All these trade Rondo talks..

[Moranis]

Every third game or so Rondo is great.  Every third game or so Rondo is average.  Every third game or so Rondo is awful.

You can't ignore 2/3 of his games and just focus on the great ones.  Therein lies the rub with Rondo.  He can be the best player on the floor at times (even when sharing the floor with guys like Lebron James), but he can also be the guy that shoots 4 of 14 from the field, goes 1 of 2 from the line, misses his only 3 point shot, and dishes out only 6 assists in 42+ minutes like he did in the game 4 loss at Philadelphia in the 2012 playoffs.  And sure if that was his only bad game that would be fine, but it was not (he was also bad in the game 4 loss to Atlanta, the game 2 loss to Philadelphia, the game 5 win to Miami, and was mediocre in a number of other games).  Rondo can never be the guy to get a team to where it needs to go, because he can't consistently play at the highest level he can reach and his valleys are monstrous and happen all the time.  You just can't rely on Rondo as you just don't know which Rondo will show up (that is of course when he is healthy which is a real problem for him)

If having bad games automatically eliminates you from consideration as a great player, then there are no candidates for that category.

Chris Paul:

Game 3 loss to Memphis, 2013:

4 for 11, 4 assists, 5 turnovers, 8 points.

Game 1 loss to San Antonio, 2012:

3-13, 10 assists, 5 turnovers, 6 points.

Game 2 loss to San Antonio, 2012:

4-9, 5 assists, 8 turnovers, 10 points.

I'm not saying that I think Chris Paul isn't a great player.  He is.  Even the best have some poor games sometimes.  The thing about Rondo is his great games in the playoffs far outweigh his sub-par ones.  He's a great playoff performer.  That's why it's helpful to look at his overall numbers, rather than cherry pick a few bad games.

No they don't.  That is the myth. 

Career Playoff per 36 -
13.6 p, 8.6 a, 5.6 r, 1.8 s, 2.7 t, 46% (2pt), 27.7% (3pt), 64.7% (ft)

How about his career per 36 regular season -
12.1 p, 9.1 a, 5.0 r, 2.1 s, 3.0 t, 49.9% (2pt), 24.1% (3pt), 62.1% (ft)


In other words, this playoff world beater is a more efficient and better player during the regular season.  He just plays more minutes and shoots more shots at a worse percentage in the playoffs and he doesn't have the epic games in the regular season as frequently.


People focus on the great games, because they are truly legendary, but those games counteract his terrible games which happen all the time.  Rondo is all over the place in the playoffs just like he is in the regular season.  Extreme peaks followed by extreme valleys.  That is the Rondo way.

[BballTim]

What if, rather than playing on a championship caliber team surrounded by Hall of Fame talents, Rondo had spent the first few seasons of his career as the best player on a middle of the road team?  Would people still view him as a superstar?

Case in point -- how highly did Philly fans regard Andre Iguodala before he got traded?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44G2AgCxHmA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYvsXUkSZOE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXxV2JDqQFA


Like Rondo, Iguodala is a superb complementary player who can win games all by himself sometimes, but isn't the type of player who can do it night in and night out.

  Iguodala's 30 and in his career he's been to 1 all-star game and been 2nd team all-defense once. He's not at all on Rondo's level. Both players are great all-around players who aren't great scorers, but Iggy's role on offense isn't much closer to Rondo's than Bradley's or Lee's. Rondo's been one of the top postseason players in multiple playoffs. Calling a player like that complementary is silly.

[BballTim]

Every third game or so Rondo is great.  Every third game or so Rondo is average.  Every third game or so Rondo is awful.

You can't ignore 2/3 of his games and just focus on the great ones.  Therein lies the rub with Rondo.  He can be the best player on the floor at times (even when sharing the floor with guys like Lebron James), but he can also be the guy that shoots 4 of 14 from the field, goes 1 of 2 from the line, misses his only 3 point shot, and dishes out only 6 assists in 42+ minutes like he did in the game 4 loss at Philadelphia in the 2012 playoffs.  And sure if that was his only bad game that would be fine, but it was not (he was also bad in the game 4 loss to Atlanta, the game 2 loss to Philadelphia, the game 5 win to Miami, and was mediocre in a number of other games).  Rondo can never be the guy to get a team to where it needs to go, because he can't consistently play at the highest level he can reach and his valleys are monstrous and happen all the time.  You just can't rely on Rondo as you just don't know which Rondo will show up (that is of course when he is healthy which is a real problem for him)

  Rondo generally plays at a high level in the playoffs, the problem comes when people look at box scores to decide who plays well and who shows up to games instead of watching the games. He probably had a couple of poor games in the 2012 playoffs but he was much better than you're claiming.

