Some interesting notes on Rondos jumpshooting from ESPN

[BballTim]

I just find this whole discussion quite amazing sometimes.  Rondo came into the league as a peculiarly talented late bloomer.  Season after season he's made his game larger and better.  Yes, there have been ups and down, and not every aspect of his game has been on an unbroken upwards trend line, but the overall trend is not only clear, but dramatic.    This is a kid who was in mvp consideration for a good chunk of last season.  That's quite a leap for someone who looked like he might not have a place in the league his first season.  Yes, last season ended badly, but we all know how disrupted things were, and why.  So why don't we stop looking this gift horse in the mouth, huh?  We are lucky to have such a talented guy to build the future of our team around.  Of course there's no guarantee that Rondo will rocket into the future as the superstar some of us think he can be, and maybe he'll even fall on his face, but I don't remember many sure things other than Lebron, and even Lebron can be said to have fallen on his face in some ways.  No player is perfect and no brilliant future is ever guaranteed.  But, based on what we have seen so far, we have a heckuva hopeful start with Rondo.

P.C., I'm going to be honest, and please understand I mean no offense, but I hardly ever do more than glance at your posts because you never break them up into smaller paragraphs.  a tiny wall of text is not fun to read through, especially when i do enough of that for school.  

  There are big players, small players, fast players, slow players, good shooters, bad shooters, and more than half of them averaged less than 15 points a game. I don't think it's more rare for point guards like Rondo to have long careers than point guards like Nash.

long careers?  perhaps that's true.  but long careers where they play at an all-star level past their late 20's / early 30's?  the list of players is likely much smaller there, and the list of such point guards who played at a high level past their late 20's who weren't out and out superstars to begin with seems to me to be even smaller.

If we are working on the assumption that Rondo has finished developing as a player, you may be right.  That just seems to be an absurd assumption.

I'm not sure how absurd it really is.  I think it is not unreasonable to think that Rondo might significantly improve his outside shooting as he ages, though I doubt he'll ever be able to create his own shot from outside or anything.  Certainly other weak shooters like Jason Kidd have been able to do that in their later years.  We might expect Rondo to reign in his game and reduce his turnovers, or improve his discipline as a man defender instead of ranging around gambling for so many steals.

I think it's unreasonable to think that after 5-6 years in the league he's going to really take his game as a whole to an entirely different level.  Almost all players, especially guards, and especially players who have received as much playing time in their first few seasons as Rondo has, have pretty much become who they are going to be as players by their mid 20's. 

That's why I think that what you see is what you get with Rondo, for the most part, other than the kind of basic improvements you see as most well disciplined, hard working players age.  There's certainly nothing wrong with that; Rondo is a very good player.  But expecting him to blossom into a MVP-caliber superstar in the next couple of years is pretty silly, in my opinion.

  Using ages from basketballreference, Rondo was 24 last year. He's a 2 time all-star, 2 time 1st team and 1 time 2nd team all defense. Compare him to other recent pgs with long and illustrious careers and whose names have come up in this thread: Stockton, Payton, Kidd and Nash. Kidd was also a 2 time all-star at the same age. Payton was a year older than Rondo is when he made his first all-star game, Stockton 2 years older, Nash 3 years older. None of the 4 had made a single all nba or all defense team at Rondo's age.

  Here's a comparison of the first 5 years of all of them:

  http://bkref.com/tiny/37InD

  Rondo's numbers are pretty much in line with the rest of them in spite of his being the youngest in the group.

  Here's a comparison of them (single season) at Rondo's age:

  http://bkref.com/tiny/oZKMY

  Again, Rondo holds his own with this group. He has the most experience at this age, it's true, but he also struggled with injuries for much of the year. Also note the playoff numbers. Rondo still holds his own despite playing roughly 30% of his minutes with one working arm.

  Clearly there are other point guards that put up better stats than Rondo at younger ages. Start with Magic and Isiah and KJ. That's why Rondo was available in the draft when he was. But claiming that Rondo's too old or too experienced to improve significantly is pretty silly.

