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

[Vox_Populi]

Rondo deserves to be on the NBA all defensive team about as much as Kobe Bryant does. Both guys make it on reputation and not production. Lets talk about offense. If Rondo is not pounding the ball into submission looking for an assist, missing layups or bricking free throws, he has nothing.

Nope. You're right about Bryant but wrong about Rondo. Excluding this year, Rondo has had a top 20 defensive rating every year he made the All-Defensive team including the year before he first did make the team, and the only year he didn't (2009-10) he lead the league in steals and had a top 20 DWS. So no, his selection isn't actually based on reputation.

[BballTim]

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.

  At some point in time you'll have to question the validity of that metric. You're halfway there, since you're trying to decouple your opinion of whether Rondo shoots the ball well from how well he shoots the ball. The next step is realizing that, as Rondo has improved as an outside shooter, teams still give him space when he has the ball. The obvious conclusion is that teams don't sag off of Rondo simply because of his shooting, but because they're more worried about his passing and dribble penetration.

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.

  This theory would hold a lot more water if we didn't see Rondo get his teammates open shots on the bulk of our possessions. Your opinion of space creation is based on whether teams worry about your jump shooting and completely ignores more important things like dribble penetration, where Rondo excels.

  Since we're not in mid-season, go to youtube and look at some Rondo passing highlights, then decide whether Rondo gets people open or not. Your description above is a fairly textbook explanation of what effect a poor shooter should have on a team's offense but it bears little relationship to what actually happens on the court when Rondo plays.

We have gone back and forth on this a few times but your whole theory is blown out of the water when you consider that in both of the recent instances where Rondo missed significant games, the Celtics averaged more team assists than when Rondo played.  Stats can create any reality you want and you can pick and choose them accordingly.

  The reality is that right after Rondo went down the Celts offense got a short-lived boost for a number of reasons (improved health of PP/Jet/Green, changing the offense, having a home-heavy schedule against bad defenses) and experienced an up-tick in assists that didn't hold out over the rest of the season. When you consider the fact that, during the half a season that Rondo played, all of PP/Jet/Green had their production hampered by injury for a significant amount of time, the fact that he was able to keep the offense competitive is fairly impressive.

  It also goes without saying that the team's assists without Rondo in the playoffs (when the other team is trying harder on defense) was well down from the year before, despite having Green and playing against a bad defense in 2013.

The point of the team assists stat though is that even though having Rondo on the court adds a highly talented individual passer, Rondo also takes away ball movement and allows defenses to play differently, both of which take away team assists.  (This is the paradox of Rondo).

  The defenses play differently when Rondo doesn't have the ball, but it doesn't take away from our assists. That's why we've averaged more assists/minute when Rondo's on the court in both the regular season and the playoffs in each of the last 3 years, and the difference is generally 20% or more.

I say more team assists without a single individual getting a pile of assists is better than less team assists with one player dominating the ball and piling up assist stats.  This all changes if Rondo could force defenses to play him honestly both when he has the ball and when he doesn't.

  So you're claiming that it's better for KG to score 2 baskets assisted by Rondo and 2 baskets assisted by Lee that for KG to score 4 baskets assisted by Rondo? I'd love to hear the rationale behind that. I'm personally of the opinion that we're better off if our passes came from the player who's more likely to make the best pass to the proper player at the proper time because we score more efficiently that way, you must have a different opinion of what constitutes "better".

Part of the reason Rondo holds the ball so much is that the team is even worse off when he doesn't have the ball and his man sags off even further.  Rondo is freakishly talented is some areas of the game and enigmatically flawed in some others.  If that is being unfairly critical of Rondo then so be it but that is how I see it.

  The main reason Rondo has the ball so much is because one of the things he's freakishly good at is getting a good shot for one of his teammates. It's true Rondo's man sags off of him when he doesn't have the ball. But that's true with 99% of the nba. Look at all the wide open jump shots KG gets, for instance.

  For the record, I don't think that your criticism of Rondo is unfair at all. If Rondo could shoot like Chris Paul he'd probably be in the conversation for the best pg (aside from Magic) of all time. I'm also not disagreeing that teams would play him at least a little tighter if he was a better shooter, or that the team wouldn't benefit from his defender playing a little closer to him.

  What I'm saying is that he's so good at what he does that he's still able to be an effective offensive player in spite of that. It's true that teams don't worry as much about his scoring as they do about (for instance) Parker's scoring, but it's also true that he's still able manufacture very efficient scoring chances no matter how the defense tries to play him.

