what does Rondo have to do this year to not be criticized?

[Celtics4ever]

The differences are small but any stats that imply we get more assists when Rondo plays are either inaccurate to the bottom line or some how misleading.

Yeah, we didn't miss him at all against the Knicks.   We were a way better team without him.   Get real.  We were knocked out without him in the first round.   He is a big time assist guy.   

We were a .500% team without Rondo at the end of the year and lost a series 4-2 without him.   I think with him we'd would have beat the Knicks.

[BballTim]

   This is an interesting subject. Rondo was well above the league average for point guards in fg% on his long 2s last year. You can argue that those are open shots (although if you spent a game just watching whether long 2s are taken by players who are open you'd be surprised by what you see). Is it a problem the defenders give him a little extra space when he has the ball? It would be if you could demonstrate that he has trouble finding people who are open or if you could demonstrate that his teammates have trouble scoring after he gets them the ball. Clearly neither of those are true.

  I'd kind of like to hear your explanation of why Rondo has the success that he does in the playoffs and how the coaches of the top-ranked defensive teams that we generally face frequently comment on how important it is to keep Rondo in check and how hard that is to do when you feel that limiting his effectiveness is a fairly trivial task. Are our playoff opponents just uninterested in beating us?
 

In terms of shooting, my impression of Rondo is similar to that which I had for Ben Wallace.  He had a career 0.474 shooting percentage but was not a good shooter.  4-time all star, champion, all-defense multiple times, lead the league in rebounding multiple times, but was not a good shooter (in fact he was terrible).  Rondo, also an all-star, champion, etc.; is not a good shooter either.  At least not by NBA standards.

  Rondo, while not closely guarded, hit about half of his long jump shots. Are you saying that you could stick Ben Wallace 8-10 feet from the basket, let him shoot unguarded, and have him hit close to half of those shots? If so, good luck selling that one. If not, it's a completely ridiculous comparison.

In terms of other coaches, it is important to contain Rondo.  He is a good player.  The game plan for containing him is now well known and easy to execute (Phil Jackson was the first to figure this out).  Just sag off him, fortify your defense against everyone else with Rondo's man, and take your chances if Rondo actually takes the wide open shots that are there for him.

  I could argue that the reason that defense worked in 2010 was because Rondo wasn't really that healthy at the time, but that's not the point. The point is you need to go back 4 seasons to come up with a successful example of your "simple change" being successful against Rondo. In your plan the defense sags off of Rondo, fortifies the defense against his teammates, and forces Rondo to shoot. This never happens.

  In order for the defense to be seen as successful, you'd have to be able to show that Rondo can't get passes to open players because the defense is "fortified" against that (obviously not the case, as he's the league leader in assists in the regular season and the playoffs over the last 3 years) or at least that, because of the defense, Rondo's teammates struggle to score after he passes them the ball (we've also seen that this isn't true). If you can't show a fair amount of examples more recent than 2010 of Rondo struggling to get assists or being unable to get his teammates good shots then it's an indication of how out of date that analysis is.


  If you just thought about it for a minute, Rondo would never be an all-star if it was simple to limit his effectiveness, and the Celts would never win a playoff series.

[Vermont Green]

The differences are small but any stats that imply we get more assists when Rondo plays are either inaccurate to the bottom line or some how misleading.

Yeah, we didn't miss him at all against the Knicks.   We were a way better team without him.   Get real.  We were knocked out without him in the first round.   He is a big time assist guy.   

We were a .500% team without Rondo at the end of the year and lost a series 4-2 without him.   I think with him we'd would have beat the Knicks.

Rondo is a very good player, of course he would have helped against the Knicks.  I am just saying that based on statistics from the last two seasons, the team does not get more assists when Rondo is playing.  He gets his but also sucks up some of the ball movement that would lead to other getting assists.

This all comes back to the question of what would it take for me to concede that Rondo is included in that elite group of Franchise NBA players.  I say he is not in that group now and the main reason is shooting.  That is very different from suggesting that the Celtics are better without him or that he is a bad player.