[Celtics18]

Every third game or so Rondo is great.  Every third game or so Rondo is average.  Every third game or so Rondo is awful.

You can't ignore 2/3 of his games and just focus on the great ones.  Therein lies the rub with Rondo.  He can be the best player on the floor at times (even when sharing the floor with guys like Lebron James), but he can also be the guy that shoots 4 of 14 from the field, goes 1 of 2 from the line, misses his only 3 point shot, and dishes out only 6 assists in 42+ minutes like he did in the game 4 loss at Philadelphia in the 2012 playoffs.  And sure if that was his only bad game that would be fine, but it was not (he was also bad in the game 4 loss to Atlanta, the game 2 loss to Philadelphia, the game 5 win to Miami, and was mediocre in a number of other games).  Rondo can never be the guy to get a team to where it needs to go, because he can't consistently play at the highest level he can reach and his valleys are monstrous and happen all the time.  You just can't rely on Rondo as you just don't know which Rondo will show up (that is of course when he is healthy which is a real problem for him)

If having bad games automatically eliminates you from consideration as a great player, then there are no candidates for that category.

Chris Paul:

Game 3 loss to Memphis, 2013:

4 for 11, 4 assists, 5 turnovers, 8 points.

Game 1 loss to San Antonio, 2012:

3-13, 10 assists, 5 turnovers, 6 points.

Game 2 loss to San Antonio, 2012:

4-9, 5 assists, 8 turnovers, 10 points.

I'm not saying that I think Chris Paul isn't a great player.  He is.  Even the best have some poor games sometimes.  The thing about Rondo is his great games in the playoffs far outweigh his sub-par ones.  He's a great playoff performer.  That's why it's helpful to look at his overall numbers, rather than cherry pick a few bad games.

No they don't.  That is the myth. 

Career Playoff per 36 -
13.6 p, 8.6 a, 5.6 r, 1.8 s, 2.7 t, 46% (2pt), 27.7% (3pt), 64.7% (ft)

How about his career per 36 regular season -
12.1 p, 9.1 a, 5.0 r, 2.1 s, 3.0 t, 49.9% (2pt), 24.1% (3pt), 62.1% (ft)


In other words, this playoff world beater is a more efficient and better player during the regular season.  He just plays more minutes and shoots more shots at a worse percentage in the playoffs and he doesn't have the epic games in the regular season as frequently.


People focus on the great games, because they are truly legendary, but those games counteract his terrible games which happen all the time.  Rondo is all over the place in the playoffs just like he is in the regular season.  Extreme peaks followed by extreme valleys.  That is the Rondo way.

Those are excellent numbers, though, both the regular season and the playoff ones.  There are very few players who can impact the game in as many different ways as Rajon Rondo. 

So many folks seem to get so carried away with scoring numbers as the only numbers that matter.  To me, if you look at the numbers that come after the PPG column, that's where Rondo is so impressive.  How many other guys in the league can take over a game with passing, rebounding, getting steals, and mixing in a little bit of scoring the way Rondo can?

There aren't many. 

If the only thing that wows you is a guy who consistently puts up 25 points a night, then Rondo will never be a guy who impresses you.  If you like basketball players who can impact the game in multiple ways other than scoring, then Rondo is a great player.

I'm obviously not alone in feeling this way.  His multi-faceted game explains all the All Star games and All defensive teams that he's been voted to and the MVP votes he's garnered throughout his career.

It's fine if you don't appreciate his game.  At least I can take solace in the fact that it's not just "homers' like me who do. 

 

[chenaren]

Every third game or so Rondo is great.  Every third game or so Rondo is average.  Every third game or so Rondo is awful.

