The Rondo Mystery

[LarBrd33]

things have a way of evening out.  He played RIDICULOUSLY well early in the Bulls series.   That was out of character.   Can't last.

[BballTim]

Atrocious decisions the past three games?  Again, I reiterate: Game 6: 19 assists ZERO turnovers.  If that's "atrocious" then your standards for a PG are MUCH higher than mine.  I'll give you last night because he was pretty awful most of the night with his decision making.  But Game 6?  Come on.

In that game, he also picked up a terrible flagrant foul that gave Chicago two shots and the ball, and very possibly could have got him ejected and/or suspended.  Of course, since we lost by one point in triple overtime, the fact that Hinrich hit one of his FTs also cost us big. 

Rondo also made a terrible decision on the final play, looking tentative on his drive before settling for a weak turnaround jumper against a bigger player, who predictably swatted the ball away.

Those are two atrocious decisions.  But, by all means, cite to the box score again.  Stats are everything.  I don't care about winning or losing, just keep giving me those triple doubles.

  Chicago had the ball when he fouled Hinrich. Hinrich hit one of his two foul shots but we hit the technical on Hinrich so that play cost us nothing. Rondo didn't get a good shot at the end of the game, but 3 starters had fouled out so he didn't have a ton of options.

[Rida]

Rondo killed me last night with his poor decision making all night.

His job as the ppoint guard is simple, get your guys the looks they want.

His decision making was awful all night apart from the 3rd quarter when he was actually key in the run that brought us back by continually taking the ball to the hole and getting them in foul trouble.

In the 4th he was giving the ball to scal and perk instead of trying to get Ray or Pierce going.

I'm willing to give Rondo a pass because of the ridiculous series he had against the Bulls and because I know he is capable of playing better.

That one play in the 4th where he spun and then passed the ball off Ray's foot summued up his night. He just made poor decisions all night

[Roy Hobbs]

Atrocious decisions the past three games?  Again, I reiterate: Game 6: 19 assists ZERO turnovers.  If that's "atrocious" then your standards for a PG are MUCH higher than mine.  I'll give you last night because he was pretty awful most of the night with his decision making.  But Game 6?  Come on.

In that game, he also picked up a terrible flagrant foul that gave Chicago two shots and the ball, and very possibly could have got him ejected and/or suspended.  Of course, since we lost by one point in triple overtime, the fact that Hinrich hit one of his FTs also cost us big. 

Rondo also made a terrible decision on the final play, looking tentative on his drive before settling for a weak turnaround jumper against a bigger player, who predictably swatted the ball away.

Those are two atrocious decisions.  But, by all means, cite to the box score again.  Stats are everything.  I don't care about winning or losing, just keep giving me those triple doubles.

  Chicago had the ball when he fouled Hinrich. Hinrich hit one of his two foul shots but we hit the technical on Hinrich so that play cost us nothing. Rondo didn't get a good shot at the end of the game, but 3 starters had fouled out so he didn't have a ton of options.

So, you think the altercation with Hinrich was a good decision?  Or, the shot -- even with three bench players on the floor -- was a good decision?  Because, that's what the question was.

[BballTim]

Atrocious decisions the past three games?  Again, I reiterate: Game 6: 19 assists ZERO turnovers.  If that's "atrocious" then your standards for a PG are MUCH higher than mine.  I'll give you last night because he was pretty awful most of the night with his decision making.  But Game 6?  Come on.

In that game, he also picked up a terrible flagrant foul that gave Chicago two shots and the ball, and very possibly could have got him ejected and/or suspended.  Of course, since we lost by one point in triple overtime, the fact that Hinrich hit one of his FTs also cost us big. 

Rondo also made a terrible decision on the final play, looking tentative on his drive before settling for a weak turnaround jumper against a bigger player, who predictably swatted the ball away.

Those are two atrocious decisions.  But, by all means, cite to the box score again.  Stats are everything.  I don't care about winning or losing, just keep giving me those triple doubles.

  Chicago had the ball when he fouled Hinrich. Hinrich hit one of his two foul shots but we hit the technical on Hinrich so that play cost us nothing. Rondo didn't get a good shot at the end of the game, but 3 starters had fouled out so he didn't have a ton of options.

So, you think the altercation with Hinrich was a good decision?  Or, the shot -- even with three bench players on the floor -- was a good decision?  Because, that's what the question was.

