Rondo is good with or without the Big 3

[BballTim]

I haven't seen anybody suggest that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the "big three".  However, I do think that having elite teammates helps a player.

  Of course nobody would say that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the big three. But I'd guess there's a pretty good split between people who think his numbers would improve without the big three and those who think he would be much less effective without them.

His scoring and turnovers would go up, his field goal percentage, winning percentage, and probably assists would all go down.

(His assists might stay level because he'd have the ball in his hands more, but I think his efficiency with the ball would decrease.)

  Depends on his teammates. His fg% could easily go up if he tried to score more because he'd attack the basket more. His turnovers could easily stay the same or go down as he might cut down on the fancier passing with lesser teammates.

[Roy Hobbs]

I haven't seen anybody suggest that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the "big three".  However, I do think that having elite teammates helps a player.

  Of course nobody would say that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the big three. But I'd guess there's a pretty good split between people who think his numbers would improve without the big three and those who think he would be much less effective without them.

His scoring and turnovers would go up, his field goal percentage, winning percentage, and probably assists would all go down.

(His assists might stay level because he'd have the ball in his hands more, but I think his efficiency with the ball would decrease.)

  Depends on his teammates. His fg% could easily go up if he tried to score more because he'd attack the basket more. His turnovers could easily stay the same or go down as he might cut down on the fancier passing with lesser teammates.

His FG% would go down because (with presumably less talented teammates) teams would shut down the lane on him, since they wouldn't be as worried about leaving teammates open.

Also, I don't think Rondo's turnovers are a product of him making fancy passes to talented teammates.  Rondo may attempt to only make safer passes, but the ball would be in his hands more, and inevitably he'd be called for more charges, there would be more passes that went off his teammates' hands, etc.

We can judge the effect on Rondo's numbers somewhat by looking at his numbers when paired with starters, versus bench players.  The methodology isn't perfect, but look at his "player pairs" numbers from last year.  His best results in terms of FG%, assists, etc. are when he's matched up with other starters, and his highest turnovers are when he's on the floor with bench players (just like predicted ):  http://www.82games.com/0809/0809BOSP.HTM

[Fan from VT]

say Rondo went to sacramento.

I think that Rondo's numbers would change the exact same way that Pierce's, Ray's, or KG's would if they went to a bad team that needed a SG, SF, or PF, respectively. Defensive effort would decrease, FG% would decrease, ASST and PTS would go up and TOs up.


The idea that Rondo needs the "Big Three" to be good is laughable. Rondo needs them the same that they need him. Their TO rates are down and FG% up by virtue of playing with a very good pointguard, just as Rondo's FG% and A/T ratio are better by virtue of playing with KG, Ray, Pierce. I think most objective observers think that with KG's health, it's closer to 4 even players who complement each other very well.

[Chris]

I haven't seen anybody suggest that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the "big three".  However, I do think that having elite teammates helps a player.

  Of course nobody would say that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the big three. But I'd guess there's a pretty good split between people who think his numbers would improve without the big three and those who think he would be much less effective without them.

What about those who think that his numbers would improve without the Big 3, but his effectiveness would plummet.  Right now, he is an incredibly efficient player, and I think you can thank his teammates for a lot of that.  However, if you put him in a position where he is being asked to do a lot more, he will certainly put up better numbers...but many of them will be pretty empty.

[BballTim]

I haven't seen anybody suggest that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the "big three".  However, I do think that having elite teammates helps a player.

  Of course nobody would say that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the big three. But I'd guess there's a pretty good split between people who think his numbers would improve without the big three and those who think he would be much less effective without them.

His scoring and turnovers would go up, his field goal percentage, winning percentage, and probably assists would all go down.

(His assists might stay level because he'd have the ball in his hands more, but I think his efficiency with the ball would decrease.)

  Depends on his teammates. His fg% could easily go up if he tried to score more because he'd attack the basket more. His turnovers could easily stay the same or go down as he might cut down on the fancier passing with lesser teammates.

His FG% would go down because (with presumably less talented teammates) teams would shut down the lane on him, since they wouldn't be as worried about leaving teammates open.

  He'd also probably get a lot more transition baskets. Plus they'd set more picks for him.

Also, I don't think Rondo's turnovers are a product of him making fancy passes to talented teammates.  Rondo may attempt to only make safer passes, but the ball would be in his hands more, and inevitably he'd be called for more charges, there would be more passes that went off his teammates' hands, etc.

  He's only committed 4 offensive fouls this year and he only committed 19 last year. His passing turnovers dwarf that total. And if the passes went off of his teammate's hands, would it be Rondo's turnover?

We can judge the effect on Rondo's numbers somewhat by looking at his numbers when paired with starters, versus bench players.  The methodology isn't perfect, but look at his "player pairs" numbers from last year.  His best results in terms of FG%, assists, etc. are when he's matched up with other starters, and his highest turnovers are when he's on the floor with bench players (just like predicted ):  http://www.82games.com/0809/0809BOSP.HTM

  You realize, of course, that when those bench players are on the court with him there are still usually at 2 of the big three in with them. The Celts aren't running a Rondo-centric offense in those cases. His assist numbers were about the same, better with Eddie and Scal but worse with the others. His fg% is down a but but he gets more free throws so he's getting the same or better points per shot with a lot of the subs. It was pretty much a wash, but again that's running an offense that's less designed towards Rondo carrying the load than he'd be running without the big three.

