The Good Rondo / Bad Rondo Conundrum

[BballTim]

Where exactly is that super consistent PG? Rondo is probably a top 5 PG in the NBA. Guys like him don't exactly grow on trees.

look at the other "top pgs."  none of them is as wildly inconsistent as Rondo.

Rondo is definitely capable of playing like one of the best players -- let alone point guards -- in the league.  But at least as often, if not most of the time, he plays like a role player.  It's maddening.

The problem I have is that none of those guys that are as good as Rondo, but more consistent, are available for Boston. If Deron Williams could be had for Rondo, I'd take that easily, but I just don't see that as a possibility.

That's not the question I'm asking, though.

If we could get a point guard who isn't quite as great as "Good Rondo," but who plays well on a consistent basis, throughout the whole game, would that be better?  Rondo is great, but he disappears from quarter to quarter and game to game. 

So though he's capable of playing as well as guys like CP3 and Deron Williams for stretches, his overall impact as a player is much less than that.

Can you give a few examples of a 75% "Good Rondo" in this league?

I was thinking along the lines of a Kyle Lowry...

Tony Parker, Ty Lawson, Kyle Lowry, Jrue Holiday, Lou Williams . . . perhaps even somebody like Jarrett Jack (this season) or Mike Conley.

  So you're of the opinion that those players rarely if ever have off nights?

[csfansince60s]

What would you rather have? 


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?



Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

TP....excellent framing of the question (although the #s might be slightly off)

I pick door number two.

Buy low.....SELL HIGH!! Especially since with that 75% guy comes more assets....youth or pick(s) or other talent.

[jambr380]

What would you rather have? 


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?



Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

TP....excellent framing of the question (although the #s might be slightly off)

I pick door number two.

Buy low.....SELL HIGH!! Especially since with that 75% guy comes more assets....youth or pick(s) or other talent.

Really, I was thinking that the way the question was worded was very skewed in a specific direction - kind of like what would rather have to eat? A poisonous apple or chocolate cake.

But I am sure that people that want Rondo out of town don't see it that way. I just know that if we trade Rondo it better be for a great player on his rookie contract or a top 5 pick in the draft, and that probably still isn't good enough...you never know what you had until it's gone. Other than Kenny Anderson (and that is pushing it for some), we haven't had a very effective pg since DJ. I really don't want to trade him, but Doc does need to adjust his gameplan at the end of games to be more aggressive.

[soap07]

  One obvious answer is that Rondo isn't dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone more than half the time. That's ridiculous. You might be able to get someone who gives you about 3/4 of the stats Rondo does but contributes well less to the team beyond those numbers than Rondo does. That would satisfy many people here, but then the disappointment that comes with the realization that the player you traded for has flaws that you didn't expect and, like almost every player in nba history, isn't capable of playing their best 85% of the time.

[dang], this is too much math for me.

[PosImpos]

Where exactly is that super consistent PG? Rondo is probably a top 5 PG in the NBA. Guys like him don't exactly grow on trees.

look at the other "top pgs."  none of them is as wildly inconsistent as Rondo.

Rondo is definitely capable of playing like one of the best players -- let alone point guards -- in the league.  But at least as often, if not most of the time, he plays like a role player.  It's maddening.

The problem I have is that none of those guys that are as good as Rondo, but more consistent, are available for Boston. If Deron Williams could be had for Rondo, I'd take that easily, but I just don't see that as a possibility.

That's not the question I'm asking, though.

If we could get a point guard who isn't quite as great as "Good Rondo," but who plays well on a consistent basis, throughout the whole game, would that be better?  Rondo is great, but he disappears from quarter to quarter and game to game. 

So though he's capable of playing as well as guys like CP3 and Deron Williams for stretches, his overall impact as a player is much less than that.

Can you give a few examples of a 75% "Good Rondo" in this league?

I was thinking along the lines of a Kyle Lowry...

Tony Parker, Ty Lawson, Kyle Lowry, Jrue Holiday, Lou Williams . . . perhaps even somebody like Jarrett Jack (this season) or Mike Conley.

  So you're of the opinion that those players rarely if ever have off nights?

Of course not. 

Those players have off night like every other player.  I'm just proposing that perhaps they have a lot more "on" nights than Rondo does.

What are we going to get from Rondo in any particular game?  Might as well shake a magic 8 ball.

With those other sorts of players, I don't think there's anything close to that sort of uncertainty on a night-to-night basis.

[Celtics4ever]

When he is on he can dominate a game like this, I doubt our second PG will ever do that, certainly not offensively.

Can't we just enjoy the good game today?

[PosImpos]

What would you rather have?  


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?



Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

TP....excellent framing of the question (although the #s might be slightly off)

I pick door number two.

Buy low.....SELL HIGH!! Especially since with that 75% guy comes more assets....youth or pick(s) or other talent.

Really, I was thinking that the way the question was worded was very skewed in a specific direction - kind of like what would rather have to eat? A poisonous apple or chocolate cake.

I admit I made it a little bit skewed.

More accurate might be Good Rondo 1/3 of the time, Bad Rondo 1/4 of the time, and Mixed Bag Rondo the rest of the time -- with the understanding that in the 4th quarter, he almost always disappears entirely.

On the other side, it might be hard to find a player who gives us the majority of what we get from Good Rondo 90% of the time, but 75% of the time probably isn't too much of a stretch.

[csfansince60s]

What would you rather have?  


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?



Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

TP....excellent framing of the question (although the #s might be slightly off)

I pick door number two.

Buy low.....SELL HIGH!! Especially since with that 75% guy comes more assets....youth or pick(s) or other talent.

Really, I was thinking that the way the question was worded was very skewed in a specific direction - kind of like what would rather have to eat? A poisonous apple or chocolate cake.

