The difference, however, was that the Bull's three scorers were young, healthy, and in their respective primes. The Celts, on the other hand, needed Rondo to be both a playmaker and a scorer because he's the youngest of the *star* players & as we know, our big three has had far more scoring slumps than the Bull's 3 scorers. And even with all the WWF wrestling nonsense, Rodman still shutdown Malone pretty well during the finals.
In the Bulls 6 title years there was never a 3rd player in the playoffs that scored as much as Rondo's career playoff scoring average. Jordan scored more than Rondo. Pippin averaged between 1 and 5 more points a game than what Rondo's done over the last few years. And, let's face it, if you made Rondo you second scoring option in the playoffs it's almost impossible to believe that he wouldn't give you more than 4 more points a game.
Interesting, but someone should take a good look at Pippin's stats. Poor foul shooter, became close to average when his career progressed. His outside shooting improved quite a bit in his late 20s. (note: he and Kidd both improved as shooters when they were older than Rondo, it's much more common than people seem to think). Great defender. Great player. Never the type that could be the main scorer on a title team. Career playoff averages of 18/8/5 compared to the 16/7/10 we've gotten from Rondo over the last three years. Pippin's playoff numbers at the age Rondo is now were 19/7/6, before Rondo hurt his elbow he was putting up 17/7/11.
Really, if someone can come up with a better match than that, I'd be interested. Rondo looks like, if he was the second option on offense, he'd probably be a slightly better scoring and much better passing (smaller) version of Pippin. By the way, if anyone's old enough to remember those Bulls teams, think about Pippin on offense and Rodman and compare the two. That's how ridiculous this topic was.
Scottie Pippen?
Wow.
Just wow.
Haha. I'm guessing this comment is based on your knowing that Pippen was known as a great basketball player, and your having no idea that he was never a great offensive threat (especially at Rondo's age), or that he was also a poor shooter (ft% below 70% 6 of his first 9 seasons in the league, 3 point % less than 30% 5 of his first 6 years). Again, come up with a better comparison. *That* should be rich.
Now, moving on: For those of you who believe that professional basketball can be analyzed completely by numbers, I need some help here.
What exactly is the piece of sabremetrica that measures ball stoppage?
For our purposes here, let's define it thusly: Possessions when Rondo turns down at least one unguarded jump shot from 18 feet in that end in a hurried failed shot within six seconds or a 24-second violation, with Rondo standing alone within easy scoring distance pounding the basketball waiting for an opening.
I.E. - no points, an empty trip.
You got me there. No such statistic exists. What they do measure is how the team does overall with Rondo in the game. I know you think that judging a player's effect on an offense by remembering some of the plays and ignoring all the others is the only way to go, but not everyone agrees. The Celts offense is better with Rondo playing than out of the game. The fact that you can't see why it's true doesn't make it false.
Hint: In the last two months of the season and playoffs, that number is frequently in the double digits.
There are coaches who call that "stopping the basketball," so I'm considering spending next winter creating my own sabremetric stat - BS%.
Unless, of course, there's something out there that accurately measures how a player's inability/unwillingness to shoot a jump shot or attack stagnates an offense.
No, just like there are no stats to measure things like ability to dictate pace and run an offense, and no stats to measure court vision, BBIQ or passing ability. I'd guess that you're considering spending next winter creating a metric to measure ball stoppage and none of these is because you either can't see them or don't see why they'd have an effect on a game.
I've never said that Rondo doesn't pass up open jumpers (although I question your strategy of having the offense do exactly what the defense wants them to) and I've never said that Rondo's lack of shooting or ft shooting doesn't have a negative impact on our offense. I just maintain that you have to consider everything he does, good and bad, when considering his impact, not just the bad. Clearly you disagree.
Scoring average means nothing to me. There are dozens of volume shooters in the league. How many possessions do the Celtics lose every night to the lack of consistent shooting and scoring from the point guard position?
I can't wait for your new metric to show us. I'll make two predictions: the number will be staggeringly high, and team will score efficiently in spite of it. Well, three predictions. You'll ignore how the offense does with Rondo playing and point to your newly created saber-metric as the only valid way to judge Rondo.
Topic: Rondo is a poor mans Dennis Rodman (Read 20447 times)