[mmmmm]

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.

  At some point in time you'll have to question the validity of that metric. You're halfway there, since you're trying to decouple your opinion of whether Rondo shoots the ball well from how well he shoots the ball. The next step is realizing that, as Rondo has improved as an outside shooter, teams still give him space when he has the ball. The obvious conclusion is that teams don't sag off of Rondo simply because of his shooting, but because they're more worried about his passing and dribble penetration.

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.

  This theory would hold a lot more water if we didn't see Rondo get his teammates open shots on the bulk of our possessions. Your opinion of space creation is based on whether teams worry about your jump shooting and completely ignores more important things like dribble penetration, where Rondo excels.

  Since we're not in mid-season, go to youtube and look at some Rondo passing highlights, then decide whether Rondo gets people open or not. Your description above is a fairly textbook explanation of what effect a poor shooter should have on a team's offense but it bears little relationship to what actually happens on the court when Rondo plays.

We have gone back and forth on this a few times but your whole theory is blown out of the water when you consider that in both of the recent instances where Rondo missed significant games, the Celtics averaged more team assists than when Rondo played.  Stats can create any reality you want and you can pick and choose them accordingly.

  The reality is that right after Rondo went down the Celts offense got a short-lived boost for a number of reasons (improved health of PP/Jet/Green, changing the offense, having a home-heavy schedule against bad defenses) and experienced an up-tick in assists that didn't hold out over the rest of the season. When you consider the fact that, during the half a season that Rondo played, all of PP/Jet/Green had their production hampered by injury for a significant amount of time, the fact that he was able to keep the offense competitive is fairly impressive.

  It also goes without saying that the team's assists without Rondo in the playoffs (when the other team is trying harder on defense) was well down from the year before, despite having Green and playing against a bad defense in 2013.

The point of the team assists stat though is that even though having Rondo on the court adds a highly talented individual passer, Rondo also takes away ball movement and allows defenses to play differently, both of which take away team assists.  (This is the paradox of Rondo).

  The defenses play differently when Rondo doesn't have the ball, but it doesn't take away from our assists. That's why we've averaged more assists/minute when Rondo's on the court in both the regular season and the playoffs in each of the last 3 years, and the difference is generally 20% or more.

I say more team assists without a single individual getting a pile of assists is better than less team assists with one player dominating the ball and piling up assist stats.  This all changes if Rondo could force defenses to play him honestly both when he has the ball and when he doesn't.

  So you're claiming that it's better for KG to score 2 baskets assisted by Rondo and 2 baskets assisted by Lee that for KG to score 4 baskets assisted by Rondo? I'd love to hear the rationale behind that. I'm personally of the opinion that we're better off if our passes came from the player who's more likely to make the best pass to the proper player at the proper time because we score more efficiently that way, you must have a different opinion of what constitutes "better".

Part of the reason Rondo holds the ball so much is that the team is even worse off when he doesn't have the ball and his man sags off even further.  Rondo is freakishly talented is some areas of the game and enigmatically flawed in some others.  If that is being unfairly critical of Rondo then so be it but that is how I see it.

  The main reason Rondo has the ball so much is because one of the things he's freakishly good at is getting a good shot for one of his teammates. It's true Rondo's man sags off of him when he doesn't have the ball. But that's true with 99% of the nba. Look at all the wide open jump shots KG gets, for instance.

  For the record, I don't think that your criticism of Rondo is unfair at all. If Rondo could shoot like Chris Paul he'd probably be in the conversation for the best pg (aside from Magic) of all time. I'm also not disagreeing that teams would play him at least a little tighter if he was a better shooter, or that the team wouldn't benefit from his defender playing a little closer to him.

  What I'm saying is that he's so good at what he does that he's still able to be an effective offensive player in spite of that. It's true that teams don't worry as much about his scoring as they do about (for instance) Parker's scoring, but it's also true that he's still able manufacture very efficient scoring chances no matter how the defense tries to play him.

Great post, BballTim!

TP

[Edgar]

lets see hows a healthy team star Rondo plays be4 making any judgment

[fitzhickey]

40 pts 15 asts 12 rebs 6 steals 5 blocks shooting 50/50/90
Leading us to a championship winning MVP, finals MVP and defensive player of the year

And then he would still cop some flak
Impossible for a player not to get criticised

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM ALERT! If you were planning a defence to stop a unit with Rondo, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and occasionally Kevin Garnett roaming the perimeter, from scoring who would you sag off? Even if Rondo had a 'good' jump shot, 2 of those other guys are hall of fame level 3 point assassins, and the other guy is 7 feet tall! Off course they sag off Rondo.

