Stevens: Monitoring Rondo/Bradley duo "huge, huge priority for me"

[kozlodoev]

Offensively the fit comes from Rondo being ball dominant and AB playing off the ball using his quickness to cut to the basket.

This is good for 3-4 plays a night, at best. What do we do when the defense doesn't fall asleep, and we actually have to make long jumpers and/or threes with regularity in order to keep them honest?

Defensively they both can just put a lot of pressure on other teams guards forcing teams out of their comfort zones.

They are a particularly poor fit here, given that you either have to keep Bradley off the ball, eliminating a lot of his defensive advantage, or have Rondo guard a 6'5 guy most of the time.

[LooseCannon]

“Huge. Huge priority for me," said Stevens. "I think that those guys seem to be, on paper, really good fits, but it’s better to see them in person. ... Their strengths fit each other well on both ends of the floior, and so hopefully that can continue to be accentuated as we get further along into that -- we add to those 30 games [they've started together during their careers].”

I'm not sure what this means. As in... lots of words, very little substance.

I'm also not sure how two defense-first, smallish guards who cannot create their own shot and are not dead-eye three-point shooters are "really, really good fits[sic]", but that's just me.

My suspicion is that the Celtics' in-house data-crunching suggests that Rondo and Bradley have a synergistic effect together.  I think I've seen Ainge making comments alluding to that.  I've gotten the sense that it took a while for Ainge to convince Doc to start Bradley.

My guess is that Ainge's Plan A involves Bradley and Rondo as the starting backcourt for the next five years and Stevens wants to evaluate that the numbers on paper match what he sees with his eyes.

[kozlodoev]

“Huge. Huge priority for me," said Stevens. "I think that those guys seem to be, on paper, really good fits, but it’s better to see them in person. ... Their strengths fit each other well on both ends of the floior, and so hopefully that can continue to be accentuated as we get further along into that -- we add to those 30 games [they've started together during their careers].”

I'm not sure what this means. As in... lots of words, very little substance.

I'm also not sure how two defense-first, smallish guards who cannot create their own shot and are not dead-eye three-point shooters are "really, really good fits[sic]", but that's just me.

My suspicion is that the Celtics' in-house data-crunching suggests that Rondo and Bradley have a synergistic effect together.  I think I've seen Ainge making comments alluding to that.  I've gotten the sense that it took a while for Ainge to convince Doc to start Bradley.

My guess is that Ainge's Plan A involves Bradley and Rondo as the starting backcourt for the next five years and Stevens wants to evaluate that the numbers on paper match what he sees with his eyes.

I'm not sure where they've seen this "on paper". Last year, the Rondo-Bradley pairing was by far the worst offensively from any other lineup that also included Pierce, Bass, and Garnett (the other regular three starters). Defensively, it was kind of a mixed bag where the Rondo-Terry pairing was pretty much as good as Rondo-Bradley.

The Cs brass probably has more advanced metrics than I do, but if there is some sort of fantastic, under-the-cover synergy there, I'm not seeing it.
http://www.82games.com/1213/1213BOS2.HTM

[CFAN38]

Offensively the fit comes from Rondo being ball dominant and AB playing off the ball using his quickness to cut to the basket.

This is good for 3-4 plays a night, at best. What do we do when the defense doesn't fall asleep, and we actually have to make long jumpers and/or threes with regularity in order to keep them honest?

Defensively they both can just put a lot of pressure on other teams guards forcing teams out of their comfort zones.

They are a particularly poor fit here, given that you either have to keep Bradley off the ball, eliminating a lot of his defensive advantage, or have Rondo guard a 6'5 guy most of the time.

Years ago when the NBA was a more physical league I would have agreed that the size issue with Rondo or AB guarding a 6'5 SG was a problem. The league is currently geared to the finesse game and aside from not being able to contest outside shots as good as bigger guys I think Rondo and AB are fine playing undersized. The SG position in general is also shrinking. Look around the league there are alot of 6'3-6'4 shooting guards who would have been viewed as undersized years ago.

