Is Rondo the best passer in the game?

[Yogi]

Rondo is a pretty efficient scorer.  With his handle, quickness, athleticism and shooting he can be an elite scorer.  So far he hasn't had to score.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming season. 

[Galeto]

Rondo's a very good passer.  He is not however in a league of his own because he led the league in assist.  I'm actually pretty critical of his passing in many situations.  He's just not very good at pushing the ball ahead and he is awful at throwing a long pass to a streaking teammate.  He's eliminated a lot of the long turnovers but mostly because he's stopped throwing them.  A few years ago, he used to commit a turnover on a long pass nearly every game, which was noticeable because it rarely happens league-wide. Rondo's sense of a secondary break is also pretty non-existent.   

I wish he would simplify the game more.  He rarely just penetrates and kicks out to a shooter in the corner on the strongside.  And sometimes his passes back to the popping big man come after he's needlessly penetrated all the way to the basket and requires a 20 foot pass over his head.  At that point the big had been open for a long time.  Nobody throws a 20 foot pass on a pick and pop because it's a mockery of the play.

Undoubtedly Rondo's a very good passer.  His handle and vision are top-notch.  The other top point guards are right with him though.  In the second tier occupied by points like Conley, Holiday and Teague, he is clearly superior (well not over Rubio).

Rondo's a top 10 point guard but I'd put him 8th, including behind Deron.  I doubt any of the teams with Paul, Parker, Curry, Irving, Westbrook, Rose and Deron would trade their guy for Rondo.   

[Roy H.]

Rondo is a pretty efficient scorer.  With his handle, quickness, athleticism and shooting he can be an elite scorer.  So far he hasn't had to score.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming season.

I disagree with the "so far he hasn't had to score" part.

Last year we were 24th in offensive efficiency according to basketball-reference.  We were 27th the year before, and 18th the year before that.  Our offense has been bad.  If Rondo hasn't been scoring by design, it's a pretty poor game plan.

[byennie]

FWIW I think the most revealing way to compare PGs is to look at the breakdown of their actual possessions. Paul has a slightly higher usage rate (about 2 possessions per 40).

Paul gives you about 37% of his used possessions ending in an assist, 9% in a turnover. 54% of the time he takes a high efficiency shot (60% TS).

Rondo gives you about 42% of his used possessions ending in an assist, 13.5% in turnover. 44.5% of the time he takes a low efficiency shot (50% TS).

Math, for math's sake (but with a grain of truth):

Suppose you get 2pts for an assist and -1 for a turnover. Over 100 possessions, Paul rates a 65. Rondo rates a 70.5. EDGE: Rondo

Now suppose you get 2pts * TS% when you choose to call your own number. Paul rates a 32.4, Rondo rates a 22.25. EDGE: Paul

Combined offensive rating: Paul 97.4, Rondo 92.75. EDGE: Paul

[Galeto]

Rondo is a pretty efficient scorer.  With his handle, quickness, athleticism and shooting he can be an elite scorer.  So far he hasn't had to score.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming season.

He is not an efficient scorer despite his good field goal percentage because he doesn't make threes and is a poor shooter from the line, which he doesn't even get to often.  Compared to the league overall and other points, his efficiency is behind and below-average.  He has to shoot something like 53 percent from the field to be league average to make up for his lack of "extra" points. 

For Rondo to average 20 points, it would require like 18 shots a game.

[Yogi]

Rondo is a pretty efficient scorer.  With his handle, quickness, athleticism and shooting he can be an elite scorer.  So far he hasn't had to score.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming season.

I disagree with the "so far he hasn't had to score" part.

Last year we were 24th in offensive efficiency according to basketball-reference.  We were 27th the year before, and 18th the year before that.  Our offense has been bad.  If Rondo hasn't been scoring by design, it's a pretty poor game plan.

You mean last year when he missed half a season?

Over the last several years we have had no one that can create a shot.  Paul Pierce and KG have been really role players, as were Ray Allen and Jason Terry.  The fact that Rondo took such a horrible offensive team to the ECF is credit to him.  We all remember how bad we were without him. 

When he played last year, he was without Bradley, and Jeff Green was struggling to regain his form.  Rondo with Bradley, Lee, Brooks, Green, Sullinger, Bass, Olynyk, Wallace, Humphries and Faverani is an entirely different kind of offense we have not seen yet.  Those guys can run and play at Rondo's pace. 

