Is Rondo the best NBA PG? He's almost there.

[ianboyextreme]

Why someone decided this is a good measure is a different issue altogether.

Either you didn't read the full OP, or you're just trying to fuel some kind of argument or something. I explained why I looked at those statistics. Agree or disagree with them if you want, but my explanation is right there.

I was addressing a specific comment about having Nash in the list of "top PGs" and the role of statistics in it.

Just to be clear, do you like every other point guard in the league more than Rondo?

[Snakehead]

All this talk about Rondo's ability to run the offense - and yet the Celtics have been a mediocre offensive team for a couple years now. This is fact. This is not all Rondo's fault, or even greatly his fault, but there is no question that his in ability to score and shoot consistently can be a drain on the offense. It's what keeps him a notch below Deron and Paul.

  The main reason that the Celts have been a mediocre offense is a lack of offensive rebounds. This is a pretty well known fact.

Not really -- especially given that the poor offensive rebounding is by design.

  I'm not sure what this means (in terms of the conversation).

Me either... we choose defense over offense, that's not Rondo's fault.


Anyways, I think the fact that we have no one besides Pierce and Rondo who can create their own shot is also a factor, and Pierce has certainly lost a step.

I hope Terry and Green help there this year.

[LarBrd33]

...

Wonky statistical analysis after wonky statistical analysis and we can still be fairly certain that Chris Paul is better than Rajon Rondo.

Question about your wonky statistical analysis... are you still just including basic field goal percentage?  I think that'd be a mistake.  Yes, Rondo tends to have a high field goal percentage, but that's because the majority of his shots come at the basket.  It's the luxury of having Ray Allen spread the floor and having big men like KG and Brandon Bass mostly operate as mid-range shooters.  It frees up the paint for penetration and layups.   Sure, Rondo shot 45% last year, but he shot 25% from the distance and under 60% from the line.  That's borderline pathetic.  Compare that with Nash (53%, 39%, 89%) or Chris Paul (48%, 37%, 86%) and it's drastically different.  It's misleading to just include field goal percentage.  The Celtics have to construct their offense partially to make up for ROndo's weaknesses.  I'm not so sure we could just have two traditional big men operating in the post... it would clog to paint and require Rondo to rely on his ghastly shooting.  That would be a problem.  This is admittedly overly simplified, but when all 4 of your teammates are shooters drawing attention outside the paint, it makes it easy to penetrate into the open paint... you're either getting an uncontested layup or you have 4 kick-out options for an assist opportunity.  These are things you HAVE to take into consideration when comparing Rondo with superior point guards like Chris Paul.

Some people like "True shooting percentage" instead. 

True shooting percentage is a sabermetric basketball statistic meant to more accurately calculate a player's shooting than field goal percentage, free throw percentage, and 3-point field goal percentage taken individually. Two- and three- point field goals and free throws are all considered in its calculation. It is abbreviated TS%

It is calculated by: :TS% = \frac{PTS}{(2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)) }

Maybe consider factoring that into your wonky statistical analysis.

Here's a handful I found of the guards we're discussing:

2011-12 TS%:

Steve Nash .625
Stephen Curry .605
Chris Paul .581
Ty Lawson .579
Goran Dragic .567
Kyrie Irving .566
Kyle Lowry .558
Jeremy Lin .552
Tony Parker .539
Russell Westbrook .538
Derrick Rose .532
Deron Williams .527
John Wall .502
Rajon Rondo - .483

FYI... That's not all point guards.  Just the ones I looked up.

Yeah I couldn't find any TS% statistics on the source I was using.


Sorry if thats too for you.

Lol I refer to stuff like Hollinger's PER and the efficiency rankings I brought up as wonky as well.  It's all wonky statistical analysis.  But I've yet to see one that really shows Rondo as #1.

[AB_Celtic]

Lol I refer to stuff like Hollinger's PER and the efficiency rankings I brought up as wonky as well.  It's all wonky statistical analysis.  But I've yet to see one that really shows Rondo as #1.

I never said he was #1. Both the thread title and OP say he's close... top 3.

[LarBrd33]

Just a note on rebounding as well.  Rondo has huge hands and great instincts which allows him to get a lot of rebounds for a PG... but it's partially because of weaknesses as well.