[PosImpos]

I just find this whole discussion quite amazing sometimes.  Rondo came into the league as a peculiarly talented late bloomer.  Season after season he's made his game larger and better.  Yes, there have been ups and down, and not every aspect of his game has been on an unbroken upwards trend line, but the overall trend is not only clear, but dramatic.    This is a kid who was in mvp consideration for a good chunk of last season.  That's quite a leap for someone who looked like he might not have a place in the league his first season.  Yes, last season ended badly, but we all know how disrupted things were, and why.  So why don't we stop looking this gift horse in the mouth, huh?  We are lucky to have such a talented guy to build the future of our team around.  Of course there's no guarantee that Rondo will rocket into the future as the superstar some of us think he can be, and maybe he'll even fall on his face, but I don't remember many sure things other than Lebron, and even Lebron can be said to have fallen on his face in some ways.  No player is perfect and no brilliant future is ever guaranteed.  But, based on what we have seen so far, we have a heckuva hopeful start with Rondo.

P.C., I'm going to be honest, and please understand I mean no offense, but I hardly ever do more than glance at your posts because you never break them up into smaller paragraphs.  a tiny wall of text is not fun to read through, especially when i do enough of that for school.  

  There are big players, small players, fast players, slow players, good shooters, bad shooters, and more than half of them averaged less than 15 points a game. I don't think it's more rare for point guards like Rondo to have long careers than point guards like Nash.

long careers?  perhaps that's true.  but long careers where they play at an all-star level past their late 20's / early 30's?  the list of players is likely much smaller there, and the list of such point guards who played at a high level past their late 20's who weren't out and out superstars to begin with seems to me to be even smaller.

If we are working on the assumption that Rondo has finished developing as a player, you may be right.  That just seems to be an absurd assumption.

I'm not sure how absurd it really is.  I think it is not unreasonable to think that Rondo might significantly improve his outside shooting as he ages, though I doubt he'll ever be able to create his own shot from outside or anything.  Certainly other weak shooters like Jason Kidd have been able to do that in their later years.  We might expect Rondo to reign in his game and reduce his turnovers, or improve his discipline as a man defender instead of ranging around gambling for so many steals.

I think it's unreasonable to think that after 5-6 years in the league he's going to really take his game as a whole to an entirely different level.  Almost all players, especially guards, and especially players who have received as much playing time in their first few seasons as Rondo has, have pretty much become who they are going to be as players by their mid 20's.  

That's why I think that what you see is what you get with Rondo, for the most part, other than the kind of basic improvements you see as most well disciplined, hard working players age.  There's certainly nothing wrong with that; Rondo is a very good player.  But expecting him to blossom into a MVP-caliber superstar in the next couple of years is pretty silly, in my opinion.

  Using ages from basketballreference, Rondo was 24 last year. He's a 2 time all-star, 2 time 1st team and 1 time 2nd team all defense. Compare him to other recent pgs with long and illustrious careers and whose names have come up in this thread: Stockton, Payton, Kidd and Nash. Kidd was also a 2 time all-star at the same age. Payton was a year older than Rondo is when he made his first all-star game, Stockton 2 years older, Nash 3 years older. None of the 4 had made a single all nba or all defense team at Rondo's age.

  Here's a comparison of the first 5 years of all of them:

  http://bkref.com/tiny/37InD

  Rondo's numbers are pretty much in line with the rest of them in spite of his being the youngest in the group.

  Here's a comparison of them (single season) at Rondo's age:

  http://bkref.com/tiny/oZKMY

  Again, Rondo holds his own with this group. He has the most experience at this age, it's true, but he also struggled with injuries for much of the year. Also note the playoff numbers. Rondo still holds his own despite playing roughly 30% of his minutes with one working arm.

  Clearly there are other point guards that put up better stats than Rondo at younger ages. Start with Magic and Isiah and KJ. That's why Rondo was available in the draft when he was. But claiming that Rondo's too old or too experienced to improve significantly is pretty silly.

actually, taking a look at their individual seasons, it looks like all of the players you chose saw a significant jump in their fifth season.  though most of them had (arguably) their career best season after that fifth season, none of them made any more huge leaps in production or efficiency after that point.

to me, it looks as though the stats for the players with whom you compared Rondo suggest that for an elite pass first point guard, most of the major development occurs in the first four seasons, culminating in a fifth season that sets the tone for the years of the player's prime.  

if that's the case, then it supports my point -- Rondo is what he is.  a double-double (10-10) machine at point guard who is a capable scorer when he focuses on it -- though he does so only intermittently -- but mainly distinguishes himself by being one of the league's best passers and defenders at his position.