Rondo has made Wilcox, Ryan Hollins, Semih Erden and Tony Allen look good on offense.  Our offense is going to be completely different next year, and as the lone star, Rondo will be our first or second option for the first time in his career. 

[BballTim]

Rondo is a pretty efficient scorer.  With his handle, quickness, athleticism and shooting he can be an elite scorer.  So far he hasn't had to score.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming season.

I disagree with the "so far he hasn't had to score" part.

Last year we were 24th in offensive efficiency according to basketball-reference.  We were 27th the year before, and 18th the year before that.  Our offense has been bad.  If Rondo hasn't been scoring by design, it's a pretty poor game plan.

  We generally score pretty efficiently, things like offensive rebounding drag down our offensive  efficiency. But, again, we score more efficiently off of Rondo's passes than we would if he (or most point guards) try to score. Why would Rondo distributing the ball be a poor game plan?

[Yogi]

Rondo is a pretty efficient scorer.  With his handle, quickness, athleticism and shooting he can be an elite scorer.  So far he hasn't had to score.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming season.

He is not an efficient scorer despite his good field goal percentage because he doesn't make threes and is a poor shooter from the line, which he doesn't even get to often.  Compared to the league overall and other points, his efficiency is behind and below-average.  He has to shoot something like 53 percent from the field to be league average to make up for his lack of "extra" points. 

For Rondo to average 20 points, it would require like 18 shots a game.

For most of his career, Rondo's job was to establish KG in the post, get Paul mismatches and feed Ray off screens, and if all else fails find the open man, usually Bass or Davis. 

This year, Rondo will still look to establish Sullinger in the post, but not nearly as much as KG.  He will look to give the ball to Green against mismatches, but not nearly as much as with Pierce.  He will look to feed the ball to Bradley cutting and running off screens, but not nearly as much as Ray or Terry. 

All those extra shots will become Rondo driving to the basket to draw fouls or look to draw defenders and find the open man.  He might also look to take some 3's which he is very capable of making even under huge pressure like he's shown in game 7 against Philly, or game 2 against Miami. 

He will actually look to score for the first time because for the first time he would actually be one of the top offensive options on the floor. 

[bfrombleacher]

Rondo is a pretty efficient scorer.  With his handle, quickness, athleticism and shooting he can be an elite scorer.  So far he hasn't had to score.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming season.

I disagree with the "so far he hasn't had to score" part.

Last year we were 24th in offensive efficiency according to basketball-reference.  We were 27th the year before, and 18th the year before that.  Our offense has been bad.  If Rondo hasn't been scoring by design, it's a pretty poor game plan.

You mean last year when he missed half a season?

Over the last several years we have had no one that can create a shot.  Paul Pierce and KG have been really role players, as were Ray Allen and Jason Terry.  The fact that Rondo took such a horrible offensive team to the ECF is credit to him.  We all remember how bad we were without him. 

When he played last year, he was without Bradley, and Jeff Green was struggling to regain his form.  Rondo with Bradley, Lee, Brooks, Green, Sullinger, Bass, Olynyk, Wallace, Humphries and Faverani is an entirely different kind of offense we have not seen yet.  Those guys can run and play at Rondo's pace. 

Rondo has made Wilcox, Ryan Hollins, Semih Erden and Tony Allen look good on offense.  Our offense is going to be completely different next year, and as the lone star, Rondo will be our first or second option for the first time in his career.

I'm guessing what Roy meant was that the game plan was the reason Rondo didn't score much, not because Rondo didn't need to. The critique was on the game plan, not Rondo.

Rondo is a pretty efficient scorer.  With his handle, quickness, athleticism and shooting he can be an elite scorer.  So far he hasn't had to score.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming season.

I disagree with the "so far he hasn't had to score" part.

Last year we were 24th in offensive efficiency according to basketball-reference.  We were 27th the year before, and 18th the year before that.  Our offense has been bad.  If Rondo hasn't been scoring by design, it's a pretty poor game plan.

  We generally score pretty efficiently, things like offensive rebounding drag down our offensive  efficiency. But, again, we score more efficiently off of Rondo's passes than we would if he (or most point guards) try to score. Why would Rondo distributing the ball be a poor game plan?