I really don't get the notion that saying anything critical of Rondo is hating.  Isn't there quite a bit of real estate between "Rondo is a Franchise Player" and "Rondo sucks"?  If I say I don't think Pau Gasol (just for example) is a franchise player, does that mean I think he sucks too or that the Lakers are better when he doesn't play?

For the record, we were playing well above 0.500 w/o Rondo until KG got hurt too.  Just saying.  Oops, I better be careful, there I go hating on Rondo again.

[Vermont Green]

  Rondo, while not closely guarded, hit about half of his long jump shots. Are you saying that you could stick Ben Wallace 8-10 feet from the basket, let him shoot unguarded, and have him hit close to half of those shots? If so, good luck selling that one. If not, it's a completely ridiculous comparison.

  If you just thought about it for a minute, Rondo would never be an all-star if it was simple to limit his effectiveness, and the Celts would never win a playoff series.

For the record, I said that Wallace was a terrible shooter and that Rondo was not a good shooter.  Big difference.  In my opinion, Rondo would improve his game dramatically if he could shoot good to very good as compared to other NBA guards.

In terms of All-Star, Rondo does a lot of good things on the court, shooting is just not one of them.

In terms of winning playoff games, I personally feel that Pierce and KG had more to do with playoff game wins than Rondo, Ray Allen, or anyone else on the team.  Rondo and Ray are close behind in the next tier of players, and then there is everyone else.

Rondo had some great playoff games but so didn't Jo Jo White and Dennis Johnson (for examaple).  Jo Jo and DJ were important players on champioship teams, just not the most important players on those teams.

[Vox_Populi]

Rondo had some great playoff games but so didn't Jo Jo White and Dennis Johnson (for examaple).  Jo Jo and DJ were important players on champioship teams, just not the most important players on those teams.

Comparing Rondo's influence, in any capacity, to Jo Jo and Johnson is borderline disturbing. In 2010 and 2012 postseasons, arguably in the former but definitively in the latter, he was regarded as the best player on the team. In 2012 especially, it was mostly just him and KG. 

[D.o.s.]

   This is an interesting subject. Rondo was well above the league average for point guards in fg% on his long 2s last year. You can argue that those are open shots (although if you spent a game just watching whether long 2s are taken by players who are open you'd be surprised by what you see). Is it a problem the defenders give him a little extra space when he has the ball? It would be if you could demonstrate that he has trouble finding people who are open or if you could demonstrate that his teammates have trouble scoring after he gets them the ball. Clearly neither of those are true.

  I'd kind of like to hear your explanation of why Rondo has the success that he does in the playoffs and how the coaches of the top-ranked defensive teams that we generally face frequently comment on how important it is to keep Rondo in check and how hard that is to do when you feel that limiting his effectiveness is a fairly trivial task. Are our playoff opponents just uninterested in beating us?
 

In terms of shooting, my impression of Rondo is similar to that which I had for Ben Wallace.  He had a career 0.474 shooting percentage but was not a good shooter.  4-time all star, champion, all-defense multiple times, lead the league in rebounding multiple times, but was not a good shooter (in fact he was terrible).  Rondo, also an all-star, champion, etc.; is not a good shooter either.  At least not by NBA standards.

In terms of other coaches, it is important to contain Rondo.  He is a good player.  The game plan for containing him is now well known and easy to execute (Phil Jackson was the first to figure this out).  Just sag off him, fortify your defense against everyone else with Rondo's man, and take your chances if Rondo actually takes the wide open shots that are there for him.

Rondo is not a good shooter but he also has a very slow release (I don't have a stat for that but is based on my judgment from watching the games).  The slow shot release is a big part of the problem because it gives his sagging defender time get back into him on shot attempts.

But your comparisons to Wallace seems just SO off the mark.

Wallace was a completely different type of player who took almost NO shots far away from the rim.  He took typically around 2/3 of his shots RIGHT AT the rim, and around 80% of all his shots were within 9 feet of the basket.   He barely took 5% of his shots outside of 15 feet.   This is something that was both visually obvious and measured in the stats.

