Rondo for Steve Nash

[BballTim]

  But shooting's his only advantage over Rondo. Knock his scoring down and you basically have the same scoring and assist numbers that you get from Rondo without the defense or the rebounding. He scores more efficiently but Rondo generates more possessions through steals and rebounds so that's basically a wash.

Shooting is not his only advantage over Rondo. Passing is as well.

  Back in your time machine, I see. He's better than Rondo was a few years ago, not as good as Rondo was last year.

Again, with this. What are you talking about? Which guy led the NBA in assists and assists percentage last year while having significantly worse teammates? Which guy had the better turnover percentage? Which point guard led his team top a top-10 NBA offense?

The answer to all of those questions is Steve Nash.

Oh wait, he put up those numbers because he had bad teammates...or something? Because it's easier to put up assist numbers as a point guard when you have teammates who are less adept at scoring....or something? I'm confused.

  Haha. You're right about being confused The rest was, well, confusing. Nash led the league in assists because Rondo's play tailed off late in the season due to injury. Before that he was well better than Nash. He also had a better assist percentage until then. So unless you're claiming that a healthy Rondo is a better passer than Nash, or that Rondo was the better passer until late in the season and suddenly Nash became better those stats don't help as much as you think. If you're going to bring turnovers into the argument, it's worth pointing out that Rondo has a *better* assist to bad pass ratio than Nash. So that doesn't really help you either.

  And, just to help clear things up, Rondo's teammates pass the ball more often than Nash's teammates. To put it another way, Nash's teammates are more likely to shoot it when they get it than Rondo's. So the fact that they don't shoot as well is somewhat balanced off by the fact that they're more likely to shoot the ball when they get the pass. And, just for fun, I'll point out that Rondo's teammates getting more assists than Nash's has *something* to do with Nash's higher assist%.

Rondo's assist numbers went down not because he was hurt, but because Shaq was hurt.

  Strange world, apparently Shaq got hurt over a month after he stopped playing for the Celts. Because that's when Rondo's numbers went way down.

[BballTim]

Rondo's defense is grossly overrated by inflated steal stats (gambling too much), playing with good/great defensive players, and playing with veterans who understand and are willing to commit to the team defense concept. Rondo's man defense is underwhelming. I can name off at least seven point guards who are better defensively than Rondo.

  Haha. If Rondo's career continues on as it's gone so far he'll be seen as one of the better defensive pgs ever.

[KungPoweChicken]

 But shooting's his only advantage over Rondo. Knock his scoring down and you basically have the same scoring and assist numbers that you get from Rondo without the defense or the rebounding. He scores more efficiently but Rondo generates more possessions through steals and rebounds so that's basically a wash.

Shooting is not his only advantage over Rondo. Passing is as well.

  Back in your time machine, I see. He's better than Rondo was a few years ago, not as good as Rondo was last year.

Again, with this. What are you talking about? Which guy led the NBA in assists and assists percentage last year while having significantly worse teammates? Which guy had the better turnover percentage? Which point guard led his team top a top-10 NBA offense?

The answer to all of those questions is Steve Nash.

Oh wait, he put up those numbers because he had bad teammates...or something? Because it's easier to put up assist numbers as a point guard when you have teammates who are less adept at scoring....or something? I'm confused.

  Haha. You're right about being confused The rest was, well, confusing. Nash led the league in assists because Rondo's play tailed off late in the season due to injury. Before that he was well better than Nash. He also had a better assist percentage until then. So unless you're claiming that a healthy Rondo is a better passer than Nash, or that Rondo was the better passer until late in the season and suddenly Nash became better those stats don't help as much as you think. If you're going to bring turnovers into the argument, it's worth pointing out that Rondo has a *better* assist to bad pass ratio than Nash. So that doesn't really help you either.

  And, just to help clear things up, Rondo's teammates pass the ball more often than Nash's teammates. To put it another way, Nash's teammates are more likely to shoot it when they get it than Rondo's. So the fact that they don't shoot as well is somewhat balanced off by the fact that they're more likely to shoot the ball when they get the pass. And, just for fun, I'll point out that Rondo's teammates getting more assists than Nash's has *something* to do with Nash's higher assist%.

Rondo's assist numbers went down not because he was hurt, but because Shaq was hurt.

  Strange world, apparently Shaq got hurt over a month after he stopped playing for the Celts. Because that's when Rondo's numbers went way down.

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

[Fafnir]

Rondo's defense is grossly overrated by inflated steal stats (gambling too much), playing with good/great defensive players, and playing with veterans who understand and are willing to commit to the team defense concept. Rondo's man defense is underwhelming. I can name off at least seven point guards who are better defensively than Rondo.

Go for it then.

Help defense and ball pressure are just as important as man to man penetration, for all people like to complain about his man getting by him.

[Fafnir]

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

Mr. Coorelation, have you met Mr. Causation? Oh, I see you have!

[KungPoweChicken]

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

Mr. Coorelation, have you met Mr. Causation? Oh, I see you have!

