, I agree. Just saying that context matters. As for Westbrook, well they also had this guy called Kevin Durant. And more importantly, someone who you might recall was the 6th man of the year called James Harden... so, not as simple as it looks.

Right, I was just about to say, it doesnt really matter who the backup is just as long as someone picks up the slack when the player sits down. I guess its not a GREAT gague for teams with a talented bench or multiple offensive options, but its interesting to look at regardless. The eyes are the original test and I definitely think they are still the best test.