The Good Rondo / Bad Rondo Conundrum

[greenpride32]

Rondo had a great game yesterday I'll give him credit for that. But the larger issue is he doesn't show up often enough.  I have noticed that some of his best games are the SUN nationally televised games.  It's as if he plays his hardest only whe the spotlight is on him.

[kozlodoev]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). It's not a huge leap figuring out that trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

[Donoghus]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). Moral of the story: trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

I agree with this.

He'd be a solid second banana and a heckuva #3 guy on a team but he's not going to be THAT GUY on a title contender. 

You can use him as a piece to help build something with but you're still going to need that Alpha Dog type to push your team to another level. 

[Eja117]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). Moral of the story: trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

I agree with this.

He'd be a solid second banana and a heckuva #3 guy on a team but he's not going to be THAT GUY on a title contender. 

You can use him as a piece to help build something with but you're still going to need that Alpha Dog type to push your team to another level. 

I am eja and I approve this message

[BballTim]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). It's not a huge leap figuring out that trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

  I don't think it's that curious. The team was playing poorly so Rondo had to score more. The defense concentrated more on Rondo so his fg% went down. What's curious is that you would think that this only applies to Rondo. Look at the career splits for Ray, KG, PP or CP3 and you'll see as big or a bigger drop in fg% in losses as wins as Rondo, along with a drop in production.

  All we've seen this year is that if you put Rondo on a team where 3-4 of the other starters are getting significantly outplayed and the team loses. He's done nothing in his career to indicate he couldn't lead a team with Blake Griffin, Jordan, Butler and Billups/Williams to at least as good a record as they have now.

[BballTim]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). Moral of the story: trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

I agree with this.

He'd be a solid second banana and a heckuva #3 guy on a team but he's not going to be THAT GUY on a title contender. 

You can use him as a piece to help build something with but you're still going to need that Alpha Dog type to push your team to another level. 

  So who was that alpha dog in the 2010 playoffs?

[Fafnir]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). It's not a huge leap figuring out that trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

Its actually 15.2 versus 12.9 and the 15.2 comes in 6 more minutes per game. It looks like he shoots slightly more in losses but not much.

His FG% being worse in losses isn't a big surprise just as it isn't for Paul. When your two best offensive players don't score efficiently its harder to win.

[Donoghus]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). Moral of the story: trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

I agree with this.

He'd be a solid second banana and a heckuva #3 guy on a team but he's not going to be THAT GUY on a title contender. 

You can use him as a piece to help build something with but you're still going to need that Alpha Dog type to push your team to another level. 

  So who was that alpha dog in the 2010 playoffs?

I'm sure you can go back and figure that one out.

[BballTim]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). Moral of the story: trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

I agree with this.

He'd be a solid second banana and a heckuva #3 guy on a team but he's not going to be THAT GUY on a title contender. 

You can use him as a piece to help build something with but you're still going to need that Alpha Dog type to push your team to another level. 

  So who was that alpha dog in the 2010 playoffs?

I'm sure you can go back and figure that one out.

  So, Rondo?

[kozlodoev]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). It's not a huge leap figuring out that trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

Its actually 15.2 versus 12.9 and the 15.2 comes in 6 more minutes per game. It looks like he shoots slightly more in losses but not much.

His FG% being worse in losses isn't a big surprise just as it isn't for Paul. When your two best offensive players don't score efficiently its harder to win.

The stats I cited didn't include yesterday's game. Regardless, the point still stands.

Even for last year, you'll see that Rondo shoots (slightly) more and with decidedly worse results in losses. While you can argue about the cause and effect, I attribute this at least partially to the fact he's not tailored to be a first option on a winning team.

[Donoghus]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). Moral of the story: trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

I agree with this.

He'd be a solid second banana and a heckuva #3 guy on a team but he's not going to be THAT GUY on a title contender. 

You can use him as a piece to help build something with but you're still going to need that Alpha Dog type to push your team to another level. 

  So who was that alpha dog in the 2010 playoffs?

I'm sure you can go back and figure that one out.

  So, Rondo?

Well, its a completely subjective question so its probably going to depend on who you ask.  '10 was an interesting season from the Celtics standpoint.

Just like I'm sure people will have differing concepts of what "Alpha Dog" means to the game of basketball. 

[kozlodoev]

So, Rondo?

A guy named Paul Pierce who averaged 19 pts, 6 rebounds and 3.5 assists per game feels left out.

[Fafnir]

I still shake my head at the fact that so many people here did not want to trade Rondo for Paul.

  Looks like Paul's scoring 22 a game on 54% shooting in wins, 12 a game on 41% shooting in losses (about 1/3 of their games, btw). That's the kind of consistency people here crave.

Yes. The consistency part comes from the fact that there are 14 wins and just 6 losses in this sample. So yeah, I'd say he's pretty consistent.

On the other hand, if you examine the same split for Rondo's stats, you'll discover a curious pattern. Not only does Rondo score more by a considerable margin in losses (15 ppg vs 10 ppg), but he also only shoots .470 from the field (as compared to .510 in wins). It's not a huge leap figuring out that trying to ride Rondo to wins doesn't work. He's not that guy.

Its actually 15.2 versus 12.9 and the 15.2 comes in 6 more minutes per game. It looks like he shoots slightly more in losses but not much.

His FG% being worse in losses isn't a big surprise just as it isn't for Paul. When your two best offensive players don't score efficiently its harder to win.

The stats I cited didn't include yesterday's game. Regardless, the point still stands.

If you look at Pierce's stats you seem the same effect.

He shoots or gets to the line slightly more on a per minute basis in losses but shoots a worse percentage from the field.

[Donoghus]

So, Rondo?

A guy named Paul Pierce who averaged 19 pts, 6 rebounds and 3.5 assists per game feels left out.

And I would lean in this direction for '10.

[kozlodoev]

If you look at Pierce's stats you seem the same effect.

He shoots or gets to the line slightly more on a per minute basis in losses but shoots a worse percentage from the field.

I didn't say Pierce doesn't suffer from the same problem at his stage of his career. The fact that he does is actually what will ultimately expose Rondo. We're already seeing some of that.