[D.o.s.]

“Huge. Huge priority for me," said Stevens. "I think that those guys seem to be, on paper, really good fits, but it’s better to see them in person. ... Their strengths fit each other well on both ends of the floior, and so hopefully that can continue to be accentuated as we get further along into that -- we add to those 30 games [they've started together during their careers].”

I'm not sure what this means. As in... lots of words, very little substance.

I'm also not sure how two defense-first, smallish guards who cannot create their own shot and are not dead-eye three-point shooters are "really, really good fits[sic]", but that's just me.

Offensively the fit comes from Rondo being ball dominant and AB playing off the ball using his quickness to cut to the basket.

Defensively they both can just put a lot of pressure on other teams guards forcing teams out of their comfort zones.

I think DA and Stevens will be watching this combo very closely to see if AB is the starting SG moving forward. I personally think he can be but the team has to be built with both of their skill sets and physical abilities in mind. With that in mind..

We have to have a 3pt shooting SF

The 3rd guard has to have some size/length.

5 man has to be able to protect rim when pressure does get beat.

Team should have a true PG as the 4th guard. AB should not be pressed into PG duties for more then a few minutes a game.

Example 2014-2015 (assuming Bass, Green are traded)

Rondo
AB
Parker (dream)
Sully
Asik (trade)

Nick Young (2014 free agent)5 mill
Wallace
KO
Udoh (2014 free agent)4mill
B Udrih/ D Harris (2014 free agents)1.2mill
Faverani
Iverson
Pressy
ATL/Nets Pick

This may be the boldest prediction I've seen all season.


You really think Colton Iverson  is going to suit up for the C's

[kozlodoev]

Years ago when the NBA was a more physical league I would have agreed that the size issue with Rondo or AB guarding a 6'5 SG was a problem. The league is currently geared to the finesse game and aside from not being able to contest outside shots as good as bigger guys I think Rondo and AB are fine playing undersized. The SG position in general is also shrinking. Look around the league there are alot of 6'3-6'4 shooting guards who would have been viewed as undersized years ago.

Not being able to challenge shots against players whose main skill is, presumably, shooting the ball, is no small affair.

Also, I won't pretend I've done much research, but I don't think many teams get away with starting 6'3 shooting guards full-time these days. This aside, I don't think it's a good idea to plan for Rondo guarding SGs on a regular basis, given that your road to the NBA finals is likely to pass through Paul George every year for the next seasons or so.

[D.o.s.]

Doesn't Paul George play the three?

[crimson_stallion]

This could mean:
1. Stevens is looking into ways that can maximize their talents as a tandem (like Bradley pressing the ball and Rondo playing center field to pick off a pass)
2. Stevens is looking at the viability of this backcourt long term

That's not what I had in mind. There are a lot of words there, which pretty much say nothing.

I think that those guys seem to be, on paper, really good fits -- saying nothing with a lot of words. As a matter of fact, they probably don't really look like a very good fit on paper, given that they're similar size with similar strengths and similar weaknesses.

Their strengths fit each other well on both ends of the floor -- again, saying nothing with a lot of words. Is that in the part where they both are best at guarding the initial point of attack on defense, or where they both prefer exactly the same type of shot on offense?

hopefully that can continue to be accentuated as we get further along into that -- what?!

I don'tthink it's that hard to understand....the guys themselves describe the defensive side pretty clearly, and I think the offensiveside is obvious.  But just in case you need a hand...

Defensively - both are former All-defensive team selections.  Both play bigger than their size on defense - they both can defend either guard position when healthy thanks to their combination of quickness, length, and strength.  They can take turns pressuring the ball, allowing Boston to apply full court pressure for an entire game, whileeach ggy stillgets his chance to get a break.

