Anyone else jealous of Rose's shooting?

[BballTim]

According to Hoops Data website:

Shooting percentages from 16-23 ft:

Rondo: 38%

Rose: 38%

Westbrook: 36%

Interesting.

But I'm pretty certain there's a pretty big disparity between those %'s and the number of shots taken. Rondo takes very few shots typically, whereas both Rose and Westbrook are their team's main offensive weapons.

  Rose takes about 5 shots from that range a game, Westbrook 4.5, Rondo 3.3. Not that big a disparity.

[dtrader]

How often have you heard ANYONE associated with ANY NBA team say that ANY player hasn't improved?  It rarely ever happens. That doesn't mean every player in the league is getting better. It just means that people recognize that they have nothing to gain by calling players out with negative comments like that. If a reporter asks "what do you think of Rajon Rondos play", do you really expect a player/coach/GM/etc to say "I don't think he's any better than he was 2 years ago"? That's just not realistic.  It doesn't mean they don't feel that way. It just doesn't make sense to say it publicly.

If I was a player competing against Rondo, I'd tell the media, that he's "the best in the game today, and has become a real leader for the celts"....Then when the game started, I'd give him 10ft to shoot like a bum, and be in his ear the whole game about how much he sucks. Then after the game, I'd go right back to praising him. That's how the game is played.

  Ok. Whatever. There's no way to "prove" Rondo's improved. Just like there's no real way to "prove" that Rose has improved. The real answer is that it's extremely obvious to most people. If you don't see it, you don't see it. Agree to disagree.

Well...the foundation of the main discussion (and title from the OP) is about SHOOTING.  I'm not usually a statistics person, but I don't recall ever seeing any numbers related to SHOOTING, that show Rondo improving.  I am however familiar with The substantial improvements Rose has made in that regard.  If someone could make a solid statistical argument for Rondos shooting getting notably better, then I would have to "agree to disagree" as you suggest (as I would then be believing something that I could not prove).

  The OP might be talking about SHOOTING but the post that I RESPONDED TO was talking about OTHER THINGS AS WELL.

The post that you made the awards reference response to, specifically mentioned "shooting percentage, points, and free throw percentage".  Other things were included as well, but it appears to be predominantly focused on shooting.

  So in other words my statement was correct.

And ejk3489....did you read the articles you referenced?  Maybe looking at the titles, it made it appear that they were negative criticisms of Rondos shooting, but if you actually read them, you'd find that they are not criticisms at all. While Rondos shot is momentarily cast in a bad light, the overall articles are all praises.  They either say that his shot IS developing, or they say that his shot isn't perfect, but he's sooo good at everything else, that it doesn't matter lol.  

  To summarize, you claim that there are no articles criticizing Rondo's shooting, someone quickly gives you a list of such articles, you ask him if he read any of the articles because they appear to criticize Rondo's shooting but aren't criticisms at all, you then admit that some of them criticize his shot "momentarily".

  Oh, and he *is* good at everything else.

Beyond that, none appear to be written by (or include much if any discussion from) NBA coaches, GMs, players, or people "associated with the NBA".  They are all in BballTims words, the "peanut gallery".

  I checked two of the articles to see (after reading your post) if they were indeed about Rondo's shooting. One of the two I looked at quoted Doc Rivers.

I never said that "there are no articles criticizing Rondos shooting". I said, that I thought it would be difficult to find articles "about Rondos inability to shoot"...meaning his inability to shoot would be the main topic of the article.  Momentarily mentioning his shooting as a weakness, and then proceeding to praise his other qualities, or point to his development in shooting wouldn't apply.  The whole point of my argument, is that the media rarely write negative pieces (even when deserved), so a piece that is actually written in praise clearly wouldn't qualify. 

And they were all written by your "peanut gallery". I don't recall the quote from Doc, but I highly doubt it is a quote criticizing Rondo for his inability to shoot, so again...it doesn't counter my argument.  In fact, if only 1 article out of the 5 or 6 posted (that are supposedly negative criticisms) included just 1 negative quote from a person of note, I think it would make my point even more clear...Players/coaches/GMs, etc, rarely make negative public criticisms (even when deserved).

