Is Rondo the best passer in the game?

[LarBrd33]

The truth is... probably not.

His assist/turnover ratio isn't the best in the league.  He gets a lot of assists, but that's partially because he's a somewhat subpar scorer for a player of his stature.  He scores less, because he takes less shots.  He gets more assists, because he takes less shots.  He takes less shots, because he's not a very good scorer.   There are several point guards in this league that could average as many assists as Rondo if they averaged less shots/points, but there is no point to that since they are better scorers than Rondo and often them taking the shot is the team's best play.

Again... is it better to have a PG who averages 20+ points and 9 assists on extremely efficient shooting?  Or is it better to have a PG who averages 11 assists and only 13 points, because he's a weak scorer?

If Rondo was a better scorer... or if Rondo was asked to score more... he'd average less assists.  And if he averaged less assists, that would effectively kill the main argument for him being the "best passer in the game".

I'm sure others have brought this up.  Chris Paul is a very efficient scorer.  He also leads the league in assist-to-turnover ratio.

CP3 assist-to-turnover = 4.26
Rondo assist-to-turnover = 2.84

Chris Paul per 36 min stats:  18.3 points, 10.5 assists, 2.6 steals 48%/33%/89%

Rondo per 36 min stats: 13.2 points, 10.6 assists, 1.8 steals  48%/24%/64%

is what it is.

  Again, though, it gets down to your opinion of what constitutes a better passer. Paul's a more efficient passer than Rondo because (as you frequently point out) the defense is so concerned about his shooting. If CP3 faced a defense that was playing him more for the pass than the shot then not only would he turn the ball over more often but fewer of his passes would result in shots with the defense sticking closer to his teammates. It's hard to imagine he'd be be as successful a passer as Rondo is under those circumstances. Again, you can claim he's a better passer since (due to his having easier passes available) he's a more efficient passer but in terms of pure passing skill he's probably below Rondo.

How do you figure he's less of a passer of Rondo?  This is silly.  How does one measure the quality of passing

  Yes, I've mentioned this a few times in the thread. People always discuss who's the best passer without any of them having the same definition of what a good passer is.

I think we're just assuming, because Rondo's game lacks in offensive power and he acts as a quarterback, that he by default must be the "best passer in the game".  Meh.

  Sounds like the same amount of thought that goes into all the "any good pg can average as many assists as Rondo" comments.

I'm saying that if you have an NFL team with no rushing game and are forced to run an offense where your QB attempts 700 passes in a season... that doesn't automatically make that QB the "best passer in the game". 

Boston has been running a very ineffective sub .500 Rondo-heavy offense where he dominates the ball, plays too many minutes, pads his assists and rarely scores... it results in a lot of assists.  That doesn't make him the best passer in the league.  He's probably one of the best, though. 

  Rondo's also the difference between a historically bad offense in the playoffs and getting to game 7 of the ECF.

It's adorable that you believe this.

  No, you were right all along, PP and KG were carrying the team and Rondo was a minor player, that's why they didn't miss a beat without him in the playoffs. At least, as far as you know that's what happened.

You have trouble understanding this concept.  Just because we struggled vs the Knicks without Rondo doesn't mean we would have beaten the Knicks with him.    We were below .500 before Rondo got injured.   Our offense was garbage either way.  The 2011-12 playoffs has nothing to do with the 2012-13 playoffs.  Your argument is flawed.  You might as well be saying "Ray Allen is the difference between a historically bad offense in the playoffs and getting to game 7 of the ECF." ... It has just as much credibility as your statement.

In fact, given that Ray Allen won a title last year and we were a contender with him on this team... there's actually more evidence to support that equally silly statement.

[BballTim]

The truth is... probably not.

His assist/turnover ratio isn't the best in the league.  He gets a lot of assists, but that's partially because he's a somewhat subpar scorer for a player of his stature.  He scores less, because he takes less shots.  He gets more assists, because he takes less shots.  He takes less shots, because he's not a very good scorer.   There are several point guards in this league that could average as many assists as Rondo if they averaged less shots/points, but there is no point to that since they are better scorers than Rondo and often them taking the shot is the team's best play.