[zimbo]

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM ALERT! If you were planning a defence to stop a unit with Rondo, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and occasionally Kevin Garnett roaming the perimeter, from scoring who would you sag off? Even if Rondo had a 'good' jump shot, 2 of those other guys are hall of fame level 3 point assassins, and the other guy is 7 feet tall! Off course they sag off Rondo.

This has already been brought up and addressed.

[BballTim]

40 pts 15 asts 12 rebs 6 steals 5 blocks shooting 50/50/90
Leading us to a championship winning MVP, finals MVP and defensive player of the year

And then he would still cop some flak
Impossible for a player not to get criticised

  Why wouldn't he get criticized? Clearly he'd have to be dominating the ball and padding his stats to get numbers like that. You'd see plenty of threads about how it's imperative that we trade him immediately because "his trade value will never be higher" when February rolled around.

[Vermont Green]

  For the record, I don't think that your criticism of Rondo is unfair at all. If Rondo could shoot like Chris Paul he'd probably be in the conversation for the best pg (aside from Magic) of all time. I'm also not disagreeing that teams would play him at least a little tighter if he was a better shooter, or that the team wouldn't benefit from his defender playing a little closer to him.

  What I'm saying is that he's so good at what he does that he's still able to be an effective offensive player in spite of that. It's true that teams don't worry as much about his scoring as they do about (for instance) Parker's scoring, but it's also true that he's still able manufacture very efficient scoring chances no matter how the defense tries to play him.

In your extended post, I think you were trying awfully hard to conjure up stats to contradict my points which are seemingly obvious.  I must say that I am mostly unconvinced but I appreciate the thoughtful response in the spirit of debate.  But then you come around in the last two paragraphs, which I quoted above to say you agree with me at least to some extent.  Sounds like we may not be that far apart after all.

The only point for point I will continue is the idea of team assists vs. Rondo piling up assists.  Point one is yes, I do think that if a team got 25 assists with no single player getting more than say 8 it is better than getting 25 assists with one guy getting say 12 or 15.  It would be the same for scoring.  The more balanced the scoring, the better in the long run.  Harder to defend, less likely for droughts, etc.  But that is the minor point not the main point.

The main point is that if you take a team (without Rondo) that is getting 25 assists a night, the assist total should not go down when you add a freakishly talented passer to the team.  Just like if you added a freakishly talented scorer to a team, you would think overall they would score better (or more easily), not worse (albeit slightly in the case of the assists).  This is why Rondo is a bit of an enigma.  Teams can relatively easily adjust their defense and prevent Rondo from creating the impact he would otherwise be able to create.

GMs do not seem to be lining up to get Rondo (based on rumors during Chris Paul trade and more recently Detroit).  I believe this indicates that even if they recognize the obvious talent, they also see the problem.  The clock is ticking on Rondo (now 27) but I think there is still a chance he will develop enough of a shot (and a quicker release is a big part of this) that he will take it to that next level (Perhaps not Magic Johnson level but clearly there is still some room below his ceiling).  But for now, he is like a hitter with a hole in his swing that the whole league knows about.

[BballTim]

  For the record, I don't think that your criticism of Rondo is unfair at all. If Rondo could shoot like Chris Paul he'd probably be in the conversation for the best pg (aside from Magic) of all time. I'm also not disagreeing that teams would play him at least a little tighter if he was a better shooter, or that the team wouldn't benefit from his defender playing a little closer to him.

  What I'm saying is that he's so good at what he does that he's still able to be an effective offensive player in spite of that. It's true that teams don't worry as much about his scoring as they do about (for instance) Parker's scoring, but it's also true that he's still able manufacture very efficient scoring chances no matter how the defense tries to play him.

In your extended post, I think you were trying awfully hard to conjure up stats to contradict my points which are seemingly obvious.  I must say that I am mostly unconvinced but I appreciate the thoughtful response in the spirit of debate.  But then you come around in the last two paragraphs, which I quoted above to say you agree with me at least to some extent.  Sounds like we may not be that far apart after all.

The only point for point I will continue is the idea of team assists vs. Rondo piling up assists.  Point one is yes, I do think that if a team got 25 assists with no single player getting more than say 8 it is better than getting 25 assists with one guy getting say 12 or 15.  It would be the same for scoring.  The more balanced the scoring, the better in the long run.  Harder to defend, less likely for droughts, etc.  But that is the minor point not the main point.

