The Good Rondo / Bad Rondo Conundrum

[OmarSekou]

I'd prefer Rondo because he tends to be "Good Rondo" more than one out of every two or threee games in the playoffs.

I completely agree. Rondo's playoff proven. I have never watched a playoff series where Rondo's man outplays him. He's neck and neck with Rose.

The question is basically would you want some whose worse but more consistent.

Absolutely not. We cannot compete for a title without someone as good the "Good" Rondo. Rondo gives us a chance. If we could get that magical player who consistently plays like the ideal Rondo, then let's make the trade. Anything less is settling for mediocrity over inconsistency.

[timpiker]

I think Rondo is as talented as any player and can be as good as he wants to be.

I think he takes off way too many plays, way too many games and just plays too carefree and non-nonchalantly for my tastes.  He routinely throws the ball away when trying to make a stupid pass.  He plays matador defense way too many times.  He's just plain lazy sometimes.

I want a player that plays his guts out all the time and is a true Celtic. 

[OmarSekou]

I think Rondo is as talented as any player and can be as good as he wants to be.

I think he takes off way too many plays, way too many games and just plays too carefree and non-nonchalantly for my tastes.  He routinely throws the ball away when trying to make a stupid pass.  He plays matador defense way too many times.  He's just plain lazy sometimes.

I want a player that plays his guts out all the time and is a true Celtic. 

These are the criticisms I don't get. Rondo's one of the least carefree players in the league. He doesn't even smile during interviews. His best friend is Perk. The guy's no nonsense.

He definitely paces himself, but his effort and intensity is obvious. Especially when it matters most. He routinely makes exceptional passes and occasionally makes a bad one. Rondo is among the best passers in the league. It's the same with defense. He's consistently ranked as one of the best defensive players in the league.

He'll never be able to compete with the hypothetical perfect Rondo that people want. It's like Lebron. He's a failure if he's not better than Jordan and he's a failure because he would be able to live with not being better than Jordan. It's not...this dude's probably in the top 20 to ever play the game. We have one of the best PGs in the game. He's not the problem.

[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.

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

He also doesn't facilitate the offense, is inconsistent in terms of defense, doesn't get out on the break, doesn't get the other team in foul trouble . . .

He grabs some offensive rebounds, makes some hustle plays, and occasionally makes a nice defensive play by tipping a pass or stripping the ball.  All of that is nice.  But it's also not much more than we could get from somebody like Avery Bradley.

[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.

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.

Well put.

[LooseCannon]

An inconsistent Rondo who seems invincible half the time would be better than a consistently decent but unspectacular point guard against a team that is clearly better than the Celtics.  The consistent point guard would be better against bad teams.  If Rondo has more good games than bad, then he is preferable against teams that are slightly worse than Boston.

[PosImpos]

An inconsistent Rondo who seems invincible half the time would be better than a consistently decent but unspectacular point guard against a team that is clearly better than the Celtics.  The consistent point guard would be better against bad teams.  If Rondo has more good games than bad, then he is preferable against teams that are slightly worse than Boston.

Essentially, we'd probably have a better record with the more consistent point guard.

I think it comes down to what role you see Rondo ideally playing on this team.  

If you think he's capable of being "the guy" as he is, then it makes more sense to stay with him and hope that his "Good Rondo" performances come when needed against the best teams, and often enough for your team to win a good number of games.

On the other hand, if you see Rondo as only one piece of an incomplete puzzle that needs to be put together for this team to be a contender again, it might make sense to eventually move him for a more consistent contributor, particularly if by "down-grading" in that way we could get other assets.


Also, part of my purpose for posing this question is that I think this "conundrum" is one of the major reasons that Rondo's trade value doesn't seem to be nearly as high as we all think it should be.  When we consider Rondo's value, we tend to think primarily of games like he had today.  When NBA GMs (and outside observers) consider Rondo's value, I imagine that they think a lot more about the times that he disappears or plays like little more than a very solid role player.  

Indeed, before this season started I got into a Twitter argument with an ESPN writer who actually claimed that Rondo was nothing but a role player who benefits from his teammates.  Even citing (in my opinion) Rondo's greatest game as a pro, one of the most amazing NBA performances in recent memory -- the 29-18-13 game in the 2010 playoffs -- was not enough to persuade this guy otherwise.

The idea that Rondo is a role player is a legitimate belief among many outside observers of this team, and I think Rondo's maddening inconsistency plays a large role in the perpetuation of that belief.

[nickagneta]

An inconsistent Rondo who seems invincible half the time would be better than a consistently decent but unspectacular point guard against a team that is clearly better than the Celtics.  The consistent point guard would be better against bad teams.  If Rondo has more good games than bad, then he is preferable against teams that are slightly worse than Boston.