Again... is it better to have a PG who averages 20+ points and 9 assists on extremely efficient shooting?  Or is it better to have a PG who averages 11 assists and only 13 points, because he's a weak scorer?

If Rondo was a better scorer... or if Rondo was asked to score more... he'd average less assists.  And if he averaged less assists, that would effectively kill the main argument for him being the "best passer in the game".

I'm sure others have brought this up.  Chris Paul is a very efficient scorer.  He also leads the league in assist-to-turnover ratio.

CP3 assist-to-turnover = 4.26
Rondo assist-to-turnover = 2.84

Chris Paul per 36 min stats:  18.3 points, 10.5 assists, 2.6 steals 48%/33%/89%

Rondo per 36 min stats: 13.2 points, 10.6 assists, 1.8 steals  48%/24%/64%

is what it is.

  Again, though, it gets down to your opinion of what constitutes a better passer. Paul's a more efficient passer than Rondo because (as you frequently point out) the defense is so concerned about his shooting. If CP3 faced a defense that was playing him more for the pass than the shot then not only would he turn the ball over more often but fewer of his passes would result in shots with the defense sticking closer to his teammates. It's hard to imagine he'd be be as successful a passer as Rondo is under those circumstances. Again, you can claim he's a better passer since (due to his having easier passes available) he's a more efficient passer but in terms of pure passing skill he's probably below Rondo.

How do you figure he's less of a passer of Rondo?  This is silly.  How does one measure the quality of passing

  Yes, I've mentioned this a few times in the thread. People always discuss who's the best passer without any of them having the same definition of what a good passer is.

I think we're just assuming, because Rondo's game lacks in offensive power and he acts as a quarterback, that he by default must be the "best passer in the game".  Meh.

  Sounds like the same amount of thought that goes into all the "any good pg can average as many assists as Rondo" comments.

I'm saying that if you have an NFL team with no rushing game and are forced to run an offense where your QB attempts 700 passes in a season... that doesn't automatically make that QB the "best passer in the game". 

Boston has been running a very ineffective sub .500 Rondo-heavy offense where he dominates the ball, plays too many minutes, pads his assists and rarely scores... it results in a lot of assists.  That doesn't make him the best passer in the league.  He's probably one of the best, though. 

  Rondo's also the difference between a historically bad offense in the playoffs and getting to game 7 of the ECF.

It's adorable that you believe this.

  No, you were right all along, PP and KG were carrying the team and Rondo was a minor player, that's why they didn't miss a beat without him in the playoffs. At least, as far as you know that's what happened.

You have trouble understanding this concept.  Just because we struggled vs the Knicks without Rondo doesn't mean we would have beaten the Knicks with him.    We were below .500 before Rondo got injured.   Our offense was garbage either way.  The 2011-12 playoffs has nothing to do with the 2012-13 playoffs.

  I don't have any trouble understanding that concept. I just understand it doesn't really apply to the situation. The Celts were below .500 for much of 2012 and went to game 7 of the ECF. They were also playing .500 ball for the majority of the 2010 season before getting to game 7 of the finals. Anyone who's followed the team since 2009 knows that there's no correlation between a slump during the season and a poor playoff performance. Almost anyone, I guess.

  As for your main point, I was saying the team would struggle on offense without Rondo when the playoffs came along from the time he was injured. So, by the way, were people like Doc, Danny and even Wyc. You, on the other hand, were saying that the Celts would do fine without Rondo. So if you're trying to claim that your "concept" is valid, the one who had trouble understanding it was you.

  Rondo scored or assisted a higher percentage of his team's points than any other player in the 2012 playoffs. We struggled to score in those playoffs when he was on the bench and we struggled to score in the playoffs this year without him. Try and figure out why those two sentences are related to each other before you start throwing around terms like "You have trouble understanding this concept".

[mmmmm]

You have trouble understanding this concept.  Just because we struggled vs the Knicks without Rondo doesn't mean we would have beaten the Knicks with him.    We were below .500 before Rondo got injured.   [strong]Our offense was garbage either way. [/strong] The 2011-12 playoffs has nothing to do with the 2012-13 playoffs.  Your argument is flawed.  You might as well be saying "Ray Allen is the difference between a historically bad offense in the playoffs and getting to game 7 of the ECF." ... It has just as much credibility as your statement.