[BballTim]

How often have you heard ANYONE associated with ANY NBA team say that ANY player hasn't improved?  It rarely ever happens. That doesn't mean every player in the league is getting better. It just means that people recognize that they have nothing to gain by calling players out with negative comments like that. If a reporter asks "what do you think of Rajon Rondos play", do you really expect a player/coach/GM/etc to say "I don't think he's any better than he was 2 years ago"? That's just not realistic.  It doesn't mean they don't feel that way. It just doesn't make sense to say it publicly.

If I was a player competing against Rondo, I'd tell the media, that he's "the best in the game today, and has become a real leader for the celts"....Then when the game started, I'd give him 10ft to shoot like a bum, and be in his ear the whole game about how much he sucks. Then after the game, I'd go right back to praising him. That's how the game is played.

  Ok. Whatever. There's no way to "prove" Rondo's improved. Just like there's no real way to "prove" that Rose has improved. The real answer is that it's extremely obvious to most people. If you don't see it, you don't see it. Agree to disagree.

Well...the foundation of the main discussion (and title from the OP) is about SHOOTING.  I'm not usually a statistics person, but I don't recall ever seeing any numbers related to SHOOTING, that show Rondo improving.  I am however familiar with The substantial improvements Rose has made in that regard.  If someone could make a solid statistical argument for Rondos shooting getting notably better, then I would have to "agree to disagree" as you suggest (as I would then be believing something that I could not prove).

  The OP might be talking about SHOOTING but the post that I RESPONDED TO was talking about OTHER THINGS AS WELL.

The post that you made the awards reference response to, specifically mentioned "shooting percentage, points, and free throw percentage".  Other things were included as well, but it appears to be predominantly focused on shooting.

  So in other words my statement was correct.

And ejk3489....did you read the articles you referenced?  Maybe looking at the titles, it made it appear that they were negative criticisms of Rondos shooting, but if you actually read them, you'd find that they are not criticisms at all. While Rondos shot is momentarily cast in a bad light, the overall articles are all praises.  They either say that his shot IS developing, or they say that his shot isn't perfect, but he's sooo good at everything else, that it doesn't matter lol.  

  To summarize, you claim that there are no articles criticizing Rondo's shooting, someone quickly gives you a list of such articles, you ask him if he read any of the articles because they appear to criticize Rondo's shooting but aren't criticisms at all, you then admit that some of them criticize his shot "momentarily".

  Oh, and he *is* good at everything else.

Beyond that, none appear to be written by (or include much if any discussion from) NBA coaches, GMs, players, or people "associated with the NBA".  They are all in BballTims words, the "peanut gallery".

  I checked two of the articles to see (after reading your post) if they were indeed about Rondo's shooting. One of the two I looked at quoted Doc Rivers.

I never said that "there are no articles criticizing Rondos shooting". I said, that I thought it would be difficult to find articles "about Rondos inability to shoot"...meaning his inability to shoot would be the main topic of the article.  Momentarily mentioning his shooting as a weakness, and then proceeding to praise his other qualities, or point to his development in shooting wouldn't apply.  The whole point of my argument, is that the media rarely write negative pieces (even when deserved), so a piece that is actually written in praise clearly wouldn't qualify. 

And they were all written by your "peanut gallery". I don't recall the quote from Doc, but I highly doubt it is a quote criticizing Rondo for his inability to shoot, so again...it doesn't counter my argument.  In fact, if only 1 article out of the 5 or 6 posted (that are supposedly negative criticisms) included just 1 negative quote from a person of note, I think it would make my point even more clear...Players/coaches/GMs, etc, rarely make negative public criticisms (even when deserved).

  First of all, my "peanut gallery" was mainly people on this and other similar sites. Secondly, I don't think you really read all of those articles. And I don't know how closely you follow the Celts but Doc and Danny have both publicly criticized Rondo's jump shooting in the past, probably multiple times. The articles all mention Rondo's shooting woes. I think you're expecting to see the kind of hatchet job you or some others here might write if given the chance but there have been plenty of articles detailing Rondo's lack of a consistent jump shot.

[dtrader]

According to Hoops Data website:

Shooting percentages from 16-23 ft:

Rondo: 38%

Rose: 38%

Westbrook: 36%

Interesting.

But I'm pretty certain there's a pretty big disparity between those %'s and the number of shots taken. Rondo takes very few shots typically, whereas both Rose and Westbrook are their team's main offensive weapons.

  Rose takes about 5 shots from that range a game, Westbrook 4.5, Rondo 3.3. Not that big a disparity.

