Not to mention, Rondo was a wizard on offense. He's much more than a shooter. So you can't say that we have to place equal emphasis on shooting with Smart and Rondo. It is much more important to Smart's offensive contributions to be a better shooter than Rondo, but at the same time important. Which is why I pointed out that Rondo shot close to 50 percent while on this team. He didn't kil us with his shooting like Smart does.
But he did...because he's lack of a consistently dangerous jump shot completely changed the way teams defended us.
Because of his lack of three point range, teams would let give him 5-8 feet of space ever time he was at the three point line, and dared him to shoot it.
Even from midrange, opposing teams left Rondo
wide open more often than not. They were willing to take a chance on him making the shot, because he was shooting 40% or so on long two's and they were only worth 2 points if he made them. You'd rather give your opponent that rather than let him drive into the paint for a layup, or rather than risk leaving another scorer open.
This weakness as a shooter had a huge impact on how Boston had to play, and on many nights it took Rondo out of the game (as a scorer) almost completely.
Teams defended him for the drive every single time, so it became harder and harder for him to get in the paint. If he did get a step on them, then they they would just foul him, since they knew he was such a poor free throw shooter. His unreliable free throw shooting actually led to Brad Steven's subbing him out at the end of games on many occasions later in his tenure as a Celtic.
He quickly discovered that any attempt to drive would lead to either a block or a foul, so he started driving with the intention to pass, or else he'd just chuck up threes and long twos.
Rondo was actually one of my favorite players and I was extremely sad to see him traded (even though I knew it was coming). I still get excited when I see him put up a huge game for the Kings.
He's a very unique player, who could (and still can) do some seriously amazing things with the ball. I still believe he may well be the highest IQ and best passing PG in the league, and one of the best rebounding PG's ever to live. There were times in his career where even his defense was at an elite level.
But even though I loved Rondo as a player, that doesn't mean I can't admit that the guy had/has flaws, just as everybody does. His jumper was so poor through most of his career that he was INFAMOUS for it. Team's specifically game planned for it. Even later in his career when he improved somewhat as a shooter, teams still didn't respect him - based on past reputation alone. To suggest that his shooting limitations didn't impact the team as much as Smart's do...that's just crazy.
Smart is a second year rookie, who right now is playing more modest minutes in a backup / development role. He can afford to miss some shots while he's trying to find his form. If he still can't shoot consistently after he is on his second contract 4-5 seasons in to his career, then I'll agree it's a problem.
Rondo's shooting hurt us more then because he was considered by many, for a few years there, to be the Celtics #1 guy. Teams knew that if you take him out of the game offensively, you hurt the team. When teams don't fear him as a scoring threat, it makes it easier for them to defend against his passing abilties. Shutting down a team's superstar player always hurts more than shutting down their backup, second year PG.
I hope you can understand where I am coming from on this.
Shooting the ball well at the rim is still a shot. Rondo also had a decent mid range jumper. Smart does not yet.
And just because I'm saying this, and this is not to you cause you are actually level headed, that Smart won't become a better shooter. He's just not that good right now.
I don't disagree with you - but even though Rondo shot a decent percentage from midrange in his later years with Boston, you also need to take into account the fact that more often than not he was left wide open on those jumpers, with no attempt at all to deter him or contest the shot...simply because that was exactly the shot the defense
wanted him to take.
That's not to say that ALL of his jumpers were wide open - he did hit contested ones from time to time. But certainly many (if not most) of his midrange jumpers were indeed wide open shots.
This is the NBA after all. Not every NBA player is a great shooter, but most guys in this league can hit a midrange jumper with reasonable consistency if you blatantly refuse to defend them on it.
Once again, I'm not using this as a reason or excuse to attack Rondo as a player, just saying that a Rondo 18 foot jumper and a Smart /Thomas/Turner/Bradley 18 foot jumper don't necessarily have the same degree of difficulty...so you should probably take that in to consideration too.
Can we keep the Rondo hate limited to the Everybody Hates Rondo thread please? Geez Louise, this is like 3 pages of back and forth over a half percentage point in RR's shooting years ago.
The thing that Rondo did well was that he know he wasn't a good outside shooter so he got to the rim a lot. he could shoot close to "47.5%" "some" of his seasons because he took a lot of floaters and layups. Smart should do the same thing and keep working on his shot.
There is no Rondo hate...I don't have any issue with Rondo. He has always been one of my favorite players since he has been in the league.
The reason I made the point that I did is because 'KeepRondo' was going quite aggressively at another poster over some kind of Smart/Rondo debate, and the key point in his argument was that Rondo "shot 50% or close for most of his time in Boston".
My point was that if you are going to go so aggressively at somebody else, then at least make sure that the points you make are concrete and factual.
Rondo only shot 50% from the field three times in his 10 year career - that includes, obviously, 2007-08 where he shot 49.2%. I think we can all agree that can be counted as near enough to 50%.
Other than that he shot 48.4% once and 47.5% once, and the remaining years he was really nowhere even even in the remote realm of 50%.
So I'll be generous and give you 48.4% as being "close to 50%", but where is the rule that determines that 47.5% can be considered "close to 50%"?
2.5 percentage points is considered pretty significant in this league.
If Marcus Smart shoots 36% from three he'd be considered a good three point shooter. If he shoots 33.5% from three, then he's considered a mediocre / below average three point shooter. That's the different 2.5% points makes.
So why is it fair to say that Rondo shot close to 50% (when he shot 47.5%), yet it's not fair to say that Smart shot close to 36% (when he shot 33.5%)? It's a double standard.
47.5% is NOT the same as 50% (or even close to it) and so on that basis Rondo did NOT shoot "50% or close to it for the majority of his time as a Celtic" (to paraphrase, don't have the exact quote).
So the point of my argument was, don't go hard attacking somebody else's argument based on subjective fiction that you are trying to pass off as fact.
The percentages themselves were moot - it's the underlying theme of "respect the person you're replying to, and don't try to pass off bias opinions as facts" that was the key theme there.
I'm actually quite surprised that others on here were not capable of reading between the lines, and actually seriously believed that I was making numerous arguments over a shooting percentage...I will be sure to state my theme/point more clearly and directly in the future, to make things more obvious.
I'm even more surprised that 'KeepRondo' (even after my not-so-subtly pointing this out) still continues to argue aggressively and throw out personal insults left right and center, and continues to get away with it with barely a consequence. Considering how incredibly anal this forum is about censoring
absolutely every single little offensive word, I find it completely bewildering that such ill etiquette is permitted with so little concern.
Not to mention the fact that 'KeepRondo' sent me a PM shortly after calling me stupid, in which said user mocked me...and then blocked me so i couldnt reply.
And argued with people in this very thread when directed towards forum rules.
Doesnt sound like somebody who takes forum rules / etiquette to seriously to me.
But alas, it is what it is, and I will submit this poor (metaphorical) dead horse to no further (metaphorical) beating.
Topic: How can anyone think Marcus Smart is a good NBA basketball player? (Read 28555 times)