[BballTim]

I haven't seen anybody suggest that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the "big three".  However, I do think that having elite teammates helps a player.

  Of course nobody would say that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the big three. But I'd guess there's a pretty good split between people who think his numbers would improve without the big three and those who think he would be much less effective without them.

What about those who think that his numbers would improve without the Big 3, but his effectiveness would plummet.  Right now, he is an incredibly efficient player, and I think you can thank his teammates for a lot of that.  However, if you put him in a position where he is being asked to do a lot more, he will certainly put up better numbers...but many of them will be pretty empty.

  That's no different than the big three, who put up better (empty) numbers with less efficiency when they weren't on the same team. If he takes it to the basket more then it's not a given that he'll be drastically less efficient. If his fg% goes down a little but he gets to the line a lot more he might not be that much less efficient.

[Fan from VT]

I haven't seen anybody suggest that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the "big three".  However, I do think that having elite teammates helps a player.

  Of course nobody would say that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the big three. But I'd guess there's a pretty good split between people who think his numbers would improve without the big three and those who think he would be much less effective without them.

What about those who think that his numbers would improve without the Big 3, but his effectiveness would plummet.  Right now, he is an incredibly efficient player, and I think you can thank his teammates for a lot of that.  However, if you put him in a position where he is being asked to do a lot more, he will certainly put up better numbers...but many of them will be pretty empty.

I agree with this. But I think the reason this thread arose was because for some reason, this argument is brought up whenever the Rondo love gets too high, yet this relationship holds true for EVERY player: Ray, Pierce, KG, Kobe, etc. Back when we sucked, Pierce's numbers were as empty as Rondo's would be on Sac-towns. Ray's were "empty" in seattle. Now everyone's numbers are down, but their numbers mean something. But I think people are sore that Rondo faces this criticism simply by virtue of being the young one while Ray, PP, and KG are somehow immune, even though through one of those three in New Jersey, and those teams would still suck.

[Chris]

I haven't seen anybody suggest that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the "big three".  However, I do think that having elite teammates helps a player.

  Of course nobody would say that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the big three. But I'd guess there's a pretty good split between people who think his numbers would improve without the big three and those who think he would be much less effective without them.

What about those who think that his numbers would improve without the Big 3, but his effectiveness would plummet.  Right now, he is an incredibly efficient player, and I think you can thank his teammates for a lot of that.  However, if you put him in a position where he is being asked to do a lot more, he will certainly put up better numbers...but many of them will be pretty empty.

  That's no different than the big three, who put up better (empty) numbers with less efficiency when they weren't on the same team. If he takes it to the basket more then it's not a given that he'll be drastically less efficient. If his fg% goes down a little but he gets to the line a lot more he might not be that much less efficient.

While I agree that it is true for any player, the drop off would be significantly less for a player like Pierce, Garnett or Allen, who have much smaller holes in their games.  Rondo has a gaping hole in his game right now, and that would make it very easy for teams to gameplan for, if he was the top 1 or 2 weapons.  All teams have to do is force him to shoot, and suddenly, he is going to need to work a LOT harder to be productive.  Someone like Pierce, on the other hand, is much harder to shutdown, because he can take someone off the dribble if they play him tight, shoot over them if they play off him, or pass the ball if they throw doubles at him.  Obviously, it still makes life harder on him to not have good teammates, but having a complete game gives him much more options, and makes it harder for defenses to really shut him down.

[Celtics17]

You can really argue it both ways. Sure, playing with 3 HOF players makes you a winner and consequently a better player. However, if you had to play without them you would be forced to develop the weaker areas of your game much quicker because your teammates wouldnt be able to take up the slack.

[Chris]

I haven't seen anybody suggest that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the "big three".  However, I do think that having elite teammates helps a player.

  Of course nobody would say that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the big three. But I'd guess there's a pretty good split between people who think his numbers would improve without the big three and those who think he would be much less effective without them.

What about those who think that his numbers would improve without the Big 3, but his effectiveness would plummet.  Right now, he is an incredibly efficient player, and I think you can thank his teammates for a lot of that.  However, if you put him in a position where he is being asked to do a lot more, he will certainly put up better numbers...but many of them will be pretty empty.

I agree with this. But I think the reason this thread arose was because for some reason, this argument is brought up whenever the Rondo love gets too high, yet this relationship holds true for EVERY player: Ray, Pierce, KG, Kobe, etc. Back when we sucked, Pierce's numbers were as empty as Rondo's would be on Sac-towns. Ray's were "empty" in seattle. Now everyone's numbers are down, but their numbers mean something. But I think people are sore that Rondo faces this criticism simply by virtue of being the young one while Ray, PP, and KG are somehow immune, even though through one of those three in New Jersey, and those teams would still suck.

