Has Rondo's jump shooting improved? The early answer is in...

[jambr380]

I guess I just don't care that much if he becomes a good shooter. In the playoffs last year, he showed that he can score at will and I don't see any reason why that will change. It's also not like he is Thabeet from the outside or anything. He occasionally hits the mid-range jumper and that is good enough at this point. He should continue to improve, at least marginally. I am just happy that he is taking the shot these past few games, rather than passing everything up like he did to start the year.

[BballTim]

82games.com just released their first detailed stats of the year, which includes one of my favorite stats, eFG% on jump shots.

To answer the question raised in the thread title, no, Rondo's shooting has not improved, at least in terms of efficiency:

2008-09:  43% of Rondo's shots were jumpers; .375eFG%

2009-10:  50% of Rondo's shots are jumpers; .379eFG%

In other words, his efficiency on jumpers through 8 games is virtually identical to last season.  Other interesting stats?  Rondo is finishing an amazing 75.9% of his inside shots this year, meaning he's getting a lot of open layups.  Only 18% of his jump shots has been assisted, suggesting that he's taking a lot of pull-up shots (rather than set shots).

We, of course, know the issues with Rondo's early free throw shooting (he's shooting poorly, and is barely getting to the line at all).  Similarly, he hasn't been attempting three pointers this year.

I'm not sure what to make of the numbers, other than I hope they get better.  Rondo has been great passing the ball, and for the most part very good on defense, but shooting remains a large weakness.

  So if he'd made 1 more outside shot in the first 7 games (41%) or 2 more shots (45%) would you be talking about the dramatic improvement to his game? What if he'd passed on a few of those outside shots like he did last year and raised his percentages that way?

  If you want to go straight apples to apples, check out either Rondo's early season shot charts or possibly some celticsblog threads from last year. If memory serves he started out last season missing something like 19 of his first 21 outside shots. I'd guess he's well ahead of last year's pace.

We can make whatever excuses we want, but thus far, there's been no improvement.  We all hope he gets better as the year goes on, but comparing last year's final product to the early start this year, there has been no improvement.

As for Rondo starting out 2 for 21 on jump shots, I have no idea if that's true.  I can say that he shot 23 for his first 39 on overall shots, so I think 2 for 21 on jumpers is unlikely.

  So when I point out that Rondo's jump shooting is much better now than it was at the beginning of last year that's making excuses? Come on. Stats are stats. Yours are no more meaningful than mine. You just judge the validity of statistics based on how bad they make Rondo look.

Show me the stats, rather than your memory.  Then, show me the stats from other seasons, to prove that Rondo is historically a slow starter who improves as the season goes along.

  Sadly, I don't really know where to find those stats. I checked his shot charts from espn for the beginning of last season. The numbers don't match exactly because 82games classifies many of Rondo's shots from within 2 feet of the basket as jump shots. Here's what I got, though. The 82games stats have Rondo at 11-29 on jumpshots. If you include last night's games he's 13-34. Looking at shots that weren't right under the basket, Rondo started last season 6-36 on shots more than 2 feet from the basket. That took him 12 games. He was 3-19 after 8 or so games and 4-25 at one point, so I think 82games counted one of his 3-4 foot shots as an inside shot and not a jump shot.

  So, if you want to compare his jumpshooting from the beginning of this year to the same point in time last year then he's improved significantly. If you want to disagree with my numbers feel free to do so. If you want to go back and check previous years to see if this is a trend or not feel free. Likewise, if you want to ignore the fact that Rondo improved over the course of last year because doing so bolsters your "Rondo hasn't improved at all", and label any stats that disagree with this as "excuses", go ahead.

[nickagneta]

According to the 82games.com numbers Rondo has hit 11 of 29 jump shots. The thing is I went to the ESPN recaps and took a look at the shot charts and of the seven games that were available, the Minnesota game where he was 8 for 16 from the field was unavailable, Rondo shot 8 for 19 from outside jump shots, shots from outside 10 feet.