In fact, given that Ray Allen won a title last year and we were a contender with him on this team... there's actually more evidence to support that equally silly statement.

I think your argument is very clearly flawed. 

Our offense was garbage in the first half and it was garbage in the second, but it was garbage for very different reasons.

It was garbage in the first half because of some truly awful shooting slumps by various players (Bass, Pierce, Terry, Lee.  And no Bradley.  And Jeff Green clearly was not fully back playing well at all.

It was garbage in the second half because we had no Rondo or Sully or Barbosa and instead we had cast offs from the China league and the Wizard's bench.

To pretend that the team was the same in each half, with only Rondo as the variable is completely disingenuous.

[celtics2]

I've said this before. Rondo had the benefit of passing to 3 special players. They knew where and when to be there. Let's see how he does with a motley crew. Not to mention a bum knee and lots of rust. In the past he gave up the ball because he didn't want to shoot it for obvious reasons. The question should be *was* Rondo the best passer in the game.

[biggs]

No. Creative? Yes. Most assists? Yes. Best passer? No. He lacks a certain "Je ne say quoi".  Not saying he can't improve, but I would point to his poor performances in all star games as evidence.  If he can't make his teammates better in an all star game he has some fundamental flaws.  Jason Kidd was leaps and bounds ahead of him at Rondo's age. Kinda wish Kidd could have mentored him. In his defense however,  Rondo has never had a real mentor besides Doc and maybe Sam Casell. 

Having said that, I expect him to return to the court as a more polished and mature point guard from all of his time watching the team function without him.

Just my 2 cents

[LarBrd33]

You have trouble understanding this concept.  Just because we struggled vs the Knicks without Rondo doesn't mean we would have beaten the Knicks with him.    We were below .500 before Rondo got injured.   [strong]Our offense was garbage either way. [/strong] The 2011-12 playoffs has nothing to do with the 2012-13 playoffs.  Your argument is flawed.  You might as well be saying "Ray Allen is the difference between a historically bad offense in the playoffs and getting to game 7 of the ECF." ... It has just as much credibility as your statement.

In fact, given that Ray Allen won a title last year and we were a contender with him on this team... there's actually more evidence to support that equally silly statement.

I think your argument is very clearly flawed. 

Our offense was garbage in the first half and it was garbage in the second, but it was garbage for very different reasons.

It was garbage in the first half because of some truly awful shooting slumps by various players (Bass, Pierce, Terry, Lee.  And no Bradley.  And Jeff Green clearly was not fully back playing well at all.

It was garbage in the second half because we had no Rondo or Sully or Barbosa and instead we had cast offs from the China league and the Wizard's bench.

To pretend that the team was the same in each half, with only Rondo as the variable is completely disingenuous.

I disagree with you and Tim.

Our offense in the second half was actually better without Rondo.

And how are you going to say that we only struggled in the first half, because of "shooting slumps" by players like Pierce... and then claim that we only struggled in the playoffs, because we were missing Rondo?  Paul Pierce shot 37% in the playoffs... 27% from three.  If we're going with the "shooting slumps" excuse, it's most fitting for the playoffs.

Knicks were a better team.  We would have lost to them either way.  Pierce was dreadful in the playoffs.  Jeff Green was good in the playoffs.  There's no evidence to suggest that Jeff Green can be successful with Rondo dominating the ball.  Maybe we'd get a little better with Rondo controlling the ball vs the Knicks.  Maybe we'd get a little worse with Jeff Green standing around in Rondo's offense.  My point is we don't know.  To act like they would have been better in the playoffs with Rondo is just a blind guess.  Maybe we would have.  I guess we probably would have.  But suggesting that "Rondo was the difference between the worst offense ever and game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals" is just silly... and Tim is smart enough to know that.   Way too many factors involved.  Maybe if we had Rondo + Ray Allen + Horfordless Atlanta in Round 1 + Philly in Round 2 + a Bosh-less Heat for the first half the ECF, we would have made it to game 7 again.  MAYBE. 

