The blame of Rondo is getting ridiculous..

[BballTim]

  Something similar between Rondo and CP3 in there as well. CP3 virtually disappearing for long stretches in the game, something you've repeatedly assured me Rondo does but other top players don't. Also, I watched a lot of the first half in that game. If Rondo played like CP3 did in that game, the Celts would go into the fourth quarter down by 25 or so, which would have made those heroics meaningless.

I'll take the guy who came out and won the ball game in crunch time any day of the week/month/year/decade/century.  That's the difference between a top player and the rest.

  So the fact that Shaq didn't dominate the end of close games means that he was never a top player? How about players like Scottie Pippen?

[kozlodoev]

  Something similar between Rondo and CP3 in there as well. CP3 virtually disappearing for long stretches in the game, something you've repeatedly assured me Rondo does but other top players don't. Also, I watched a lot of the first half in that game. If Rondo played like CP3 did in that game, the Celts would go into the fourth quarter down by 25 or so, which would have made those heroics meaningless.

I'll take the guy who came out and won the ball game in crunch time any day of the week/month/year/decade/century.  That's the difference between a top player and the rest.

  So the fact that Shaq didn't dominate the end of close games means that he was never a top player? How about players like Scottie Pippen?

Did the success of their franchises hinge more on Shaq/Pippen, or on the players that dominated the ends of close games on their respective team?

I think it's safe to say that no-one in their right mind would have chosen Scottie Pippen to build a franchise around -- which  is not to say he wasn't a great player in his own right.

[Celtics4ever]

Yep, that's precisely how he'd carry a team -- more likely to losses than to wins.

Not a bad thing if you want to rebuild via lottery...

[BballTim]

  Something similar between Rondo and CP3 in there as well. CP3 virtually disappearing for long stretches in the game, something you've repeatedly assured me Rondo does but other top players don't. Also, I watched a lot of the first half in that game. If Rondo played like CP3 did in that game, the Celts would go into the fourth quarter down by 25 or so, which would have made those heroics meaningless.

I'll take the guy who came out and won the ball game in crunch time any day of the week/month/year/decade/century.  That's the difference between a top player and the rest.

  So the fact that Shaq didn't dominate the end of close games means that he was never a top player? How about players like Scottie Pippen?

Did the success of their franchises hinge more on Shaq/Pippen, or on the players that dominated the ends of close games on their respective team?

I think it's safe to say that no-one in their right mind would have chosen Scottie Pippen to build a franchise around -- which  is not to say he wasn't a great player in his own right.

  Again, "build a franchise around" is fairly meaningless semantics. If you had a player like Pippen, you wouldn't dump him because he's not a go-to scorer, you'd try and add a scorer to him. I don't see why getting rid of him, getting a player that you'd want to team him with and then going out and looking for a Pippen level of player to team up with that other player makes any sense whatsoever.

[Vermont Green]

The fact Rondo has to play fabulous for the C's to even have a chance speaks volumes. At this point the C's are fortunate to get two of the Big 3 going most nights. I love Ray but he would be coming off the bench for most teams right now.

I get confused by statements like this.  We played our best when Rondo was injured and Bradley filled in for him.  We won games and averaged more team assists per game with Rondo out.  So where does the FACT that "Rondo has to play fabulous for the C's to have a chance..." come from?  Rather, we don't even need Rondo to play and the team can play well and more than have a chance as proven by the 6-2 run.

I like some parts of Rondo's game better lately.  I like the emphasis on him posting up.  When he posts up, the other team does actually have to cover him.  No double team so far but at least his defender is engaged.

I don't like his defense lately.  I don't count steals as defense and I don't even know how many he has had but he is not locking down anyone.  He is getting beat, leading to rotations and layups or fouls on big men.  It just isn't there.  He will gamble on a double team and then jog back to his man.

