I am surprised so many do not remember the beginning of the 2012-13 season and because of a poor overall team record during that time that they are so quick to place the blame on Rondo, who with KG were about the only players on the Celtics at that time that were playing well.
- Bradley was out during almost the entire time that Rondo was playing and was healthy to start that season.
- Pierce came into camp out of shape and played some of his worst ever as a Celtic during that period. Offensively he had an ORtg of about 102(as compared to a career 107) and a TS% of 52%(as compared to a career 57%)
- Jeff Green was just coming back from his heart surgery, was out of NBA shape and averaged 9 PPG, 3 RPG, with a TS% of about 50% and an ORtg less than 100.
- Sullinger was a rookie and showed an occasional flash of what he could be but was overall not good.
- Jason Terry was just pathetic in both phases of the game and has never recovered.
- Courtney Lee though he shot slightly above average was unaggressive and didn't appear to fit well with the team or get the offensive or defensive rotations. His normally very good defense was extremely poor
- Bass was Bass with all the good and bad that entails though didn't seem to be shooting as much or as well as he did the two years before that.
Meanwhile, Rondo was averaging a career best 13.7 PPG, 11.1 APG, 1.8 SPG, shooting 51.2% on two point shots and appeared to have developed a real mid range game, something that was lacking from his arsenal up until that time. His defense though did appear to have taken a step back though, I will say that.
But to look at the C's 20-23 record and state it was Rondo's fault is just not paying attention to all the other variables that were occurring at the time or the fact that starting in February Sullinger, Green, Lee, and Pierce started playing much better overall basketball individually, probably because they were just rounding into playing shape or getting familiar with the team concepts and system.
And all this doesn't even address the fact that Doc Rivers probably had his worst coaching performance of his Celtic career that year.
Just not getting the whole "The past two years the Celtics have played better without Rondo than with him" phenomenon. Its an aberration that doesn't take into consideration the multitude on contextual variables that need to be addressed before jumping to the conclusions that some are based on that one statistic.
nick, a good post as usual, but on the last point I think the argument you are trying to address is a bit more nuanced, at least the one I have seen. It is not a case of "celtics played better without Rondo" as much as "the proposal by many that Rondo makes the Celtics better in terms of w/l" does not seem supported by the data. and for me, w/l record is one very very important data point in assessing whether a team is better or not. it is not a "rondo's fault" argument, though i can see how it could easily be described as such.
next, you mentioned a number of factors that supposed explained why we cannot hold Rondo responsible for loses, yet that begs the question of whether other factors would hold him equally non-responsible for for the wins. that is, i don't see any obvious balance in your larger argument.
final point on the points you raise to mitigate Rondo's role in the losses and thereby (implicitly) promote his role in the wins, how do we know the points you raise are any more important than the "limited contribution to wins" argument put forth by others? for example, did all these reasons mentioned suddenly cease and end simultaneously with the loss of rondo? none of them continued past the point of rondo's departure?
I think you are reading to much into what I wrote and trying to confuse the issue. The crowd I am addressing my post to seems to have decided that because the Celtics were 20-23 when Rondo got hurt in 2012-13 and then had a better record after he got hurt that the one reasonable conclusion to draw is that Rondo was the reason why they lost more with him than without him.
I am addressing the beginning of that season and showing reasons why the team had a 20-23 record when Rondo went down that takes into context a number of other variables besides Rondo's play that explains why the Celtics had a losing record. Also, I addressed why the team then had a better record after Rondo went down, namely a myriad of players started actually getting the system, played themselves into shape and also, something I didn't mention but is a fairly well known sports axiom, the rest of the players picked up the slack because one of their best players went down with injury.
I feel people are looking at the one stat over the last two years of the Celtics record with and without Rondo and drawing a non-contextual conclusion based solely on wins and loses and are not considering the multitude of other factors that contributed to that statistic.
And I am not saying Rondo's play didn't have some role in that record. His defense has stunk for two years and definitely contributed to those losses. Its the same way his increased scoring in 2012-13 with a better midrange game and stellar passing help to contribute to the wins. Players, all players on a team are responsible for the wins and the losses. Even the greats do not get a pass on responsibility for losses even though their play may be the reason a team is in a game to begin with. Its a two way street for every player from the superduperstars all the way down to the little used bench players.
Rondo shares in the responsibility for having a poor record in the beginning of that season but he isn't the only reason they had a losing record while he played and might be less culpable than others regarding the reasons for that record, the same way he might be more responsible for the wins though not solely responsible.
All I am saying is let's not tunnelvision Rondo's effect on the team and make him solely responsible for the bad record the team has had while he has played the last two years without not looking at every single factor involved, as many, many posters have seemingly done.