We do know that we were arguably better without Rondo during the regular season.  A handful of playoff games against a highly favored Knicks team where Paul Pierce shoots 37%/27% doesn't completely disprove what we saw in the regular season.  Sorry.

Bottom line, none of this is really relevant to whether Rondo is "the best passer in the game".  The truth is... he's probably not.

[BballTim]

You have trouble understanding this concept.  Just because we struggled vs the Knicks without Rondo doesn't mean we would have beaten the Knicks with him.    We were below .500 before Rondo got injured.   [strong]Our offense was garbage either way. [/strong] The 2011-12 playoffs has nothing to do with the 2012-13 playoffs.  Your argument is flawed.  You might as well be saying "Ray Allen is the difference between a historically bad offense in the playoffs and getting to game 7 of the ECF." ... It has just as much credibility as your statement.

In fact, given that Ray Allen won a title last year and we were a contender with him on this team... there's actually more evidence to support that equally silly statement.

I think your argument is very clearly flawed. 

Our offense was garbage in the first half and it was garbage in the second, but it was garbage for very different reasons.

It was garbage in the first half because of some truly awful shooting slumps by various players (Bass, Pierce, Terry, Lee.  And no Bradley.  And Jeff Green clearly was not fully back playing well at all.

It was garbage in the second half because we had no Rondo or Sully or Barbosa and instead we had cast offs from the China league and the Wizard's bench.

To pretend that the team was the same in each half, with only Rondo as the variable is completely disingenuous.

I disagree with you and Tim.

Our offense in the second half was actually better without Rondo.

And how are you going to say that we only struggled in the first half, because of "shooting slumps" by players like Pierce... and then claim that we only struggled in the playoffs, because we were missing Rondo?  Paul Pierce shot 37% in the playoffs... 27% from three.  If we're going with the "shooting slumps" excuse, it's most fitting for the playoffs.

Knicks were a better team.  We would have lost to them either way.  Pierce was dreadful in the playoffs.  Jeff Green was good in the playoffs.  There's no evidence to suggest that Jeff Green can be successful with Rondo dominating the ball.  Maybe we'd get a little better with Rondo controlling the ball vs the Knicks.  Maybe we'd get a little worse with Jeff Green standing around in Rondo's offense.  My point is we don't know.  To act like they would have been better in the playoffs with Rondo is just a blind guess.  Maybe we would have.  I guess we probably would have.  But suggesting that "Rondo was the difference between the worst offense ever and game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals" is just silly... and Tim is smart enough to know that.   Way too many factors involved.  Maybe if we had Rondo + Ray Allen + Horfordless Atlanta in Round 1 + Philly in Round 2 + a Bosh-less Heat for the first half the ECF, we would have made it to game 7 again.  MAYBE. 

  Saying we'd have done better in the playoffs with Rondo isn't a blind guess, it's a simple observation based on watching the team play over the years. And, yes, Atl was missing Horford and Miami was missing Bosh, we had health problems to, including Ray, who was a drag on the team and wasn't good enough to get minutes over a player who was separating his shoulders every other game.

  But seriously, you were the one that thought we'd make some noise in the playoffs, not me. Now you're scrambling to try and claim that we had no chance of doing what you were claiming we were going to, and *not* for the reason that many people predicted we'd fail. What happened against the Knicks was easily predictable to many and, when it happened, was obvious to many more. I predicted what would happen, I predicted why it would happen, I watched it happen and now you're claiming that I'm smart enough to know it never happened. Nice try.

[wdleehi]

No.



Flashy, creative....


What does it matter?



The name of the game is to run the offense and get the ball to a teammate to score. 


There are a few (very few) that do a better job of getting the ball to the other players then Rondo because they give the ball to the other team less often. 



And being a bigger threat to score from the outside that effects how defenses defend you can and does make you a better passer because you are creating better passing lanes. 




Rondo is in the top 5 in NBA passers, maybe number 2. 




My question is what is this desire to have to have Rondo be the "best" at something? 


I have heard (not in this thread, but on the site) best PG, passer, rebounder (for a PG) and defender (for a PG) 





He is a top 5 PG in the NBA who is going to now have his chance to prove that he is a player you can build a title contender around.  Chances are he is going to have to improve on certain things (leadership, full effort during the regular season, and hopefully, a more respectable jumpshot)


But he is far and away the best player the Celtics have and probably the only one that would and should be consider a "keeper" at this point.