That's your rebuttal? We're not working with independent and dependent variables in a laboratory. The stats mean there's a very good indication that Rondo's assist numbers were aided by having Shaq in the lineup, a direct contradiction to what Tim said. I'm sorry you made the inference that I said Shaq caused Rondo's assist numbers, but I can't be responsible for what you interpret.

[BballTim]

Rondo's assist numbers went down not because he was hurt, but because Shaq was hurt.

  Strange world, apparently Shaq got hurt over a month after he stopped playing for the Celts. Because that's when Rondo's numbers went way down.

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

  In the first 12 games after Shaq left the lineup Rondo averaged 11.5 assists a game, hitting double figures in assists 9 times. In the 12 games after that, Rondo averaged 7.5 assists a game, reaching double figures in assists twice. So, apparently the "Shaq effect" started about four and a half weeks after he left the lineup.

  Edit: In those first 12 times Rondo hit 15 or more assists 3 times, which is fairly close to the 30% considering the sample size.

[KungPoweChicken]

Rondo's assist numbers went down not because he was hurt, but because Shaq was hurt.

  Strange world, apparently Shaq got hurt over a month after he stopped playing for the Celts. Because that's when Rondo's numbers went way down.

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

  In the first 12 games after Shaq left the lineup Rondo averaged 11.5 assists a game, hitting double figures in assists 9 times. In the 12 games after that, Rondo averaged 7.5 assists a game, reaching double figures in assists twice. So, apparently the "Shaq effect" started about four and a half weeks after he left the lineup.

Of those games how many times did he have 15 or more? And in 12 games he averaged 7.5, almost 4 below his season average, and you're using that as good evidence that Shaq was not a factor? That's funny.

[Fafnir]

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

Mr. Coorelation, have you met Mr. Causation? Oh, I see you have!

That's your rebuttal? We're not working with independent and dependent variables in a laboratory. The stats mean there's a very good indication that Rondo's assist numbers were aided by having Shaq in the lineup, a direct contradiction to what Tim said.

Yes my rebuttal is that you're taking a statistical artifact, that Rondo had a ton of big assist games early in the year when the C's were the best team in the league, and twisting it to fit your argument.

That's not statistics, you've done zero statistical analysis to conclude if what you cite is significant. That's sports radio factoid work there, do you have any reason you picked 15 as your cut off? Do you examine using other end points?

[Fafnir]

Rondo's assist numbers went down not because he was hurt, but because Shaq was hurt.

  Strange world, apparently Shaq got hurt over a month after he stopped playing for the Celts. Because that's when Rondo's numbers went way down.

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

  In the first 12 games after Shaq left the lineup Rondo averaged 11.5 assists a game, hitting double figures in assists 9 times. In the 12 games after that, Rondo averaged 7.5 assists a game, reaching double figures in assists twice. So, apparently the "Shaq effect" started about four and a half weeks after he left the lineup.

Of those games how many times did he have 15 or more? And in 12 games he averaged 7.5, almost 4 below his season average, and you're using that as good evidence that Shaq was not a factor? That's funny.

Why is 15 a more signifigant number than 14? Or 13, or 12, or 11, or 10?

Sloppy definitions (actually no definitions), no real statistical tests, quickly jumping to a conclusion after finding a single artifact, and ignoring other possible hypothesis.

Stats don't lie indeed, stats are rolling over in their grave at the misuse of their name.

[BballTim]

Rondo's assist numbers went down not because he was hurt, but because Shaq was hurt.

  Strange world, apparently Shaq got hurt over a month after he stopped playing for the Celts. Because that's when Rondo's numbers went way down.

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

  In the first 12 games after Shaq left the lineup Rondo averaged 11.5 assists a game, hitting double figures in assists 9 times. In the 12 games after that, Rondo averaged 7.5 assists a game, reaching double figures in assists twice. So, apparently the "Shaq effect" started about four and a half weeks after he left the lineup.

Of those games how many times did he have 15 or more? And in 12 games he averaged 7.5, almost 4 below his season average, and you're using that as good evidence that Shaq was not a factor? That's funny.

  I put this in another post, but he had 15 or more 3 times out of 12, where 30% would be between 3 and 4 times. So, no dropoff there either. And, yes, are you following the timeline? Feb 1st, Shaq leaves the lineup. Rondo's numbers fall significantly after *Mar 4th*. It might be funny, but clearly it shows that Shaq getting hurt wasn't the cause of the drop in assists.

  Unless you can explain why it took over a month of Shaq being out of the lineup for the effect to start.

[KungPoweChicken]

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

Mr. Coorelation, have you met Mr. Causation? Oh, I see you have!

That's your rebuttal? We're not working with independent and dependent variables in a laboratory. The stats mean there's a very good indication that Rondo's assist numbers were aided by having Shaq in the lineup, a direct contradiction to what Tim said.

Yes my rebuttal is that you're taking a statistical artifact, that Rondo had a ton of big assist games early in the year when the C's were the best team in the league, and twisting it to fit your argument.

