RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

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

    RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    From the 2007-2008 season to today, the Celtics are 34-18 (.654pct) all-time without Rajon Rondo. Thats a pretty legit, 52-game sample size. During this season alone, the Celtics are now 14-7 (.666pct) without RR. So, this season's recent winning trend is only slight higher than what our 52-game all time sample has proven out over the years. With RR playing this season, we were 18-20 (.473), RR missed 5-games due to league mandated suspensions. Based on these historical FACTS/trends, even if the C's play below the normal "without RR"(.654pct), and only play at a winning pct of .652, the C's would still go 15-8 (.652pct) bringing them to a season record of 47-35. I'd say that is good for at least the 4th seed in the E-CONF. If they never had RR this season and as a result played even lower at only .648pct for the year, they would be 53-29. Science is based on fact and probabilities. Based on this historical data, without RR this season, we would have been battling for the #1 seed in the EC. Again, not my opinion, only facts and logical assumptions based on statistical evidence. This is a clear example of what is meant by "adding by subtraction." don't be angry if you don't agree. These are the simple FACTS. 

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    Unless my math is wrong overall since 07-08 they were 305 and 148 which is a winning percentage of .673.

    The Celtics are playing better now than they were with Rondo but I dont get how the fact that they play .652 without  him over the years means anything when they were .673 overall over the same period.

    My math could be wrong though. I was just checking it out.

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    Great post! The facts are the facts.

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    To be fair to Rondo. I wonder what the numbers are for games without KG, PP or RA. I don't believe they're close though.

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to snakeoil123's comment:

     

    Unless my math is wrong overall since 07-08 they were 305 and 148 which is a winning percentage of .673.

    The Celtics are playing better now than they were with Rondo but I dont get how the fact that they play .652 without  him over the years means anything when they were .673 overall over the same period.

    My math could be wrong though. I was just checking it out.

     


    No, your math is correct. But if you are talking all time record with, then what your evidence is proving out is the priciple of deminishing returns. This year shows there is a significant decline WITH RR, and actually highlites where the issue was related. Yours is a more damning way of proving out the truth. Your way shows that we were losing horribly despite him being there, thereby proving that he was a key influence on, if not individually THE problem. I am only providing the evidence of how much we win without RR and how with his recent absence has shown we are even better now without him than at any time before. Also, did you factor in what the overall record was with vs. without RR? He can't be given credit for games he did not pay in that they won without him, just as he can't be hit for the ones they lost without him. 38-14 is the all time reference to look at for with/without RR.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from sinus007. Show sinus007's posts

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to RallyC's comment:

    From the 2007-2008 season to today, the Celtics are 34-18 (.654pct) all-time without Rajon Rondo. Thats a pretty legit, 52-game sample size. During this season alone, the Celtics are now 14-7 (.666pct) without RR. So, this season's recent winning trend is only slight higher than what our 52-game all time sample has proven out over the years. With RR playing this season, we were 18-20 (.473), RR missed 5-games due to league mandated suspensions. Based on these historical FACTS/trends, even if the C's play below the normal "without RR"(.654pct), and only play at a winning pct of .652, the C's would still go 15-8 (.652pct) bringing them to a season record of 47-35. I'd say that is good for at least the 4th seed in the E-CONF. If they never had RR this season and as a result played even lower at only .648pct for the year, they would be 53-29. Science is based on fact and probabilities. Based on this historical data, without RR this season, we would have been battling for the #1 seed in the EC. Again, not my opinion, only facts and logical assumptions based on statistical evidence. This is a clear example of what is meant by "adding by subtraction." don't be angry if you don't agree. These are the simple FACTS. 



    Hi,

    I'm sorry, but you conflate facts with stats.

    Fact: Celtics won championship in 2008. Fact: they did it in 6 games against LAL. Fact: Celtics lost to Mia in ECF in 7 games last year. Fact: RR has more triple-doubles than Lebron in playoffs.

    As for your stats, as most of real life stats, yours have holes that you  can drive semi through. E.g., your 52-games sample doesn't take in consideration such simple things as there were different Celtics players and different opponents.

     

    AK

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    We are better with rondo. 673 > 652. if you want to use winning percentages. 

    And if you want to use this year as your example then: We are better without Jared Sullinger, Kevin Garnett and Leandro Barbosa. YOU have to say that! Because the Celtics have a better winning percentage this year without all of them. Same as Rondo.  

     

    But that is flawed statement. as is the rondo argument, because coorelation does not equal causation.

    If I pick my belly button and world war III breaks out, it is not logical to say picking belly buttons causes war.  Just because two events coincided doesn't mean they cause each other. 

    The Reason we are doing better are the following in my opinion. 

     

    1) We made the same run the seoncd half of last year (this is what the Celtics do) 

     

    2) We have a much deeper bench this year than last year. Which helps us absorb the loss.