[mmmmm]

You have trouble understanding this concept.  Just because we struggled vs the Knicks without Rondo doesn't mean we would have beaten the Knicks with him.    We were below .500 before Rondo got injured.   [strong]Our offense was garbage either way. [/strong] The 2011-12 playoffs has nothing to do with the 2012-13 playoffs.  Your argument is flawed.  You might as well be saying "Ray Allen is the difference between a historically bad offense in the playoffs and getting to game 7 of the ECF." ... It has just as much credibility as your statement.

In fact, given that Ray Allen won a title last year and we were a contender with him on this team... there's actually more evidence to support that equally silly statement.

I think your argument is very clearly flawed. 

Our offense was garbage in the first half and it was garbage in the second, but it was garbage for very different reasons.

It was garbage in the first half because of some truly awful shooting slumps by various players (Bass, Pierce, Terry, Lee.  And no Bradley.  And Jeff Green clearly was not fully back playing well at all.

It was garbage in the second half because we had no Rondo or Sully or Barbosa and instead we had cast offs from the China league and the Wizard's bench.

To pretend that the team was the same in each half, with only Rondo as the variable is completely disingenuous.

I disagree with you and Tim.

Our offense in the second half was actually better without Rondo.

Our offensive efficiency was sub-par all season.  Sure it was a marginal 2.8 points better per 100 possessions post-AS break  (102.9 vs 100.1 before).   That's still crappy.   League average was 105 last year.

There are compelling reasons it sucked before that had nothing to do with Rondo.

It is a measured, fact that several players - including Pierce, our highest USG player - went through prolonged, dramatic shooting slumps during the time we had Rondo.

Pierce' FG% in Jan was a miserable 39.9%, including a gawd awful 28.9% from 3PT land!  To pretend that wasn't devastating to our offense is absurd.

Pierce ended up with an impressive overall _season_ by shooting fantastic in March (50.3%,46.4%) and solid in April(45.6%, 37.5%).

Pierce has a long history of shooting very well playing with Rondo so please don't come back with any silliness about how his poor shooting in January was somehow Rondo's fault.

Our other top scorer, Green, also has very clear measured numbers that showed he shot poorly at the start of the season and showed steady improvement all season.  He went from sucking in the first half to super fantastic by the end of it.
Month FG%  3PT%
Nov  42.1%  29.2%
Dec  41.4%  32.4%
Jan  48.4%   34.5%
Feb  51.2%  41.4%
Mar  48.8%  42.6%
Apr  49.1%  52.6%

This illustrates two hugely important things.  First, that Green was clearly not recovered in the first half from his surgery and layoff and second, that his steady improvement occurred both with and without Rondo and so clearly was independent of Rondo.   Repeat for emphasis - that's clear evidence that Green showed improved play _with_ Rondo.

A simply look at the stats of Bass and Terry also confirms that they, too, had horrid, painful shooting slumps that contributed to our offensive woes independent of Rondo.

And when you add in Bradley's absence in the first half, it all adds up to the fact that you are being completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

There were many very strong contributors to why our offense sucked in the first half that had nothing to do with Rondo.   But, even though both Pierce and Green and others _shot_ better in the second half, our offense STILL SUCKED in the second half.

That offensive rating of 102.9 is crap.   The only reason it was that high was a brief unsustainable burst it got picking on a few terrible defenses before the league caught on and stopped letting us run.

It is very telling that in the playoffs, the Knicks made a concerted effort to get back on defense on every possession, taking away transition and forcing us into a half court.  Which without Rondo, and shooting poorly, we struggled to execute.

And how are you going to say that we only struggled in the first half, because of "shooting slumps" by players like Pierce... and then claim that we only struggled in the playoffs, because we were missing Rondo?  Paul Pierce shot 37% in the playoffs... 27% from three.  If we're going with the "shooting slumps" excuse, it's most fitting for the playoffs.