  Things like that altercation happen in the playoffs all the time, and the Bulls were going after Rondo. I don't think it was a great decision, but I wouldn't call it atrocious, or try and paint it into a game-costing play. And what was the great decision on that last play that Rondo overlooked? Were Ray or Eddie wide open calling for the ball?

[Roy Hobbs]

...  And what was the great decision on that last play that Rondo overlooked? Were Ray or Eddie wide open calling for the ball?

As a matter of fact, yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQljcjRIHk

Look at Eddie, in particular.  Scal and Starbury were also open at the time of the shot, and there were still 8 seconds left.  But to directly answer your question, yes, Eddie was *wide* open, and was aggressively calling for the ball.

[BballTim]

...  And what was the great decision on that last play that Rondo overlooked? Were Ray or Eddie wide open calling for the ball?

As a matter of fact, yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQljcjRIHk

Look at Eddie, in particular.  Scal and Starbury were also open at the time of the shot, and there were still 8 seconds left.  But to directly answer your question, yes, Eddie was *wide* open, and was aggressively calling for the ball.

  He wasn't "wide" open when Rondo drove to the basket, Noah was only about 2 steps away from him. When he came back out and was going into his shooting motion Eddie was kind of open but there was someone in the passing lane. Could he have gotten the ball to Eddie? probably, but it would have been a great play on Rondo's part. Would Eddie have gotten the shot off? Who knows, he'd been passing up shot like that the whole series. Was it an atrocious decision by someone who'd been playing for 58 minutes? Hardly.

[Roy Hobbs]

...  And what was the great decision on that last play that Rondo overlooked? Were Ray or Eddie wide open calling for the ball?

As a matter of fact, yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQljcjRIHk

Look at Eddie, in particular.  Scal and Starbury were also open at the time of the shot, and there were still 8 seconds left.  But to directly answer your question, yes, Eddie was *wide* open, and was aggressively calling for the ball.

  He wasn't "wide" open when Rondo drove to the basket, Noah was only about 2 steps away from him. When he came back out and was going into his shooting motion Eddie was kind of open but there was someone in the passing lane. Could he have gotten the ball to Eddie? probably, but it would have been a great play on Rondo's part. Would Eddie have gotten the shot off? Who knows, he'd been passing up shot like that the whole series. Was it an atrocious decision by someone who'd been playing for 58 minutes? Hardly.

See it how you want to.  There were between 8 and 9 seconds left when he took that shot.  If he couldn't have gotten the ball to Eddie directly, he easily could have gotten it to Scal, who would have swung it to Eddie.

First, it was that neither Ray nor Eddie was open and/or calling for the ball.  Now, it's that Eddie may have been open, but Rondo may have not been able to get him the ball, and/or Eddie may have passed up the shot (despite aggressively calling for the ball).

There's no use arguing with anybody who thinks that Rondo taking a turnaround jumper against a bigger player with 8 seconds left on the clock was a better decision than having Eddie House shoot a wide open jumper.  We'll have to agree to disagree. 

Or, maybe I should just concede that Rondo has never made a mistake that can't be easily explained away, especially not in Game 6.  The flagrant foul and blocked shots were both wise basketball plays; the Celts simply got unlucky.  Or, better yet, it wasn't bad luck, it was a conspiracy by the referees to force a Game 7. 

I wish I could see the world like that, I really do.  It would probably make my day-to-day life a little less stressful.

[vinnie]

 It's amazing how quickly people on this board can turn on a player. He's a punk, a thug, a poor decision maker. Where are all of the threads about the other players who played equally badly? Paul Pierce? Ray Allen? People don't want to give Rondo any credit for getting us back into the game. Do Paul and Ray get credit for the runs they started? I'm sorry, but that didn't happen. After all the threads attacking Doc and Rondo for not having Ray take the last shot the other night, the offense withered and died with Rajon and Paul on the bench and Ray "carrying" the load. And how much did we improve our chances when Paul got that 3rd foul? He comes back in the game with the Magic on a run and the offense struggling greatly and lasts exactly 13 seconds. Rondo played poorly, but you can only lay so much at his feet.

You don't think Paul and Ray get criticized on this blog?  After Game 1 of the Bulls series, Ray was eviscerated.  Paul was criticized all series long by some for appearing disinterested; his clutchness and heart were questioned.  It's not like people are going out of their way to pick on Rondo; every player on the team gets criticized on here.

