The Less Rondo the Better

[greensamurai]

So I was cruising through ESPN this fine afternoon and stumbled upon this piece of work...

The following are some of the key passages in bold

The individual stats don't appear to contradict this sentiment. Rondo currently has an assist on 52.1 percent of teammate baskets when on the floor, which ranks second only to Steve Nash among qualified players, and he sits behind just Nash and Jose Calderon in pure point rating, John Hollinger's assist-to-turnover metric:
Pure point rating
Player    Tm    Min    PPR
Jose Calderon    TOR    1799    11.60
Steve Nash    PHO    1788    11.43
Rajon Rondo    BOS    1893    10.86
Chris Paul    LAC    1996    10.79
Tony Parker    SAS    1782    7.61
D.J. Augustin    CHA    1310    7.10
Mike Conley    MEM    1982    6.66
Ricky Rubio    MIN    1404    6.62
Nate Robinson    GSW    1161    6.57
Andre Miller    DEN    1662    6.36


Given this, you might be inclined to think Boston's fortunes hinge on Rondo controlling the flow of the game. The irony of the Celtics, though, is that the less Rondo imposes his will on their offense, the better the team plays. In games where Rondo's usage rate is more than 20 percent, Boston is just 12-11; in games where his usage is less than 20 percent, they're 18-10, including a 10-5 mark in games where his usage is less than 17 percent. Moreover, prior to Boston's recent winning run (the Celtics are 21-8 since Feb. 28), Rondo's usage rate on the season was 23.4 … and the team was 15-17. In the 29 games since then, his usage rate is just 19.3, and the team is winning 72 percent of the time.

This isn't just a wacky post-lockout 2012 phenomenon, either. Since he became a starter in 2008, Boston's offense has gotten worse and worse as Rondo has grown into a larger and larger role:
Better or worse?
Season    Rondo Usg%    Celtics ORtg    Lg Avg    Rank
2007-08    18.9    110.2    107.5    10
2008-09    19.2    110.5    108.3    6
2009-10    20.2    107.7    107.6    15
2010-11    18.3    106.2    107.3    18
2011-12    21.0    100.8    104.6    28



Obviously, these numbers are heavily influenced by his supporting cast, as well. Rondo's lowest usage rates came, predictably, during his younger days, when the Big Three had first arrived in the Hub. Playing alongside a trio of future Hall of Famers clinging to the ends of their respective primes, the second-year point guard with a shaky jump shot will naturally be a distant fourth in the offensive pecking order. And as Pierce, Garnett and Allen have gotten older -- becoming less capable of carrying Boston's offense -- Rondo has entered his prime years and taken over that responsibility. Out of necessity, his increased role has coincided with declining contributions from three NBA legends, a recipe for any offense to worsen.

But what's really interesting is the relationship between Rondo's seasonal possession percentages and those of his star teammates:

Rise of Rondo
Year    Rondo    Pierce    Garnett    Allen
2012    24.6    27.4    24.0    17.5
2011    22.0    23.1    21.6    18.8
2010    23.0    23.0    21.5    19.1
2009    21.8    24.5    22.2    19.6
2008    20.1    24.5    25.0    20.6
Corr.    --    .51    -.24    -.94

Pierce seems to be the primary beneficiary of Rondo's ascendancy within Boston's offense -- his touches correlate somewhat strongly with Rondo's, partially suggesting the two share a special synergy (in addition to the fact Pierce's usage is not declining as you might expect in his dotage). At the same time, the relationship between Garnett's usage and that of Rondo is slightly negative but ultimately weak, suggesting that Rondo neither takes away nor adds extra touches to KG's game.

Make no mistake, Rondo is a solid point guard and a fine defender, and the Knicks will have their hands full Tuesday night trying to keep him from doing what he does best. And some of the drop in efficiency might be attributed to heightened efforts to defend the Big Three, leaving Rondo at times to try and make plays out of thin air. But just the same, his flaws remain what we've known them to be for years. And as great as his floor game is, he's ultimately directing the NBA's third worst offense, a less efficient attack than those illustrious units led by Brandon Knight and Jarrett Jack.