You can't ignore 2/3 of his games and just focus on the great ones.  Therein lies the rub with Rondo.  He can be the best player on the floor at times (even when sharing the floor with guys like Lebron James), but he can also be the guy that shoots 4 of 14 from the field, goes 1 of 2 from the line, misses his only 3 point shot, and dishes out only 6 assists in 42+ minutes like he did in the game 4 loss at Philadelphia in the 2012 playoffs.  And sure if that was his only bad game that would be fine, but it was not (he was also bad in the game 4 loss to Atlanta, the game 2 loss to Philadelphia, the game 5 win to Miami, and was mediocre in a number of other games).  Rondo can never be the guy to get a team to where it needs to go, because he can't consistently play at the highest level he can reach and his valleys are monstrous and happen all the time.  You just can't rely on Rondo as you just don't know which Rondo will show up (that is of course when he is healthy which is a real problem for him)

So were Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Ray Allen. Every player except the few ones on the very top of the pyramid is inconsistent by your standard.

[BballTim]

Every third game or so Rondo is great.  Every third game or so Rondo is average.  Every third game or so Rondo is awful.

You can't ignore 2/3 of his games and just focus on the great ones.  Therein lies the rub with Rondo.  He can be the best player on the floor at times (even when sharing the floor with guys like Lebron James), but he can also be the guy that shoots 4 of 14 from the field, goes 1 of 2 from the line, misses his only 3 point shot, and dishes out only 6 assists in 42+ minutes like he did in the game 4 loss at Philadelphia in the 2012 playoffs.  And sure if that was his only bad game that would be fine, but it was not (he was also bad in the game 4 loss to Atlanta, the game 2 loss to Philadelphia, the game 5 win to Miami, and was mediocre in a number of other games).  Rondo can never be the guy to get a team to where it needs to go, because he can't consistently play at the highest level he can reach and his valleys are monstrous and happen all the time.  You just can't rely on Rondo as you just don't know which Rondo will show up (that is of course when he is healthy which is a real problem for him)

If having bad games automatically eliminates you from consideration as a great player, then there are no candidates for that category.

Chris Paul:

Game 3 loss to Memphis, 2013:

4 for 11, 4 assists, 5 turnovers, 8 points.

Game 1 loss to San Antonio, 2012:

3-13, 10 assists, 5 turnovers, 6 points.

Game 2 loss to San Antonio, 2012:

4-9, 5 assists, 8 turnovers, 10 points.

I'm not saying that I think Chris Paul isn't a great player.  He is.  Even the best have some poor games sometimes.  The thing about Rondo is his great games in the playoffs far outweigh his sub-par ones.  He's a great playoff performer.  That's why it's helpful to look at his overall numbers, rather than cherry pick a few bad games.

No they don't.  That is the myth. 

Career Playoff per 36 -
13.6 p, 8.6 a, 5.6 r, 1.8 s, 2.7 t, 46% (2pt), 27.7% (3pt), 64.7% (ft)

How about his career per 36 regular season -
12.1 p, 9.1 a, 5.0 r, 2.1 s, 3.0 t, 49.9% (2pt), 24.1% (3pt), 62.1% (ft)


In other words, this playoff world beater is a more efficient and better player during the regular season.  He just plays more minutes and shoots more shots at a worse percentage in the playoffs and he doesn't have the epic games in the regular season as frequently.

  It's really not a huge surprise that some of his stats (and his scoring efficiency) is better during the season than the playoffs. What you're more or less doing in the playoffs is getting rid of the bottom 10 defenses in the league and roughly half of the 10-20 group and playing all of your games against the remaining teams. For reference, Rondo's been in 11 playoff series since 2009, 9 of the teams we faced were top 7 defenses in the league.

  Also, for a little more perspective, Rondo's detractors like to point out that he's only 1.5 ppg better in per36 scoring, it just looks like he does better because he plays more minutes in the playoffs. I just checked the top 25 active leaders in ppg (50 game minimum). It's basically a who's who of the nba, with all the usual suspects (KD, James, Kobe, Dirk, KG, PP, RA, Duncan, Parker, DH, Wade, Nash, Billups et al). The only player among them who's per36 average in the playoffs was at least 1.5 points higher than the regular season average was TMac, and that only happened because he had years when he was injured and missed the playoffs and they dragged down his regular season average. I'd guess most of them scored less per36 in the playoffs than the regular season.