The difference becomes apparent when you look at the shift in shot selection.

Rose used to shoot around 7 a game from that 16-23 ft range, and less than 1 from 3. Now he shoots nearly 5 3's a game, and hit them at a higher percentage than any other shot.

Rondo is shooting more 16-23 footers than he ever has, and hitting a lower percent of them than he did in 08 or 09.


As for my misunderstanding of the "peanut gallery" qualifications...I thought it was used to include people outside of the players/coaches/GMs, and other league representatives, because those are the players whose comments I explained would be self-censored and given positive spin.  I highly doubt Doc or Ainge have ever discussed Rondos inability to shoot without giving it some sort of positive spin. I certainly never read the article where those comments were featured.  Like I said before...I'm not saying that no one has ever criticized Rondos shot...I'm saying that even in those rare instances where it does happen, it is most likely given positive spin, or is not the main focus of the piece. The articles posted all appear to be examples of this. I'm saying you won't find an article from a league person, that is a negative piece...not a positive piece, with some negative criticism mixed in, but a negative piece. It just doesn't happen.

[ejk3489]

How often have you heard ANYONE associated with ANY NBA team say that ANY player hasn't improved?  It rarely ever happens. That doesn't mean every player in the league is getting better. It just means that people recognize that they have nothing to gain by calling players out with negative comments like that. If a reporter asks "what do you think of Rajon Rondos play", do you really expect a player/coach/GM/etc to say "I don't think he's any better than he was 2 years ago"? That's just not realistic.  It doesn't mean they don't feel that way. It just doesn't make sense to say it publicly.

If I was a player competing against Rondo, I'd tell the media, that he's "the best in the game today, and has become a real leader for the celts"....Then when the game started, I'd give him 10ft to shoot like a bum, and be in his ear the whole game about how much he sucks. Then after the game, I'd go right back to praising him. That's how the game is played.

  Ok. Whatever. There's no way to "prove" Rondo's improved. Just like there's no real way to "prove" that Rose has improved. The real answer is that it's extremely obvious to most people. If you don't see it, you don't see it. Agree to disagree.

Well...the foundation of the main discussion (and title from the OP) is about SHOOTING.  I'm not usually a statistics person, but I don't recall ever seeing any numbers related to SHOOTING, that show Rondo improving.  I am however familiar with The substantial improvements Rose has made in that regard.  If someone could make a solid statistical argument for Rondos shooting getting notably better, then I would have to "agree to disagree" as you suggest (as I would then be believing something that I could not prove).

  The OP might be talking about SHOOTING but the post that I RESPONDED TO was talking about OTHER THINGS AS WELL.

The post that you made the awards reference response to, specifically mentioned "shooting percentage, points, and free throw percentage".  Other things were included as well, but it appears to be predominantly focused on shooting.

  So in other words my statement was correct.

And ejk3489....did you read the articles you referenced?  Maybe looking at the titles, it made it appear that they were negative criticisms of Rondos shooting, but if you actually read them, you'd find that they are not criticisms at all. While Rondos shot is momentarily cast in a bad light, the overall articles are all praises.  They either say that his shot IS developing, or they say that his shot isn't perfect, but he's sooo good at everything else, that it doesn't matter lol.  

  To summarize, you claim that there are no articles criticizing Rondo's shooting, someone quickly gives you a list of such articles, you ask him if he read any of the articles because they appear to criticize Rondo's shooting but aren't criticisms at all, you then admit that some of them criticize his shot "momentarily".

  Oh, and he *is* good at everything else.

Beyond that, none appear to be written by (or include much if any discussion from) NBA coaches, GMs, players, or people "associated with the NBA".  They are all in BballTims words, the "peanut gallery".

  I checked two of the articles to see (after reading your post) if they were indeed about Rondo's shooting. One of the two I looked at quoted Doc Rivers.

I never said that "there are no articles criticizing Rondos shooting". I said, that I thought it would be difficult to find articles "about Rondos inability to shoot"...meaning his inability to shoot would be the main topic of the article.  Momentarily mentioning his shooting as a weakness, and then proceeding to praise his other qualities, or point to his development in shooting wouldn't apply.  The whole point of my argument, is that the media rarely write negative pieces (even when deserved), so a piece that is actually written in praise clearly wouldn't qualify. 

