rondo 10 pts /20 assist /10rb

[FatKidsDad]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2012041102

The 3-16 shooting stands out more.

Seriously?.... I mean seriously?

Well yeah, a triple double is just a arbitrary fan stat.

Rondo shooting around 500 TS% and having a few less rebounds would have been a better game. A much better game in fact.

10 points on 16 shots and 4 free throws is ugly stuff. Defense wins the day again.

I don't think that 3 for 16 tells the whole story.

Remember that this is a game where the Cs had an uncharacteristically high number of 24 second violations, and many, many other posssesions that went deep in the shot clock.

More than a few of Rondo's shots were very late in the clock after he couldn't find a pass and had to launch a bad one.  If some of those had fallen, they would have qualified as circus shots.  Can't blame him for missing those.

Well as the PG and leader of our offense that's also in large part his fault. (though clearly not entirely, only KG/Bass had it going offensively).

Are you suggesting that 20 dimes wasn't enough?

Those late shots didn't all come after he held the ball for 20 seconds.  The ball came back to him late in the clock.  As 20 assists prove, he did pretty well finding people, but he can't always find someone if he, the passing lanes or his teammates are well covered.

[BballTim]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2012041102

The 3-16 shooting stands out more.

Seriously?.... I mean seriously?

Well yeah, a triple double is just a arbitrary fan stat.

  Triple double is just an arbitrary stat but people say that like it somehow makes the contributions of those points/rebounds/assists less valuable. It's true that Rondo didn't have a good shooting night but he's one of the few players in the game that can be a positive on offense when he shoots 3-16, and those rebounds don't exactly hurt the cause.

[Fafnir]

Are you suggesting that 20 dimes wasn't enough?

Those late shots didn't all come after he held the ball for 20 seconds.  The ball came back to him late in the clock.  As 20 assists prove, he did pretty well finding people, but he can't always find someone if he, the passing lanes or his teammates are well covered.

All I was saying was that getting to the arbitrary 10 points/10 rebound doesn't change that this wasn't one of his best game by any means. He could have had three or four less rebounds, if he'd hit 3 or 4 more shots it would have been a much better overall game for him.

He had a bad overall offensive game, for two reasons in my view. The team offense wasn't good despite all of his assists and his individual offensive game was bad.

This game highlights how when our offense becomes dependent on just Rondo creating that it doesn't work. We need Pierce or Ray to give us something.

[Fafnir]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2012041102

The 3-16 shooting stands out more.

Seriously?.... I mean seriously?

Well yeah, a triple double is just a arbitrary fan stat.

  Triple double is just an arbitrary stat but people say that like it somehow makes the contributions of those points/rebounds/assists less valuable. It's true that Rondo didn't have a good shooting night but he's one of the few players in the game that can be a positive on offense when he shoots 3-16, and those rebounds don't exactly hurt the cause.

10 points on 18 shots (16 + 4 FTA) isn't valuable, its actively hurting the team's chances of winning.

I guess I appreciate how he kept playing through an sloppy game where the entire team except for KG/Bass didn't have much to give. (played the entire half and OT) But despite the triple double this game wasn't one of his top performances this year.

[Roy H.]

Are you suggesting that 20 dimes wasn't enough?

Those late shots didn't all come after he held the ball for 20 seconds.  The ball came back to him late in the clock.  As 20 assists prove, he did pretty well finding people, but he can't always find someone if he, the passing lanes or his teammates are well covered.

All I was saying was that getting to the arbitrary 10 points/10 rebound doesn't change that this wasn't one of his best game by any means. He could have had three or four less rebounds, if he'd hit 3 or 4 more shots it would have been a much better overall game for him.

I agree, and this point isn't made enough.  Triple-doubles are an exciting stat, but they don't tell us a ton.  Here, it took Rondo 16 shots and 4 FTs to reach 10 points.  In terms of scoring, Rondo wasn't a positive contributor.  Tonight, an 18/5/18 line would have been much more beneficial to the team, even if it didn't hit the arbitrary triple-double line.

That said, it's hard to take away from the 20 assists.  For the most part, Rondo was making smart decisions with the ball.  It wasn't as simple as just finding the open man, either; I remember several times when Rondo looked off an open Paul Pierce when he was struggling, and waited for something to open up for a hotter player (Bass, in one instance that I recall).  That's smart point guard play.

[BballTim]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2012041102

The 3-16 shooting stands out more.

Seriously?.... I mean seriously?

Well yeah, a triple double is just a arbitrary fan stat.

  Triple double is just an arbitrary stat but people say that like it somehow makes the contributions of those points/rebounds/assists less valuable. It's true that Rondo didn't have a good shooting night but he's one of the few players in the game that can be a positive on offense when he shoots 3-16, and those rebounds don't exactly hurt the cause.