First off, I never once said we 'only struggled in the playoffs'.   We very clearly struggled in  BOTH the regular season AND the playoffs, again, due primarily to horrible shooting slumps by everybody NOT named KG, Green, Bass & Terry.   Those are the _only_ four players in our lineup who shot at all decent in that series.     

... junk deleted ...

Look, it's pretty obvious you want to pretend you are dispassionately critical of Rondo.  But your arguments as presented here are completely without legs.   And they basically come off as completely disingenuous, willful denial of the reality of how last year played out.

[LarBrd33]

You have trouble understanding this concept.  Just because we struggled vs the Knicks without Rondo doesn't mean we would have beaten the Knicks with him.    We were below .500 before Rondo got injured.   [strong]Our offense was garbage either way. [/strong] The 2011-12 playoffs has nothing to do with the 2012-13 playoffs.  Your argument is flawed.  You might as well be saying "Ray Allen is the difference between a historically bad offense in the playoffs and getting to game 7 of the ECF." ... It has just as much credibility as your statement.

In fact, given that Ray Allen won a title last year and we were a contender with him on this team... there's actually more evidence to support that equally silly statement.

I think your argument is very clearly flawed. 

Our offense was garbage in the first half and it was garbage in the second, but it was garbage for very different reasons.

It was garbage in the first half because of some truly awful shooting slumps by various players (Bass, Pierce, Terry, Lee.  And no Bradley.  And Jeff Green clearly was not fully back playing well at all.

It was garbage in the second half because we had no Rondo or Sully or Barbosa and instead we had cast offs from the China league and the Wizard's bench.

To pretend that the team was the same in each half, with only Rondo as the variable is completely disingenuous.

I disagree with you and Tim.

Our offense in the second half was actually better without Rondo.

Our offensive efficiency was sub-par all season.  Sure it was a marginal 2.8 points better per 100 possessions post-AS break  (102.9 vs 100.1 before).   That's still crappy.   League average was 105 last year.

There are compelling reasons it sucked before that had nothing to do with Rondo.

It is a measured, fact that several players - including Pierce, our highest USG player - went through prolonged, dramatic shooting slumps during the time we had Rondo.

Pierce' FG% in Jan was a miserable 39.9%, including a gawd awful 28.9% from 3PT land!  To pretend that wasn't devastating to our offense is absurd.

Pierce ended up with an impressive overall _season_ by shooting fantastic in March (50.3%,46.4%) and solid in April(45.6%, 37.5%).

Pierce has a long history of shooting very well playing with Rondo so please don't come back with any silliness about how his poor shooting in January was somehow Rondo's fault.

Our other top scorer, Green, also has very clear measured numbers that showed he shot poorly at the start of the season and showed steady improvement all season.  He went from sucking in the first half to super fantastic by the end of it.
Month FG%  3PT%
Nov  42.1%  29.2%
Dec  41.4%  32.4%
Jan  48.4%   34.5%
Feb  51.2%  41.4%
Mar  48.8%  42.6%
Apr  49.1%  52.6%

This illustrates two hugely important things.  First, that Green was clearly not recovered in the first half from his surgery and layoff and second, that his steady improvement occurred both with and without Rondo and so clearly was independent of Rondo.   Repeat for emphasis - that's clear evidence that Green showed improved play _with_ Rondo.

A simply look at the stats of Bass and Terry also confirms that they, too, had horrid, painful shooting slumps that contributed to our offensive woes independent of Rondo.

And when you add in Bradley's absence in the first half, it all adds up to the fact that you are being completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

There were many very strong contributors to why our offense sucked in the first half that had nothing to do with Rondo.   But, even though both Pierce and Green and others _shot_ better in the second half, our offense STILL SUCKED in the second half.

That offensive rating of 102.9 is crap.   The only reason it was that high was a brief unsustainable burst it got picking on a few terrible defenses before the league caught on and stopped letting us run.

It is very telling that in the playoffs, the Knicks made a concerted effort to get back on defense on every possession, taking away transition and forcing us into a half court.  Which without Rondo, and shooting poorly, we struggled to execute.

And how are you going to say that we only struggled in the first half, because of "shooting slumps" by players like Pierce... and then claim that we only struggled in the playoffs, because we were missing Rondo?  Paul Pierce shot 37% in the playoffs... 27% from three.  If we're going with the "shooting slumps" excuse, it's most fitting for the playoffs.