I did some research and 82games.com only accounts for 230 minutes of Rondo's playing time which means that Rondo's 2 for 4 from last night isn't included in the numbers. If they are then we are looking at numbers of 13 for 33 or about 40%. Also, I am not sure given looking at the shot charts that 82gmaes.com is counting jump shots as real jump shots. I think they may be including some of his missed floaters from 8-10 feet as jump shots as he would have had to been 3 for 10 from jump shooting outside in the Minnesota game and I don't remember him shooting anything close to 10 outside jumpers in that game.

So in conclusion, I think the 82games.com numbers are flawed.

[KCattheStripe]

82games.com just released their first detailed stats of the year, which includes one of my favorite stats, eFG% on jump shots.

To answer the question raised in the thread title, no, Rondo's shooting has not improved, at least in terms of efficiency:

2008-09:  43% of Rondo's shots were jumpers; .375eFG%

2009-10:  50% of Rondo's shots are jumpers; .379eFG%

In other words, his efficiency on jumpers through 8 games is virtually identical to last season.  Other interesting stats?  Rondo is finishing an amazing 75.9% of his inside shots this year, meaning he's getting a lot of open layups.  Only 18% of his jump shots has been assisted, suggesting that he's taking a lot of pull-up shots (rather than set shots).

We, of course, know the issues with Rondo's early free throw shooting (he's shooting poorly, and is barely getting to the line at all).  Similarly, he hasn't been attempting three pointers this year.

I'm not sure what to make of the numbers, other than I hope they get better.  Rondo has been great passing the ball, and for the most part very good on defense, but shooting remains a large weakness.

If he's getting a lot of open lay ups, as suggested by the numbers, is it really his fault he's not getting to the line?

[housecall]

Im more of an eye test than stats person,and i say no.

[BballTim]

According to the 82games.com numbers Rondo has hit 11 of 29 jump shots. The thing is I went to the ESPN recaps and took a look at the shot charts and of the seven games that were available, the Minnesota game where he was 8 for 16 from the field was unavailable, Rondo shot 8 for 19 from outside jump shots, shots from outside 10 feet.

I did some research and 82games.com only accounts for 230 minutes of Rondo's playing time which means that Rondo's 2 for 4 from last night isn't included in the numbers. If they are then we are looking at numbers of 13 for 33 or about 40%. Also, I am not sure given looking at the shot charts that 82gmaes.com is counting jump shots as real jump shots. I think they may be including some of his missed floaters from 8-10 feet as jump shots as he would have had to been 3 for 10 from jump shooting outside in the Minnesota game and I don't remember him shooting anything close to 10 outside jumpers in that game.

So in conclusion, I think the 82games.com numbers are flawed.

  That's what a lot of people don't see, that the difference between Rondo being at 38% and 42-43% is which of his shots from within 5 feet of the basket are considered inside shots or jump shots.

[Roy Hobbs]

According to the 82games.com numbers Rondo has hit 11 of 29 jump shots. The thing is I went to the ESPN recaps and took a look at the shot charts and of the seven games that were available, the Minnesota game where he was 8 for 16 from the field was unavailable, Rondo shot 8 for 19 from outside jump shots, shots from outside 10 feet.

I did some research and 82games.com only accounts for 230 minutes of Rondo's playing time which means that Rondo's 2 for 4 from last night isn't included in the numbers. If they are then we are looking at numbers of 13 for 33 or about 40%. Also, I am not sure given looking at the shot charts that 82gmaes.com is counting jump shots as real jump shots. I think they may be including some of his missed floaters from 8-10 feet as jump shots as he would have had to been 3 for 10 from jump shooting outside in the Minnesota game and I don't remember him shooting anything close to 10 outside jumpers in that game.

So in conclusion, I think the 82games.com numbers are flawed.

If the numbers are flawed this year, then presumably they were flawed last year, right?  The numbers showed two things:  Rondo hasn't really improved this year, and relative to his peers, he's pretty poor in terms of jump shooting.

