# putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

1. You have chosen to ignore posts from scubber. Show scubber's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

Come to think of it, I am calling this stat is bogus.  In 09-10, Rondo missed 1 regular season game and I doubt he missed any playoff games.  The pubished stat say with/without of 108.7/107.3, a difference of 1.4 over the whole season.  I don't know how they calculate this points per 100 possessions but that one game that Rondo is out, the team must have done worse by more than 80 points per 100 possessions for the average over the whole year to be 1.4.

2. You have chosen to ignore posts from jtkl. Show jtkl's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to scubber's comment:

Come to think of it, I am calling this stat is bogus.  In 09-10, Rondo missed 1 regular season game and I doubt he missed any playoff games.  The pubished stat say with/without of 108.7/107.3, a difference of 1.4 over the whole season.  I don't know how they calculate this points per 100 possessions but that one game that Rondo is out, the team must have done worse by more than 80 points per 100 possessions for the average over the whole year to be 1.4.

want to go ppp with rondo in vs out. last year the Celtics offense went from worst to highest rated depending on the minutes of the gme and whether Rondo was in or out.

3. You have chosen to ignore posts from scubber. Show scubber's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

I see, maybe they are counting possession by possession within each game.

4. You have chosen to ignore posts from red2004sox. Show red2004sox's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to kdp59's comment:

except we are 7-3 with out Rondo this year

and we were 8-5 withj out him last year.

15-8 over 23 games..better winning % than we had with him those two years...is 23 games enough to say for sure....probably not.

but if we have a better winning % after a combined 40 games, I think we may be on to something.

I am not sure what all those numbers you quoted are (as I have yet to read the blog) but I think we can all agree that winning % is really the only thing that matters.

wrong

5. This post has been removed.

6. You have chosen to ignore posts from red2004sox. Show red2004sox's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to red2004sox's comment:

In response to kdp59's comment:

except we are 7-3 with out Rondo this year

and we were 8-5 withj out him last year.

15-8 over 23 games..better winning % than we had with him those two years...is 23 games enough to say for sure....probably not.

but if we have a better winning % after a combined 40 games, I think we may be on to something.

I am not sure what all those numbers you quoted are (as I have yet to read the blog) but I think we can all agree that winning % is really the only thing that matters.

wrong

you need to read the blog

7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to snakeoil123's comment:

In response to kdp59's comment:

In response to snakeoil123's comment:

In response to kdp59's comment:

except we are 7-3 with out Rondo this year

and we were 8-5 withj out him last year.

15-8 over 23 games..better winning % than we had with him those two years...is 23 games enough to say for sure....probably not.

but if we have a better winning % after a combined 40 games, I think we may be on to something.

I am not sure what all those numbers you quoted are (as I have yet to read the blog) but I think we can all agree that winning % is really the only thing that matters.

No.  How far a team goes in the playoffs is really the only thing that matters.

well of course that is true for Championships.

but if you are trying to say that the Celtics could win less regular season games, but somehow be a better playoff team WITH Rondo (or anyone else for that matter) I aint buying that one, sorry.

again I hvae NO IDEA if the Celtics are a better team without Rondo...I do know that in the past two years the Celtics have had a better winning % without him.

IF that continues (without major roster changes), at some point we all have to admit that there is something here.

I would say after another 15 or so games we should all be able to agree one way or the other.

Not trying to give you a hard time.  What I am saying is last year the team did well in the playoffs with Rondo.  If this year they played great the rest or the regular season and then got punked out in the first round I would not think that they were better this year without Rondo.

It would make no sense that I would.

Yo Snake, indulge me! The least influencial year that Rondo has had since his arrival is 2008, coincidentally, the last time the C's won the title. Since then, Rondo has become a BIG PART of the C's and has been a perrenial All-star. Since then, no matter how well RONDO has played, they've not won the title. The better Rondo has performed individually, the less the team has seemed to achieve. Most recent sample: 10-games, 0-6 with Rondo.....4-0 without. 10-games, I know....but the real fun is being right, in the end when you called it after 10! ;-) Ain't that why we do this????

8. This post has been removed.

9. This post has been removed.

10. This post has been removed.

11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to snakeoil123's comment:

In response to Karllost's comment:

In response to snakeoil123's comment:

In response to Karllost's comment:

In response to jtkl's comment:

Which effectivley should put the Rondo nonsense to bed for any reasonable person.

Some highlights:

Here are the Celtics over the last four years with Rondo and without him.

2011-12: 104.4 96.7
2010-11: 110.1 100.8
2009-10: 108.7 107.3
2008-09: 112.9 107.0

He rises to the occasion for big games

it breaks down the shots Jason terry is suddenly making. These are the exact same shots Terry was missing before Rondo went down.

It shows the way the defense had started improving before Rondo went down and the way Both Lee and Green were starting to play better as well. Again BEFORE Rondo went down.