First off, I never once said we 'only struggled in the playoffs'.   We very clearly struggled in  BOTH the regular season AND the playoffs, again, due primarily to horrible shooting slumps by everybody NOT named KG, Green, Bass & Terry.   Those are the _only_ four players in our lineup who shot at all decent in that series.     

... junk deleted ...

Look, it's pretty obvious you want to pretend you are dispassionately critical of Rondo.  But your arguments as presented here are completely without legs.   And they basically come off as completely disingenuous, willful denial of the reality of how last year played out.

This is kind of funny to me, because all of your data basically backs up the idea that the team's offense and individual players were less efficient in the Rondo-centric offense and that they were more effective and shot better in the free-flowing Rondo-less offense.  And yet your conclusion is basically, "See... shooting slumps!" or "See... it's just coincidental that Green and Pierce shot better without Rondo!"  Or ... "See, 6 games against the Knicks proves that Pierce needed Rondo to shoot better than 37%/27%.   It's just funny man.  Granted, I might be out of my freakin mind, but from here it feels like your conclusions are backwards.

I mean seriously... you bring up the fact that:  Pierce was "shooting fantastic in March (50.3%,46.4%) and solid in April(45.6%, 37.5%)." (WITHOUT RONDO) and you brush it off like it was some fluke.  Meanwhile, you guys are harping on 6 games where Pierce shot 37%/27% vs the Knicks as proof that Rondo would have been the savior.  This just doesn't compute to me. 

Whatever man.  Believe whatever you guys want to believe.  I sort of feel bad for the fans with this inflated perception of Rondo.  I love Rondo.  But some people actually think the 2013-14 Celtics will be solid with the young guys and Rondo's leadership. This team is going to be dreadful.  We might struggle to win 30 games.  Life without Ray, KG and Pierce is gonna be ugly.  I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of fans who will be pretty disappointed in what they see.

[mmmmm]

You have trouble understanding this concept.  Just because we struggled vs the Knicks without Rondo doesn't mean we would have beaten the Knicks with him.    We were below .500 before Rondo got injured.   [strong]Our offense was garbage either way. [/strong] The 2011-12 playoffs has nothing to do with the 2012-13 playoffs.  Your argument is flawed.  You might as well be saying "Ray Allen is the difference between a historically bad offense in the playoffs and getting to game 7 of the ECF." ... It has just as much credibility as your statement.

In fact, given that Ray Allen won a title last year and we were a contender with him on this team... there's actually more evidence to support that equally silly statement.

I think your argument is very clearly flawed. 

Our offense was garbage in the first half and it was garbage in the second, but it was garbage for very different reasons.

It was garbage in the first half because of some truly awful shooting slumps by various players (Bass, Pierce, Terry, Lee.  And no Bradley.  And Jeff Green clearly was not fully back playing well at all.

It was garbage in the second half because we had no Rondo or Sully or Barbosa and instead we had cast offs from the China league and the Wizard's bench.

To pretend that the team was the same in each half, with only Rondo as the variable is completely disingenuous.

I disagree with you and Tim.

Our offense in the second half was actually better without Rondo.

Our offensive efficiency was sub-par all season.  Sure it was a marginal 2.8 points better per 100 possessions post-AS break  (102.9 vs 100.1 before).   That's still crappy.   League average was 105 last year.

There are compelling reasons it sucked before that had nothing to do with Rondo.

It is a measured, fact that several players - including Pierce, our highest USG player - went through prolonged, dramatic shooting slumps during the time we had Rondo.

Pierce' FG% in Jan was a miserable 39.9%, including a gawd awful 28.9% from 3PT land!  To pretend that wasn't devastating to our offense is absurd.

Pierce ended up with an impressive overall _season_ by shooting fantastic in March (50.3%,46.4%) and solid in April(45.6%, 37.5%).

Pierce has a long history of shooting very well playing with Rondo so please don't come back with any silliness about how his poor shooting in January was somehow Rondo's fault.