Our bigs aren't very good rebounders.  Part of the reason they aren't very good rebounders is because of our defensive schemes that often have our bigs out of the paint when a shot goes up.  On offense, our bigs are usually operating in the mid-range where they are effective hitting mid-range shots.  Part of the reason they are operating in the mid-range, is because Rondo needs room to penetrate and kick out.  Part of the reason he needs room to penetrate and kick out is because he's a horrible shooter and teams can (and do) slack off him 5 feet when he has the ball.  We need bigs to spread the floor, because of Rondo's weaknesses.  When bigs are used to spread the floor, that means your bigs aren't always in proper rebounding position.  That allows Rondo to snag several rebounds. 

If Rondo was a capable shooter, he would command coverage from defenders.  If Rondo was a great shooter (like a Nash or Chris Paul), he'd command double coverage from defenders.  That would allow us to have a traditional post playing big man (like an Al Jefferson) who could hang around the paint, grab rebounds and post up players while Rondo commanded attention outside the paint.   And I'm not saying Rondo wouldn't still be an above average rebounder for a point guard... but it's safe to say he would average a heck of a lot less rebounds if he could shoot.  Our team is partially constructed around his strengths and weaknesses.  There is a reason why Doc specifically wanted Glen Davis to focus on his mid range shooting... There's a reason Ainge specifically went after a player like Brandon Bass (known for his consistent mid-range shooting)... it's because it allows Rondo to be his most effective.  We're putting a premium on bigs who can shoot outside as opposed to bigs who can bang inside, clog the middle and pull down rebounds. 

That said, when Shaq was here our offense flourished... so I'm basically just talking out of my butt.

[BballTim]

The Celtics have to construct their offense partially to make up for ROndo's weaknesses.  I'm not so sure we could just have two traditional big men operating in the post... it would clog to paint and require Rondo to rely on his ghastly shooting.  That would be a problem.  This is admittedly overly simplified, but when all 4 of your teammates are shooters drawing attention outside the paint, it makes it easy to penetrate into the open paint... you're either getting an uncontested layup or you have 4 kick-out options for an assist opportunity.  These are things you HAVE to take into consideration when comparing Rondo with superior point guards like Chris Paul.

  We've seen a lot of play with Rondo and bigs that didn't stretch the floor, such as Shaq or Perk. Can you demonstrate that Rondo (or the team) was ineffective offensively at those times, or less effective than we were with 4 shooters on the floor with Rondo?

[saltlover]

it's safe to say he would average a heck of a lot less rebounds if he could shoot. 

He averages just over 1 offensive rebound per game.  I'm not sure there's much room for his lack of shooting to account for a heck of a lot of rebounds, unless our definitions of "heck of a lot" are different (which they may be.)

[Interceptor]

That said, when Shaq was here our offense flourished... so I'm basically just talking out of my butt.

The takeaway here: basketball is a team sport that's so complicated and interconnected, that we can all argue about the tiniest little things for all of eternity, and still all be convinced of our individual correctness!

Sounds win-win to me.

[LarBrd33]

it's safe to say he would average a heck of a lot less rebounds if he could shoot. 

He averages just over 1 offensive rebound per game.  I'm not sure there's much room for his lack of shooting to account for a heck of a lot of rebounds, unless our definitions of "heck of a lot" are different (which they may be.)

True it's only like a 4th of his rebounds.  A lot of it is also our defensive schemes... our bigs flashing out of the paint... KG is all over the place.  The ball bounces to Rondo a lot.  He's also just an above average rebounder for a point guard.  In College he averaged more rebounds than assists.

[BballTim]

Just a note on rebounding as well.  Rondo has huge hands and great instincts which allows him to get a lot of rebounds for a PG... but it's partially because of weaknesses as well.

Our bigs aren't very good rebounders.  Part of the reason they aren't very good rebounders is because of our defensive schemes that often have our bigs out of the paint when a shot goes up.  On offense, our bigs are usually operating in the mid-range where they are effective hitting mid-range shots.  Part of the reason they are operating in the mid-range, is because Rondo needs room to penetrate and kick out.  Part of the reason he needs room to penetrate and kick out is because he's a horrible shooter and teams can (and do) slack off him 5 feet when he has the ball.  We need bigs to spread the floor, because of Rondo's weaknesses.  When bigs are used to spread the floor, that means your bigs aren't always in proper rebounding position.  That allows Rondo to snag several rebounds. 