  The main thing that's missing from your point is the most important, efficiency. If a pass from Lee or Terry was as likely to end up in a good shot for a teammate as a pass from Rondo you'd have a point. I think you'd have a hard time convincing most of the people who watch the team play that this was the case.

  I could probably dig up the link, but a year or two ago some Wizards fans, about 3 months into the season, went on to the synergy website and compared all of the passes Rondo made to his teammates that resulted in a scoring opportunity and every pass that Wall made that resulted in a scoring opportunity. They found that the Wizard's scoring efficiency was about 8% higher off of passes from Wall than normal (which, according to an article from 82games, was close to average). They also found that the Celt's scoring efficiency jumped by almost 20% when the opportunity came from a pass from Rondo.

  Unless you're arguing that the passes from the other Celts result in scoring chances as good as the ones Rondo gets us, your "spread the assists" idea will clearly make the Celts a less efficient offensive team. Case in point, the Knicks series, where we made plenty of passes but they just didn't result in much scoring.

The main point is that if you take a team (without Rondo) that is getting 25 assists a night, the assist total should not go down when you add a freakishly talented passer to the team.  Just like if you added a freakishly talented scorer to a team, you would think overall they would score better (or more easily), not worse (albeit slightly in the case of the assists).  This is why Rondo is a bit of an enigma.

  Here are our assists (per 48min) with and without Rondo over the last 3 years (from nba.com).

 10-11: with Rondo, 25.7  without Rondo, 19.1
 11-12: with Rondo, 25.3  without Rondo, 20.5
 12-13: with Rondo, 23.5  without Rondo, 21.5

  And here are the playoff numbers:

 10-11: with Rondo, 22.5  without Rondo, 14.1
 11-12: with Rondo, 20.4  without Rondo, 15.1
 12-13 playoffs, all without Rondo, 16.8

  Again, the team got a short-lived bump in assists after Rondo went out that didn't last the entire season. The team was averaging more assists a game when Rondo went out than when the season ended.

  Teams can relatively easily adjust their defense and prevent Rondo from creating the impact he would otherwise be able to create.

  If this were at all true then Rondo would be nowhere near the league leaders in assists. He'd be especially ineffective in the playoffs, when defenses are focused and coaches game-plan and make adjustments as the series progresses.

  Over the last few years 1) we've heard the coaches of some of the best defenses in the league talk about how important it is to keep Rondo in check, 2) we've seen them fail to do so, and 3) we've got your comment that "Teams can relatively easily adjust their defense and prevent Rondo from creating the impact he would otherwise be able to create". One of those three things doesn't belong with the other two.

  In the 2012 playoffs we faced 3 of the top 7 defenses in the league and Rondo scored or assisted more points than anyone in the league except for LeBron in that postseason. How on earth could that possibly happen if it's relatively easy to adjust a defense to limit Rondo's effectiveness?

[bobbyv]

  For the record, I don't think that your criticism of Rondo is unfair at all. If Rondo could shoot like Chris Paul he'd probably be in the conversation for the best pg (aside from Magic) of all time. I'm also not disagreeing that teams would play him at least a little tighter if he was a better shooter, or that the team wouldn't benefit from his defender playing a little closer to him.

  What I'm saying is that he's so good at what he does that he's still able to be an effective offensive player in spite of that. It's true that teams don't worry as much about his scoring as they do about (for instance) Parker's scoring, but it's also true that he's still able manufacture very efficient scoring chances no matter how the defense tries to play him.

In your extended post, I think you were trying awfully hard to conjure up stats to contradict my points which are seemingly obvious.  I must say that I am mostly unconvinced but I appreciate the thoughtful response in the spirit of debate.  But then you come around in the last two paragraphs, which I quoted above to say you agree with me at least to some extent.  Sounds like we may not be that far apart after all.

The only point for point I will continue is the idea of team assists vs. Rondo piling up assists.  Point one is yes, I do think that if a team got 25 assists with no single player getting more than say 8 it is better than getting 25 assists with one guy getting say 12 or 15.  It would be the same for scoring.  The more balanced the scoring, the better in the long run.  Harder to defend, less likely for droughts, etc.  But that is the minor point not the main point.

  The main thing that's missing from your point is the most important, efficiency. If a pass from Lee or Terry was as likely to end up in a good shot for a teammate as a pass from Rondo you'd have a point. I think you'd have a hard time convincing most of the people who watch the team play that this was the case.