[BballTim]

I just find this whole discussion quite amazing sometimes.  Rondo came into the league as a peculiarly talented late bloomer.  Season after season he's made his game larger and better.  Yes, there have been ups and down, and not every aspect of his game has been on an unbroken upwards trend line, but the overall trend is not only clear, but dramatic.    This is a kid who was in mvp consideration for a good chunk of last season.  That's quite a leap for someone who looked like he might not have a place in the league his first season.  Yes, last season ended badly, but we all know how disrupted things were, and why.  So why don't we stop looking this gift horse in the mouth, huh?  We are lucky to have such a talented guy to build the future of our team around.  Of course there's no guarantee that Rondo will rocket into the future as the superstar some of us think he can be, and maybe he'll even fall on his face, but I don't remember many sure things other than Lebron, and even Lebron can be said to have fallen on his face in some ways.  No player is perfect and no brilliant future is ever guaranteed.  But, based on what we have seen so far, we have a heckuva hopeful start with Rondo.

P.C., I'm going to be honest, and please understand I mean no offense, but I hardly ever do more than glance at your posts because you never break them up into smaller paragraphs.  a tiny wall of text is not fun to read through, especially when i do enough of that for school.  

  There are big players, small players, fast players, slow players, good shooters, bad shooters, and more than half of them averaged less than 15 points a game. I don't think it's more rare for point guards like Rondo to have long careers than point guards like Nash.

long careers?  perhaps that's true.  but long careers where they play at an all-star level past their late 20's / early 30's?  the list of players is likely much smaller there, and the list of such point guards who played at a high level past their late 20's who weren't out and out superstars to begin with seems to me to be even smaller.

If we are working on the assumption that Rondo has finished developing as a player, you may be right.  That just seems to be an absurd assumption.

I'm not sure how absurd it really is.  I think it is not unreasonable to think that Rondo might significantly improve his outside shooting as he ages, though I doubt he'll ever be able to create his own shot from outside or anything.  Certainly other weak shooters like Jason Kidd have been able to do that in their later years.  We might expect Rondo to reign in his game and reduce his turnovers, or improve his discipline as a man defender instead of ranging around gambling for so many steals.

I think it's unreasonable to think that after 5-6 years in the league he's going to really take his game as a whole to an entirely different level.  Almost all players, especially guards, and especially players who have received as much playing time in their first few seasons as Rondo has, have pretty much become who they are going to be as players by their mid 20's.  

That's why I think that what you see is what you get with Rondo, for the most part, other than the kind of basic improvements you see as most well disciplined, hard working players age.  There's certainly nothing wrong with that; Rondo is a very good player.  But expecting him to blossom into a MVP-caliber superstar in the next couple of years is pretty silly, in my opinion.

  Using ages from basketballreference, Rondo was 24 last year. He's a 2 time all-star, 2 time 1st team and 1 time 2nd team all defense. Compare him to other recent pgs with long and illustrious careers and whose names have come up in this thread: Stockton, Payton, Kidd and Nash. Kidd was also a 2 time all-star at the same age. Payton was a year older than Rondo is when he made his first all-star game, Stockton 2 years older, Nash 3 years older. None of the 4 had made a single all nba or all defense team at Rondo's age.

  Here's a comparison of the first 5 years of all of them:

  http://bkref.com/tiny/37InD

  Rondo's numbers are pretty much in line with the rest of them in spite of his being the youngest in the group.

  Here's a comparison of them (single season) at Rondo's age:

  http://bkref.com/tiny/oZKMY

  Again, Rondo holds his own with this group. He has the most experience at this age, it's true, but he also struggled with injuries for much of the year. Also note the playoff numbers. Rondo still holds his own despite playing roughly 30% of his minutes with one working arm.

  Clearly there are other point guards that put up better stats than Rondo at younger ages. Start with Magic and Isiah and KJ. That's why Rondo was available in the draft when he was. But claiming that Rondo's too old or too experienced to improve significantly is pretty silly.

actually, taking a look at their individual seasons, it looks like all of the players you chose saw a significant jump in their fifth season.  though most of them had (arguably) their career best season after that fifth season, none of them made any more huge leaps in production or efficiency after that point.

to me, it looks as though the stats for the players with whom you compared Rondo suggest that for an elite pass first point guard, most of the major development occurs in the first four seasons, culminating in a fifth season that sets the tone for the years of the player's prime.  

if that's the case, then it supports my point -- Rondo is what he is.  a double-double (10-10) machine at point guard who is a capable scorer when he focuses on it -- though he does so only intermittently -- but mainly distinguishes himself by being one of the league's best passers and defenders at his position.