    3) Jeff Green was told it wouldn't be until mid year that he would be fully recovered from Heart Surgery. Which is right about a month ago when he started playing better. 

    4) Ditto Wilcox. Who had surgery later than Green.

    5) The coach has opend the offense up and it has responded. 

    6) Avery Bradley who missed all of training camp is starting to find his offense. 

    That's it in my opinion. If someone thinks it's Rondo that's fair, I suppose. but the idea that it it factually demonstrated is just false. 

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from kyceltic. Show kyceltic's posts

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to sinus007's comment:

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    From the 2007-2008 season to today, the Celtics are 34-18 (.654pct) all-time without Rajon Rondo. Thats a pretty legit, 52-game sample size. During this season alone, the Celtics are now 14-7 (.666pct) without RR. So, this season's recent winning trend is only slight higher than what our 52-game all time sample has proven out over the years. With RR playing this season, we were 18-20 (.473), RR missed 5-games due to league mandated suspensions. Based on these historical FACTS/trends, even if the C's play below the normal "without RR"(.654pct), and only play at a winning pct of .652, the C's would still go 15-8 (.652pct) bringing them to a season record of 47-35. I'd say that is good for at least the 4th seed in the E-CONF. If they never had RR this season and as a result played even lower at only .648pct for the year, they would be 53-29. Science is based on fact and probabilities. Based on this historical data, without RR this season, we would have been battling for the #1 seed in the EC. Again, not my opinion, only facts and logical assumptions based on statistical evidence. This is a clear example of what is meant by "adding by subtraction." don't be angry if you don't agree. These are the simple FACTS. 

     



    Hi,

     

    I'm sorry, but you conflate facts with stats.

    Fact: Celtics won championship in 2008. Fact: they did it in 6 games against LAL. Fact: Celtics lost to Mia in ECF in 7 games last year. Fact: RR has more triple-doubles than Lebron in playoffs.

    As for your stats, as most of real life stats, yours have holes that you  can drive semi through. E.g., your 52-games sample doesn't take in consideration such simple things as there were different Celtics players and different opponents.

     

    AK

      Rondo had about as much to do with the Celtics winning the title in 08 as Eddie House, matter of fact, Eddie had more to do with it than Rondo did!!


     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

     

    Bradley is better than Rondo.

    There are two parts to basketball...offense and defense.

     



    Right and Rondo is much better offensively. and pretty good defensively.  4 time all defensive team member twice on the first team. 

     

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to jtkl's comment:

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

     

    Bradley is better than Rondo.

    There are two parts to basketball...offense and defense.

     



    Right and Rondo is much better offensively. and pretty good defensively.  4 time all defensive team member twice on the first team. 

     



    Thos nominations are all based on popularity more than anything else.

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to celticsfanmx's comment:

     

    In response to jtkl's comment:

     

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

     

    Bradley is better than Rondo.

    There are two parts to basketball...offense and defense.

     



    Right and Rondo is much better offensively. and pretty good defensively.  4 time all defensive team member twice on the first team. 

     

     



    Thos nominations are all based on popularity more than anything else.

     

     ----------------------------------------



    If you look at his defensive rating it is often among the best in the league. if you take a look at his advanced stats Rondo's defense was better last year than Bradleys.

    This year Bradley has passed him but Rondo is a terrfic defender and much better offensive player. 

     

    Rondo was 5th in defensive player of year voting in 2011.  

    Rondo was also 5th in defensive player of year voting the year before that. 

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to celticsfanmx's comment:

    In response to jtkl's comment:

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

      

    Thos nominations are all based on popularity more than anything else.

     

    And jersey sales too.

    Pud

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

     

    In response to jtkl's comment:

     

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

     

    Bradley is better than Rondo.

    There are two parts to basketball...offense and defense.

     



    Right and Rondo is much better offensively. and pretty good defensively.  4 time all defensive team member twice on the first team. 

     

     




    Rondo's defense scks.

     

     



    Hmm, well that was thoughtful and well reasoned Kirk. Like all your opinions.  Next why don't you explain to us how Ray Allen can't shoot despite the numbers. 

     

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to puddinpuddin's comment:

    In response to celticsfanmx's comment:

     

    In response to jtkl's comment:

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

      

    Thos nominations are all based on popularity more than anything else.

     

     

    And jersey sales too.

    Pud

     



    And this is based on.... What now? Hmm, Wow, Tony Allen must be quite the driver of jersey sales becaused he finisehd fourth in defensive player of the year voting in 2011. 

     

    ALL HAIL TONY ALLEN FACE OF THE NBA!!!! 

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to celticsfanmx's comment:

    In response to jtkl's comment:

     

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

     

    Bradley is better than Rondo.

    There are two parts to basketball...offense and defense.

     



    Right and Rondo is much better offensively. and pretty good defensively.  4 time all defensive team member twice on the first team. 

