This is why I can't stand Rajon Rondo

[pengaloo]

I would guess that Rondo's work ethic issues are related to his stubbornness and pride.  Deep down, he thinks he's really good, and that he's really not doing much wrong on the court.  Thankfully, he has shown the capability of being humbled.

The stubbornness, to me, has the potential to be a major problem.  I remember reading this quote and cringing:

Rondo is often compared with Tony Parker, another late-first-round pick, who guided the San Antonio Spurs to the 2003 championship even though he lacked a reliable jumper. Whereas Parker overhauled his technique and has developed into a long-range marksman, Rondo intends to change nothing.

"I'm set in my ways," says Rondo, who believes his accuracy will improve with practice. "I don't feel like I have to settle for a jump shot, because I can get to the basket at will."

If there's a better way -- which will help Rondo's game, and in turn the team -- I'd rather he explore it, rather than reject it out of hand.  Rondo is absolutely wrong that he doesn't need a jump shot to be successful, or at least to maximize his success.

Now, he's apparently been practicing his jump shot this off-season  We'll see how he does next season.  If he's knocking down jumpers at a consistent rate, beautiful.  If he's still struggling because he was mule-headed and refused to change, then I think that will continue to hold him back.

You can tell he is learning though.

What Rajon said about being set in his ways was from an SI article dated March 2, 2009. He then sprained his right ankle during the Cleveland game on March 6. He sat out games on March 8 and 11 to recover. He turns his ankle again on March 17th against Chicago. He then sprains his left ankle on March 25 against Orlando after Dwight Howard lands on his foot.

On March 30, he offers this advice to Russell Westbrook in an Oklahoma newspaper:

"He shows the quickness that will allow him to lock up pretty much anybody if he stays with it, stays in the weight room and stays humble,” Rondo said. "But it’s really just determination. That’s what separates a lot of the great defenders from the regular defenders.”

Rondo advises Westbrook to continue working on his offensive repertoire rather than relying on his God-given quickness to get him what he wants on the court. A mid-range game, Rondo said, will be the most important aspect Westbrook could add. Rondo praised Westbrook’s effort in Sunday’s game.

"Just work on floaters. Work on the in-between game,” Rondo said. "There’s going to come a point in time where he can’t always go to the rack. He’s going to have to stop and have an in-between game.”

http://newsok.com/celtics-rajon-rondo-offers-up-advice-on-russell-westbrook/article/3357477

[cordobes]

I really am shocked that there are any questions about Rondo's work ethic. Sure he is stubborn and is probably not a nice guy to hang with. But work ethic? Where did this critique come from? He has a reputation of having a great work ethic.

You haven't been paying a lot of attention, have you? Arriving late to two playoff games where he eventually ends up performing poorly, Tommy's remarks about lackadaisically blowing lay-ups in shoot-arounds, the self-admission of not working properly and consistently his jump-shot till some kind of bet with Garnett this season already, the lazy defense he plays at times during games, etc.

[cordobes]

I heard Doc say on more than one occasion that he wasn't talking about a lack of effort when he made the "Rondo, you're not playing with speed" comment. And sure it's ok to admit that he can be inconsistent. He's said so himself. But it's also ok to keep it in perspective. He's not wildly inconsistent like many claim. He had some bad games against Orlando. Ray didn't exactly shine. Paul disappeared for long stretches. Sometimes Rondo didn't push the ball when he should have. Sometimes he did push the ball and nobody else ran up the court. When nobody covered Rondo it made things harder for Pierce. When Paul and Ray were passive on offense it put more pressure on Rondo.

  I'm not saying that Rondo's flawless. I'm not saying that he doesn't have plenty of room to improve. I'm just saying that people need to take him out from under the microscope when they evaluate him. Everyone mentions that he has holes in his game. What pg doesn't? What player doesn't? There was a link in one of the "Ray and Rondo for Amare" threads to a suns board where many of them were chomping at the bit to trade Amare for a player like Rondo. Why would they have so much higher opinion of Rondo than most people here? Because they don't watch and criticize every play he makes in every game. But on the flip side most posters here don't see every flaw of opposing players.

It's because Rondo flaws impact the game way more than the ones Ray or Pierce may have; good, smart teams often make the game about Rondo, therefore making his inconsistency more noted and important. One of the reasons why Paul and Ray disappeared for long stretches was because it was so easy to Orlando to take them out of the game by playing 5 vs. 4. Orlando game plan, especially in the last 2 games, was very simple: force Rondo to beat them, give him the looks and stop Ray and Pierce from creating off the bounce. And he was completely unable to take advantage of that. This is the reason why I think it's wise for the Celtics to allow him to test the market if he's asking too much for an extension right now. There are plenty of NBA teams that simply couldn't use the current Rondo as their starter, no matter how good he is and can be.