The problem might be that the offense was not Rondo-centric. My impression of the offense was that it still pretty much relied heavily on the mid-range shots.

Might have been if there were a lot more cuts to the basket and maybe if basically every trip down the floor was a pick play for Rondo. Instead we had the hold it for 24 secs for a contested mid range shot a lot.

I'd say we also had personnel problems. Those certainly contributed to the bad offense. Chemistry, fit and roles were an issue, then as those were eventually cleared up we got injuries. Even then Rondo with players who roll to the hoop like Wilcox and Shaq makes the offense so much better and we didn't have many (if any) of those.

It's not only the problem of the system but I'd say the system has some blame. The hold it for 24 offense can't be all on Rondo.

[Yogi]

Until now we had an offense centered around Ray/Terry/Paul/KG.  They are old, slow, rely more and more on jump shots and less in transition.

This is really the first year we will have an offense centered around Rondo, Green and Sullinger.  That is a much faster offense that is less reliant on jump shots and more reliant on transition baskets. 

[mmmmm]

Rondo is a pretty efficient scorer.  With his handle, quickness, athleticism and shooting he can be an elite scorer.  So far he hasn't had to score.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming season.

I disagree with the "so far he hasn't had to score" part.

Last year we were 24th in offensive efficiency according to basketball-reference.  We were 27th the year before, and 18th the year before that.  Our offense has been bad.  If Rondo hasn't been scoring by design, it's a pretty poor game plan.

That seems a little unfair.

The 'game plan' didn't call for Bass, Terry, Pierce to have totally uncharacteristic and sustained shooting slumps.   And for Green to take several months to recover his own shot in his steady comeback.

Our offense in general has been bad over the last few years (since 2010) very directly in correlation with our lack of inside presence on offense.   Our offensive efficiency has declined directly with our decline in the share of 'at rim' shots we have been taking.  And that's been pretty obviously in direct correlation with our inability to keep big men healthy and on the floor, other than KG & Bass -- who are primarily outside-shooting 'stretch bigs'.

Another correlation related to all this is that, as the share of super-high percentage 'at rim' shots has declined, that share of Rondo's 'assist attempts' that would have been 'at rim' has declined.   Last year, only 34 of his 419 assists were for dunks.  Just 8.1%.

Back in 2010, over 11% of Rondo's assists were for dunks.

By comparison, almost 14% of Chris Paul's assists this last season went for dunks.   The benefits of having inside-playing bigs like Blake.  These differences are not entirely, but mostly a function of personnel.

And another correlation with this is that, as the share of assist-attempts that are high percentage declines, that means more passes are needed per assist.  This increases the opportunity for turnovers.   Hence, the changes TO rates we've seen here also correlate with these personnel changes.

[mmmmm]

FWIW I think the most revealing way to compare PGs is to look at the breakdown of their actual possessions. Paul has a slightly higher usage rate (about 2 possessions per 40).

Paul gives you about 37% of his used possessions ending in an assist, 9% in a turnover. 54% of the time he takes a high efficiency shot (60% TS).

Rondo gives you about 42% of his used possessions ending in an assist, 13.5% in turnover. 44.5% of the time he takes a low efficiency shot (50% TS).

Math, for math's sake (but with a grain of truth):

Suppose you get 2pts for an assist and -1 for a turnover. Over 100 possessions, Paul rates a 65. Rondo rates a 70.5. EDGE: Rondo

Now suppose you get 2pts * TS% when you choose to call your own number. Paul rates a 32.4, Rondo rates a 22.25. EDGE: Paul

Combined offensive rating: Paul 97.4, Rondo 92.75. EDGE: Paul

I'm a big Rondo fan, but in reality that doesn't quite do justice to the difference.

The part in bold is not quite correct.  TS% is not a measure of the efficiency of the shots they are taking from the field.  TS rolls up Free Throw shooting as well as shooting from the field so is a conflation of the two skills that doesn't properly weight the value of either.

In particular, even a poor FT shooter who takes a ton of FTs (like, say a Dwight Howard or a Kendrick Perkins who gets hacked specifically BECAUSE he is a poor FT shooter) gets a big boost from it to his TS%.

A better measure for efficiency from the field might be eFG%, which measures efficiency from the field, given appropriate weight to 3PT shooting.  Paul still gets an edge there, but it is not nearly as large:  CP's career eFG is 50.8%.  Rondo's is 48.9%.