That's not statistics, you've done zero statistical analysis to conclude if what you cite is significant. That's sports radio factoid work there, do you have any reason you picked 15 as your cut off? Do you examine using other end points?

They were the best team early in the league because Shaq was in the lineup. Actually, it is statistics. Whether or not it is in depth enough for you is your opinion. It is, however, still statistics.

If you are saying what I've written is not statistically significant, as in "does it fall beyond the norm", then 99% of the stats people say on this board are not statistically significant.

I'm sorry if I didn't get my normal curve out for you.

[KungPoweChicken]

Rondo's assist numbers went down not because he was hurt, but because Shaq was hurt.

  Strange world, apparently Shaq got hurt over a month after he stopped playing for the Celts. Because that's when Rondo's numbers went way down.

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

  In the first 12 games after Shaq left the lineup Rondo averaged 11.5 assists a game, hitting double figures in assists 9 times. In the 12 games after that, Rondo averaged 7.5 assists a game, reaching double figures in assists twice. So, apparently the "Shaq effect" started about four and a half weeks after he left the lineup.

Of those games how many times did he have 15 or more? And in 12 games he averaged 7.5, almost 4 below his season average, and you're using that as good evidence that Shaq was not a factor? That's funny.

  I put this in another post, but he had 15 or more 3 times out of 12, where 30% would be between 3 and 4 times. So, no dropoff there either. And, yes, are you following the timeline? Feb 1st, Shaq leaves the lineup. Rondo's numbers fall significantly after *Mar 4th*. It might be funny, but clearly it shows that Shaq getting hurt wasn't the cause of the drop in assists.

  Unless you can explain why it took over a month of Shaq being out of the lineup for the effect to start.

I'm taking a sample size of 26 games. You are using 12. You need to take 26 for it to be representative.

[Fafnir]

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

Mr. Coorelation, have you met Mr. Causation? Oh, I see you have!

That's your rebuttal? We're not working with independent and dependent variables in a laboratory. The stats mean there's a very good indication that Rondo's assist numbers were aided by having Shaq in the lineup, a direct contradiction to what Tim said.

Yes my rebuttal is that you're taking a statistical artifact, that Rondo had a ton of big assist games early in the year when the C's were the best team in the league, and twisting it to fit your argument.

That's not statistics, you've done zero statistical analysis to conclude if what you cite is significant. That's sports radio factoid work there, do you have any reason you picked 15 as your cut off? Do you examine using other end points?

They were the best team early in the league because Shaq was in the lineup. Actually, it is statistics. Whether or not it is in depth enough for you is your opinion. It is, however, still statistics.

If you are saying what I've written is not statistically significant, as in does it fall beyond the norm, then 99% of the stats people say on this board are not statistically significant.

I'm sorry if I didn't get my normal curve out for you.

What I'm saying is that I don't know if it is, and neither do you because you didn't even bother to look at his assist numbers in depth. You did a quick search, found a fact that supports your view, and ran with it. Then you attempted to play that "its a stat, they don't lie" card to make your argument stronger.

Bball raises an excellent point about Shaq's leaving and the drop off in Rondo's production not being synched up nearly as tightly as you claim. The team's production also was maintained without Shaq for a time.

You're right other people misuse stats all the time on this board. You got called out for it, you're still wrong.

[BballTim]

Rondo's assist numbers went down not because he was hurt, but because Shaq was hurt.

  Strange world, apparently Shaq got hurt over a month after he stopped playing for the Celts. Because that's when Rondo's numbers went way down.

Of the 36 games Shaq started, Rondo started in 26 of them, and distributed 15 or more assists 8 times. This means when Shaq and Rondo both started, Rondo had a 30% chance to get 15 or more assists, significantly higher than any other point in the season. The stats don't lie.

  In the first 12 games after Shaq left the lineup Rondo averaged 11.5 assists a game, hitting double figures in assists 9 times. In the 12 games after that, Rondo averaged 7.5 assists a game, reaching double figures in assists twice. So, apparently the "Shaq effect" started about four and a half weeks after he left the lineup.

Of those games how many times did he have 15 or more? And in 12 games he averaged 7.5, almost 4 below his season average, and you're using that as good evidence that Shaq was not a factor? That's funny.

  I put this in another post, but he had 15 or more 3 times out of 12, where 30% would be between 3 and 4 times. So, no dropoff there either. And, yes, are you following the timeline? Feb 1st, Shaq leaves the lineup. Rondo's numbers fall significantly after *Mar 4th*. It might be funny, but clearly it shows that Shaq getting hurt wasn't the cause of the drop in assists.

  Unless you can explain why it took over a month of Shaq being out of the lineup for the effect to start.

I'm taking a sample size of 26 games. You are using 12. You need to take 26 for it to be representative.

  I'm not sure if you're being facetious because you figured out your point was clearly incorrect or if you still think you can convince anyone that Shaq leaving the lineup was the reason Rondo's assist numbers dropped *5 weeks later*. Let me know and I'll respond.