[pengaloo]

I really am shocked that there are any questions about Rondo's work ethic. Sure he is stubborn and is probably not a nice guy to hang with. But work ethic? Where did this critique come from? He has a reputation of having a great work ethic.

You haven't been paying a lot of attention, have you? Arriving late to two playoff games where he eventually ends up performing poorly, Tommy's remarks about lackadaisically blowing lay-ups in shoot-arounds, the self-admission of not working properly and consistently his jump-shot till some kind of bet with Garnett this season already, the lazy defense he plays at times during games, etc.

Evidence in support of his work ethic-

Great work ethic:
-The amount of time he spends watching film.
-His dedication to the weight room and getting stronger. According to Jessica Camareto of WEEI, he now weighs 180, up from 163 when he first entered the league.
-The even-demeanor he brings to the floor every game despite his (inherent?) "moodiness" and bad body language (which characterized his play as a rookie and during his time at UK).

Poor work ethic:
-Lackadaisically blowing lay-ups in shoot-arounds.
-Self-admission of not working properly and consistently his jump-shot till some kind of bet with Garnett this season.

Inconclusive work ethic:
-Arriving late to two playoff games where he eventually ends up performing poorly (we don't know the reasons behind the late arrivals).
-The lazy defense he plays at times during games (perhaps due to injury).

Anyone want to add to this?

[Roy Hobbs]

Personally I think his jumpshot has gotten slightly better from year to year.

Just in terms of pure percentages, it's actually gotten worse from last year to this season.

07-08: 56% of shot attempts were jump shots; .422 eFG% on jumpers
08-09: 43% of shot attempts were jump shots; .375 eFG% on jumpers

Also, his shot chart doesn't show any noticeable improvement.  He had his hot spots, but overall, his range seemed to get worse this year; his mid-range game was much less consistent.



(Right click on image and select "view image" to see it better.  The first chart is from this season, the second from last.)

[CoachBo]

I heard Doc say on more than one occasion that he wasn't talking about a lack of effort when he made the "Rondo, you're not playing with speed" comment. And sure it's ok to admit that he can be inconsistent. He's said so himself. But it's also ok to keep it in perspective. He's not wildly inconsistent like many claim. He had some bad games against Orlando. Ray didn't exactly shine. Paul disappeared for long stretches. Sometimes Rondo didn't push the ball when he should have. Sometimes he did push the ball and nobody else ran up the court. When nobody covered Rondo it made things harder for Pierce. When Paul and Ray were passive on offense it put more pressure on Rondo.

  I'm not saying that Rondo's flawless. I'm not saying that he doesn't have plenty of room to improve. I'm just saying that people need to take him out from under the microscope when they evaluate him. Everyone mentions that he has holes in his game. What pg doesn't? What player doesn't? There was a link in one of the "Ray and Rondo for Amare" threads to a suns board where many of them were chomping at the bit to trade Amare for a player like Rondo. Why would they have so much higher opinion of Rondo than most people here? Because they don't watch and criticize every play he makes in every game. But on the flip side most posters here don't see every flaw of opposing players.

It's because Rondo flaws impact the game way more than the ones Ray or Pierce may have; good, smart teams often make the game about Rondo, therefore making his inconsistency more noted and important. One of the reasons why Paul and Ray disappeared for long stretches was because it was so easy to Orlando to take them out of the game by playing 5 vs. 4. Orlando game plan, especially in the last 2 games, was very simple: force Rondo to beat them, give him the looks and stop Ray and Pierce from creating off the bounce. And he was completely unable to take advantage of that. This is the reason why I think it's wise for the Celtics to allow him to test the market if he's asking too much for an extension right now. There are plenty of NBA teams that simply couldn't use the current Rondo as their starter, no matter how good he is and can be.

TP to you. Excellent post pointing out the impact Rondo's flaws have on a game. The flaws of anyone who has the ball in their hands running an offense will always be magnified.

Only thing I really differ on is the extension. If he and his agent are willing to be realistic - and realistic is not an eight-digit number at this point - I'd talk to them. That's one of the things that we just don't know that have a significant impact on Rondo's future.

[cordobes]

Only thing I really differ on is the extension. If he and his agent are willing to be realistic - and realistic is not an eight-digit number at this point - I'd talk to them. That's one of the things that we just don't know that have a significant impact on Rondo's future.

Oh, I agree. If they're asking for a contract who doesn't go over a 7 digit number to start, I wouldn't consider that asking too much and I'd be willing to start working on the details and see if a deal could be achieved this off-season already. I have a feeling they're asking for more than that, although I may be wrong.