And they were all written by your "peanut gallery". I don't recall the quote from Doc, but I highly doubt it is a quote criticizing Rondo for his inability to shoot, so again...it doesn't counter my argument.  In fact, if only 1 article out of the 5 or 6 posted (that are supposedly negative criticisms) included just 1 negative quote from a person of note, I think it would make my point even more clear...Players/coaches/GMs, etc, rarely make negative public criticisms (even when deserved).

I really don't think you read the articles if don't think any of them discussed Rondo's inability to shoot. I mean yeah a few of them went on to praise Rondo's other strengths, but to say it "momentarily mentioned" Rondo's shooting is just wrong.

And here are the quotes from Doc:

“We want him to shoot the right shots,” Rivers told the Boston Herald as Rondo trains for USA Basketball. “The three-point shot, I could care less. I could care less if he takes another three the rest of his career as far as I’m concerned. But we have to get him to make the elbow jump shot.”

“I think when he becomes a better free throw shooter it’ll make him a better driver,” Rivers said. “I think, unfortunately it happened in the Finals, when he started missing free throws he stopped driving. That’s what all guys do.”

That hurts you in the playoffs when the best player on the other team is allowed to rest and clog up the middle,” Rivers said. “That’s what made their defense so strong, that their best roamer was Kobe. We have to correct that problem. That hurt us.”

And not to mention the whole ordeal when Danny Ainge criticized Rondo in the 08-09 off-season:

"We expect him to play by the rules and be a leader as a point guard. We need him to be more of a leader," Ainge said. "There were just a couple situations where he was late this year, I don't know if he was sitting in his car, but showed up late and the rest of the team was there. We have team rules and you have to be on time. He was fined for being late, he said he was stuck in traffic, and it's just unacceptable."

"As we saw in the Orlando series, they left him wide open," Ainge said. "His presence hurt us in winning right now because his man went and doubled onto Ray [Allen] and Paul [Pierce] and made it difficult for us."

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/2009/06/ainge_critical.html

[BballTim]

According to Hoops Data website:

Shooting percentages from 16-23 ft:

Rondo: 38%

Rose: 38%

Westbrook: 36%

Interesting.

But I'm pretty certain there's a pretty big disparity between those %'s and the number of shots taken. Rondo takes very few shots typically, whereas both Rose and Westbrook are their team's main offensive weapons.

  Rose takes about 5 shots from that range a game, Westbrook 4.5, Rondo 3.3. Not that big a disparity.

The difference becomes apparent when you look at the shift in shot selection.

Rose used to shoot around 7 a game from that 16-23 ft range, and less than 1 from 3. Now he shoots nearly 5 3's a game, and hit them at a higher percentage than any other shot.

Rondo is shooting more 16-23 footers than he ever has, and hitting a lower percent of them than he did in 08 or 09.

  Yes, Rondo's recent slump has dragged his average down to below what he was at a couple of years ago but he's still above where he was at last year. The previous poster claimed that there must be a big disparity between the number of shots Rondo takes from that range and the number of shots Westbrook and Rose take from that area. That's not really the case, and I don't see how your post affects the discussion one way or the other.

[dtrader]

Again BballTim...I never said, that no one has ever criticized Rondo (or his shooting in particular).  I said that even in those rare instances where it happens, "it is most likely given positive spin, or is not the main focus of the piece."  The herald piece that you quoted was 1.-not an article about "rondos inability to shoot", and 2.- is an article that offers its criticisms with positive spin.

The main focus of that article, is stressing Rondos value to the team, and only mentions his tardiness and shooting, as areas where he is still improving to become a better leader. The key there being that Ainge says he IS maturing.  The piece is NOT at all about a lack of improvement, or meant to be negative towards Rondo.  It is an example of the exact type of media commentary I'm saying should be expected.  You didn't cite the specific articles related to the other quotes you posted, but I'd bet they are in fact similarly positive.

[BballTim]

As for my misunderstanding of the "peanut gallery" qualifications...I thought it was used to include people outside of the players/coaches/GMs, and other league representatives, because those are the players whose comments I explained would be self-censored and given positive spin.  I highly doubt Doc or Ainge have ever discussed Rondos inability to shoot without giving it some sort of positive spin. I certainly never read the article where those comments were featured.  Like I said before...I'm not saying that no one has ever criticized Rondos shot...I'm saying that even in those rare instances where it does happen, it is most likely given positive spin, or is not the main focus of the piece. The articles posted all appear to be examples of this. I'm saying you won't find an article from a league person, that is a negative piece...not a positive piece, with some negative criticism mixed in, but a negative piece. It just doesn't happen.

