In response to kyceltic's comment:

 

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!!

 

 

Hmmm

Seriously? Did you see the playoff stats?

I'll take 32 mins, 10.2 pts, 6.6 asts, 4.1 rebs, 1.7 stls, 40% FG's and pesky, destructive, back in the day () Rondo defense

over

7.9 mins, 2.5 pts, 0.9 asts, 1 reb, 0.2 stls, 30% FG's and mediocre/average defense

Did you look at the stats before you typed that KY? I mean, I remember a few dagger 3's and a big play or two in the Cleve clincher but that is ALL House did. Rondo was the starting PG for 30+ mins and 10+ pts for 26 games.

Rondo was better than Ray for the first two series of those playoffs.

In response to rameakap's comment:

Ky is kind of into hyperbole.  I'ts his thing.

In response to celticsfanmx's comment:

As a True Celtics fan it's an ecouraging thought. :)

In response to rameakap's comment:

I forgot how bad Ray was during that run. I mean he did play well in the finals redeeming himself, but there was a lot of people wondering what was wrong with Ray. 

This post has been removed.

In response to Kirk6's comment:

Uhm. No he doesn't.  and Uhm, No bradley is not. 

Bradley is good though. 

In response to snakeoil123's comment:

i think the larger point is that rondo is really just a unicorn fartte of a ball player- seems like he is something that he isn't.  he seems like a lynch pin to a team yet he is really the ship's anchor tied around the team's throat. 

 

NO TEAM whose "instrumental starting point guard" suddenly leaves the building and WE HAVE HAD NO LEGITIMATE BACKUP TO RONDO and do not right now = there is no way we should be doing this well.  period.  end of story.

In response to aciemvp's comment:

I think that is the larger point that Rally was making as well.  but I think the point wass "Rondo facts, no opinion added" 

amirite?

In response to snakeoil123's comment:

We were 18-7 without Garnett The year he went down. Uhm, that's a prett good mark for the best player on the team. The celtics are a deep prideful bunch this year (and this will pain you) Well coached. 

 

In response to jtkl's comment:

 

We were 18-7 without Garnett The year he went down. Uhm, that's a prett good mark for the best player on the team. The celtics are a deep prideful bunch this year (and this will pain you) Well coached. 

 

We were 62-20 the year KG went down and we continued to play at that same level in his absence. Players stepped up and maintained our level of excellence going into the PO's.

This year we  were a sub-500 team when Rondo went down...  and are now playing hugely better at a .750 clip in his absence.

 

We suddenly became a deep, prideful team just about the time that our ASPG got injured... and have sustained that winning spirit thru additional injuries. 

The record speaks for itself.

Deal with it.

Pud

Rondos injury allowed the team to be a team..... such an imporvement that it even absorbed the huge loss of Sully.. Thats saying something.   It also forced Doc to stop coaching like a moron and coddling the diva PG to the point he was destroying the team..

If I had my way, both Rondo and Doc would never be a Celtic again except in an old timers game..

 

In response to snakeoil123's comment:

Yes, Sir.

Statistics are fine.

But what I see, with my eyes, and a reasonable amount of basketball knowledge is that:

1. We move the ball MUCH BETTER on offense without Rondo.  

2. More players are getting more touches on offense without Rondo.

3. I am not tortured watching Rondo dribble the clock out, then throw up a desparation shot at the buzzeer that NEVER goes in. 

4. The opposing point guard, even the bottom dwellers, are not torching us game after game without Rondo.

5.  Bradley and Lee are perhaps the best backcourt defensive duo in the entire league

6.  The on-court and off-court chemistry seems to be much more engerized without Rondo.

7-8.  We are playing BETTER TEAM BALL and winning more games WITHOUT Rondo. 

In response to Karllost's comment:

+2.  Right on.

 "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

- Mark Twain

 

Pretty selective use of statistics here; limited and proving nothing. 

 

Pretty poor knowledge of basketball, to think the team is better without Rondo.

In response to NYCelt's comment:

Hey somebody from Sams Club dropping by to spread conviviality and encouragement. 

Thanks for the insight and kind words, NYCelt.

Pud

Here are some facts from another article on post Rondo and turnovers.  I will just post the most glaring things.

The Elimination of the Celtics Turnover Problem… Thanks to Rajon Rondo?
Posted by Brian Robb on Mar 5, 2013 

Death, taxes, and plenty of turnovers by the Boston Celtics. If there were ever three things you could count on over the past five years, those would be safe bets, with the safest being plenty of miscues from Doc Rivers’ crew.