[BballTim]

I heard Doc say on more than one occasion that he wasn't talking about a lack of effort when he made the "Rondo, you're not playing with speed" comment. And sure it's ok to admit that he can be inconsistent. He's said so himself. But it's also ok to keep it in perspective. He's not wildly inconsistent like many claim. He had some bad games against Orlando. Ray didn't exactly shine. Paul disappeared for long stretches. Sometimes Rondo didn't push the ball when he should have. Sometimes he did push the ball and nobody else ran up the court. When nobody covered Rondo it made things harder for Pierce. When Paul and Ray were passive on offense it put more pressure on Rondo.

  I'm not saying that Rondo's flawless. I'm not saying that he doesn't have plenty of room to improve. I'm just saying that people need to take him out from under the microscope when they evaluate him. Everyone mentions that he has holes in his game. What pg doesn't? What player doesn't? There was a link in one of the "Ray and Rondo for Amare" threads to a suns board where many of them were chomping at the bit to trade Amare for a player like Rondo. Why would they have so much higher opinion of Rondo than most people here? Because they don't watch and criticize every play he makes in every game. But on the flip side most posters here don't see every flaw of opposing players.

It's because Rondo flaws impact the game way more than the ones Ray or Pierce may have; good, smart teams often make the game about Rondo, therefore making his inconsistency more noted and important. One of the reasons why Paul and Ray disappeared for long stretches was because it was so easy to Orlando to take them out of the game by playing 5 vs. 4. Orlando game plan, especially in the last 2 games, was very simple: force Rondo to beat them, give him the looks and stop Ray and Pierce from creating off the bounce. And he was completely unable to take advantage of that. This is the reason why I think it's wise for the Celtics to allow him to test the market if he's asking too much for an extension right now. There are plenty of NBA teams that simply couldn't use the current Rondo as their starter, no matter how good he is and can be.

  I don't disagree that Rondo's shot hurt the team in the series, or that the Magic played off of him more in the last two games. But you're completely giving Paul and Ray a pass for their less than aggressive play. Ray wasn't really doubled much and could have easily gotten past his man on many occasions instead of giving the ball up because he wasn't open for a three. I hate to talk about announcers, but during one of the games someone (Van Gundy, I think) said something like "Rondo's taking bad shots, but there's only so much he can do without any help". One of the announcers in the celts pregame show was talking about how Paul and Ray's passive play on offense was putting a lot of pressure on Rondo. After Davis hit that game winning shot Donny Marshall was saying that he was one of the few players out there that didn't look like he was afraid to shoot. Not saying that proves anything but I obviously wasn't the only person who saw what I saw. Again, I'm not saying that Rondo doesn't need to work on his shot. I'm not saying that his lack of an outside shot doesn't hurt the team at times. But blaming him for any and all offensive woes seems a little extreme.

[cordobes]

But blaming him for any and all offensive woes seems a little extreme.

Who did that? You really have knack for strawman arguments. The point is that the opponents game plan around Rondo's weaknesses, not around those from other players. If you want to use economic jargon, Rondo's inconsistency produces more negative externalities, while if Paul or Ray have a bad game, they certainly impact the team production, but they don't produce externalities to the same degree - their inconsistency is reflected onto their production, but doesn't go so far beyond that. This is why Rondo's inconsistency has a bigger impact. I can't explain any better that this.

The announcers stuff, with all the detail, is hilarious. You actually take note of that stuff?

[BballTim]

But blaming him for any and all offensive woes seems a little extreme.

Who did that? You really have knack for strawman arguments. The point is that the opponents game plan around Rondo's weaknesses, not around those from other players. If you want to use economic jargon, Rondo's inconsistency produces more negative externalities, while if Paul or Ray have a bad game, they certainly impact the team production, but they don't produce externalities - their inconsistency is limited to their production, but doesn't go beyond that. This is why Rondo's inconsistency has a bigger impact. I can't explain any better that this.

  The other team's gameplan isn't to completely ignore Rondo, it's to force him to the outside shot by laying off of him and by cutting off his lanes to the hoop. The less attention Ray (or Paul Or Davis) get, the easier it is for the other team to clog the middle. If Ray's not getting open or hesitating to shoot it also cuts down on Rondo's options. Same concept as you described.

[winsomme]

But blaming him for any and all offensive woes seems a little extreme.

Who did that? You really have knack for strawman arguments. The point is that the opponents game plan around Rondo's weaknesses, not around those from other players. If you want to use economic jargon, Rondo's inconsistency produces more negative externalities, while if Paul or Ray have a bad game, they certainly impact the team production, but they don't produce externalities to the same degree - their inconsistency is reflected onto their production, but doesn't go so far beyond that. This is why Rondo's inconsistency has a bigger impact. I can't explain any better that this.

The announcers stuff, with all the detail, is hilarious. You actually take note of that stuff?