Offensively - Rondo works best with the ball in his hands.  He's a creator - a pass first PG, and a pure playmaker and floor general.  He's most effective as a scorer when attacking the basket off the dribble.  Bradley plays best off the ball - he's not a confident ball handler or passer.  As a scorer he's most comfortable  off back door cuts, off catch-and-shoot plays, and with a one dribble pull up.  He's fairly effective with all of the above, and all benefit greatly from having a greatset-up guy who can get you the ball in the right spot.

As Stevens said, they compliment each other perfectly. 

A guy who can create his own shot is less of a compliment for Rondo because it renders Rondo 's greatest asset (his passing andpartaking ability) much less relevant.  Guys like Pierce are more or lessequally effective with our without Rondo.  Guys like Bradleyand KG (who aren't as good at creating their own shots) gain thebiggest benefit from paying withsomeone like Rondo.       

[kozlodoev]

Doesn't Paul George play the three?

He plays both. He certainly played the 2 when they had Granger starting, and may still end up back there full-time if the Pacers can't retain Stephenson.

[crimson_stallion]

“Huge. Huge priority for me," said Stevens. "I think that those guys seem to be, on paper, really good fits, but it’s better to see them in person. ... Their strengths fit each other well on both ends of the floior, and so hopefully that can continue to be accentuated as we get further along into that -- we add to those 30 games [they've started together during their careers].”

I'm not sure what this means. As in... lots of words, very little substance.

I'm also not sure how two defense-first, smallish guards who cannot create their own shot and are not dead-eye three-point shooters are "really, really good fits[sic]", but that's just me.

My suspicion is that the Celtics' in-house data-crunching suggests that Rondo and Bradley have a synergistic effect together.  I think I've seen Ainge making comments alluding to that.  I've gotten the sense that it took a while for Ainge to convince Doc to start Bradley.

My guess is that Ainge's Plan A involves Bradley and Rondo as the starting backcourt for the next five years and Stevens wants to evaluate that the numbers on paper match what he sees with his eyes.

I'm not sure where they've seen this "on paper". Last year, the Rondo-Bradley pairing was by far the worst offensively from any other lineup that also included Pierce, Bass, and Garnett (the other regular three starters). Defensively, it was kind of a mixed bag where the Rondo-Terry pairing was pretty much as good as Rondo-Bradley.

The Cs brass probably has more advanced metrics than I do, but if there is some sort of fantastic, under-the-cover synergy there, I'm not seeing it.
http://www.82games.com/1213/1213BOS2.HTM

You're ignoring a few key things here.

1) Bradley's health last year

2) The fact that statistically, Terry was one our best players last year.  His defensive rating andoffensiverating were both along the best on the team, and I think he was the only player on our roster who was statistically positiveon bothends of the floor.  Bass, Pierce and Rondo all had a positive Off Rating but a negative Def rating.  KG had a positive DefDef Rating but a negative Off Rating.  Terry was the only guy (from memory) who was statistically positive on both ends of the floor.  So to say Rondo-Bradley was only as good statistically as Rondo-Terry...not a bad thing.  Terry was one of the most unfairly criticised players in the league last season - he was far better fir us than he was given credit for.         

[kozlodoev]

I don'tthink it's that hard to understand....the guys themselves describe the defensive side pretty clearly, and I think the offensiveside is obvious.  But just in case you need a hand...

Defensively - both are former All-defensive team selections.  Both play bigger than their size on defense - they both can defend either guard position when healthy thanks to their combination of quickness, length, and strength.  They can take turns pressuring the ball, allowing Boston to apply full court pressure for an entire game, whileeach ggy stillgets his chance to get a break.   

The next time I see Rondo pressuring the ball would probably be the first time since his rookie year. Likewise, I've never seen the team apply full-court pressure for the whole game, and I think it's a terrible idea -- it's way too much energy to expend, it can be handled with a single back-court screen, and it's just not worth it to risk having your smallish guard run full speed into a 250 lbs guerilla while hustling up the floor. There is a reason why most teams in the NBA don't do that.