I admit I made it a little bit skewed.

Not more skewed or hyperbolic compared to "poison apples or chocolate cake".

[CoachBo]

What would you rather have? 


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?



Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

It's an interesting question, one whose answer is driven by the overall team impact.

Today is a good example, since despite all the well-deserved hyperbole over Rondo's first three-plus quarters, he made three decisions inside the final four minutes that were terrible and played a huge role in the game being tight at the end - two terrible passes against light pressure after picking up his dribble like a high-school kid, and a decidedly ill-advised jumper WAY too early within the shot clock.

Rondo doesn't bring it every night, never has and never will. It's up to Danny and Doc whether they want to continue living with that. When he brings it, he can help the club a bunch. He doesn't bring it nearly enough, IMHO, and that's a sign of immaturity that shouldn't be there after six years.

[Tgro]

If we could get good Rondo 60 - 75% of the time (consistently), I would keep him in a heartbeat because only 1 out of every 3 or 4 games would be bad Rondo. Today was outstanding Rondo. This is something we ALL know he is capable of. No one does this every game but we know he's capable of playing like this when he puts his head on straight. And yes it's maddening because when he's good, he's so good and capable of winning us games almost single handily. Bad Rondo loses games for us. So don't other players on our team but other players play at a more consistent level and conversely are little less likely to blow games for us as often.

So if Rondo upped his game "just a little more often", I'd gladly keep him.

If he can't, I'd rather keep a player who plays 75% as good as Rondo 80-90% of the time.   

[BballTim]

What would you rather have?  


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?



Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

TP....excellent framing of the question (although the #s might be slightly off)

I pick door number two.

Buy low.....SELL HIGH!! Especially since with that 75% guy comes more assets....youth or pick(s) or other talent.

Really, I was thinking that the way the question was worded was very skewed in a specific direction - kind of like what would rather have to eat? A poisonous apple or chocolate cake.

I admit I made it a little bit skewed.

More accurate might be Good Rondo 1/3 of the time, Bad Rondo 1/4 of the time, and Mixed Bag Rondo the rest of the time -- with the understanding that in the 4th quarter, he almost always disappears entirely.

On the other side, it might be hard to find a player who gives us the majority of what we get from Good Rondo 90% of the time, but 75% of the time probably isn't too much of a stretch.

  Rondo doesn't disappear entirely in the 4th quarter, he just doesn't do all the scoring down the stretch.

[BballTim]

What would you rather have? 


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?



Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

It's an interesting question, one whose answer is driven by the overall team impact.

Today is a good example, since despite all the well-deserved hyperbole over Rondo's first three-plus quarters, he made three decisions inside the final four minutes that were terrible and played a huge role in the game being tight at the end - two terrible passes against light pressure after picking up his dribble like a high-school kid, and a decidedly ill-advised jumper WAY too early within the shot clock.

  I suppose you wouldn't see a problem with Rondo trying to dribble through a double team in the backcourt and possibly getting stripped? Maybe the problem was that nobody was coming back to help him, even after he picked up the dribble. The pass to Wilcox wasn't as ill-advised as Wilcox continuing to jog up court after Rondo picked up the ball, or continuing to move towards pressure when the pass was in the air.

[nickagneta]

What would you rather have? 


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?



Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

As I said in the game thread, I think that your supposition that Rondo is only good 35-50% of the time is patently ridiculous. You don't like the guy or want top prove he is inconsistent at times, great, but don't be blatantly dishonest about his game.

In 18 games this year he's had double digit scoring or assists in 14 of those games. 16 games he's had 7 or more assists, 9 times in double digits. 9 times he has scored more than 13 points. 11 games he has shot 50% or higher. 6 times he has had over 6 rebounds in a game.

Here's his game log:

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/3026/rajon-rondo

He had 4 bad games and two of those games came after hurting his wrist so bad he had to miss 8 games. They are excusable as are the bad games Pierce had after he came back from his injury and long layoff.

Here's his game log from last year:

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_/id/3026/year/2011/rajon-rondo

What did he have maybe 6-8 bad games?

The guy brings it 90% of the time and is spectacular about 50% of the time.

[Eja117]

also had 4 or more TOs in 11 games and hasn't hit a three since December

[jambr380]

What would you rather have?  


1) Good Rondo -- defined as the guy who's active on both ends and is a triple double threat -- one out of every two to three games, and Bad Rondo -- dejected, inconsistent, passive, turnover-prone -- the rest of the time.

2) A point guard who would give us 75% of what Good Rondo gives us, but give us that kind of play 80-90% of the time?



Serious question.  I'm not sure what the answer is.

TP....excellent framing of the question (although the #s might be slightly off)

I pick door number two.

Buy low.....SELL HIGH!! Especially since with that 75% guy comes more assets....youth or pick(s) or other talent.

Really, I was thinking that the way the question was worded was very skewed in a specific direction - kind of like what would rather have to eat? A poisonous apple or chocolate cake.

I admit I made it a little bit skewed.

More accurate might be Good Rondo 1/3 of the time, Bad Rondo 1/4 of the time, and Mixed Bag Rondo the rest of the time -- with the understanding that in the 4th quarter, he almost always disappears entirely.

On the other side, it might be hard to find a player who gives us the majority of what we get from Good Rondo 90% of the time, but 75% of the time probably isn't too much of a stretch.

Thanks for admitting that your initial assessment may have been a little skewed 

I do agree that something needs to happen at the end of games. His last five minutes today were a total departure of what he did the rest of the game. I don't know if this is something Doc has planned (isolate Pierce, limit turnovers) or if Rondo just becomes passive, but I am all set with almost blowing a 14 point lead against a team without any stars on it.