Rondo is easily Boston's best player under the age of 34, but paradoxically the Celtics need him to play more of a supporting role if they are going to make any real noise in the playoffs.

To summarize... the writer is saying that Rondo is hurting our offense the more he controls the game, and when he keeps his usage rate down he is more effective.

In my opinion, I'm starting to get sick of all these statistical looks at basketball, its starting to ruin the game for me. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when Rondo is aggressive, driving to the hole, we are a better team.

Anyways the whole article is on ESPN insider for those of you who have it.

[azzenfrost]

Stats are useful. It's the way they use them to highlight only one thing, which effectively skews the rest, that bugs me. About Rondo, if Doc says he's playing sensational bball then I believe he's playing sensation bball. I'll take the words of the guy who sees and commands the team rather than a writer who sees the numbers and conjures up an issue out of it.

[mctyson]

He is guilty of what they call "multiple comparisons.". If you look at anything (such as Wins/Losses) by subgroups by a concocted cut point, you will eventually find something interesting, even though it might be meaningless.

[BballTim]

  First of all, you're reading an article written by someone who has no idea that the Celts drop in offense is mainly due to a lack of offensive rebounding.

[RyNye]

Also, I am sick of people saying we have the 3rd worst offense. We don't.

We are top 5 in most offensive categories (FG%, 3P%, etc.). The reason our offensive rating is so low is because of our pace ... we aren't a run and gun team, we are a slow, grind-it-out team, which artificially diminished our offensive rating. Yes, we have offensive lapses, but we are incredibly efficient on offense, more so than most teams.

The "3rd worst offense" trope is deliberately ignorant. It is taking one out of several stats at face value, while ignoring the rest of them (and not actually watching games).

[LarBrd33]

Rondo is an outstanding point guard.  His role is clearly defined here.  In this system... right now... he's a good fit.  The other 4 starters (Ray/Bradley, Pierce, KG and Bass) are all capable of hitting shots (Bradley is a recent revelation that hopefully isn't just streaking)... so Rondo can get away with being a poor shooter and focus primarily on being a setup man.  He excels in the role.  If his teammates keep shooting the way they are shooting, Rondo should have no trouble keeping his assist numbers up.  

I think these stats might just be skewed by the fact that when Rondo missed games, we won 6 of 8.  The thing is, even with how well Rondo plays as a "setup guy", he's still got the potential to be a "weakness" for the Celtics due to his lack of offensive ability (can't shoot, can't drive late, because he can't hit free throws)... so when he sits out, our star players have a tendency to put on their vintage capes and dominate.  Pierce, in particular, seems to step his game up when Rondo is out.  Pierce seems more than comfortable letting the ball flow through him (which is how he had to play up until 2009, really)...  I'm not sure if that proves that they don't NEED Rondo out there... I suspect that even without Rondo our offense would thrive.  Some have theorized that if you stuck a shooter in there like Jose Calderon, the offense might actually be better.  It would require Pierce to control the ball more, but he'd have more space since Calderon was such a deadly shooter.  WE'd take a hit on defense, though.  Rondo has proven to be a very good defensive point guard when he's focused.