  I disagree that Doc and Danny haven't criticized Rondo's shooting without giving it a positive spin. They've said complementary things about Rondo at the same time but generally nothing more complementary about his shooting than "he needs to get better" sometimes followed by "but I think he can get better". But I don't see the point of this discussion. You don't think Rondo's improved as a player in the last two years and I do. You don't think that players, coaches or GMs from the Celts or other teams talking about how much Rondo's improved proves anything and I agreed. What's the point in arguing about what Doc and Danny have said when you're not going to be swayed by it no matter what they said?

[dtrader]

According to Hoops Data website:

Shooting percentages from 16-23 ft:

Rondo: 38%

Rose: 38%

Westbrook: 36%

Interesting.

But I'm pretty certain there's a pretty big disparity between those %'s and the number of shots taken. Rondo takes very few shots typically, whereas both Rose and Westbrook are their team's main offensive weapons.

  Rose takes about 5 shots from that range a game, Westbrook 4.5, Rondo 3.3. Not that big a disparity.

The difference becomes apparent when you look at the shift in shot selection.

Rose used to shoot around 7 a game from that 16-23 ft range, and less than 1 from 3. Now he shoots nearly 5 3's a game, and hit them at a higher percentage than any other shot.

Rondo is shooting more 16-23 footers than he ever has, and hitting a lower percent of them than he did in 08 or 09.

  Yes, Rondo's recent slump has dragged his average down to below what he was at a couple of years ago but he's still above where he was at last year. The previous poster claimed that there must be a big disparity between the number of shots Rondo takes from that range and the number of shots Westbrook and Rose take from that area. That's not really the case, and I don't see how your post affects the discussion one way or the other.

Celtics18 noted that Rose and Westbrook were their teams main offensive weapons, and that the similar fg% numbers could be overlooking a disparity in the number of shots. 

Pseudoelite countered that they actually had similar fg attempts from that range, indicating that the fg% numbers originally posted may not be subject to the volume bias that celtics18 mentioned, and possibly suggesting that the two are in fact similar shooters statistically

I suggested looking at the shift in shot selection, to show that while the fg% numbers from that range may be similar, it should not be taken as a sign that the 2 players have statistically similar shooting, as Rose has decreased his shooting in that range in exchange for vastly improved 3 point shooting, while Rondo has increased his shooting there for a decrease in production. 

The impact of my statement on the overall discussion of jealousy related to Roses shooting, was to illustrate that similar fg%s from 16-23 ft., do not account for Roses 3 point proficiency, and therefore should not be seen as an equalizing factor in a shooting comparison between the two.

[ejk3489]

Again BballTim...I never said, that no one has ever criticized Rondo (or his shooting in particular).  I said that even in those rare instances where it happens, "it is most likely given positive spin, or is not the main focus of the piece."  The herald piece that you quoted was 1.-not an article about "rondos inability to shoot", and 2.- is an article that offers its criticisms with positive spin.

The main focus of that article, is stressing Rondos value to the team, and only mentions his tardiness and shooting, as areas where he is still improving to become a better leader. The key there being that Ainge says he IS maturing.  The piece is NOT at all about a lack of improvement, or meant to be negative towards Rondo.  It is an example of the exact type of media commentary I'm saying should be expected.  You didn't cite the specific articles related to the other quotes you posted, but I'd bet they are in fact similarly positive.

I quoted that herald article because you said:

I don't recall the quote from Doc, but I highly doubt it is a quote criticizing Rondo for his inability to shoot, so again...it doesn't counter my argument. Players/coaches/GMs, etc, rarely make negative public criticisms (even when deserved).

When in fact Danny and Doc both criticized his inability to shoot. And I disagree that the overall tone of the article was to praise Rondo for his maturity...it certainly wasn't all negative, but Ainge was clearly critical of him.

The Doc quotes came from here: http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/12/rajon-rondos-jump-shot-remains-a-work-in-progress/

I don't really see a positive spin in this article.

