The Less Rondo the Better

[ianboyextreme]

If this guy thinks the Celtics are winning a championchip with Rondo sitting on the bench, he is actually mentally retarted, which is suprising for all the math required for this. There seems to be a new stat every week. Pure point guard rating...really? These guys need to focus less on creating a stat for every imaginable thing that could happen like how efficient Doc's timeouts talks are, and focus more on physics or whatever their skill applies to.

[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.

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.

  If you've ever seen me say anything remotely similar to that I'd like to see it. Try and stick with reality.

[BballTim]

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.

  It's fairly difficult to throw an alley-oop when KG and Bass are 18 feet from the rim. Do you think that Doc and the other players want to run plays to get layups but Rondo refuses to, preferring to run plays for jump shots instead?

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.

  The Celts have the same fg% and almost the same efg% as the Suns, and turn the ball over a little more but not a lot. I'd say that if Nash wanted to make the Celts a top 5 offense all he'd need to do is average the same number of offensive rebounds that he's averaged over the last 10 years *combined*.

[Fafnir]

I think Nash would improve the team eFG% quite a bit, we'd be a better offensive team because of him. He creates like Rondo but his superior shooting provides two advantages. One he scores more points on less shots and his shooting ability creates more space. This allows the bigs to play closer to the rim (if they wanted to) and maintain offensive efficiency. This could easily create more offensive board chances for our big guys.

Though the defensive downgrade would offset all of that if not more.

[Roy H.]

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

So, in the season where Rondo had his lowest usage, our offensive rating was the second worst?  I'm not sure that fits the "as Rondo's usage goes down, our team improves" narrative.

Also, usage basically looks at FGs, FTs, and TOs, doesn't it?  I'll confess it's never been a stat I'm particularly conversant in, but a player who scores few points but adds a lot of assists with low turnovers would have a low usage, correct?  If the conclusion is that this team is best when Rondo is acting as a distributor rather than a volume shooter, while keeping his turnovers down, then yeah, that makes sense.

[Roy H.]

Usage looks at assists too Roy.

Oh, okay.  Like I said, it's not something I'm all that conversant in.  Here's how b-r.com's glossary described it:

Usage Percentage (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * ((FGA + 0.44 * FTA + TOV) * (Tm MP / 5)) / (MP * (Tm FGA + 0.44 * Tm FTA + Tm TOV)). Usage percentage is an estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor.

I didn't see a place where assists were factored in.

[Fafnir]

Naw you're right Roy, I think I got points created or one of the other metrics mixed up. There are ones out there that factor in assists.

[BballTim]

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

So, in the season where Rondo had his lowest usage, our offensive rating was the second worst?  I'm not sure that fits the "as Rondo's usage goes down, our team improves" narrative.

  The author says "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", as if Rondo taking 5 shots and having 16 assists doesn't qualify as controlling the flow of the game, or imposing his will on our offense.

[the_Bird]

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.  

....  Massively off-topic:

Fewer shots = harder shots for both teams = boost in defensive metrics and decline in offensive ratings.  

Interesting.  Hadn't really thought about it that way.  The pace adjustment is still significantly better than the alternative of just looking at raw points scored/given up totals.  Ideally, though (and I'm sure SOMEONE is doing this math), you'd isolate offensive/defensive ratings in halfcourt settings versus transition settings.  That might give you a little better read.

Of course, there are inherent limits to how good ANY of these metrics can be.  Should the data compiled by the C's earlier in the season (when JO and Chris Wilcox were playing, but AB wasn't) "count"?  Really, it's a significantly different team that we're watching today versus just a couple months ago.  

Wow, that was off topic.  Got me thinking, though.

[BballTim]

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.  

....  Massively off-topic:

Fewer shots = harder shots for both teams = boost in defensive metrics and decline in offensive ratings.  

Interesting.  Hadn't really thought about it that way.  The pace adjustment is still significantly better than the alternative of just looking at raw points scored/given up totals.  Ideally, though (and I'm sure SOMEONE is doing this math), you'd isolate offensive/defensive ratings in halfcourt settings versus transition settings.  That might give you a little better read.

  If you check 82games, you can see what percentage of a team's points and shots come at various stages of the shot clock, as well as eFG% for those stages. It won't give you turnovers or offensive rebounds though.

[snively]

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

So, in the season where Rondo had his lowest usage, our offensive rating was the second worst?  I'm not sure that fits the "as Rondo's usage goes down, our team improves" narrative.