And most importantly it reminds everyone that it has been FOUR GAMES!

Great article.

If only 4 games isnt a reasonable amount  of  evidence or sample size, then how are you coming to the conclusion the team is better with Rondo??

Sometimes its not even fun when its so easy.

Are you being serious?

The sample size with Rondo is 475 games. there is a long body or work with Rondo playing for the Celtics.

This will be the first extended period without Rondo. 4 games is nothing, its going to be the rest of the season and the entire playoffs.

Myself I think the answer will be  at the end of the day that it didn't matter a whole lot one way or the other.

so if 4 games is nothing...how can anyone conclude the Celtics are better or worse with him..??

Simple enough.

I agree.

Glad you think so as well.

Yo Snake, indulge me! The least influencial year that Rondo has had since his arrival is 2008, coincidentally, the last time the C's won the title. Since then, Rondo has become a BIG PART of the C's and has been a perrenial All-star. Since then, no matter how well RONDO has played, they've not won the title. The better Rondo has performed individually, the less the team has seemed to achieve. Most recent sample: 10-games, 0-6 with Rondo.....4-0 without. 10-games, I know....but the real fun is being right, in the end when you called it after 10! ;-) Ain't that why we do this????

12. This post has been removed.

13. This post has been removed.

14. This post has been removed.

15. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to Fierce34's comment:

In response to Kirk6's comment:

In response to Fierce34's comment:

In response to Kirk6's comment:

Put an end to the Rondo nonsense.

So when the Celtics were 6-0 early in January, no trades. After the Celtics went 0-6, trade Terry. Now that the Celtics are 4-0, trade Rondo?

Seriously, Kirk!

Rondo wasn't injured in early January.

Think Fierce, think.

You're the one who needs to think. I mean dementia can't be taken lightly, Kirk.

So now you want to trade Rondo because he's injured?

For the record, if Rondo isn't injured, would you want to trade Rondo?

Kirk I am happy to see us win four after losing six.  You can't really believe we are better off without Rondo.    I hope the winning continues but let's be real . Rondo is pain, but last year in game 2 a game the Heat were given by the refs Rondo beat them single handedly.  Rondo in 2010 led the Celtics to two wins in the finals. He destroyed Lebron on the Cavaliars when they were heavily favored.  Nobody can supply that now.

16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RallyC. Show RallyC's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to concord27's comment:

In response to Fierce34's comment:

In response to Kirk6's comment:

In response to Fierce34's comment:

In response to Kirk6's comment:

Put an end to the Rondo nonsense.

So when the Celtics were 6-0 early in January, no trades. After the Celtics went 0-6, trade Terry. Now that the Celtics are 4-0, trade Rondo?

Seriously, Kirk!

Rondo wasn't injured in early January.

Think Fierce, think.

You're the one who needs to think. I mean dementia can't be taken lightly, Kirk.

So now you want to trade Rondo because he's injured?

For the record, if Rondo isn't injured, would you want to trade Rondo?

Kirk I am happy to see us win four after losing six.  You can't really believe we are better off without Rondo.    I hope the winning continues but let's be real . Rondo is pain, but last year in game 2 a game the Heat were given by the refs Rondo beat them single handedly.  Rondo in 2010 led the Celtics to two wins in the finals. He destroyed Lebron on the Cavaliars when they were heavily favored.  Nobody can supply that now.

All that matters is the present. Presently we are 0-6 with Rondo, and 4-0 without him. That is all that matters. When were we better? the first 6, or the last 4? There's all the proof ya need!

17. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

I will hold judgement on this topic till we played around 20 games. That will give other defenses to adjust what we do with no RR at the point. We survive next 20 games with a bout 14 wins I will say maybe we are better without him.

18. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to genaro008's comment:

I will hold judgement on this topic till we played around 20 games. That will give other defenses to adjust what we do with no RR at the point. We survive next 20 games with a bout 14 wins I will say maybe we are better without him.

14 and 6 w/o Rondo (.700 winning%) versus probably... what... 5 to 9 wins out of 20 with Rondo?

Thats a very high bar to set to perhaps conclude that the team is better off without our ASPG.

Pud

19. You have chosen to ignore posts from aciemvp. Show aciemvp's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to jtkl's comment:

Which effectivley should put the Rondo nonsense to bed for any reasonable person.

Some highlights:

Here are the Celtics over the last four years with Rondo and without him.

2011-12: 104.4 96.7
2010-11: 110.1 100.8
2009-10: 108.7 107.3
2008-09: 112.9 107.0

He rises to the occasion for big games

it breaks down the shots Jason terry is suddenly making. These are the exact same shots Terry was missing before Rondo went down.

It shows the way the defense had started improving before Rondo went down and the way Both Lee and Green were starting to play better as well. Again BEFORE Rondo went down.

And most importantly it reminds everyone that it has been FOUR GAMES!