Rondo has become an enigma.  An oxymoron of sorts.  The better he does (statistically) the worst the team does.  His best game statistically, we lose to a really bad team (Detroit).  This is the fact.  It doesn't mean Rondo is a bad player but it means something and Rondo (along with the coaches) need to figure this out.  No basking in the glory of 35 pts in a loss to Detroit.  I don't think that is who Rondo is but he needs to prove it.

[Fafnir]

We won when Rondo was out based on a stretch of stellar defensive play. We held a long line of opponents under 90 points and won with our defense, our offensive numbers declined without him.

Only when KG was out against Detroit and the Toronto game have we put up a sub-par defensive showing since the begining of this year.

[guava_wrench]

While I take the CP3 anecdote with a grain of salt since the story of a single game means little except to say that all players have bad games and bad quarters (which should have been obvious to everyone), there is a big difference with how Rondo has played in 4th quarters historically and how CP3 has.

At the end of games, CP3 always has the ball in his hands. Rondo has historically often avoided the ball, leaving it in Pierce's hands. I am not saying he always avoids the ball. There are plenty of end of the game situations where Rondo runs a play. But CP3 controls every end of the game situation, while Rondo is often a minor cog in the offense on such plays.

I'm not sure I find this relevant to the original point of the thread though. I am reading too many posters making generalizations from single games. How can you conclude that the team does worse when Rondo scores more based on just the Detroit game? How about the conclusion that the team does worse when KG and Bass are out and when are forced to dole out 30+ minutes to JJJ and Stiemsma?

[guava_wrench]

  Something similar between Rondo and CP3 in there as well. CP3 virtually disappearing for long stretches in the game, something you've repeatedly assured me Rondo does but other top players don't. Also, I watched a lot of the first half in that game. If Rondo played like CP3 did in that game, the Celts would go into the fourth quarter down by 25 or so, which would have made those heroics meaningless.

I'll take the guy who came out and won the ball game in crunch time any day of the week/month/year/decade/century.  That's the difference between a top player and the rest.

  So the fact that Shaq didn't dominate the end of close games means that he was never a top player? How about players like Scottie Pippen?

Did the success of their franchises hinge more on Shaq/Pippen, or on the players that dominated the ends of close games on their respective team?

I think it's safe to say that no-one in their right mind would have chosen Scottie Pippen to build a franchise around -- which  is not to say he wasn't a great player in his own right.

  Again, "build a franchise around" is fairly meaningless semantics. If you had a player like Pippen, you wouldn't dump him because he's not a go-to scorer, you'd try and add a scorer to him. I don't see why getting rid of him, getting a player that you'd want to team him with and then going out and looking for a Pippen level of player to team up with that other player makes any sense whatsoever.

I agree 100% with this. You can build around Bill Russell or a Kidd or Nash in their prime. You can build around a offensive garbage man like Dwight Howard.

[Vermont Green]

How can you conclude that the team does worse when Rondo scores more based on just the Detroit game? How about the conclusion that the team does worse when KG and Bass are out and when are forced to dole out 30+ minutes to JJJ and Stiemsma?

In the last 16 games, we have won 10 (in which Rondo averaged 5.4) and lost 6 (Rondo ave 11.8 ). That is how I conclude we have done better lately when Rondo's numbers are down.  I know this inlcudes wins and losses in which Rondo didn't play (0 pts) but even if you look at the last 8, he averages more in the losses than in the wins.

[kozlodoev]

 Again, "build a franchise around" is fairly meaningless semantics. If you had a player like Pippen, you wouldn't dump him because he's not a go-to scorer, you'd try and add a scorer to him. I don't see why getting rid of him, getting a player that you'd want to team him with and then going out and looking for a Pippen level of player to team up with that other player makes any sense whatsoever.

I don't think anyone here advocates dumping Rondo. But finding a "Pippen-level" player is typically easier -- which is the main reason why Rondo will be shipped in a heartbeat if the right deal comes around (not that it's likely).