Essentially, we'd probably have a better record with the more consistent point guard.

I think it comes down to what role you see Rondo ideally playing on this team.  

If you think he's capable of being "the guy" as he is, then it makes more sense to stay with him and hope that his "Good Rondo" performances come when needed against the best teams, and often enough for your team to win a good number of games.

On the other hand, if you see Rondo as only one piece of an incomplete puzzle that needs to be put together for this team to be a contender again, it might make sense to eventually move him for a more consistent contributor, particularly if by "down-grading" in that way we could get other assets.


Also, part of my purpose for posing this question is that I think this "conundrum" is one of the major reasons that Rondo's trade value doesn't seem to be nearly as high as we all think it should be.  When we consider Rondo's value, we tend to think primarily of games like he had today.  When NBA GMs (and outside observers) consider Rondo's value, I imagine that they think a lot more about the times that he disappears or plays like little more than a very solid role player.  

Indeed, before this season started I got into a Twitter argument with an ESPN writer who actually claimed that Rondo was nothing but a role player who benefits from his teammates.  Even citing (in my opinion) Rondo's greatest game as a pro, one of the most amazing NBA performances in recent memory -- the 27-17-13 game in the 2010 playoffs -- was not enough to persuade this guy otherwise.

The idea that Rondo is a role player is a legitimate belief among many outside observers of this team, and I think Rondo's maddening inconsistency plays a large role in the perpetuation of that belief.

I think is hilarious.

You definitely know for sure what Rondo's trade value is amongst other GMs?

He has a low value amongst these GMs that you somehow personally have their opinion on?

The last two trade rumors I saw with Rondo were ones that include Rondo being the main cog in getting Chris Paul moved and Pau Gasol moved, two players that are better than Rondo and yet these were considered realistic trades. How does that translate to low trade value exactly?

[LooseCannon]

The idea that Rondo is a role player is a legitimate belief among many outside observers of this team, and I think Rondo's maddening inconsistency plays a large role in the perpetuation of that belief.

I think it is also related to the tendency to overrate volume scoring.

[Senninsage]

I'm very pleased beyond words with Rondo's play tonight and was extremely impressed, but this does not change how foolish those late game turnovers were. He just can't have possessions where we lose the ball the way we did to those amateur half court traps. passes out of those half court traps? He absolutely has to do a much better job than what he did with those passes. The way we nearly lost this game was just embarrassing.

He wasn't the only one to make mistakes, but those kinds of mistakes just can't happen. An unbelievable game like this can't just excuse the way we nearly threw this game away, and in many cases it started with Rondo. Can you imagine if we made similar mistakes with Derrick Rose there tonight? We might not be talking about a win right now.

Basically, this team is good, [dang] good, but we consistently find a way to make a lot of games much harder for ourselves than they really need to be.

[PosImpos]

An inconsistent Rondo who seems invincible half the time would be better than a consistently decent but unspectacular point guard against a team that is clearly better than the Celtics.  The consistent point guard would be better against bad teams.  If Rondo has more good games than bad, then he is preferable against teams that are slightly worse than Boston.

Essentially, we'd probably have a better record with the more consistent point guard.

I think it comes down to what role you see Rondo ideally playing on this team. 

If you think he's capable of being "the guy" as he is, then it makes more sense to stay with him and hope that his "Good Rondo" performances come when needed against the best teams, and often enough for your team to win a good number of games.

On the other hand, if you see Rondo as only one piece of an incomplete puzzle that needs to be put together for this team to be a contender again, it might make sense to eventually move him for a more consistent contributor, particularly if by "down-grading" in that way we could get other assets.


Also, part of my purpose for posing this question is that I think this "conundrum" is one of the major reasons that Rondo's trade value doesn't seem to be nearly as high as we all think it should be.  When we consider Rondo's value, we tend to think primarily of games like he had today.  When NBA GMs (and outside observers) consider Rondo's value, I imagine that they think a lot more about the times that he disappears or plays like little more than a very solid role player. 

Indeed, before this season started I got into a Twitter argument with an ESPN writer who actually claimed that Rondo was nothing but a role player who benefits from his teammates.  Even citing (in my opinion) Rondo's greatest game as a pro, one of the most amazing NBA performances in recent memory -- the 27-17-13 game in the 2010 playoffs -- was not enough to persuade this guy otherwise.

The idea that Rondo is a role player is a legitimate belief among many outside observers of this team, and I think Rondo's maddening inconsistency plays a large role in the perpetuation of that belief.

I think is hilarious.

You definitely know for sure what Rondo's trade value is amongst other GMs?