Our other top scorer, Green, also has very clear measured numbers that showed he shot poorly at the start of the season and showed steady improvement all season.  He went from sucking in the first half to super fantastic by the end of it.
Month FG%  3PT%
Nov  42.1%  29.2%
Dec  41.4%  32.4%
Jan  48.4%   34.5%
Feb  51.2%  41.4%
Mar  48.8%  42.6%
Apr  49.1%  52.6%

This illustrates two hugely important things.  First, that Green was clearly not recovered in the first half from his surgery and layoff and second, that his steady improvement occurred both with and without Rondo and so clearly was independent of Rondo.   Repeat for emphasis - that's clear evidence that Green showed improved play _with_ Rondo.

A simply look at the stats of Bass and Terry also confirms that they, too, had horrid, painful shooting slumps that contributed to our offensive woes independent of Rondo.

And when you add in Bradley's absence in the first half, it all adds up to the fact that you are being completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

There were many very strong contributors to why our offense sucked in the first half that had nothing to do with Rondo.   But, even though both Pierce and Green and others _shot_ better in the second half, our offense STILL SUCKED in the second half.

That offensive rating of 102.9 is crap.   The only reason it was that high was a brief unsustainable burst it got picking on a few terrible defenses before the league caught on and stopped letting us run.

It is very telling that in the playoffs, the Knicks made a concerted effort to get back on defense on every possession, taking away transition and forcing us into a half court.  Which without Rondo, and shooting poorly, we struggled to execute.

And how are you going to say that we only struggled in the first half, because of "shooting slumps" by players like Pierce... and then claim that we only struggled in the playoffs, because we were missing Rondo?  Paul Pierce shot 37% in the playoffs... 27% from three.  If we're going with the "shooting slumps" excuse, it's most fitting for the playoffs.

First off, I never once said we 'only struggled in the playoffs'.   We very clearly struggled in  BOTH the regular season AND the playoffs, again, due primarily to horrible shooting slumps by everybody NOT named KG, Green, Bass & Terry.   Those are the _only_ four players in our lineup who shot at all decent in that series.     

... junk deleted ...

Look, it's pretty obvious you want to pretend you are dispassionately critical of Rondo.  But your arguments as presented here are completely without legs.   And they basically come off as completely disingenuous, willful denial of the reality of how last year played out.

This is kind of funny to me, because all of your data basically backs up the idea that the team's offense and individual players were less efficient in the Rondo-centric offense and that they were more effective, shot better in the free-flowing Rondo-less offense.  And yet your conclusion is basically, "See... shooting slumps!"

Whatever man.  Believe whatever you guys want to believe.  I sort of feel bad for the fans with this inflated perception of Rondo.  I love Rondo.  But some people actually think the 2013-14 Celtics will be solid with the young guys and Rondo's leadership. This team is going to be dreadful.  We might struggle to win 30 games.

You are seriously and transparently making stuff up now.

The data shows that Pierce had shooting slumps both _with_ Rondo (during the regular season) and _without_ Rondo (during the playoffs.  Pierce has a long history of shooting mostly well - but also occasionally slumping - WITH Rondo.  So clearly, Pierce was capable of shooting well and also slumping completely _independent_ of Rondo.

The data shows that Green shot poorly at the beginning of the season, _with_ Rondo, but steadily, on a constant upward slope, shot better and better while still _with_ Rondo.  And then continued to improve even _without_ Rondo.   So his shooting performance was pretty clearly dominated by factors _independent_ of Rondo.

The data doesn't show at all what you assert.  Completely the opposite.

How nice of you to show your 'sympathy' for all these poor fans, over whom your judgement and understanding of the game is so clearly superior.

Seriously.  You deserve some language that we don't allow on CB.

[Vox_Populi]

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2013/08/28/blogtable-best-passer-top-assist-man-2/?ls=iref:nbahpt3a

The NBA writers talked about who they feel are the best passers in the league and who will be the assist leader. I just scanned through and it seemed most think Rubio, Nash and Paul are the best passers but Williams or Paul will lead the league in assists next season. Most also seem to think that Rondo's assist numbers will go down without PP or KG to convert.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Rondo as the best, but at least he was mentioned at all. Tony Parker wasn't even brought up.