[dtrader]

Again BballTim...I never said, that no one has ever criticized Rondo (or his shooting in particular).  I said that even in those rare instances where it happens, "it is most likely given positive spin, or is not the main focus of the piece."  The herald piece that you quoted was 1.-not an article about "rondos inability to shoot", and 2.- is an article that offers its criticisms with positive spin.

The main focus of that article, is stressing Rondos value to the team, and only mentions his tardiness and shooting, as areas where he is still improving to become a better leader. The key there being that Ainge says he IS maturing.  The piece is NOT at all about a lack of improvement, or meant to be negative towards Rondo.  It is an example of the exact type of media commentary I'm saying should be expected.  You didn't cite the specific articles related to the other quotes you posted, but I'd bet they are in fact similarly positive.

I quoted that herald article because you said:

I don't recall the quote from Doc, but I highly doubt it is a quote criticizing Rondo for his inability to shoot, so again...it doesn't counter my argument. Players/coaches/GMs, etc, rarely make negative public criticisms (even when deserved).

When in fact Danny and Doc both criticized his inability to shoot. And I disagree that the overall tone of the article was to praise Rondo for his maturity...it certainly wasn't all negative, but Ainge was clearly critical of him.

The Doc quotes came from here: http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/12/rajon-rondos-jump-shot-remains-a-work-in-progress/

I don't really see a positive spin in this article.

You don't see the positive spin, when the article says it's "the same long arms and massive hands that Rondo uses to make his drives so effective" that are hampering his jump shot? That's basically saying that he can't shoot BECAUSE he's such a great physical specimen. Or the other reason given, that he's just spending his time "figuring out more ways to get to the basket and make quality passes". The article is about how "Rondo has emerged as one of the best all-around point guards in basketball", but his jump shot is "in progress".  It's about how he's developing, and "He’s going to be a little better next year and he’ll be a little better each year". Basically, it's an article that has criticism in it, but was made to praise Rondo.

[BballTim]

According to Hoops Data website:

Shooting percentages from 16-23 ft:

Rondo: 38%

Rose: 38%

Westbrook: 36%

Interesting.

But I'm pretty certain there's a pretty big disparity between those %'s and the number of shots taken. Rondo takes very few shots typically, whereas both Rose and Westbrook are their team's main offensive weapons.

  Rose takes about 5 shots from that range a game, Westbrook 4.5, Rondo 3.3. Not that big a disparity.

The difference becomes apparent when you look at the shift in shot selection.

Rose used to shoot around 7 a game from that 16-23 ft range, and less than 1 from 3. Now he shoots nearly 5 3's a game, and hit them at a higher percentage than any other shot.

Rondo is shooting more 16-23 footers than he ever has, and hitting a lower percent of them than he did in 08 or 09.

  Yes, Rondo's recent slump has dragged his average down to below what he was at a couple of years ago but he's still above where he was at last year. The previous poster claimed that there must be a big disparity between the number of shots Rondo takes from that range and the number of shots Westbrook and Rose take from that area. That's not really the case, and I don't see how your post affects the discussion one way or the other.

Celtics18 noted that Rose and Westbrook were their teams main offensive weapons, and that the similar fg% numbers could be overlooking a disparity in the number of shots. 

Pseudoelite countered that they actually had similar fg attempts from that range, indicating that the fg% numbers originally posted may not be subject to the volume bias that celtics18 mentioned, and possibly suggesting that the two are in fact similar shooters statistically

I suggested looking at the shift in shot selection, to show that while the fg% numbers from that range may be similar, it should not be taken as a sign that the 2 players have statistically similar shooting, as Rose has decreased his shooting in that range in exchange for vastly improved 3 point shooting, while Rondo has increased his shooting there for a decrease in production. 

The impact of my statement on the overall discussion of jealousy related to Roses shooting, was to illustrate that similar fg%s from 16-23 ft., do not account for Roses 3 point proficiency, and therefore should not be seen as an equalizing factor in a shooting comparison between the two.

  Ah. I can only speak for myself, but I generally don't view original thread topics as some kind of assignment where every post in the thread needs to pertain to that topic and I think a lot of people would agree with me. A thread about Rondo's shooting might evolve into a discussion about Rondo's defense or a side discussion about the relative merit of TS% vs eFG% might break out. When someone responds to a post they typically are responding to that post as a unique entity, not responding to it within the confines of the thread topic.