He has a low value amongst these GMs that you somehow personally have their opinion on?

The last two trade rumors I saw with Rondo were ones that include Rondo being the main cog in getting Chris Paul moved and Pau Gasol moved, two players that are better than Rondo and yet these were considered realistic trades. How does that translate to low trade value exactly?

Did I say I know definitively that his trade value is low?  Did I claim to know exactly what GMs are thinking?

No.  I am making educated guesses.  But the fact that Danny has (reportedly) tried very hard to trade Rondo and failed to find a decent deal for him is evidence, in my opinion, that his trade value is lower than many here surmise.

You'll recall that around the time of the CP3 trade rumors, it was reported that the Hornets were more interested in trades centered around Eric Gordon and Stephen Curry than ones centered around Rondo.  Many here had trouble understanding why that was.

[nickagneta]

BTW, am I the only one that has noticed that Pierce has had as many late game turnovers recently as Rondo.

And, his turnovers have been later in the games than Rondo's have been. Not to mention his sometimes horrible decision making at the end of games and quarters. Prime example the end of the 4th and the game versus the Lakers.

Those wanting to take the ball out of Rondo's hands in the fourth be careful what you wish for. Pierce is the next best option and I have serious problems with his decisions and ability to create for anyone but himself at the end of games.

[nickagneta]

An inconsistent Rondo who seems invincible half the time would be better than a consistently decent but unspectacular point guard against a team that is clearly better than the Celtics.  The consistent point guard would be better against bad teams.  If Rondo has more good games than bad, then he is preferable against teams that are slightly worse than Boston.

Essentially, we'd probably have a better record with the more consistent point guard.

I think it comes down to what role you see Rondo ideally playing on this team. 

If you think he's capable of being "the guy" as he is, then it makes more sense to stay with him and hope that his "Good Rondo" performances come when needed against the best teams, and often enough for your team to win a good number of games.

On the other hand, if you see Rondo as only one piece of an incomplete puzzle that needs to be put together for this team to be a contender again, it might make sense to eventually move him for a more consistent contributor, particularly if by "down-grading" in that way we could get other assets.


Also, part of my purpose for posing this question is that I think this "conundrum" is one of the major reasons that Rondo's trade value doesn't seem to be nearly as high as we all think it should be.  When we consider Rondo's value, we tend to think primarily of games like he had today.  When NBA GMs (and outside observers) consider Rondo's value, I imagine that they think a lot more about the times that he disappears or plays like little more than a very solid role player. 

Indeed, before this season started I got into a Twitter argument with an ESPN writer who actually claimed that Rondo was nothing but a role player who benefits from his teammates.  Even citing (in my opinion) Rondo's greatest game as a pro, one of the most amazing NBA performances in recent memory -- the 27-17-13 game in the 2010 playoffs -- was not enough to persuade this guy otherwise.

The idea that Rondo is a role player is a legitimate belief among many outside observers of this team, and I think Rondo's maddening inconsistency plays a large role in the perpetuation of that belief.

I think is hilarious.

You definitely know for sure what Rondo's trade value is amongst other GMs?

He has a low value amongst these GMs that you somehow personally have their opinion on?

The last two trade rumors I saw with Rondo were ones that include Rondo being the main cog in getting Chris Paul moved and Pau Gasol moved, two players that are better than Rondo and yet these were considered realistic trades. How does that translate to low trade value exactly?

Did I say I know definitively that his trade value is low?  Did I claim to know exactly what GMs are thinking?

No.  I am making educated guesses.  But the fact that Danny has (reportedly) tried very hard to trade Rondo and failed to find a decent deal for him is evidence, in my opinion, that his trade value is lower than many here surmise.

You'll recall that around the time of the CP3 trade rumors, it was reported that the Hornets were more interested in trades centered around Eric Gordon and Stephen Curry than ones centered around Rondo.  Many here had trouble understanding why that was.

A very poor educated guess because as I have said, the last two rumors I have seen have been credible ones that had Rondo moving for Pau Gasol and Chris Paul.

Paul eventually got moved for one of the best young pure shooting shooting guards in the league and an unprotected first rounder in next years's draft as well as other parts. That's better than any deal the Celtics could give the Hornets. And it was the LA GM that was talking about Gasol for an all-star 25 year old PG(of which Rondo is the only one)

[PosImpos]

The idea that Rondo is a role player is a legitimate belief among many outside observers of this team, and I think Rondo's maddening inconsistency plays a large role in the perpetuation of that belief.

I think it is also related to the tendency to overrate volume scoring.

I would agree that plays a role, too.

[green7]

as long as rondo can give us play like this every night + shoot 10-13 from the free throw line i'm cool with that,