If Rondo was a capable shooter, he would command coverage from defenders.  If Rondo was a great shooter (like a Nash or Chris Paul), he'd command double coverage from defenders.  That would allow us to have a traditional post playing big man (like an Al Jefferson) who could hang around the paint, grab rebounds and post up players while Rondo commanded attention outside the paint.   And I'm not saying Rondo wouldn't still be an above average rebounder for a point guard... but it's safe to say he would average a heck of a lot less rebounds if he could shoot.  Our team is partially constructed around his strengths and weaknesses.  There is a reason why Doc specifically wanted Glen Davis to focus on his mid range shooting... There's a reason Ainge specifically went after a player like Brandon Bass (known for his consistent mid-range shooting)... it's because it allows Rondo to be his most effective.  We're putting a premium on bigs who can shoot outside as opposed to bigs who can bang inside, clog the middle and pull down rebounds. 

That said, when Shaq was here our offense flourished... so I'm basically just talking out of my butt.

  If you're going to argue that Rondo would get fewer rebounds if people guarded him on the outside you should also argue that he'd get significantly more assists. If Rondo's defender sags off of him and CP3 and Nash are doubled, he's effectively passing to players guarded by one more defender than Nash or Paul. Put a double team on Rondo and he might break Stockton's single season record.

[kozlodoev]

Why someone decided this is a good measure is a different issue altogether.

Either you didn't read the full OP, or you're just trying to fuel some kind of argument or something. I explained why I looked at those statistics. Agree or disagree with them if you want, but my explanation is right there.

I was addressing a specific comment about having Nash in the list of "top PGs" and the role of statistics in it.

Just to be clear, do you like every other point guard in the league more than Rondo?

I refuse to be involved in trolling wars today. Try again some other time.

[kozlodoev]

All this talk about Rondo's ability to run the offense - and yet the Celtics have been a mediocre offensive team for a couple years now. This is fact. This is not all Rondo's fault, or even greatly his fault, but there is no question that his in ability to score and shoot consistently can be a drain on the offense. It's what keeps him a notch below Deron and Paul.

  The main reason that the Celts have been a mediocre offense is a lack of offensive rebounds. This is a pretty well known fact.

Not really -- especially given that the poor offensive rebounding is by design.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we have a mediocre offense by design? We're a defense-first team!

We were a defense-first team in 07-08 and 08-09, and yet our defense was considerably better.I'll grant you that our offensive rebounding numbers and percentages were slightly better back then (though still average, at best).

It should be noted that whether we are a "mediocre offensive team" is quite sensitive to what you use as a metric (which is mostly due to the way most metrics define a possession). In points per possession, we're fairly mediocre, or worse. In field goal percentage metrics, we were an elite team and remained good even last season.

[lightspeed5]

he's there. he carried this team to the ECF game 7. what did CP3 do? flop and got swept in the 2nd round?

[greenpride32]

he's there. he carried this team to the ECF game 7. what did CP3 do? flop and got swept in the 2nd round?

Why does Rondo get credit for everything when things go well, and all his faults just get overlooked matter of factly?  Gee I would have thought KG's rejuvenation might have also had something to do with our playoff run.

There isn't a sports writer out there who thinks Rondo is the best.  Read the article the OP posted; the first few sentences say "I don't think Rondo is the best", it was just Rondo saying it himself.  The only place you'll find these arguments is here. 

I bet 30 of 30 GM's today would take Kyrie Irving over Rondo if given the choice between the two, and honestly I don't think it would be a difficult decision for them either.  Forget about comparing  him to CP3 D-will, Nash, etc.

[lightspeed5]

he's there. he carried this team to the ECF game 7. what did CP3 do? flop and got swept in the 2nd round?

Why does Rondo get credit for everything when things go well, and all his faults just get overlooked matter of factly?  Gee I would have thought KG's rejuvenation might have also had something to do with our playoff run.

There isn't a sports writer out there who thinks Rondo is the best.  Read the article the OP posted; the first few sentences say "I don't think Rondo is the best", it was just Rondo saying it himself.  The only place you'll find these arguments is here. 

I bet 30 of 30 GM's today would take Kyrie Irving over Rondo if given the choice between the two, and honestly I don't think it would be a difficult decision for them either.  Forget about comparing  him to CP3 D-will, Nash, etc.

rondo facilitates the offense. without him we wouldnt have been where we were. 42 pts when we needed him most.