  I'm not trying to be obnoxious or anything. The point you made about changing shot selections is perfectly valid, but it would have been a bit more clear (at least to me) if you'd explained why you were making it as it didn't really pertain directly to our conversation. Also, this seems like the second or so time you've talked about how a discussion pertains to the OP or the thread title, it's not always assumed.

[ejk3489]

Again BballTim...I never said, that no one has ever criticized Rondo (or his shooting in particular).  I said that even in those rare instances where it happens, "it is most likely given positive spin, or is not the main focus of the piece."  The herald piece that you quoted was 1.-not an article about "rondos inability to shoot", and 2.- is an article that offers its criticisms with positive spin.

The main focus of that article, is stressing Rondos value to the team, and only mentions his tardiness and shooting, as areas where he is still improving to become a better leader. The key there being that Ainge says he IS maturing.  The piece is NOT at all about a lack of improvement, or meant to be negative towards Rondo.  It is an example of the exact type of media commentary I'm saying should be expected.  You didn't cite the specific articles related to the other quotes you posted, but I'd bet they are in fact similarly positive.

I quoted that herald article because you said:

I don't recall the quote from Doc, but I highly doubt it is a quote criticizing Rondo for his inability to shoot, so again...it doesn't counter my argument. Players/coaches/GMs, etc, rarely make negative public criticisms (even when deserved).

When in fact Danny and Doc both criticized his inability to shoot. And I disagree that the overall tone of the article was to praise Rondo for his maturity...it certainly wasn't all negative, but Ainge was clearly critical of him.

The Doc quotes came from here: http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/12/rajon-rondos-jump-shot-remains-a-work-in-progress/

I don't really see a positive spin in this article.

You don't see the positive spin, when the article says it's "the same long arms and massive hands that Rondo uses to make his drives so effective" that are hampering his jump shot? That's basically saying that he can't shoot BECAUSE he's such a great physical specimen. Or the other reason given, that he's just spending his time "figuring out more ways to get to the basket and make quality passes". The article is about how "Rondo has emerged as one of the best all-around point guards in basketball", but his jump shot is "in progress".  It's about how he's developing, and "He’s going to be a little better next year and he’ll be a little better each year". Basically, it's an article that has criticism in it, but was made to praise Rondo.

I was mainly talking about the quotes from Doc. But you also forgot to add that after the author said that "Rondo has emerged as one of the best all-around point guards in basketball" it followed with "but his jumper remains a glaring weakness — Rondo essentially doesn’t have to be guarded beyond 15 feet, and shoots free throws like a center."

Anyways, we obviously disagree about what articles criticize Rondo and which don't...I'm not sure what types of stories you would consider under the category of "Rajon's inability to shoot".

[dtrader]

You're right BballTim..  I understand how forum threads can branch out in unexpected ways. Even within this discussion, I caught myself straying off on my own general feelings towards the media and had to reel myself in a bit lol.

The fact that I'm not the most familiar with the different ways to quote smaller pieces of other members posts also makes it a little difficult for me to be as specific as I'd like.  Hopefully I'll become more familiar with all the forums tools, and be able to explain myself better in future discussions. It certainly isn't obnoxious to point out, and despite our differing views I certainly respect your opinions...even those critical of my post structure lol

As for articles about Rondos inability to shoot...I would consider any article (or interview) that had his inability to shoot as the overall focus of the story sufficient. If it included statements from players/coaches/GMs etc that directly mentioned his poor shooting without praising him for other things later in the article, it would be especially significant. My whole point, is that there are no negative articles (or interviews) given to the media.  If the majority of the piece is given as praise or justification to offset the negative aspects of it, then it cannot reasonably be seen as negative.

Yes, the article you posted follows up saying that he's one of the best PGs, by saying that shooting is his glaring weakness...but then it turns right around and offers multiple justifications for that weakness, and talks about progress made on it. That's not being negative.

[droopdog7]

I see people still have NO IDEA how far Rondo's shooting had to come to get to the point it is now.  We're not talking about tweaks for repetition, we're talking about a mass transformation.  When Rondo was in college, his jump shot was keeping company with the likes of Rodman and Ben Wallace.  Quite easily the worst I had ever seen from a guard. 

Shoot, I'd argue that Rondo'd shot has actually progressed MORE than Rose's shot.  The problem is that it just had too far to go and for the milllionth time, I don't really see it every going much higher.