[nickagneta]

According to the 82games.com numbers Rondo has hit 11 of 29 jump shots. The thing is I went to the ESPN recaps and took a look at the shot charts and of the seven games that were available, the Minnesota game where he was 8 for 16 from the field was unavailable, Rondo shot 8 for 19 from outside jump shots, shots from outside 10 feet.

I did some research and 82games.com only accounts for 230 minutes of Rondo's playing time which means that Rondo's 2 for 4 from last night isn't included in the numbers. If they are then we are looking at numbers of 13 for 33 or about 40%. Also, I am not sure given looking at the shot charts that 82gmaes.com is counting jump shots as real jump shots. I think they may be including some of his missed floaters from 8-10 feet as jump shots as he would have had to been 3 for 10 from jump shooting outside in the Minnesota game and I don't remember him shooting anything close to 10 outside jumpers in that game.

So in conclusion, I think the 82games.com numbers are flawed.

If the numbers are flawed this year, then presumably they were flawed last year, right?  The numbers showed two things:  Rondo hasn't really improved this year, and relative to his peers, he's pretty poor in terms of jump shooting.

Yes, exactly. They count running floaters and shots within just a few feet as jump shots and they aren't. Last year's numbers could have been way worse than reported for jump shooting or better. You have no idea. Flawed data is useless either way.

What I do have is ESPN shots charts that through 7 of 8 games have Rondo shooting 8 of 19 on shots outside of 10 feet that tend to be real jump shots. That is a 42% shooting on jump shots and that is better than last years flawed stats. Though again, comparing to flawed stats is just not really reliable in making a decision on something.

Now I don't know how accurate NBA Hot Spots is but judging by just the outside rings, in other words only those not touching the paint, Rondo was 66 for 165 from outside last year with 15 three pointers or a eFG% of 73.5 for 165 or 44.5% which does not jive with the stats from 82games.com

[xmuscularghandix]

He's hit a lot of those open jumpers, i think he looks much better so far.

[pengaloo]

Rondo's jump shots look really good in the warm up before tip off. I think it's just a matter of getting the hang of shooting during games, and that should come with time.

[Roy Hobbs]

According to the 82games.com numbers Rondo has hit 11 of 29 jump shots. The thing is I went to the ESPN recaps and took a look at the shot charts and of the seven games that were available, the Minnesota game where he was 8 for 16 from the field was unavailable, Rondo shot 8 for 19 from outside jump shots, shots from outside 10 feet.

I did some research and 82games.com only accounts for 230 minutes of Rondo's playing time which means that Rondo's 2 for 4 from last night isn't included in the numbers. If they are then we are looking at numbers of 13 for 33 or about 40%. Also, I am not sure given looking at the shot charts that 82gmaes.com is counting jump shots as real jump shots. I think they may be including some of his missed floaters from 8-10 feet as jump shots as he would have had to been 3 for 10 from jump shooting outside in the Minnesota game and I don't remember him shooting anything close to 10 outside jumpers in that game.

So in conclusion, I think the 82games.com numbers are flawed.

If the numbers are flawed this year, then presumably they were flawed last year, right?  The numbers showed two things:  Rondo hasn't really improved this year, and relative to his peers, he's pretty poor in terms of jump shooting.

Yes, exactly. They count running floaters and shots within just a few feet as jump shots and they aren't. Last year's numbers could have been way worse than reported for jump shooting or better. You have no idea. Flawed data is useless either way.

What I do have is ESPN shots charts that through 7 of 8 games have Rondo shooting 8 of 19 on shots outside of 10 feet that tend to be real jump shots. That is a 42% shooting on jump shots and that is better than last years flawed stats. Though again, comparing to flawed stats is just not really reliable in making a decision on something.

Now I don't know how accurate NBA Hot Spots is but judging by just the outside rings, in other words only those not touching the paint, Rondo was 66 for 165 from outside last year with 15 three pointers or a eFG% of 73.5 for 165 or 44.5% which does not jive with the stats from 82games.com

First, 82games.com is probably the most respected statistical site that covers the NBA.com, so I tend to trust their numbers.