The current criticism of Rondo is mostly directed at figuring out what's wrong with him.  He went from playing smart, superstar level basketball for five games, to shooting terribly and making atrocious decisions in the past three games.  That type of dichotomy is going to get people interested in what's going on.

To me, Rondo hasn't looked at all like the same player in the last three games.  He's turnover prone, he's making stupid decisions, and he's shooting 21%.  What happened?  Is it physical?  Mental?  Just a slump?  Is the pressure getting to him?  Is he buying into his hype?  Those, to me, are all valid questions to be explored.

(By the way, I stand by my statement that Rondo *acted like* a punk when he threw Hinrich down and then threw his elbow up.  While he may not be a punk normally, that was certainly a punk move, which could have -- and luckily didn't -- cost this team dearly.)

Atrocious decisions the past three games?  Again, I reiterate: Game 6: 19 assists ZERO turnovers.  If that's "atrocious" then your standards for a PG are MUCH higher than mine.  I'll give you last night because he was pretty awful most of the night with his decision making.  But Game 6?  Come on.

About half of those assists were easy passes to Ray who was on fire. Rondo has played one bad and two mediocre games in the last three. He simply is not the same player right now and there must be a reason.

[BballTim]

...  And what was the great decision on that last play that Rondo overlooked? Were Ray or Eddie wide open calling for the ball?

As a matter of fact, yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQljcjRIHk

Look at Eddie, in particular.  Scal and Starbury were also open at the time of the shot, and there were still 8 seconds left.  But to directly answer your question, yes, Eddie was *wide* open, and was aggressively calling for the ball.

  He wasn't "wide" open when Rondo drove to the basket, Noah was only about 2 steps away from him. When he came back out and was going into his shooting motion Eddie was kind of open but there was someone in the passing lane. Could he have gotten the ball to Eddie? probably, but it would have been a great play on Rondo's part. Would Eddie have gotten the shot off? Who knows, he'd been passing up shot like that the whole series. Was it an atrocious decision by someone who'd been playing for 58 minutes? Hardly.

See it how you want to.  There were between 8 and 9 seconds left when he took that shot.  If he couldn't have gotten the ball to Eddie directly, he easily could have gotten it to Scal, who would have swung it to Eddie.

First, it was that neither Ray nor Eddie was open and/or calling for the ball.  Now, it's that Eddie may have been open, but Rondo may have not been able to get him the ball, and/or Eddie may have passed up the shot (despite aggressively calling for the ball).

There's no use arguing with anybody who thinks that Rondo taking a turnaround jumper against a bigger player with 8 seconds left on the clock was a better decision than having Eddie House shoot a wide open jumper.  We'll have to agree to disagree. 

Or, maybe I should just concede that Rondo has never made a mistake that can't be easily explained away, especially not in Game 6.  The flagrant foul and blocked shots were both wise basketball plays; the Celts simply got unlucky.  Or, better yet, it wasn't bad luck, it was a conspiracy by the referees to force a Game 7. 

I wish I could see the world like that, I really do.  It would probably make my day-to-day life a little less stressful.

  Well, either Rondo never makes a mistake or he gets blamed for everything that goes wrong when TA's not in the game or it's something in between. I'd say it's likely that the play Doc called was for Rondo to drive on Rose. That would explain why everyone was standing on the perimeter instead of running through screens trying to get open. I'd say it was a mistake for Scal and Eddie to be standing so close to each other when Rondo was driving to the other side of the basket because it allowed one man to watch them both. Of course, we can ignore this since it goes against the "we lost because of Rondo's atrocious decision making" theory.

  Clearly Rondo hasn't been playing as well over the last 3 games. Why is anybody's guess. I just don't think it's a case of everyone else playing well and Rondo screwing up. If you think Paul and Ray are getting as much blame as Rondo when we lose we'll have to agree to disagree (although I was on vacation for game 1 of the Bulls series and I'm not disputing your claim that Ray was roundly criticized after that game.

[LarBrd33]

Rondo is a fantastic player.  We wouldn't have won the Bulls series unless he had played out of his mind and carried us for most of the series.  That's the bottom line.  But he's still the same player he was in the regular season.  A good young player with flaws.

[Scalablob990]

I know Rondo is extremely arrogant in the way he plays (I can relate a bit..) but when he has games like these, i'd bench his sorry behind for a few minutes extra and tell him when he wants to play like a champ, he can go back out. I would have been perfectly fine to let Marbury rack up the minutes and do the PG work while Rondo sat and got his head together.