Great article.

are you talking about games 2-6 in the 08 finals when he shrunk into a 34% field goal, 40% free throw NOTHING of a point guard who averaged 6 dimes and about 23 minutes because he was busy crawling back inside his shell?

this guy SANDBAGS the IMPORTANT GAMES that are 1-104.  they are ALL IMPORTANT.  and the IMPORTANT ONES for an OLD TEAM are 1-82 to get yourself a seed that is not self loathing punishment.  rondo should have come out this year and finally been able to drop 18-20 a game IN AN UP TEMPO MANNER.  and I CARE NOT WHETHER HE HAD 7.9 assists or 11.0.  it matters not.

in fact, the MORE ASSISTS THIS GUY GETS, the WORSE WE PLAY because it means slow down stall out boring predictable basketball.  look at your stats, and then look at how we are playing now.  all the misfits and failures are suddenly coming back to life!!!  go figure!

and we don't even have a point guard out there.

the whole thing proves my theory that this team, from the onset of the "new" big 3 NEVER NEEDED a flashy, savant PG like rondo- you just needed a solid basic fundamentals guy, like bagley was, minus the blubber, and this team would have been just fine.  other than trick passes, rondo offeres ZERO- his shooting is suspect, his FTA's per game are CAREER LOW reflecting a self preserving / self serving pattern of "we just won't shoot those since i don't like them, never mind what's good for the team" type of attitude that HAS BEEN THE RONDO HALLMARK on this team FOR SEVEN CANCEROUS YEARS NOW.

let someone else take on this mercurial no-longer-young man now

in unrelated news- did you seee westbrook's tantrum from the other night?  he's the opposite of rondo but same headcase.  shoots too much, dsitributes too little, still doesn't get it, moody, immature.  only difference is, down in OKC they are finally trying to address his childish antics.  nobody in BOS has had the stones to do it with lilliputian rondo

20. This post has been removed.

21. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to kdp59's comment:

except we are 7-3 with out Rondo this year

and we were 8-5 withj out him last year.

15-8 over 23 games..better winning % than we had with him those two years...is 23 games enough to say for sure....probably not.

but if we have a better winning % after a combined 40 games, I think we may be on to something.

I am not sure what all those numbers you quoted are (as I have yet to read the blog) but I think we can all agree that winning % is really the only thing that matters.

9-5 without RR  if you count the playoffs

22. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to jtkl's comment:

In response to cabutan's comment:

In response to jtkl's comment:

In response to Kirk6's comment:

get used to him. He's not going anywhere.

When Your coach and GM laugh at the notion of trading a player. That's a sign it's not going to happen. Wanna wager though?

You do know that he has been on the trading block the last couple of years don't  you?  Surely you don't think Doc and DA are going to imply they are going to trade Rondo do you?

23. You have chosen to ignore posts from kdp59. Show kdp59's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to genaro008's comment:

I will hold judgement on this topic till we played around 20 games. That will give other defenses to adjust what we do with no RR at the point. We survive next 20 games with a bout 14 wins I will say maybe we are better without him.

thats what I have been saying all along.

in the past two years without Rondo the Celtics are now a combined 15-8.

you guys can loook it up and see

7-3 this year when he is out.

our record WITH Rondo this year was 17-20.

last year it was 31-22.

combined winning % last two years wirh Rondo- 53.3%

combined Winning % without Rondo- 65.2%

TOO EARLY to tell right now. but barring major roster changes we should now after about 40 combined games (17 more).

24. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

I'm gonna wait until the end of the year obviously. They could gol 12 and 5 over the next 17 and then lose 9 in a row.

its long term that these things are measured.

25. You have chosen to ignore posts from OneOnOne. Show OneOnOne's posts

Re: putting an end to the Rondo nonsense.

In response to concord27's comment:

In response to Fierce34's comment:

In response to Kirk6's comment:

In response to Fierce34's comment:

In response to Kirk6's comment:

Put an end to the Rondo nonsense.

So when the Celtics were 6-0 early in January, no trades. After the Celtics went 0-6, trade Terry. Now that the Celtics are 4-0, trade Rondo?

Seriously, Kirk!

Rondo wasn't injured in early January.

Think Fierce, think.

You're the one who needs to think. I mean dementia can't be taken lightly, Kirk.

So now you want to trade Rondo because he's injured?

For the record, if Rondo isn't injured, would you want to trade Rondo?

Kirk I am happy to see us win four after losing six.  You can't really believe we are better off without Rondo.    I hope the winning continues but let's be real . Rondo is pain, but last year in game 2 a game the Heat were given by the refs Rondo beat them single handedly.  Rondo in 2010 led the Celtics to two wins in the finals. He destroyed Lebron on the Cavaliars when they were heavily favored.  Nobody can supply that now.

I am curious to how he destroyed Lebron?

Sections
Shortcuts