10 points on 18 shots (16 + 4 FTA) isn't valuable, its actively hurting the team's chances of winning.

I guess I appreciate how he kept playing through an sloppy game where the entire team except for KG/Bass didn't have much to give. (played the entire half and OT) But despite the triple double this game wasn't one of his top 20 this year.

  He assisted about 60% of our baskets that he didn't score and his passes led to the bulk of the free throws that he didn't take. His passing and running the offense had more of an impact on the game than those missed shots. I agree that it wasn't one of his best games, but I'd disagree with the claim that Rondo's overall play was actively hurting the Celts chances of winning.

[Capricious]

He contributed in every other facet of the game when his shot wasn't falling. He didn't go 3-16 with 3 boards and 4 assists like other chuckers.

Not a perfect game by any means, but come on now...

[Fafnir]

I'd disagree with the claim that Rondo's overall play was actively hurting the Celts chances of winning.

Well thats good we can both disagree with something no one has said in this thread.

[FatKidsDad]

All I was saying was that getting to the arbitrary 10 points/10 rebound doesn't change that this wasn't one of his best game by any means. He could have had three or four less rebounds, if he'd hit 3 or 4 more shots it would have been a much better overall game for him.[/quote]

I'll grant you that.  Well reasoned.  

[/quote]He had a bad overall offensive game, for two reasons in my view. The team offense wasn't good despite all of his assists and his individual offensive game was bad.[/quote]

Bad is relative. I'll agree that it is not his best, or the team's, for that matter.  Even so, 42% shooting, +9 offensive rebounds isn't awful.

[/quote]This game highlights how when our offense becomes dependent on just Rondo creating that it doesn't work. We need Pierce or Ray to give us something.
[/quote]

Again I agree. And 17 team turnovers on top of Rondo's 6 doesn't help. It's a good thing KG and Bass were producing.

[rickyfan3.0...]

3 for 16 from the floor and 6 turnovers

[Fafnir]

3 for 16 from the floor and 6 turnovers

6 TOs in 47 minutes where you have the ball as a passer that much doesn't bother me. Not ideal, but probably around average for Rondo and most PGs.

[BballTim]

I'd disagree with the claim that Rondo's overall play was actively hurting the Celts chances of winning.

Well thats good we can both disagree with something no one has said in this thread.

  Just following in kind, I suppose. I said:

"Rondo didn't have a good shooting night but he's one of the few players in the game that can be a positive on offense when he shoots 3-16"

  And you said:

"10 points on 18 shots (16 + 4 FTA) isn't valuable, its actively hurting the team's chances of winning."

  I was somehow unable to discern "I agree with you and think that Rondo helped the team's chances of winning" in that response.

[scaryjerry]

3 for 16 from the floor and 6 turnovers

Waaah!
as someone else said...he gets a few more of those to roll in and a couple less turnovers we are talking epic game.....a few celtics shot horribly last night...Pierce 6-19 and 1-8 from three and 4 turnovers for example...great to win a game like that and rondo was a big reason

[alajet]

It's a good accomplishment to dish out 20 in a pretty ugly basketball game, so, we shall not be taking that away from Rajon.
His poor shooting has got a few factors to do with. Fatigue is probably one of them.
But even more importantly, Ray's absence and Paul's off night led to more attempts for him because he was sort of forced to make a push. KG and Bass were playing very well, but everybody got a fair share of touches, I suppose.
Rondo didn't make those shots, but did a good job to handle the ball traffic as a compensation.
Maybe not one of his finest performances, but definitely a solid one, in my book.

[Fafnir]

I'd disagree with the claim that Rondo's overall play was actively hurting the Celts chances of winning.

Well thats good we can both disagree with something no one has said in this thread.

  Just following in kind, I suppose. I said:

"Rondo didn't have a good shooting night but he's one of the few players in the game that can be a positive on offense when he shoots 3-16"

  And you said:

"10 points on 18 shots (16 + 4 FTA) isn't valuable, its actively hurting the team's chances of winning."

  I was somehow unable to discern "I agree with you and think that Rondo helped the team's chances of winning" in that response.

This game highlights how when our offense becomes dependent on just Rondo creating that it doesn't work. We need Pierce or Ray to give us something.

Is what I said earlier in the thread, I guess I shouldn't assume you've been reading the entire conversation.

Last night Rondo creating and KG/Bass jump shots was our offense, and it was ugly ugly stuff.

And Rondo's shooting did actively hurt the team. Any time you're scoring around .5 points per shot you take your shooting (.25 TS%) is hurting the team's chances of winning.