I agree about the arrogance. He was a cancer in his rookie season, but has matured. Confidence is important though in the NBA.

At the end of the game, he lost 2 going to the hole that looked so lackadaisical.

Nonono I think you misunderstand, his arrogance isn't a negative at all, but if you want to p--- some1 who's arrogant off, he should bench his ass when he's having a bad game. If doc ever tried that I wouldn't be surprised to see Rondo put up 20/10/10 next time he comes in.

[guava_wrench]

I know Rondo is extremely arrogant in the way he plays (I can relate a bit..) but when he has games like these, i'd bench his sorry behind for a few minutes extra and tell him when he wants to play like a champ, he can go back out. I would have been perfectly fine to let Marbury rack up the minutes and do the PG work while Rondo sat and got his head together.

I agree about the arrogance. He was a cancer in his rookie season, but has matured. Confidence is important though in the NBA.

At the end of the game, he lost 2 going to the hole that looked so lackadaisical.

Nonono I think you misunderstand, his arrogance isn't a negative at all, but if you want to **** some1 who's arrogant off, he should bench his ass when he's having a bad game. If doc ever tried that I wouldn't be surprised to see Rondo put up 20/10/10 next time he comes in.

His arrogance is a problem at times. It leads to stubbornness that can be detrimental to the team.

Look at how we got killed with the no foul on Salmons that led to a three by Gordon. Why was there no foul when Doc told them in the huddle to foul? Acc to Doc, some players responded that there was no need to foul. Thinking you know everything leads to stuff like that.

We also have Rondo losing a few balls from being lackadaisical last night, as if he though he was toying with the opponent.

It is also public knowledge that Doc informed Rondo in his rookie season that the other players hated playing with him. This is part of why he didn't get the minutes that his skill level deserved back then.

I agree that his arrogance is a net positive, but you go way to far saying "his arrogance isn't a negative at all".

If Rondo gets benched, the next day he is probably just as likely to say to people close to him that Doc is an idiot as he is to say "I need to work harder and play smarter."

Despite this, Rondo is great and I love him on the team as he is.

[Scalablob990]

I know Rondo is extremely arrogant in the way he plays (I can relate a bit..) but when he has games like these, i'd bench his sorry behind for a few minutes extra and tell him when he wants to play like a champ, he can go back out. I would have been perfectly fine to let Marbury rack up the minutes and do the PG work while Rondo sat and got his head together.

I agree about the arrogance. He was a cancer in his rookie season, but has matured. Confidence is important though in the NBA.

At the end of the game, he lost 2 going to the hole that looked so lackadaisical.

Nonono I think you misunderstand, his arrogance isn't a negative at all, but if you want to **** some1 who's arrogant off, he should bench his ass when he's having a bad game. If doc ever tried that I wouldn't be surprised to see Rondo put up 20/10/10 next time he comes in.

His arrogance is a problem at times. It leads to stubbornness that can be detrimental to the team.

Look at how we got killed with the no foul on Salmons that led to a three by Gordon. Why was there no foul when Doc told them in the huddle to foul? Acc to Doc, some players responded that there was no need to foul. Thinking you know everything leads to stuff like that.

We also have Rondo losing a few balls from being lackadaisical last night, as if he though he was toying with the opponent.

It is also public knowledge that Doc informed Rondo in his rookie season that the other players hated playing with him. This is part of why he didn't get the minutes that his skill level deserved back then.

I agree that his arrogance is a net positive, but you go way to far saying "his arrogance isn't a negative at all".

If Rondo gets benched, the next day he is probably just as likely to say to people close to him that Doc is an idiot as he is to say "I need to work harder and play smarter."

Despite this, Rondo is great and I love him on the team as he is.

Hmm great points you made Gueva, TP.

[illantari]

He's had a few "regular season Rondo" games, so clearly he needs to be shipped out of here.  Start Marbury and use Gabe off the bench.  Who needs that inconsistent, arrogant, 23 yr old anyway?

Look, I'm sorry about the sarcasm.  I know he's had a few bad games.  But I didn't get down on Ray during the Cavs series last year or his 1-12 night v. the Bulls, I didn't get down on PP when he was turning the ball over and yes, dribbling between his legs into triple teams last series, and I'm not going to get down on Rajon now.  He'll be fine, eventually.  He'll sort out his mental/physical issues and go back to pwninating the countryside soon enough.