Rondo, on the other hand, takes only about 30-40% of his shots 'at rim' and only about 50% within 9 feet of the basket.  He has taken about a third of his shots outside 15 feet.   Again, this is something that is measured in the stats AND should be pretty visually obvious.

To try to claim that Rondo's FG% is somehow inflated in the same way a player like Wallace (or Perkins, or other big men) is by taking a predominance of close-in shots seems like a bizarre stretch.

Especially since we can isolate on JUST Rondo's outside shots and see that, in fact, he shot very well from outside 15 feet.

Those aren't tear-drops, lay-ins and flip shots from out there.  Those are jump shots.

And Rondo completes those jump shots at an above-average rate.  You can try to claim that he's 'only' making them because defenses are sagging off him (can you prove just how _often_ they are actually doing so?) but that's irrelevant.  If defenses are giving him that shot he _should_ take it.  And he made that shot at a rate last season (48%) that will win games if you did nothing but take that shot.

In other words, if that was the strategy Defenses were employing -- IT DIDN"T WORK!

Trying to compare Rondo's shooting to that of Ben Wallace just because their aggregate FG% is similar strains credibility and looks like a deliberate attempt to (incorrectly) associate him with someone who was visibly and measurably not a good shooter.

There is almost _nothing_ similar in their shooting.

His jump shot has improved from three years ago, but there's evidence that sagging off of Rondo and letting him take the shot is a great way to win a basketball game.

Example A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC5dWYn04F8

I stopped watching during the camera pan that showed Perkins in street clothes ...

Yes, putting a team's starting center on the bench is, indeed, a great way to win a basketball game.

Because Perkins clearly had so much to do with how the Lakers guarded Rondo in that series.

[mmmmm]

  Rondo, while not closely guarded, hit about half of his long jump shots. Are you saying that you could stick Ben Wallace 8-10 feet from the basket, let him shoot unguarded, and have him hit close to half of those shots? If so, good luck selling that one. If not, it's a completely ridiculous comparison.

  If you just thought about it for a minute, Rondo would never be an all-star if it was simple to limit his effectiveness, and the Celts would never win a playoff series.

For the record, I said that Wallace was a terrible shooter and that Rondo was not a good shooter.  Big difference.  In my opinion, Rondo would improve his game dramatically if he could shoot good to very good as compared to other NBA guards.

In terms of All-Star, Rondo does a lot of good things on the court, shooting is just not one of them.

In terms of winning playoff games, I personally feel that Pierce and KG had more to do with playoff game wins than Rondo, Ray Allen, or anyone else on the team.  Rondo and Ray are close behind in the next tier of players, and then there is everyone else.

Rondo had some great playoff games but so didn't Jo Jo White and Dennis Johnson (for examaple).  Jo Jo and DJ were important players on champioship teams, just not the most important players on those teams.

All you do is move goal posts around to suite your argument.   You seem to have your own definition of what constitutes 'shooting' skill that seems to conveniently morph at every turn.

Whatever.   If you want to compare Rondo to Dennis Johnson, that's fine with me.  DJ was a fantastic, brilliant player, with three rings and a Hall of Fame career.   

Interestingly, like Rondo, DJ also took relatively few 3PT shots in his career.   He probably could have developed that shot to at least average - but he preferred to dish to guys like Freddy Brown and Larry Bird  who were among the greatest outside shooters of his era.   Did that mean DJ was not a good 'shooter'?

I grew up watching DJ play from his rookie season with the Sonics, through his time at Phoenix and his final years at Boston.   And imho, DJ was a fine shooter.  He didn't shoot the 3PT shot, and he didn't go at the rim much in his later years (man, could he dunk as a rookie, though!), so his FG% numbers were modest.   But he was a solid mid-range shooter with excellent form.   He sunk FTs at close to an 80% clip.

And like Rondo, DJ was just plain a brilliant basketball player.