Since Danny Ainge put together an All-Star trio back in the summer of 2007, the C’s have had a recurring turnover problem that buried them in the bottom-six of the NBA in team turnover rate (turnovers per 100 possessions) over the past five seasons. The numbers are so glaring and consistent over this stretch, it makes you wonder whether someone needed to have an intervention with Rivers and his roster to help the team solve the problem.

Turnover rate (league rank)
2007-08: 14.9 (29th)
2008-09: 15.0 (29th)
2009-10: 14.5 (27th)
2010-11: 14.5 (28th)
2011-12: 14.7 (25th)

 

Once Rondo went down with a torn ACL during the last week of January, the masses (including some of us here at the Hub) started to worry even more: Who would handle the ball? How would the C’s handle ball pressure by opposing teams? Their turnovers would surely go way up without their All-Star point guard…right?

Instead, the opposite has happened. The C’s are taking better care of the ball than ever, which leads us to an important question…was Rondo the C’s biggest turnover problem?

The short answer is yes – yes he was. Outside of Pablo Prigoni and Earl Watson, Rondo had the highest turnover rate for any rotation point guard in the NBA this year, giving the ball away to the opposition a whopping 22.6 times per 100 possessions. For some perspective, other elite point guards generally have turnover rates in the low teens or even single digits. They value the ball while Rondo didn’t show the ability or inclination to do the same.
There are plenty of reasons why the C’s offense has struggled over the past couple years, but Rondo’s tendency to lose the ball is at the top of the list, especially when you consider the fact he was on the floor for 40 minutes most nights. Any time you give away a possession nearly once out of every four trips down the floor, you are in trouble. Outside of Jason Collins, Rondo had far and away the highest turnover rate on the team for the past two seasons.

Turnovers have been a major issue for Rondo throughout his career, especially as his usage has increased the past three seasons. Two seasons ago, his turnover rate was 24.3. Last year it was 22.8. These high percentages are largely due to his high-risk passes, which are incredibly pretty when they work but cost Boston precious possessions when they don’t.

Rondo does tend to take better care of the ball when the bright lights are on in the postseason, where his career turnover rate drops a few points. However, it’s still been above 18 percent for the past three postseasons, which is just not a good mark for any point guard around the league. Rondo’s stellar scoring, assisting and rebounding made up for the turnovers during those postseasons. Still, regular season Rondo had been a walking turnover for years now and hadn’t done enough to make up for it most nights.

 

Despite the improved personnel surrounding Rondo, I don’t think even Rivers could have expected what came next after his All-Star point guard fell victim to an ACL tear.

As the Celtics have switched to a spread offense without their offensive general, a system which relies on plenty of ball movement, the C’s have become one of the best teams in the league at taking care of the ball.
How good have they become? Over the past 15 games, Boston has turned the ball over on just 14.1 percent of their possessions, the 3rd best mark in the entire league since January 27th — the post Rondo era. 


A quick sampling of individual turnover rates tells an even bigger story.
Turnovers/100 possessions
Pierce: 12.8
Green: 12.7
Lee: 10.7
Bradley: 9.7
Wilcox: 9.6
Barbosa: 8.5
Terry: 7.9
Crawford: 7.4
Garnett: 7.3
Bass: 6.3

That, my friends, is an elite group at protecting the basketball, even with increased ballhandling duties for the guards without Rondo on the shelf.
The best part of these reduced rates is they are all relatively sustainable. Throughout their career, all of these guys have low-turnover rates, meaning that despite the limited sample size, Boston should be able to keep protecting the ball for the remainder of the season.
The team’s improvement in the turnover department has translated into their overall offense, as the team’s offensive efficiency has jumped from 99.8 to 101.9 (18th in the NBA) without Rondo at the helm

In response to puddinpuddin's comment:

Pud,

Nice to hear from you.  I still drop in here sometimes just to see what's up.

I find the whole idea that there are some suggesting the team is improved without Rondo laughable.  Trying to measure the before and after by numbers alone ignores the fact that the bench was starting to gel just before he went down.  Those posting various statistics need to also figure out how to isolate the stats that show the difference and improvement in Lee, Green, Terry and others since that time.  They had all been of to a terrible start.  They've picked their game up greatly and Bradley has returned too.  When you have a point guard as capable as Rondo, the game goes through him and, yes, you do see a higher turnover percentage from him because of that (among other complaints named).

To take it a step further the statistics would show we're better off without Sullinger.  I've even seen posts from some who think White should start over Bass now; after White played a whole 3 minutes.  Not to mention he was playing in China because he couldn't make any NBA team.

Some things are just funny.  People jumping to conclusions with mistaken/misinterpreted or misleading data when it comes to pro sports are in the funny category.  I don't think some of these "statisticians" had much experience playing the game, or they would cite some of the other reasons for what they see, such as changed offensive schemes and improving chemistry from teammates newly integrated into the system.