  Their 5th season all came when they were older than Rondo. If you can show that it's related only to number of years and not their ages you'd have something. Then again, if it's based on experience then you'd have to give a lot of weight to the jump Rondo made this year before the injuries struck, when he was leading the league in assists by a comfortable margin and among the MVP candidates.

[PosImpos]

  Their 5th season all came when they were older than Rondo. If you can show that it's related only to number of years and not their ages you'd have something. Then again, if it's based on experience then you'd have to give a lot of weight to the jump Rondo made this year before the injuries struck, when he was leading the league in assists by a comfortable margin and among the MVP candidates.

I would definitely agree that years in the league, rather than age, is a much more pertinent number to look at, though I doubt the difference is enormous.

I suppose there may be some reason to think that Rondo might not have hit that "jump" season yet, since all of the other players you brought up (with the exception of Jason Kidd), played and developed for a longer time in college.  I don't find that particularly persuasive, though.



If this last season should have been Rondo's jump year (as evidenced by his play at the beginning of the season), but was derailed by injuries, I understand the optimism and I don't disagree with it.  I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Rondo's early-season level is close to his peak.  

When he is healthy, we might see him sustain that kind of play for a season.  However, without the sort of phenomenal supporting cast he had, he won't sniff anywhere close to 14-15 assists per game, and the Celtics won't have a top 2-3 record.  That's the sort of player Rondo is -- give him a lot of really great weapons to use, and he'll "stir the drink."  But I really don't think he's suited to being THE guy.  

Rondo has a lot of similarities to John Stockton.  Stockton needed Malone.  Once the Big 3 retire, we either need to find Rondo a Malone, or we need to trade him so we can get a player who is more suited to being a two-way centerpiece.  

I want to reiterate that I don't see this as a slight on Rondo as a player.  It's just a recognition of the type of player that he is and the type of situations in which he will and will not succeed.

[BballTim]

 

When he is healthy, we might see him sustain that kind of play for a season.  However, without the sort of phenomenal supporting cast he had, he won't sniff anywhere close to 14-15 assists per game, and the Celtics won't have a top 2-3 record.  That's the sort of player Rondo is -- give him a lot of really great weapons to use, and he'll "stir the drink."  But I really don't think he's suited to being THE guy.  

  It's hard to say whether the other players help or hurt Rondo's assist totals. They shoot well but they also tend to overpass instead of shooting at times. It's also something of a stretch to call his teammates phenomenal offensively at this point in their careers.

[deekhead]

 

When he is healthy, we might see him sustain that kind of play for a season.  However, without the sort of phenomenal supporting cast he had, he won't sniff anywhere close to 14-15 assists per game, and the Celtics won't have a top 2-3 record.  That's the sort of player Rondo is -- give him a lot of really great weapons to use, and he'll "stir the drink."  But I really don't think he's suited to being THE guy.  

  It's hard to say whether the other players help or hurt Rondo's assist totals. They shoot well but they also tend to overpass instead of shooting at times. It's also something of a stretch to call his teammates phenomenal offensively at this point in their careers.

I would say that his phenomenal teammates help Rondo's assist totals rather dramatically right off the top of my head. After all, someone has to put the ball thru the hoop for Rondo (or anyone else) to rack up dimes.

Perhaps they are guilty of making an additional pass or two to allow for a better shot.
 
I can live with that. After all, sound, fundamental basketball is all about team, not about who gets credit for the assist.

If I am missing something, please advise.

DH

[BballTim]

 

When he is healthy, we might see him sustain that kind of play for a season.  However, without the sort of phenomenal supporting cast he had, he won't sniff anywhere close to 14-15 assists per game, and the Celtics won't have a top 2-3 record.  That's the sort of player Rondo is -- give him a lot of really great weapons to use, and he'll "stir the drink."  But I really don't think he's suited to being THE guy.  

  It's hard to say whether the other players help or hurt Rondo's assist totals. They shoot well but they also tend to overpass instead of shooting at times. It's also something of a stretch to call his teammates phenomenal offensively at this point in their careers.

I would say that his phenomenal teammates help Rondo's assist totals rather dramatically right off the top of my head. After all, someone has to put the ball thru the hoop for Rondo (or anyone else) to rack up dimes.

Perhaps they are guilty of making an additional pass or two to allow for a better shot.
 
I can live with that. After all, sound, fundamental basketball is all about team, not about who gets credit for the assist.

If I am missing something, please advise.