Yeah, ultimately, I think it is not a great argument anyways, since the numbers are meaningless.  By watching Rondo play over the course of an entire season, it is easy to see pretty much where he stands.  He is an explosive player who can absolutely dominate at times, but still has potentially fatal flaws that can dramatically hurt his team, if they are properly exploited.  

I think these arguments of how the teammates make a player are good for casual fans, but when you watch a player play day in and day out, it is easy enough to separate them from the other players to see what their strengths and weaknesses are, and then you can compare them to the strengths and weaknesses of the specific players you want them to play with, to decide if they are a good fit or not.  

[BballTim]

I haven't seen anybody suggest that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the "big three".  However, I do think that having elite teammates helps a player.

  Of course nobody would say that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the big three. But I'd guess there's a pretty good split between people who think his numbers would improve without the big three and those who think he would be much less effective without them.

What about those who think that his numbers would improve without the Big 3, but his effectiveness would plummet.  Right now, he is an incredibly efficient player, and I think you can thank his teammates for a lot of that.  However, if you put him in a position where he is being asked to do a lot more, he will certainly put up better numbers...but many of them will be pretty empty.

  That's no different than the big three, who put up better (empty) numbers with less efficiency when they weren't on the same team. If he takes it to the basket more then it's not a given that he'll be drastically less efficient. If his fg% goes down a little but he gets to the line a lot more he might not be that much less efficient.

While I agree that it is true for any player, the drop off would be significantly less for a player like Pierce, Garnett or Allen, who have much smaller holes in their games.  Rondo has a gaping hole in his game right now, and that would make it very easy for teams to gameplan for, if he was the top 1 or 2 weapons.  All teams have to do is force him to shoot, and suddenly, he is going to need to work a LOT harder to be productive.  Someone like Pierce, on the other hand, is much harder to shutdown, because he can take someone off the dribble if they play him tight, shoot over them if they play off him, or pass the ball if they throw doubles at him.  Obviously, it still makes life harder on him to not have good teammates, but having a complete game gives him much more options, and makes it harder for defenses to really shut him down.

  Pierce is one of the most versatile offensive players in the league. But teams have seemed to be able to shut down Ray about as well as they shut down Rondo in the playoffs. And do you really think KG could carry an offense on his own at this point in his career? Watch what happens to the offense when Rondo's out of the game for a while sometime. The big three doesn't always look great offensively playing together without Rondo. Would they be that much better individually?

[snively]

I haven't seen anybody suggest that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the "big three".  However, I do think that having elite teammates helps a player.

  Of course nobody would say that Rondo's success is *solely* due to the big three. But I'd guess there's a pretty good split between people who think his numbers would improve without the big three and those who think he would be much less effective without them.

What about those who think that his numbers would improve without the Big 3, but his effectiveness would plummet.  Right now, he is an incredibly efficient player, and I think you can thank his teammates for a lot of that.  However, if you put him in a position where he is being asked to do a lot more, he will certainly put up better numbers...but many of them will be pretty empty.

  That's no different than the big three, who put up better (empty) numbers with less efficiency when they weren't on the same team. If he takes it to the basket more then it's not a given that he'll be drastically less efficient. If his fg% goes down a little but he gets to the line a lot more he might not be that much less efficient.

While I agree that it is true for any player, the drop off would be significantly less for a player like Pierce, Garnett or Allen, who have much smaller holes in their games.  Rondo has a gaping hole in his game right now, and that would make it very easy for teams to gameplan for, if he was the top 1 or 2 weapons.  All teams have to do is force him to shoot, and suddenly, he is going to need to work a LOT harder to be productive.  Someone like Pierce, on the other hand, is much harder to shutdown, because he can take someone off the dribble if they play him tight, shoot over them if they play off him, or pass the ball if they throw doubles at him.  Obviously, it still makes life harder on him to not have good teammates, but having a complete game gives him much more options, and makes it harder for defenses to really shut him down.

You're underselling Rondo's versatility by focusing so heavily on the threat to score.  Rondo's ability to generate fast breaks and transition opportunities off of rebounds and steals is an asset that will translate to most teams.  He can also wreak havoc with a shooting big man setting screens and they're not exactly a rarity in the NBA.  

Rondo's FG% would probably take a greater relative to Pierce or Ray, but he'd probably adjust better in other categories.  For instance I think Pierce and Ray would turn it over much more with greater usage, while Rondo's turnover % would increase by a much smaller degree,  I also think Rondo's rebounding would sky-rocket, and his assists and steals would stand a good chance of decreasing.

[ManUp]

I'd say Rondo as of right now could put up something like 16/8/4 on 42% shooting if he was the man on some bum team.

[BballTim]

I'd say Rondo as of right now could put up something like 16/8/4 on 42% shooting if he was the man on some bum team.

  I'd guess the difference between being "the man" and the 4th option is probably more than 4 ppg.

[Rondo_is_better]

I'd say Rondo as of right now could put up something like 16/8/4 on 42% shooting if he was the man on some bum team.

  I'd guess the difference between being "the man" and the 4th option is probably more than 4 ppg.

Uhh, yeah, what Tim said. Taking it to the rack like 15 more times per game generally gets you more than 2 more successful trips per game.