If that's the company you want to put Rondo in, fine with me.

[mmmmm]

   This is an interesting subject. Rondo was well above the league average for point guards in fg% on his long 2s last year. You can argue that those are open shots (although if you spent a game just watching whether long 2s are taken by players who are open you'd be surprised by what you see). Is it a problem the defenders give him a little extra space when he has the ball? It would be if you could demonstrate that he has trouble finding people who are open or if you could demonstrate that his teammates have trouble scoring after he gets them the ball. Clearly neither of those are true.

  I'd kind of like to hear your explanation of why Rondo has the success that he does in the playoffs and how the coaches of the top-ranked defensive teams that we generally face frequently comment on how important it is to keep Rondo in check and how hard that is to do when you feel that limiting his effectiveness is a fairly trivial task. Are our playoff opponents just uninterested in beating us?
 

In terms of shooting, my impression of Rondo is similar to that which I had for Ben Wallace.  He had a career 0.474 shooting percentage but was not a good shooter.  4-time all star, champion, all-defense multiple times, lead the league in rebounding multiple times, but was not a good shooter (in fact he was terrible).  Rondo, also an all-star, champion, etc.; is not a good shooter either.  At least not by NBA standards.

In terms of other coaches, it is important to contain Rondo.  He is a good player.  The game plan for containing him is now well known and easy to execute (Phil Jackson was the first to figure this out).  Just sag off him, fortify your defense against everyone else with Rondo's man, and take your chances if Rondo actually takes the wide open shots that are there for him.

Rondo is not a good shooter but he also has a very slow release (I don't have a stat for that but is based on my judgment from watching the games).  The slow shot release is a big part of the problem because it gives his sagging defender time get back into him on shot attempts.

But your comparisons to Wallace seems just SO off the mark.

Wallace was a completely different type of player who took almost NO shots far away from the rim.  He took typically around 2/3 of his shots RIGHT AT the rim, and around 80% of all his shots were within 9 feet of the basket.   He barely took 5% of his shots outside of 15 feet.   This is something that was both visually obvious and measured in the stats.

Rondo, on the other hand, takes only about 30-40% of his shots 'at rim' and only about 50% within 9 feet of the basket.  He has taken about a third of his shots outside 15 feet.   Again, this is something that is measured in the stats AND should be pretty visually obvious.

To try to claim that Rondo's FG% is somehow inflated in the same way a player like Wallace (or Perkins, or other big men) is by taking a predominance of close-in shots seems like a bizarre stretch.

Especially since we can isolate on JUST Rondo's outside shots and see that, in fact, he shot very well from outside 15 feet.

Those aren't tear-drops, lay-ins and flip shots from out there.  Those are jump shots.

And Rondo completes those jump shots at an above-average rate.  You can try to claim that he's 'only' making them because defenses are sagging off him (can you prove just how _often_ they are actually doing so?) but that's irrelevant.  If defenses are giving him that shot he _should_ take it.  And he made that shot at a rate last season (48%) that will win games if you did nothing but take that shot.

In other words, if that was the strategy Defenses were employing -- IT DIDN"T WORK!

Trying to compare Rondo's shooting to that of Ben Wallace just because their aggregate FG% is similar strains credibility and looks like a deliberate attempt to (incorrectly) associate him with someone who was visibly and measurably not a good shooter.

There is almost _nothing_ similar in their shooting.

His jump shot has improved from three years ago, but there's evidence that sagging off of Rondo and letting him take the shot is a great way to win a basketball game.

Example A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC5dWYn04F8

I stopped watching during the camera pan that showed Perkins in street clothes ...

Yes, putting a team's starting center on the bench is, indeed, a great way to win a basketball game.

Because Perkins clearly had so much to do with how the Lakers guarded Rondo in that series.

Because Perkins' absence (and the subsequent tightened big man rotation that lead to both exhaustion and too few fouls to give for the Celtics) had far more to do with why the Celtics lost that series than how the Lakers guarded Rondo.