DH

  I'm not saying that there's something wrong with team basketball, but the players passing instead of shooting will obviously cut back on the number of assists Rondo gets.

[PosImpos]

When he is healthy, we might see him sustain that kind of play for a season.  However, without the sort of phenomenal supporting cast he had, he won't sniff anywhere close to 14-15 assists per game, and the Celtics won't have a top 2-3 record.  That's the sort of player Rondo is -- give him a lot of really great weapons to use, and he'll "stir the drink."  But I really don't think he's suited to being THE guy.  

It's also something of a stretch to call his teammates phenomenal offensively at this point in their careers.

This is true; however, Allen, Pierce, and Garnett are all very good jumpshooters for their positions, finish at a high percentage, and command attention on defense from the other team.  This makes them very, very good targets for passes.  Also, when Rondo was racking up so many assists he had a huge, 7 foot big man who could finish more than 60% of shots inside as long as he received the ball within a few feet of the basket.

So while there were no individually transcendent offensive players on the roster, Rondo had a fantastic set of finishers to whom he could pass the ball.  This is reflected in the fact that the Celtics, though a below average offensive team these past few years, have nonetheless finished near the top of the league in field goal percentage.

[BballTim]

When he is healthy, we might see him sustain that kind of play for a season.  However, without the sort of phenomenal supporting cast he had, he won't sniff anywhere close to 14-15 assists per game, and the Celtics won't have a top 2-3 record.  That's the sort of player Rondo is -- give him a lot of really great weapons to use, and he'll "stir the drink."  But I really don't think he's suited to being THE guy.  

It's also something of a stretch to call his teammates phenomenal offensively at this point in their careers.

This is true; however, Allen, Pierce, and Garnett are all very good jumpshooters for their positions, finish at a high percentage, and command attention on defense from the other team.  This makes them very, very good targets for passes.  Also, when Rondo was racking up so many assists he had a huge, 7 foot big man who could finish more than 60% of shots inside as long as he received the ball within a few feet of the basket.

  Rondo stopped racking up the assists when his injuries were piling up, not when Shaq stopped playing. And Ray's a great jump shooter, that's obvious. But it's also true that he hits 45-50% of his threes when Rondo's in the game and 30-35% when Rondo's out. Rondo has a lot to do with the fact that their finishing is getting better as their athleticism declines.

So while there were no individually transcendent offensive players on the roster, Rondo had a fantastic set of finishers to whom he could pass the ball.  This is reflected in the fact that the Celtics, though a below average offensive team these past few years, have nonetheless finished near the top of the league in field goal percentage.

  3-4 years ago the Celts were near the top of the league in fg% because they had three players who were great scorers that could regularly win individual matchups against opponents. Now it's harder for them, but they've maintained that shooting because Rondo's role in the offense is so much larger than it was in the past.

[PosImpos]

When he is healthy, we might see him sustain that kind of play for a season.  However, without the sort of phenomenal supporting cast he had, he won't sniff anywhere close to 14-15 assists per game, and the Celtics won't have a top 2-3 record.  That's the sort of player Rondo is -- give him a lot of really great weapons to use, and he'll "stir the drink."  But I really don't think he's suited to being THE guy. 

It's also something of a stretch to call his teammates phenomenal offensively at this point in their careers.

This is true; however, Allen, Pierce, and Garnett are all very good jumpshooters for their positions, finish at a high percentage, and command attention on defense from the other team.  This makes them very, very good targets for passes.  Also, when Rondo was racking up so many assists he had a huge, 7 foot big man who could finish more than 60% of shots inside as long as he received the ball within a few feet of the basket.

  Rondo stopped racking up the assists when his injuries were piling up, not when Shaq stopped playing. And Ray's a great jump shooter, that's obvious. But it's also true that he hits 45-50% of his threes when Rondo's in the game and 30-35% when Rondo's out. Rondo has a lot to do with the fact that their finishing is getting better as their athleticism declines.

So while there were no individually transcendent offensive players on the roster, Rondo had a fantastic set of finishers to whom he could pass the ball.  This is reflected in the fact that the Celtics, though a below average offensive team these past few years, have nonetheless finished near the top of the league in field goal percentage.

  3-4 years ago the Celts were near the top of the league in fg% because they had three players who were great scorers that could regularly win individual matchups against opponents. Now it's harder for them, but they've maintained that shooting because Rondo's role in the offense is so much larger than it was in the past.