Oh, and it also means that one of those two will have to be on the floor at all times, which actually minimizes the gains from the alleged synergy (and may force Bradley in the PG spot at times, too).

Also, I don't think anyone has ever argued that Bradley plays bigger than his size on defense (as a matter of fact, he probably plays smaller than his size because of his quickness, if that makes any sense).

Offensively - Rondo works best with the ball in his hands.  He's a creator - a pass first PG, and a pure playmaker and floor general.  He's most effective as a scorer when attacking the basket off the dribble.  Bradley plays best off the ball - he's not a confident ball handler or passer.  As a scorer he's most comfortable  off back door cuts, off catch-and-shoot plays, and with a one dribble pull up.  He's fairly effective with all of the above, and all benefit greatly from having a greatset-up guy who can get you the ball in the right spot.

Again, the fact that Bradley plays best when not forced into the PG spot isn't the same as saying that the Rondo-Bradley pairing is a great fit. A more conventional SG who can hit a three, shoot over defenders, and perhaps not completely fall apart if they have to finish a contested layup would be better. Rondo-Bradley wasn't a very good offensive pairing last year (Rondo-Lee, on the other hand, was).

[D.o.s.]

Doesn't Paul George play the three?

He plays both. He certainly played the 2 when they had Granger starting, and may still end up back there full-time if the Pacers can't retain Stephenson.

I see.

Gotta be honest, I hadn't been paying all that much attention to the Pacers before Granger's knee injury opened the door for Stephenson and George to get some playing time.

[action781]

When you say defense first, realize that Rondo's one of the better overall offensive players in the league. Not the best scorer but shot creation's a big issue in the league and Rondo's one of the best in the game in creating shots for others. Bradley struggles running an offense and isn't very good at creating his own shot so it's easier for him to be a productive player with someone like Rondo.

This just means that Bradley can't play PG, not that Bradley is a good fit with Rondo. A good fit with Rondo is someone who is bigger, who is a better spot-up/catch-and-shoot guy, and who can move well without the ball. Think Ray Allen in his early years as a Celtics.

Yes, but 2008 Ray Allens are pretty hard to come by.  How many kinds of that player described are there in the NBA today?  And that player is an ideal fit for 90% of teams, which makes them difficult to acquire.

I think that for many of the reasons already stated (defense, cutting ability, decent spot up 3 point shooting) that Bradley is a "good" fit alongside Rondo.  Perhaps not the optimal fit, but that player is not likely just going to be available for the grabbing at fair money in free agency.  While some height would be excellent, that doesn't guarantee they can guard taller players.  Surely, shorter defenders can be vulnerable to certain situations.  But Rondo and Bradley can also do certain positive things better than their taller counterparts can.

Stevens judging this whole "fit" of the 2 of them together is probably very relative to the price Bradley will cost the celtics this offseason compared to the potential cost other "fits" would come at.

[kozlodoev]

The fact that statistically, Terry was one our best players last year.  His defensive rating andoffensiverating were both along the best on the team, and I think he was the only player on our roster who was statistically positiveon bothends of the floor.

This is not true. Terry was a net negative offensively with the team scoring nearly 1 point per 100 possessions more with him off the court.

Pierce and Garnett where the MVPs in the on/off department, with Pierce having an on/off +5 per 100 possessions offensively, and Garnett having a +9(!) per 100 possessions defensively.

The point on Bradley's health is well-taken, and I'll stipulate that most of the Rondo-Bradley pairing minutes came while Bradley may have still been recovering. However, that's probably the bulk of the sample from which the Celtics brass has been drawing its conclusions, given that there isn't much else to lean on.

[kozlodoev]

Stevens judging this whole "fit" of the 2 of them together is probably very relative to the price Bradley will cost the celtics this offseason compared to the potential cost other "fits" would come at.

I'm sure that figuring out how well the two can play together despite the obvious limitations of the pairing is a major issue in deciding whether to retain Bradley. It's just that the whole "on paper" meandering gave me a good chuckle.