Regards

In response to NYCelt's comment:

 

 "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

- Mark Twain

 

Pretty selective use of statistics here; limited and proving nothing. 

 

Pretty poor knowledge of basketball, to think the team is better without Rondo.

 

Your opinion about my knowledge of basketball has nothing to do with the truth or reality. The Celtics are a better team without Rondo playing. It has proven out over time. Where are you getting your facts, beyond a bypassing opinion? "NYCelt"............ an "Oxymoron" minus the Oxy! What's Mark Twain got to say about that?

 

In response to NYCelt's comment:

Excellent post. 

In response to RallyC's comment:

 

In response to NYCelt's comment:

 

 "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

- Mark Twain

 

Pretty selective use of statistics here; limited and proving nothing. 

 

Pretty poor knowledge of basketball, to think the team is better without Rondo.

 

Your opinion about my knowledge of basketball has nothing to do with the truth or reality. The Celtics are a better team without Rondo playing. It has proven out over time. Where are you getting your facts, beyond a bypassing opinion? "NYCelt"............ an "Oxymoron" minus the Oxy! What's Mark Twain got to say about that?

 

 

 

I wasn't taking a swipe at you personally, nor calling anyone a name as you seem to have a need to do, but I was saying I find the idea you and a few others were writing about funny and less than the way the game works.

If you want to personalize my opinion of your specific knowledge of basketball, I will say that anyone who thinks the Celtics are a better team without him doesn't understand the game very well, nor do they understand what they've been seeing completely.  We've played better as a team since he went down and there are several factors behind that which don't come from simply removing Rondo from the equation.  You might want to consider what the team would be like if others had stepped it up when he was healthy.

If you can't stand up for your opinion (and yes it's an opinion you have, as do I, despite the way you titled the thread) and debate without name calling just let me know.  I'll start ignoring you now so I don't waste my time.

In response to jtkl's comment:

52-games is not jumping to conclusions. 34-18 in games without RR is not jumping to a conclusion. 0-6 in RR's last six, immediately followed up by 7-0,  and now 13-4 without Rajon GONDO is NOT "Jumping to Conclusions". Its called FACT that the Celtics pay better without him. No opinion, here. Its a fact! Don't tell me about last year or any other time. REALITY IS TODAY. Now take your RR FATHEAD off the wall........

In response to NYCelt's comment:

 

In response to RallyC's comment:

 

In response to NYCelt's comment:

 

 "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

- Mark Twain

 

Pretty selective use of statistics here; limited and proving nothing. 

 

Pretty poor knowledge of basketball, to think the team is better without Rondo.

 

Your opinion about my knowledge of basketball has nothing to do with the truth or reality. The Celtics are a better team without Rondo playing. It has proven out over time. Where are you getting your facts, beyond a bypassing opinion? "NYCelt"............ an "Oxymoron" minus the Oxy! What's Mark Twain got to say about that?

 

 

 

I wasn't taking a swipe at you personally, nor calling anyone a name, but I was saying I find the idea you and a few others were writing about funny and less than the way the game works.

If you want to personalize my opinion of your specific knowledge of basketball, I will say that anyone who thinks the Celtics are a better team without him doesn't understand the game very well, nor do they understand what they've been seeing completely.  We've played better as a team since he went down and there are several factors behind that which don't come from simply removing Rondo from the equation.  You might want to consider what the team would be like if others had stepped it up when he was healthy.

If you can't stand up for your opinion (and yes it's an opinion you have, as do I, despite the way you titled the thread) and debate without name calling just let me know.  I'll start ignoring you now so I don't waste my time.

 

You are missing the point. I stated facts. Thats all. Not my opinion, even though I really do think we are a better team and I don't like RR's style or personality for the TEAM's sake.....I gave you factual numbers that represent how the C's are winning more without RR. YOU decided to deny that the sky is blue and tell me that I don't know basketball. IGNORE ME PLEASE!

 

In response to RallyC's comment:

Sure it is. By your own admission the Celtics have a higher winning percentage with Rondo. 

So you turn to this year as your proof wrongly commiting a logical fallacy by assuming coorelation equals causation. 

In regards to Rondo I still REALLY want to see one of these two trades this offseason:

1. to the Hawks (with Bass and our 1st rd pick) for Horford and Lou Williams

Sets the Hawks up for either Howard (at the max) and Smith (contract starting at same 13m he makes now with raises) or Smith (at the max) and Bynum or Al Jefferson for 11-13m per year.

2. to the Mavs for Marion, Darren Collison and their lotto pick (8-12 range)

Sets the Mavs up for Howard-Dirk-Rondo big 3