what does Rondo have to do this year to not be criticized?

[slamtheking]

Rondo could win MVP and would still be heavily criticized by this fan bar.

too true unfortunately.

for me personally, he has to do 3 things: play like it matters, not get injured & act like a team leader.

For others, some will look for the same things I do, some will expect an all-star season and yet others will crucify him even if he walks on water.

[LooseCannon]

I think if Rondo goes out and puts up crazy numbers, but the team still loses, he is going to still get torn apart.  But, if the team wins next year (and by winning, I mean more than expectations.  I would say if they are .500, it would be a major success), I think Rondo will get big time praise, even if his numbers are not impressive.

If the Celtics make the playoffs, Rondo will be torn apart by tanking advocates who are unhappy that he is doing too good.

So, Rondo single-handedly carrying this team to being a title contender is the answer.

[CelticG1]

I hate when people say he needs to be consistent.

Is there any tangible way to prove this in your eyes? Can you go side by side with Rondo and player x and say who is more consistent on game to game basis?

Someone said something about how when he is rebounding is when he's most aggressive. Does this correlate to being consistent?

Are games where rondo gets 4 rebounds and above his "consistent" games (more or less) and his inconsistent games are 3 rebounds or less?

What's peoples interpretation of consistency? Every 10 games he's allowed to have a dud? More? Less?

I'm rrying to steer away from vague comments by posters and moreso putting a number on something where you can say with some certainty whether Rondo was consistent or not this year.

Clearly its not easy to come up with something like this but I would love to hear specifics. If Rondo averages 5+ boards and 6 ft attempts a game is that good enough? Or does he need to hit those exact numbers every game with less ups and downs?

[Roy H.]

Show he's a leader.

Win.

Play hard consistently in the regular season.

[CelticG1]

Show he's a leader.

Win.

Play hard consistently in the regular season.

Ok ill try and elaborate and see if that satisfies you.

1. No suspensions, lockerroom issues

2. How many wins? 35? 40? Above 500?

3.. As stated above consistency means different thigs to different people. Are we just talking eye ball test or are there any other factors that help you determine this besides just a strict opinion?

[bobbyv]

1. Play defense consistently. I'm not asking for Avery Bradley defense, just that he gives good effort each time.

2. Continue to play at an all star level. This will probably require him to get even more points like 15ppg.

3. No off court or on court incidences. He needs to fix the bad rep he's gotten from some people.

Bonus: Lead us to playoffs. If he can do that, people will stop questioning if he's a franchise guard.

[masteremile123]

If a player like lebron james is going to be criticized , rondo will be criticized no matter what.

Now if rondo can make his 3 pointers consistently , he is a top 3 player in the league.

[Evantime34]

Show he's a leader.

Win.

Play hard consistently in the regular season.

Ok ill try and elaborate and see if that satisfies you.

1. No suspensions, lockerroom issues

2. How many wins? 35? 40? Above 500?

3.. As stated above consistency means different thigs to different people. Are we just talking eye ball test or are there any other factors that help you determine this besides just a strict opinion?

1. Leadership is kind of an intangible thing, as long as he is playing hard and communicating well to his teammates I think he can be a leader and still get suspended for yelling at a ref

2. For him to not be criticized he needs to step his play up to an elite level and put the team on his back. To me that means over .500 depending on how his teammates play

3. For me consistency can be measured by his rebounding numbers, usually when he is aggressive on the glass he is aggressive on offense. I want him to consistently attack the defense, and when he does this I think his rebounding numbers will be a good indicator.

[mmmmm]

I suspect that my past comments on Rondo have been viewed as "critical".  It is a tricky thing though.  Is it critical to say I don't think Rondo is a good as Chris Paul or that he is not the best player on a team that has Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett?

The OP did provide a clear metric.  What would it take for me to consider Rondo a franchise or build around player.  My gauge for that is simple. He has to shoot better.  That will not be proven by a FG% but rather it will be evidenced by when opposing teams stop sagging off him and actually cover him.

The most important aspect of making teammates better is not how many lobs you dish but rather how much space you create for them.  Franchise PGs draw defensive attention to them everywhere, off picks, driving, spot up shooting; and by drawing defensive attention, they create space for others.  With more space, other players shoot better.

With Rondo, if he has the ball, his defender sags and goes under all picks.  When he doesn't have the ball, his defender sags as far off him as rules will allow.  The result is that Rondo creates negative space for the rest of the team and actually makes it harder for them to contribute.

Rondo needs to shoot better and have a quicker release on his outside shot.  If he improves in these areas, defenses will than have to adjust.  That is when Rondo will really change the way he can impact the game.

But your criteria then, is pretty much totally subjective, unless you are going to give us your strict definition of when defenses are 'sagging' and when Rondo is simply 'open'.  How often is this really happening?

Going over/under picks is not a useful metric there -- doesn't the pick setter get credit?  What if that's a reflection of just plain stupid defense?

I find it mind-boggling to think that a player should be knocked for being smart enough to prefer to take shots when open rather than when contested.

Ultimately, if the shot goes in, it goes in.  If a defense has sagged and you are smart enough to recognize that and shoot the open shot, it doesn't make the made shot worth any less than if they were in your face and you foolishly let fly a prayer that happened to go in.