Edit:  Just took a look at what Pierce did in the 8 game stretch with Rondo out and it seems to back that up:

1/20 (LOSS) 12 points, 6 assists, 3 rebounds, 2 steals, 2 blocks
1/22 (Win) 34 points, 10 assists, 8 rebounds, 3 steals
1/23 (win) 19 points, 7 assists, 5 rebounds
1/26 (win) 24 points, 10 assists, 6 rebounds, 1 block
1/27 (win) 28 points, 8 assists, 10 rebounds, 3 steals,2  blocks
1/29 (loss) 18 points, 5 assists, 6 rebounds
1/31 (win) 20 points, 6 assists, 4 rebounds, 3 steals
2/1 (win) 17 points, 8 assists, 6 rebounds, 1 steal, 1 block

Pierce averaged 21.5 points, 7.5 assists, 6 rebounds during that stretch.  So basically what happens when Rondo sits is that Pierce gets asked to do more on offense (which he's capable of doing... dunno if he could do it long-term at this age, though) and we replace Rondo with someone who can shoot better (pretty much anyone... by default).  That doesn't take away from what Rondo does, though.  He's a very skilled setup man and in THIS system RIGHT NOW... he's clearly flourishing in his role.

[soap07]

Also, I am sick of people saying we have the 3rd worst offense. We don't.

We are top 5 in most offensive categories (FG%, 3P%, etc.). The reason our offensive rating is so low is because of our pace ... we aren't a run and gun team, we are a slow, grind-it-out team, which artificially diminished our offensive rating. Yes, we have offensive lapses, but we are incredibly efficient on offense, more so than most teams.

The "3rd worst offense" trope is deliberately ignorant. It is taking one out of several stats at face value, while ignoring the rest of them (and not actually watching games).

The Celtics are 25th in offensive efficiency which is pace adjusted.

[soap07]

  First of all, you're reading an article written by someone who has no idea that the Celts drop in offense is mainly due to a lack of offensive rebounding.

And I'm responding to a comment by someone who has no idea that Rondo's low FG% and inability to get to the line and hit his free throws contributes to the low offensive efficiency.

[OmarSekou]

That ESPN guy used a lot of words and stats to state the obvious: the Celtics play better when everyone is playing well and we don't have to rely on Rondo.

However, it's been nice to see recently that Rondo has gotten more aggressive late in games or when other guys are struggling.

[thenotoriousjts]

The entire team stepped up their game around Rondo, that's why they started winning. Maybe that effective the usage % or whatever but that number changing isn't why they started winning.

[BballTim]

Rondo is an outstanding point guard.  His role is clearly defined here.  In this system... right now... he's a good fit.  The other 4 starters (Ray/Bradley, Pierce, KG and Bass) are all capable of hitting shots (Bradley is a recent revelation that hopefully isn't just streaking)... so Rondo can get away with being a poor shooter and focus primarily on being a setup man.  He excels in the role.  If his teammates keep shooting the way they are shooting, Rondo should have no trouble keeping his assist numbers up.  

I think these stats might just be skewed by the fact that when Rondo missed games, we won 6 of 8.  The thing is, even with how well Rondo plays as a "setup guy", he's still got the potential to be a "weakness" for the Celtics due to his lack of offensive ability (can't shoot, can't drive late, because he can't hit free throws)... so when he sits out, our star players have a tendency to put on their vintage capes and dominate.  Pierce, in particular, seems to step his game up when Rondo is out.  Pierce seems more than comfortable letting the ball flow through him (which is how he had to play up until 2009, really)...  I'm not sure if that proves that they don't NEED Rondo out there... I suspect that even without Rondo our offense would thrive.  Some have theorized that if you stuck a shooter in there like Jose Calderon, the offense might actually be better.  It would require Pierce to control the ball more, but he'd have more space since Calderon was such a deadly shooter.  WE'd take a hit on defense, though.  Rondo has proven to be a very good defensive point guard when he's focused.