Ray and/or Paul having a bad game doesn't affect the rest of the team like Rondo? What is that based on?

As for Rondo's game, the Bulls played him the same way, but he was still able to penetrate without a DH in the middle. Also, ORL was much better at rotating and collapsing on penetration (for Paul as well as Rondo).

Bottom line: Rondo is now a top 5 PG in the league, and this hypercritical analysis of his game has become one of those topics that only makes sense in the blogosphere.

[cordobes]

But blaming him for any and all offensive woes seems a little extreme.

Who did that? You really have knack for strawman arguments. The point is that the opponents game plan around Rondo's weaknesses, not around those from other players. If you want to use economic jargon, Rondo's inconsistency produces more negative externalities, while if Paul or Ray have a bad game, they certainly impact the team production, but they don't produce externalities to the same degree - their inconsistency is reflected onto their production, but doesn't go so far beyond that. This is why Rondo's inconsistency has a bigger impact. I can't explain any better that this.

The announcers stuff, with all the detail, is hilarious. You actually take note of that stuff?

Ray and/or Paul having a bad game doesn't affect the rest of the team like Rondo? What is that based on?

Because the opponents just don't play Rondo and opt to shut down everybody else by playing 5 on 4. Jesus Christ, Doc has said basically this after the playoffs, what's so difficult to understand about this?

As for Rondo's game, the Bulls played him the same way, but he was still able to penetrate without a DH in the middle. Also, ORL was much better at rotating and collapsing on penetration (for Paul as well as Rondo).

It's not about him being able to penetrate or not.

Bottom line: Rondo is now a top 5 PG in the league, and this hypercritical analysis of his game has become one of those topics that only makes sense in the blogosphere.

Why is this hypercritical? Again, was Doc Rivers being hypercritical?

[winsomme]

But blaming him for any and all offensive woes seems a little extreme.

Who did that? You really have knack for strawman arguments. The point is that the opponents game plan around Rondo's weaknesses, not around those from other players. If you want to use economic jargon, Rondo's inconsistency produces more negative externalities, while if Paul or Ray have a bad game, they certainly impact the team production, but they don't produce externalities to the same degree - their inconsistency is reflected onto their production, but doesn't go so far beyond that. This is why Rondo's inconsistency has a bigger impact. I can't explain any better that this.

The announcers stuff, with all the detail, is hilarious. You actually take note of that stuff?

Ray and/or Paul having a bad game doesn't affect the rest of the team like Rondo? What is that based on?

Because the opponents just don't play Rondo and opt to shut down everybody else by playing 5 on 4. Jesus Christ, Doc has said basically this after the playoffs, what's so difficult to understand about this?

As for Rondo's game, the Bulls played him the same way, but he was still able to penetrate without a DH in the middle. Also, ORL was much better at rotating and collapsing on penetration (for Paul as well as Rondo).

It's not about him being able to penetrate or not.

Bottom line: Rondo is now a top 5 PG in the league, and this hypercritical analysis of his game has become one of those topics that only makes sense in the blogosphere.

Why is this hypercritical? Again, was Doc Rivers being hypercritical?

Doc doesn't obsess about it the way that is done here. certainly you have gone well beyond the level of criticism from Doc if for no other reason than the sheer volume posts. I mean, seriously, this is absurd.

and it is about penetration because that is Rondo's game. ORL was better at defending the paint, so Rondo was less effective in that series. plus, Rondo is much more affected by no KG on the offensive end than Ray or Paul. They have established a very solid connection on the offensive end.

Rondo is not a scoring point. That's not his bag. So his lack of a jump shot is not the problem that it is being made out to be here.

Top 5 PG, okay...

[BballTim]

As for Rondo's game, the Bulls played him the same way, but he was still able to penetrate without a DH in the middle. Also, ORL was much better at rotating and collapsing on penetration (for Paul as well as Rondo).

It's not about him being able to penetrate or not.

  Of course it is. If Rondo can easily get to the rim then his lack of an outside shot is much less of an issue.

[snively]

Rondo's game is so unorthodox and his immense potential so tantalizingly unrealized that he inspires a lot of passionate fandom and a lot of irritated criticism. I'm one of the passionate fans.

People are having a good time pulling all the critical Rondo comments, but I liked Ainge's comment that the Big 3 need Rondo as much as he needs them.  So yes, Rondo let them down by not scoring effectively when the Magic dared him to, but replacing Rondo with a Delonte West type would ultimately cost the Big 3 anymore.

People keep talking about Rondo being the weakness that allowed the Magic to win, but without him they wouldn't have been in the series.  Without Rondo you'd have less rebounding, less transitional opportunities, less drive and kick, less open 3s for Ray and Paul and more turnovers.  The Big 3 need that because they can't make the same impact in those areas of the game.