  I could probably dig up the link, but a year or two ago some Wizards fans, about 3 months into the season, went on to the synergy website and compared all of the passes Rondo made to his teammates that resulted in a scoring opportunity and every pass that Wall made that resulted in a scoring opportunity. They found that the Wizard's scoring efficiency was about 8% higher off of passes from Wall than normal (which, according to an article from 82games, was close to average). They also found that the Celt's scoring efficiency jumped by almost 20% when the opportunity came from a pass from Rondo.

  Unless you're arguing that the passes from the other Celts result in scoring chances as good as the ones Rondo gets us, your "spread the assists" idea will clearly make the Celts a less efficient offensive team. Case in point, the Knicks series, where we made plenty of passes but they just didn't result in much scoring.

The main point is that if you take a team (without Rondo) that is getting 25 assists a night, the assist total should not go down when you add a freakishly talented passer to the team.  Just like if you added a freakishly talented scorer to a team, you would think overall they would score better (or more easily), not worse (albeit slightly in the case of the assists).  This is why Rondo is a bit of an enigma.

  Here are our assists (per 48min) with and without Rondo over the last 3 years (from nba.com).

 10-11: with Rondo, 25.7  without Rondo, 19.1
 11-12: with Rondo, 25.3  without Rondo, 20.5
 12-13: with Rondo, 23.5  without Rondo, 21.5

  And here are the playoff numbers:

 10-11: with Rondo, 22.5  without Rondo, 14.1
 11-12: with Rondo, 20.4  without Rondo, 15.1
 12-13 playoffs, all without Rondo, 16.8

  Again, the team got a short-lived bump in assists after Rondo went out that didn't last the entire season. The team was averaging more assists a game when Rondo went out than when the season ended.

  Teams can relatively easily adjust their defense and prevent Rondo from creating the impact he would otherwise be able to create.

  If this were at all true then Rondo would be nowhere near the league leaders in assists. He'd be especially ineffective in the playoffs, when defenses are focused and coaches game-plan and make adjustments as the series progresses.

  Over the last few years 1) we've heard the coaches of some of the best defenses in the league talk about how important it is to keep Rondo in check, 2) we've seen them fail to do so, and 3) we've got your comment that "Teams can relatively easily adjust their defense and prevent Rondo from creating the impact he would otherwise be able to create". One of those three things doesn't belong with the other two.

  In the 2012 playoffs we faced 3 of the top 7 defenses in the league and Rondo scored or assisted more points than anyone in the league except for LeBron in that postseason. How on earth could that possibly happen if it's relatively easy to adjust a defense to limit Rondo's effectiveness?

TP

[D.o.s.]

  For the record, I don't think that your criticism of Rondo is unfair at all. If Rondo could shoot like Chris Paul he'd probably be in the conversation for the best pg (aside from Magic) of all time. I'm also not disagreeing that teams would play him at least a little tighter if he was a better shooter, or that the team wouldn't benefit from his defender playing a little closer to him.

  What I'm saying is that he's so good at what he does that he's still able to be an effective offensive player in spite of that. It's true that teams don't worry as much about his scoring as they do about (for instance) Parker's scoring, but it's also true that he's still able manufacture very efficient scoring chances no matter how the defense tries to play him.

In your extended post, I think you were trying awfully hard to conjure up stats to contradict my points which are seemingly obvious.  I must say that I am mostly unconvinced but I appreciate the thoughtful response in the spirit of debate.  But then you come around in the last two paragraphs, which I quoted above to say you agree with me at least to some extent.  Sounds like we may not be that far apart after all.

The only point for point I will continue is the idea of team assists vs. Rondo piling up assists.  Point one is yes, I do think that if a team got 25 assists with no single player getting more than say 8 it is better than getting 25 assists with one guy getting say 12 or 15.  It would be the same for scoring.  The more balanced the scoring, the better in the long run.  Harder to defend, less likely for droughts, etc.  But that is the minor point not the main point.

  The main thing that's missing from your point is the most important, efficiency. If a pass from Lee or Terry was as likely to end up in a good shot for a teammate as a pass from Rondo you'd have a point. I think you'd have a hard time convincing most of the people who watch the team play that this was the case.

  I could probably dig up the link, but a year or two ago some Wizards fans, about 3 months into the season, went on to the synergy website and compared all of the passes Rondo made to his teammates that resulted in a scoring opportunity and every pass that Wall made that resulted in a scoring opportunity. They found that the Wizard's scoring efficiency was about 8% higher off of passes from Wall than normal (which, according to an article from 82games, was close to average). They also found that the Celt's scoring efficiency jumped by almost 20% when the opportunity came from a pass from Rondo.