     

     



    Thos nominations are all based on popularity more than anything else.

     



    Really? and you know that how?  If that were AB getting on the all D team would you still say that?  Also, KG has been on 9 times so he was just popular those years??

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

     

    In response to jtkl's comment:

     

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

     

    In response to jtkl's comment:

     

    In response to Kirk6's comment:

     

    Bradley is better than Rondo.

    There are two parts to basketball...offense and defense.

     



    Right and Rondo is much better offensively. and pretty good defensively.  4 time all defensive team member twice on the first team. 

     

     




    Rondo's defense scks.

    Hmm, well that was thoughtful and well reasoned Kirk. Like all your opinions.  Next why don't you explain to us how Ray Allen can't shoot despite the numbers. 

     

     

     0-6 with Rondo.

    14-7 without Rondo.

    The only statistic that counts.

    Bradley is better than Rondo.

     ---------------------------------------------------------



    Well I supose it matters if you are opposed to things like logic. It's a well known logical fallacy Coorelation does not equal causation. No matter how many times you say it kirk, it doesn't change the fact your reasoning is poor. 

     

     

    btw 12-7 Without Sullinger. By YOUR OWN LOGIC (which is flawed). he is a liability to the Celtics.  

     

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    Doesn't matter anyway. Rondo is mostl likely going to be a Celtics for a long time.  

     

     

     

     



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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to sinus007's comment:

     

    In response to RallyC's comment:

     

    From the 2007-2008 season to today, the Celtics are 34-18 (.654pct) all-time without Rajon Rondo. Thats a pretty legit, 52-game sample size. During this season alone, the Celtics are now 14-7 (.666pct) without RR. So, this season's recent winning trend is only slight higher than what our 52-game all time sample has proven out over the years. With RR playing this season, we were 18-20 (.473), RR missed 5-games due to league mandated suspensions. Based on these historical FACTS/trends, even if the C's play below the normal "without RR"(.654pct), and only play at a winning pct of .652, the C's would still go 15-8 (.652pct) bringing them to a season record of 47-35. I'd say that is good for at least the 4th seed in the E-CONF. If they never had RR this season and as a result played even lower at only .648pct for the year, they would be 53-29. Science is based on fact and probabilities. Based on this historical data, without RR this season, we would have been battling for the #1 seed in the EC. Again, not my opinion, only facts and logical assumptions based on statistical evidence. This is a clear example of what is meant by "adding by subtraction." don't be angry if you don't agree. These are the simple FACTS. 

     



    Hi,

     

    I'm sorry, but you conflate facts with stats.

    Fact: Celtics won championship in 2008. Fact: they did it in 6 games against LAL. Fact: Celtics lost to Mia in ECF in 7 games last year. Fact: RR has more triple-doubles than Lebron in playoffs.

    As for your stats, as most of real life stats, yours have holes that you  can drive semi through. E.g., your 52-games sample doesn't take in consideration such simple things as there were different Celtics players and different opponents.

     

    AK

     



    What you say is BS. We measure the succuss of a player based on their statistical production AND how much influence those individual stats have on the successes and failure of the TEAM.  By all stat analysis concerning RR's play with the C's, the C's win games at a higher percentage rate without him than when he plays in any given game. Regardless of what you say about RR's individual stats/triple doubles, they only impact one game each, not the outcomes of the other games he plays in. The effect is demoralizing to the others on the TEAM. You never know what you're gonna get from the guy and he fluctuates as badly as any payer we've seen.  Go by wins and losses relevant to his participation or lack there of, and it is crystal clear where the issues are/were.

     

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to jtkl's comment:

    Doesn't matter anyway. Rondo is mostl likely going to be a Celtics for a long time.  

     


    As a fan, that's a very scary thought...

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to celticsfanmx's comment:

     

    In response to jtkl's comment:

     

    Doesn't matter anyway. Rondo is mostl likely going to be a Celtics for a long time.  

     

     


    As a fan, that's a very scary thought...

     


    Any true to the heart Celtic fan, who even at one time as such pulled hard for Rondo to be great, would be dissappointed to have to deal with him and the drama that is always around him. He is just a downer in so many ways.

     

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to celticsfanmx's comment:

    In response to jtkl's comment:

     

    Doesn't matter anyway. Rondo is mostl likely going to be a Celtics for a long time.  

     

     


    As a fan, that's a very scary thought...



    As a fan it's an encouraging thought. 

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

    Re: RONDO FACTS, NO OPINION ADDED

    In response to jtkl's comment:

     

    In response to celticsfanmx's comment:

     

    In response to jtkl's comment:

     

    Doesn't matter anyway. Rondo is mostl likely going to be a Celtics for a long time.  

     

     


    As a fan, that's a very scary thought...

     



    As a fan it's an encouraging thought. 

     

     




     

    As a Rondo fan, yes, as a Celtics fan, NO 3ffing way!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share