  One last thing, just to shed a little more light on this. Let's look at Rondo, regular season per36 vs playoff per36 for his playoff seasons (08-12):

regular season:
 12.3/4.8/9.4, 2.1s, 3.0to, .488/.246/.614
playoffs:
 13.6/5.6/8.4, 1.8s, 2.7to, .445/.277/.647

  How about KG?
regular season:
 18.4/9.7/3.2, 1.3s, 1.9to, .525/.184/.835
playoffs:
 17.8/9.6/2.5, 1.3s, 1.9to, .490/.200/.811

  How about Paul?
regular season:
 19.7/5.3/3.9, 1.1s, 2.6to, .466/.387/.846
playoffs:
 18.2/5.3/3.3, 1.1s, 2.6to, .428/.364/.839
 
  How about Ray?
regular season:
 16.9/3.4/2.8, 0.9s, 1.6to, .472/.409/.914
playoffs:
 14.7/3.6/2.2, 0.9s, 1.3to, .428/.387/.880

  So compare the big 4, regular season to playoffs over the same 5 years. Rondo's the only one of the four who's per36 scoring went up. He saw the biggest increase in rebounding. Percentage-wise, he saw the smallest decrease in assists (which are generally harder to come by in the playoffs). Ray's TS% dropped by the same amount as Rondo's, KG's and PP's dropped by bigger margins.

  If you're trying to claim that Rondo really doesn't improve during the playoffs, how would you describe the play of the big three? Noticeable regression?

[chenaren]

Every third game or so Rondo is great.  Every third game or so Rondo is average.  Every third game or so Rondo is awful.

You can't ignore 2/3 of his games and just focus on the great ones.  Therein lies the rub with Rondo.  He can be the best player on the floor at times (even when sharing the floor with guys like Lebron James), but he can also be the guy that shoots 4 of 14 from the field, goes 1 of 2 from the line, misses his only 3 point shot, and dishes out only 6 assists in 42+ minutes like he did in the game 4 loss at Philadelphia in the 2012 playoffs.  And sure if that was his only bad game that would be fine, but it was not (he was also bad in the game 4 loss to Atlanta, the game 2 loss to Philadelphia, the game 5 win to Miami, and was mediocre in a number of other games).  Rondo can never be the guy to get a team to where it needs to go, because he can't consistently play at the highest level he can reach and his valleys are monstrous and happen all the time.  You just can't rely on Rondo as you just don't know which Rondo will show up (that is of course when he is healthy which is a real problem for him)

If having bad games automatically eliminates you from consideration as a great player, then there are no candidates for that category.

Chris Paul:

Game 3 loss to Memphis, 2013:

4 for 11, 4 assists, 5 turnovers, 8 points.

Game 1 loss to San Antonio, 2012:

3-13, 10 assists, 5 turnovers, 6 points.

Game 2 loss to San Antonio, 2012:

4-9, 5 assists, 8 turnovers, 10 points.

I'm not saying that I think Chris Paul isn't a great player.  He is.  Even the best have some poor games sometimes.  The thing about Rondo is his great games in the playoffs far outweigh his sub-par ones.  He's a great playoff performer.  That's why it's helpful to look at his overall numbers, rather than cherry pick a few bad games.

No they don't.  That is the myth. 

Career Playoff per 36 -
13.6 p, 8.6 a, 5.6 r, 1.8 s, 2.7 t, 46% (2pt), 27.7% (3pt), 64.7% (ft)

How about his career per 36 regular season -
12.1 p, 9.1 a, 5.0 r, 2.1 s, 3.0 t, 49.9% (2pt), 24.1% (3pt), 62.1% (ft)


In other words, this playoff world beater is a more efficient and better player during the regular season.  He just plays more minutes and shoots more shots at a worse percentage in the playoffs and he doesn't have the epic games in the regular season as frequently.


People focus on the great games, because they are truly legendary, but those games counteract his terrible games which happen all the time.  Rondo is all over the place in the playoffs just like he is in the regular season.  Extreme peaks followed by extreme valleys.  That is the Rondo way.

Maybe the Rondo turning into super saiyan thing has been exaggerated. However, given the fact almost every team drastically toughens up the defense in playoffs, I'm fine with the slight drop in efficiency while playing much longer minutes.