Also, usage basically looks at FGs, FTs, and TOs, doesn't it?  I'll confess it's never been a stat I'm particularly conversant in, but a player who scores few points but adds a lot of assists with low turnovers would have a low usage, correct?  If the conclusion is that this team is best when Rondo is acting as a distributor rather than a volume shooter, while keeping his turnovers down, then yeah, that makes sense.

Yes.  Usage primarily measures attempts to score the ball and thus makes a very questionable metric for assessing Rondo's involvement in the offense.  Consider the example of another pass-first PG: Steve Nash.  Though he's responsible for the vast majority of shot creation on that team, his usage is under 19.5%; for reference that would put him beneath Brandon Bass on our team! TO% is a bad metric for pass-first PGs for similar reasons: PGs that don't shoot a lot are going to look massively turnover-prone.

The other great error in the article is laying blame at Rondo's feet for the team's post 08/09 offensive inefficiency.  Just a few minutes perusing the offensive four factors for the years in question makes it eminently clear that the most important factor, by far, in our offensive decline is offensive rebounding.  We went from an average to good offensive rebounding team in the Powe years to worst-in-league-history in offensive rebounding after Powe got injured (and was replaced by Sheed/JO/Bass).

[snively]

I think Nash would improve the team eFG% quite a bit, we'd be a better offensive team because of him. He creates like Rondo but his superior shooting provides two advantages. One he scores more points on less shots and his shooting ability creates more space. This allows the bigs to play closer to the rim (if they wanted to) and maintain offensive efficiency. This could easily create more offensive board chances for our big guys.

Though the defensive downgrade would offset all of that if not more.

I agree that Nash would improve the eFG%, but how much?  Like Rondo, he shoots at a low volume per minute and he plays fewer minutes than Rondo.  So while getting a +10TS% bump would be nice, I don't know how big of a difference it will make on that scale.

And I don't think it's reasonable to assume the bigs would play closer to the rim.  Nash teams keep their bigs (Frye/Morris) on the perimeter as much as the C's do: floor-spacing is key to his attack. They keep the 5 out as a high screener and roll man. I don't see his addition conferring any offensive rebounding advantages.  Indeed, his own inferiority to Rondo as an offensive rebounder would likely set us even further back in that department.

Nor is Nash likely to improve our turnover situation.

[The4Time2Doctor0]

Garbage. Statistics are for politicians and social workers. Usually useless in reality.

[Celtics18]

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.  

....  Massively off-topic:

Fewer shots = harder shots for both teams = boost in defensive metrics and decline in offensive ratings.  

Interesting.  Hadn't really thought about it that way.  The pace adjustment is still significantly better than the alternative of just looking at raw points scored/given up totals.  Ideally, though (and I'm sure SOMEONE is doing this math), you'd isolate offensive/defensive ratings in halfcourt settings versus transition settings.  That might give you a little better read.

Of course, there are inherent limits to how good ANY of these metrics can be.  Should the data compiled by the C's earlier in the season (when JO and Chris Wilcox were playing, but AB wasn't) "count"?  Really, it's a significantly different team that we're watching today versus just a couple months ago.  

Wow, that was off topic.  Got me thinking, though.

I'm glad it got you thinking.  I certainly agree that looking at points per possession is more valuable than looking at straight points per game.  It's a valuable metric to use, but I don't think there are any numbers out there that tell the whole story by themselves.  

Too often, I think, folks fall for some of these numbers as some kind of gospel truth.  There's a lot to look at, and, sometimes, the good old fashioned method of watching the games is a pretty good way to evaluate how your team and its players are  doing, as well.

[No Nickname]

Rondo's defense is.... indefensible.  All he does is gamble for steals.  He let's himself get picked off so freaking easily.  He NEVER fights through picks.

And last night, he left Novak WIDE OPEN on both of those three-pointers at the end of the game.  On the second he literally stood there when Novak rotated up and Rondo just pointed, "Someone get him."  He wasn't picked, he wasn't covering another offensive player.  He just stood there.

So many Celts fan are blinded by the "greatness" of Rondo and his passing that you can't see the truth: He's a horrible defender, unless it's getting steals.  He's lazy and doesn't give a [dang]. 

Delonte West was so much better than Rondo last year on defense.  And Bradley is incredible.  Rondo is all about "the glory" and making the highlight film pass.