However, even if their methodology is flawed, it's flawed uniformly.  It's not like they count one type of shot for one team, but don't count it for another.  Thus, the comparison of Rondo to his peers still stands.

Third, I don't think floaters account for the difference, unless you're saying that Rondo misses 2/3 of his floaters.

Lastly, how do we explain away Rondo's terrible free throw shooting?  Is that a statistical manipulation, as well?

The fact remains:  Rondo isn't a very good shooter, and hasn't improved much (if at all) in that area.  Maybe he'll improve as the season goes on, but that's certainly not a given.  Indeed, he actually regressed from two years ago to last year, so the improvement hasn't been linear.

[greenwise]

Though I like stats, I really don't follow them in detail. Sometimes they don't reflect meaningful aspects of the game. I think stats help understand the way a player is producing, but they are just flawed.

For example, the assists are sometimes misleading. A player gives the ball to another, this one fakes, takes two steps and then shoots and scores...and it's an assist. 

[nickagneta]

According to the 82games.com numbers Rondo has hit 11 of 29 jump shots. The thing is I went to the ESPN recaps and took a look at the shot charts and of the seven games that were available, the Minnesota game where he was 8 for 16 from the field was unavailable, Rondo shot 8 for 19 from outside jump shots, shots from outside 10 feet.

I did some research and 82games.com only accounts for 230 minutes of Rondo's playing time which means that Rondo's 2 for 4 from last night isn't included in the numbers. If they are then we are looking at numbers of 13 for 33 or about 40%. Also, I am not sure given looking at the shot charts that 82gmaes.com is counting jump shots as real jump shots. I think they may be including some of his missed floaters from 8-10 feet as jump shots as he would have had to been 3 for 10 from jump shooting outside in the Minnesota game and I don't remember him shooting anything close to 10 outside jumpers in that game.

So in conclusion, I think the 82games.com numbers are flawed.

If the numbers are flawed this year, then presumably they were flawed last year, right?  The numbers showed two things:  Rondo hasn't really improved this year, and relative to his peers, he's pretty poor in terms of jump shooting.

Yes, exactly. They count running floaters and shots within just a few feet as jump shots and they aren't. Last year's numbers could have been way worse than reported for jump shooting or better. You have no idea. Flawed data is useless either way.

What I do have is ESPN shots charts that through 7 of 8 games have Rondo shooting 8 of 19 on shots outside of 10 feet that tend to be real jump shots. That is a 42% shooting on jump shots and that is better than last years flawed stats. Though again, comparing to flawed stats is just not really reliable in making a decision on something.

Now I don't know how accurate NBA Hot Spots is but judging by just the outside rings, in other words only those not touching the paint, Rondo was 66 for 165 from outside last year with 15 three pointers or a eFG% of 73.5 for 165 or 44.5% which does not jive with the stats from 82games.com

First, 82games.com is probably the most respected statistical site that covers the NBA.com, so I tend to trust their numbers.

However, even if their methodology is flawed, it's flawed uniformly.  It's not like they count one type of shot for one team, but don't count it for another.  Thus, the comparison of Rondo to his peers still stands.

Third, I don't think floaters account for the difference, unless you're saying that Rondo misses 2/3 of his floaters.

Lastly, how do we explain away Rondo's terrible free throw shooting?  Is that a statistical manipulation, as well?

The fact remains:  Rondo isn't a very good shooter, and hasn't improved much (if at all) in that area.  Maybe he'll improve as the season goes on, but that's certainly not a given.  Indeed, he actually regressed from two years ago to last year, so the improvement hasn't been linear.

I am not and have never in this thread argued that Rondo is a good shooter. I just think that 82games.com, regardless of who gives them respect or not, has a flawed methodology of what they consider jump shots and from where a shot should be considered a jump shot band a close shot. The fact that their numbers uniformly differ from the NBA's own sponsored Hot Spots numbers for me throws their numbers into question, especially for something as subjective as to what is and is not a jump shot and from where do you consider a shot a jump shot and not.