We can certainly agree that the Big 3 and Rondo benefit mutually from playing with each other.  Rondo is surrounded by great finishers, and the Big 3 get fed great passes for mostly open looks.

[BballTim]

We can certainly agree that the Big 3 and Rondo benefit mutually from playing with each other.  Rondo is surrounded by great finishers, and the Big 3 get fed great passes for mostly open looks.

  Yes, where we differ is how it projects beyond the big three. Many people feel that Rondo would be ineffective with other players. I feel that the skills he has (passing, vision, running an offense) would benefit any team, as would his defense and rebounding.

[cman88]

We can certainly agree that the Big 3 and Rondo benefit mutually from playing with each other.  Rondo is surrounded by great finishers, and the Big 3 get fed great passes for mostly open looks.

  Yes, where we differ is how it projects beyond the big three. Many people feel that Rondo would be ineffective with other players. I feel that the skills he has (passing, vision, running an offense) would benefit any team, as would his defense and rebounding.

plus, lets not act like after the big 3 are gone, we're going to surround Rondo with guys who cant shoot or finish at the rim.

you surround rondo with those types of players(especially a low post presence) and heck, he may average more assists

[BballTim]

We can certainly agree that the Big 3 and Rondo benefit mutually from playing with each other.  Rondo is surrounded by great finishers, and the Big 3 get fed great passes for mostly open looks.

  Yes, where we differ is how it projects beyond the big three. Many people feel that Rondo would be ineffective with other players. I feel that the skills he has (passing, vision, running an offense) would benefit any team, as would his defense and rebounding.

plus, lets not act like after the big 3 are gone, we're going to surround Rondo with guys who cant shoot or finish at the rim.

you surround rondo with those types of players(especially a low post presence) and heck, he may average more assists

  This is IMO the fallacy of the anti-Rondo argument. If you put Rondo on a team with weak offensive players he might make less of an impact than CP3 or Rose or Westbrook or the like because he's not the scorer that they are. That's extremely important if your goal is to win 40 games instead of 33-35 with a crappy team. I'm assuming that the reason people want CP3 is to contend and not be a team like the Hornets are now. In order to contend with CP3 you need to surround him with much more talent than he's ever had in the past. The thing is, once you add all that talent, suddenly you'd have a team with plenty of weapons and Rondo would flourish.

 

[CaptainJackLee]

The stats show the shots he took, but really the issue is with the shots he doesn't take. The shots he is wide open for but stands there looking for an assist.

  He takes about as many of those long twos as the average pg. If he takes them every time he's open, he'll take 20 or so a game instead of three and the offense will go right down the toilet. It's one thing to keep the defense honest, it's another to make taking the shots the defense wants you to take a large part of your offense.

But he doesn't keep the defense honest. So he needs to shoot more and with more accuracy.

[CaptainJackLee]

When he is healthy, we might see him sustain that kind of play for a season.  However, without the sort of phenomenal supporting cast he had, he won't sniff anywhere close to 14-15 assists per game, and the Celtics won't have a top 2-3 record.  That's the sort of player Rondo is -- give him a lot of really great weapons to use, and he'll "stir the drink."  But I really don't think he's suited to being THE guy.  

  It's hard to say whether the other players help or hurt Rondo's assist totals. They shoot well but they also tend to overpass instead of shooting at times. It's also something of a stretch to call his teammates phenomenal offensively at this point in their careers.

I would say that his phenomenal teammates help Rondo's assist totals rather dramatically right off the top of my head. After all, someone has to put the ball thru the hoop for Rondo (or anyone else) to rack up dimes.

Perhaps they are guilty of making an additional pass or two to allow for a better shot.
 
I can live with that. After all, sound, fundamental basketball is all about team, not about who gets credit for the assist.

If I am missing something, please advise.

DH

Nah. Surround him with lesser players who are good finishers and a system with more spacing/higher pace/great screening and his assists total would climb up. Say, a team with Anthony Morrow, Thadeus Young, Kevin Love to play the screenball game on and off the ball and McGee to finish at the rim. Okay, not a good way of maximizing assists because this team wouldn't create enough breaks due to subpar defense but you get the idea. This kind of system and teammates are great to fire up assists totals because the other players can't really create their own shots so the PG will have a dish attempt in pretty much every possession. And what separates role-players from stars is more the ability to create shots than exactly the ability to make assisted shots efficiently (even though the later one also counts).

ps - Obviously that team would be quite worse than the Celtics. It'd optimize Rondo's assist total, not team wins.