To arbitrarily assert that shooting efficiency (FG%) is insufficient in your eyes for measuring whether a player is 'shooting better' kinda sets the bar:   Arbitrary.

[staticcc]

Who cares if he gets criticized? He doesn't so why should we? It's all media hype

[CFAN38]

Stars are always criticized its just the nature of professional sports. Rondo just has to step up and lead this team and better the players around him.

[PhoSita]

Rondo needs to shoot better and have a quicker release on his outside shot.  If he improves in these areas, defenses will than have to adjust.  That is when Rondo will really change the way he can impact the game.

But your criteria then, is pretty much totally subjective, unless you are going to give us your strict definition of when defenses are 'sagging' and when Rondo is simply 'open'.  How often is this really happening?

Going over/under picks is not a useful metric there -- doesn't the pick setter get credit?  What if that's a reflection of just plain stupid defense?

I find it mind-boggling to think that a player should be knocked for being smart enough to prefer to take shots when open rather than when contested.

I think VG is just pre-empting the counter-argument we sometimes see from Rondo-defenders: Rondo shoots a high percentage!  But field goal percentages are not created equal.  Rondo has been able to score at a relatively high percentage because through most of his career he's had the luxury of being very choosy about his shots.  When it comes to jumpshots, he rarely shoots except when he's wide, wide open.

I take VG's meaning to be that for Rondo to really prove himself as a "franchise, build-around" type player, he has to show that he can be a focal point of the offense, not simply by dominating the ball and dishing out assists, but by looking for his own shot.  I agree with that idea.

To me, Tony Parker is a much, much more valuable offensive player than Rondo regardless of the fact that he rarely gets double digit assists.  He creates more space and more opportunities for his teammates because he's such a threat to score with the ball in his hands -- even though he's not an amazing shooter outside of 15 feet.  His pull up mid-range jumper is just that deadly.

Steve Nash, similarly, was never a prolific scorer, but he was such a great shooter that he was always dangerous.  That played a large part in the fact that he led some of the most potent offenses in the history of the league, in my opinion.

[bfrombleacher]

Who cares if he gets criticized? He doesn't so why should we? It's all media hype

Unfortunately some are gobbling just all that stuff up.

[Vermont Green]

I suspect that my past comments on Rondo have been viewed as "critical".  It is a tricky thing though.  Is it critical to say I don't think Rondo is a good as Chris Paul or that he is not the best player on a team that has Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett?

The OP did provide a clear metric.  What would it take for me to consider Rondo a franchise or build around player.  My gauge for that is simple. He has to shoot better.  That will not be proven by a FG% but rather it will be evidenced by when opposing teams stop sagging off him and actually cover him.

The most important aspect of making teammates better is not how many lobs you dish but rather how much space you create for them.  Franchise PGs draw defensive attention to them everywhere, off picks, driving, spot up shooting; and by drawing defensive attention, they create space for others.  With more space, other players shoot better.

With Rondo, if he has the ball, his defender sags and goes under all picks.  When he doesn't have the ball, his defender sags as far off him as rules will allow.  The result is that Rondo creates negative space for the rest of the team and actually makes it harder for them to contribute.

Rondo needs to shoot better and have a quicker release on his outside shot.  If he improves in these areas, defenses will than have to adjust.  That is when Rondo will really change the way he can impact the game.

But your criteria then, is pretty much totally subjective, unless you are going to give us your strict definition of when defenses are 'sagging' and when Rondo is simply 'open'.  How often is this really happening?

Going over/under picks is not a useful metric there -- doesn't the pick setter get credit?  What if that's a reflection of just plain stupid defense?

I find it mind-boggling to think that a player should be knocked for being smart enough to prefer to take shots when open rather than when contested.

Ultimately, if the shot goes in, it goes in.  If a defense has sagged and you are smart enough to recognize that and shoot the open shot, it doesn't make the made shot worth any less than if they were in your face and you foolishly let fly a prayer that happened to go in.

To arbitrarily assert that shooting efficiency (FG%) is insufficient in your eyes for measuring whether a player is 'shooting better' kinda sets the bar:   Arbitrary.

I disagree.  I don't think it is arbitrary at all.  If you watch the game, you can see in an instant what the opposing coach's game plan is against Rondo and how they are willing to give a wide open shot for Rondo in order to better protect against almost any other offensive weapon the Celtics would have on the court.

And my case for don't believe stats is Ben Wallace.  He is a career 0.474 FG% in over 1,000 games.  If you looked at the Stat and never saw him play, you would say he must have been a pretty good shooter.  In fact he was one of the worst shooters in the history of the game.

Wallace and Rondo are different but have many similarities.  Both are freakishly talented in certain aspects of the game but also have glaring flaws.  Both have been key pieces on championship teams.

For Rondo to take it to the next level, the point isn't his FG%. 

[Vermont Green]

I take VG's meaning to be that for Rondo to really prove himself as a "franchise, build-around" type player, he has to show that he can be a focal point of the offense, not simply by dominating the ball and dishing out assists, but by looking for his own shot.  I agree with that idea.

Actually, Rondo does not even need to be THE focal point of the offense, just enough of a threat so that the defense has to check him.  He is talented enough otherwise so that he does not need to be the first option offensively.

So many things would open up on the court for the rest of the team if the defense chased Rondo like defenses have to chase Tony Parker or (used to) Steve Nash.