Edit:  Just took a look at what Pierce did in the 8 game stretch with Rondo out and it seems to back that up:

1/20 (LOSS) 12 points, 6 assists, 3 rebounds, 2 steals, 2 blocks
1/22 (Win) 34 points, 10 assists, 8 rebounds, 3 steals
1/23 (win) 19 points, 7 assists, 5 rebounds
1/26 (win) 24 points, 10 assists, 6 rebounds, 1 block
1/27 (win) 28 points, 8 assists, 10 rebounds, 3 steals,2  blocks
1/29 (loss) 18 points, 5 assists, 6 rebounds
1/31 (win) 20 points, 6 assists, 4 rebounds, 3 steals
2/1 (win) 17 points, 8 assists, 6 rebounds, 1 steal, 1 block

Pierce averaged 21.5 points, 7.5 assists, 6 rebounds during that stretch.  So basically what happens when Rondo sits is that Pierce gets asked to do more on offense (which he's capable of doing... dunno if he could do it long-term at this age, though) and we replace Rondo with someone who can shoot better (pretty much anyone... by default).  That doesn't take away from what Rondo does, though.  He's a very skilled setup man and in THIS system RIGHT NOW... he's clearly flourishing in his role.

  The offense was significantly worse when Rondo was out with the wrist injury, and didn't improve during his suspension. Rondo looked just fine in the Chicago game that we won with JJJ and Wilcox playing big minutes, he put up his stats against Charlotte without the big three and he put up big numbers early in the year when PP was out or injured and KG was out of shape. He almost always puts up better numbers when one of the big three has been out over the last few years. The numbers seem to lean in the opposite direction from your theories.

[lightspeed5]

all the statistics seem to go against a tradional unselfish playmaking point guard

[RajonRondo9Dime]

[Edited.]

Please don't insult others.  As our rules state, "Comments such as 'worst thread ever' are not permitted."

[Celtics18]

Also, I am sick of people saying we have the 3rd worst offense. We don't.

We are top 5 in most offensive categories (FG%, 3P%, etc.). The reason our offensive rating is so low is because of our pace ... we aren't a run and gun team, we are a slow, grind-it-out team, which artificially diminished our offensive rating. Yes, we have offensive lapses, but we are incredibly efficient on offense, more so than most teams.

The "3rd worst offense" trope is deliberately ignorant. It is taking one out of several stats at face value, while ignoring the rest of them (and not actually watching games).

The Celtics are 25th in offensive efficiency which is pace adjusted.

The whole "pace adjusted" thing has always bothered me a little bit.  I don't actually think you can truly adjust for pace.  A team like the Celtics that likes to slow the game down and turn everything into a half court game is going to create games that make it harder to score for both teams.  Luckily, we have the best defense in the league which is well suited to play that style. 

I don't think that pace adjustment and points per possession accurately account for that. 

[Galeto]

I don't think the offense's decline the past three seasons is all on Rondo, of course it isn't, the other core players getting old has something to do with it but since Rondo has the ball so [dang] much--I mean every single outlet goes to him, more than any other point in the league--and the offense has trended significantly down after this offense became Rondo-centric, I think it's only fair to put some blame on Rondo.  It's not even entertaining to be honest.  I'd just like to see some more variety than Rondo controlling the ball for 85 percent of the time.

I don't think it's just Rondo's own inefficient offensive contributions, it's also the types of shots he creates.  It's no coincidence that the Celtics lead the league in outside jumpers taken as a percentage of their offense because Rondo LOVES to create that shot.  This also has a negative effect on their offensive rebounding since mid-range jumpers lead to the fewest offensive rebounds of any shot type.

Some of my gripes are that he's a bad decision maker on the fastbreak (his turnover rate in transition is very high) yet the Celtics force feed him every outlet and he doesn't seek to create threes. 

The Celtics do everything they can to not be an efficient offense.  They don't get to the line (28th), they don't attempt many 3-pointers (24th) and they turn the ball over a lot (18th despite 20th slowest pace).

If Steve Nash can lead the Phoenix Suns to the 7th rated offense this season, he could make the Celtics top five.  If Rondo's such a great offensive maestro, why can't he do something approximately similar.  A great point guard shouldn't be directing the 28th offense in the league.  The only two times the Celtics have been in the top 10 offensively since Garnett and Ray came were when Rondo was less involved.