I said 'might' be ... but circling back, that fails to account for free throws generated off of shot attempts.  So ... probably a better measure THIS calculation would be to use actual point per shot efficiency, Points/FGA.  For this, CP has typically scored ~1.34 points/FGA.  Rondo has typically scored ~1.16 points per FGA.

This correction - which reflects that CP takes a lot more FTs/FGA than Rondo - ends up boosting the difference.

Also, an assist is typically worth about ~ 2.23 pts.  Varies with the share of 3PT shots your team takes but let's use that for simplicity.   A TO is typically worth the cost of your offensive efficiency over one possession, for an average team about 1.05 points.  For the Celtics last year, that was a mediocre 1.03.   For the Clippers, it was 1.11.

So re-doing you calculation.  The final numbers will look a little different.

~145 points generated per 100 possessions used for CP.

~132 points generated per 100 possessions used for RR.

So, as I said, this makes CP look even better compared to Rondo in point generation.

But personally, I'm okay with that.  CP is a fantastic, once-in-a-generation type of player and the fact that Rondo doesn't produce quite as much offense as he does doesn't mean Rondo isn't also a fantastic player.

Just for a third point of comparison, when you stick in the numbers for Russell Westbrook, you get ~120.

I did a similar calculation a couple of years back, over Rondo's first few years and at that time, over that period, the best point generators were clearly Paul, Rondo, D-Will & Nash.   Rose only had 2 seasons under his belt though.   His MVP season probably rates pretty high.

And of course, this is only about net points generated.   This ignores rebounding and defensive value.

[bfrombleacher]

Rondo is a pretty efficient scorer.  With his handle, quickness, athleticism and shooting he can be an elite scorer.  So far he hasn't had to score.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming season.

I disagree with the "so far he hasn't had to score" part.

Last year we were 24th in offensive efficiency according to basketball-reference.  We were 27th the year before, and 18th the year before that.  Our offense has been bad.  If Rondo hasn't been scoring by design, it's a pretty poor game plan.

That seems a little unfair.

The 'game plan' didn't call for Bass, Terry, Pierce to have totally uncharacteristic and sustained shooting slumps.   And for Green to take several months to recover his own shot in his steady comeback.

Our offense in general has been bad over the last few years (since 2010) very directly in correlation with our lack of inside presence on offense.   Our offensive efficiency has declined directly with our decline in the share of 'at rim' shots we have been taking.  And that's been pretty obviously in direct correlation with our inability to keep big men healthy and on the floor, other than KG & Bass -- who are primarily outside-shooting 'stretch bigs'.

Another correlation related to all this is that, as the share of super-high percentage 'at rim' shots has declined, that share of Rondo's 'assist attempts' that would have been 'at rim' has declined.   Last year, only 34 of his 419 assists were for dunks.  Just 8.1%.

Back in 2010, over 11% of Rondo's assists were for dunks.

By comparison, almost 14% of Chris Paul's assists this last season went for dunks.   The benefits of having inside-playing bigs like Blake.  These differences are not entirely, but mostly a function of personnel.

And another correlation with this is that, as the share of assist-attempts that are high percentage declines, that means more passes are needed per assist.  This increases the opportunity for turnovers.   Hence, the changes TO rates we've seen here also correlate with these personnel changes.

The players we got were supposed to fit very well. Lee was supposed to be an amazing running partner. The Jet should have been a killer with KG running the stuff he ran with Dirk.

I'll get laughed at for saying this but during the preseason, they played free and loose and the potential of the team was quite impressive.

I'd say the system messed all that up. Players had no identity. Headless chickens from 1 to 15.

But with Doc comes the system. I'd say Doc needs fitting talent to be around him and not the other way round.

Doc not being innovative imo was a cause of some of our problems.

What we needed from Doc, imho, is what he isn't. The problem with Doc is he's not Popovich, or even Popovich lite. Can't blame Doc for not being as good as one of the all time greats of coaching.

For that reason, I wouldn't blame Doc, it's just that things never worked out.






And it's not that there's no merit to the system either. Like I've said, the team was starting to gel when AB returned, and then injuries came. Absolutely everything considered, misfortune and whatnot was the true culprit.

[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.

[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.