  Unless you're arguing that the passes from the other Celts result in scoring chances as good as the ones Rondo gets us, your "spread the assists" idea will clearly make the Celts a less efficient offensive team. Case in point, the Knicks series, where we made plenty of passes but they just didn't result in much scoring.

The main point is that if you take a team (without Rondo) that is getting 25 assists a night, the assist total should not go down when you add a freakishly talented passer to the team.  Just like if you added a freakishly talented scorer to a team, you would think overall they would score better (or more easily), not worse (albeit slightly in the case of the assists).  This is why Rondo is a bit of an enigma.

  Here are our assists (per 48min) with and without Rondo over the last 3 years (from nba.com).

 10-11: with Rondo, 25.7  without Rondo, 19.1
 11-12: with Rondo, 25.3  without Rondo, 20.5
 12-13: with Rondo, 23.5  without Rondo, 21.5

  And here are the playoff numbers:

 10-11: with Rondo, 22.5  without Rondo, 14.1
 11-12: with Rondo, 20.4  without Rondo, 15.1
 12-13 playoffs, all without Rondo, 16.8

  Again, the team got a short-lived bump in assists after Rondo went out that didn't last the entire season. The team was averaging more assists a game when Rondo went out than when the season ended.

  Teams can relatively easily adjust their defense and prevent Rondo from creating the impact he would otherwise be able to create.

  If this were at all true then Rondo would be nowhere near the league leaders in assists. He'd be especially ineffective in the playoffs, when defenses are focused and coaches game-plan and make adjustments as the series progresses.

  Over the last few years 1) we've heard the coaches of some of the best defenses in the league talk about how important it is to keep Rondo in check, 2) we've seen them fail to do so, and 3) we've got your comment that "Teams can relatively easily adjust their defense and prevent Rondo from creating the impact he would otherwise be able to create". One of those three things doesn't belong with the other two.

  In the 2012 playoffs we faced 3 of the top 7 defenses in the league and Rondo scored or assisted more points than anyone in the league except for LeBron in that postseason. How on earth could that possibly happen if it's relatively easy to adjust a defense to limit Rondo's effectiveness?

http://www.bulletsforever.com/john-wall-missed-assist-tracker

http://www.bulletsforever.com/2012/3/2/2838291/rajon-rondo-missed-assist-tracker-john-wall

[bleedGREENdon]

Idc about wins losses column because even lebron James with our cast that we have now would not make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs. I may be exaggerating but the point im trying to prove is we cant judge rondo on his wins and losses. No point gaurd carries his team that is not a team with winning talent around him. The best PG in the league in many eyes is Chris Paul. His team has alot more talent then this celtics team to win now and they lost in the 2nd round.

Im looking at rondo coming back and putting up 15-20ppg with the same assist mark. He does that. I say its a successful year for rondo. IMO though id like to see him hovering close to 20ppg though more than that 15ppg mark.

[Vermont Green]

During the 2011-12 season the Celtics averaged 19.8 assist per game.  In games that Rondo did not play, they averaged about 21 assists per game.  That means in the games that Rondo played in, they must have averaged a little less than 19.8.

In 2012-13, I don't remember the exact numbers but the average assist with and without Rondo were very close but we did get sightly more assists without him than with.  The team was running at a higher assist rate without Rondo when KG was playing but when he got hurt, things dropped off.

Now you can look at all the efficiency numbers and assists per 48 that you want but I am not sure how fewer total assists in a game can be better than more assists in a game.

The differences are small but any stats that imply we get more assists when Rondo plays are either inaccurate to the bottom line or some how misleading.

[RJ87]

There are some fans that will just not like Rondo no matter what he does and just refuse to give him any sort of credit. There seems to be a reputation of him as an insolent, immature guy who doesn't work on his game and only cares about televised games. The reality is that he's improved his jumpshot tremendously since his rookie season, and he's more consistent now than he was earlier in his career.  He's not a natural leader, but he's trying and making an effort to improve in that area.

Then there are some fans who don't see or acknowledge his improvements because they put unrealistic expectations on him and he doesn't live up to them. I mean really, his career high is 13.7 ppg, he's not going to suddenly become a 20pt scorer - only 9 guys in the NBA did that last season, 2 of them were PGs (Westbrook and Curry). It's the same thing people are starting to do with Jeff Green.