I don't think Rondo is a good shooter. But I do believe he changed his form and his mindset regarding his shot and, like with Baby last year, it will pay off with better numbers the more he uses it as the season progresses.

At this point, at best he may have shot 25 outside shots all year. I think we need a better sample size, I think we need a lot more games where he is being more aggressive with his outside shot, and I think he needs more time to adjust to his new form before we can make an accurate assessment before we declare that after watching him take 25 outside shots that we have definitive proof that he is no better an outside shooter.

[BballTim]

According to the 82games.com numbers Rondo has hit 11 of 29 jump shots. The thing is I went to the ESPN recaps and took a look at the shot charts and of the seven games that were available, the Minnesota game where he was 8 for 16 from the field was unavailable, Rondo shot 8 for 19 from outside jump shots, shots from outside 10 feet.

I did some research and 82games.com only accounts for 230 minutes of Rondo's playing time which means that Rondo's 2 for 4 from last night isn't included in the numbers. If they are then we are looking at numbers of 13 for 33 or about 40%. Also, I am not sure given looking at the shot charts that 82gmaes.com is counting jump shots as real jump shots. I think they may be including some of his missed floaters from 8-10 feet as jump shots as he would have had to been 3 for 10 from jump shooting outside in the Minnesota game and I don't remember him shooting anything close to 10 outside jumpers in that game.

So in conclusion, I think the 82games.com numbers are flawed.

If the numbers are flawed this year, then presumably they were flawed last year, right?  The numbers showed two things:  Rondo hasn't really improved this year, and relative to his peers, he's pretty poor in terms of jump shooting.

Yes, exactly. They count running floaters and shots within just a few feet as jump shots and they aren't. Last year's numbers could have been way worse than reported for jump shooting or better. You have no idea. Flawed data is useless either way.

What I do have is ESPN shots charts that through 7 of 8 games have Rondo shooting 8 of 19 on shots outside of 10 feet that tend to be real jump shots. That is a 42% shooting on jump shots and that is better than last years flawed stats. Though again, comparing to flawed stats is just not really reliable in making a decision on something.

Now I don't know how accurate NBA Hot Spots is but judging by just the outside rings, in other words only those not touching the paint, Rondo was 66 for 165 from outside last year with 15 three pointers or a eFG% of 73.5 for 165 or 44.5% which does not jive with the stats from 82games.com

First, 82games.com is probably the most respected statistical site that covers the NBA.com, so I tend to trust their numbers.

However, even if their methodology is flawed, it's flawed uniformly.  It's not like they count one type of shot for one team, but don't count it for another.  Thus, the comparison of Rondo to his peers still stands.

  Of course it's going to affect Rondo's numbers more than most point guards because he takes a much higher percentage of his shots from in the lane than the average point guard. His shooting percentage from a given distance isn't that bad compared to other point guards. It's the mix of where he shoots from (as well as all of those floaters) that account for his low jumpshot efg%. He's really not that far below average from many distances.

Lastly, how do we explain away Rondo's terrible free throw shooting?  Is that a statistical manipulation, as well?

  No, he's a poor foul shooter. But, again, many players improve in this area as they mature.

The fact remains:  Rondo isn't a very good shooter, and hasn't improved much (if at all) in that area.  Maybe he'll improve as the season goes on, but that's certainly not a given.  Indeed, he actually regressed from two years ago to last year, so the improvement hasn't been linear.

  Every player goes up and down in their fg% from year to year. The improvement is rarely if ever linear. By your logic over 30% of the nba regresses every year, probably over 40%.

[Roy Hobbs]

If Rondo is shooting far enough below 30% on floaters to bring his entire average down, he shouldn't be taking those shots anymore.  A shot that you hit 1 out of every 3 times should be taken out of your repertoire.

However, having watched Rondo play, I know he converts his floaters more than roughly a third of the time.  Therefore, they're not the things bringing his average down to the sub-40% range.