In response to RallyC's comment:

You stated facts and ignored other relevant facts. You failed to apply your logic consistently. e.g. The Celtics are 12-4 without Jared Sullinger.  And of course you commited a very common logical fallacy discussed above. 

In response to jtkl's comment:

 

In response to RallyC's comment:

 

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!

 

 

You stated facts and ignored other relevant facts. You failed to apply your logic consistently. e.g. The Celtics are 12-4 without Jared Sullinger.  And of course you commited a very common logical fallacy discussed above. 

 

 

Sully was a secondary, supplementary player who was having a strong rookie season when he went down. He had a GREAT attitude and was showing his potential, BUT NOBODY can ever imply that Sully had a significant impact on the personality or playing style of the Celtics this season. He was ALWAYS a positive influence, but had no control over the style or personality of the team. Also, this is about Rondo, the guy who was chasing assists during loss after loss and who got suspended twice this year for lack of personal control, not model citizen, modest, Sully. Ya ever hear of a "red herring"? Sully is your red herring......This is all about GONDO.

 

OK Rally...

It's a fact they were 0-6 before Rondo went down.

It's a fact they went 7-0 right after.

Did they go 7-0 because he went down?  Or, figuring you watched the games, were Lee, Green and Terry pulling it together for a few games toward the end of the losing streak?  Didn't Bradley return around that time and work himself back into the game quickly?

This was a team that was underperforming from game one this year, and players have pulled it together since.  We're much better than we looked out of the gate; with or without Rondo.  We changed the offense to no longer go through a single point guard and it's worked well.  Doc ran it all through Rondo prior to that because he had no choice; noone else was ready and the host of new players were not yet comfortable with our system.

Let's go back and take Rondo out of last year's playoff run.  Go ahead and use the statistics here if you wish.  Would we have been better off?

There is no possible way to say we're a better team without Rondo without also considering that we could be much better still, if he had stayed healthy, Bradley had gotten into the mix and Lee, Green and Terry all stepped up as they did.  If that had been the case you could also make the argument there might have been less pressure on Rondo to distribute, allowing him to score more, and giving us a more dangerous offense.

It's a case of "what ifs" no matter who presents their case; you or me.  But you can't take a bunch of numbers from a team that has been in a state of change and say they're better because they removed one player.  The team was starting to come together already, and teams often pull together quickly when a key performer goes down.

That last statement can be proven in wins and championships; it doesn't need statistics taken from small ranges within a single season.

In response to NYCelt's comment:

 

OK Rally...

It's a fact they were 0-6 before Rondo went down.

It's a fact they went 7-0 right after.

Did they go 7-0 because he went down?  Or, figuring you watched the games, were Lee, Green and Terry pulling it together for a few games toward the end of the losing streak?  Didn't Bradley return around that time and work himself back into the game quickly?

This was a team that was underperforming from game one this year, and players have pulled it together since.  We're much better than we looked out of the gate; with or without Rondo.  We changed the offense to no longer go through a single point guard and it's worked well.  Doc ran it all through Rondo prior to that because he had no choice; noone else was ready and the host of new players were not yet comfortable with our system.

Let's go back and take Rondo out of last year's playoff run.  Go ahead and use the statistics here if you wish.  Would we have been better off?

There is no possible way to say we're a better team without Rondo without also considering that we could be much better still, if he had stayed healthy, Bradley had gotten into the mix and Lee, Green and Terry all stepped up as they did.  If that had been the case you could also make the argument there might have been less pressure on Rondo to distribute, allowing him to score more, and giving us a more dangerous offense.

It's a case of "what ifs" no matter who presents their case; you or me.  But you can't take a bunch of numbers from a team that has been in a state of change and say they're better because they removed one player.  The team was starting to come together already, and teams often pull together quickly when a key performer goes down.

That last statement can be proven in wins and championships; it doesn't need statistics taken from small ranges within a single season.

 

NY,

Player improvement as a group in the very first game that our ASPG and "TEAM LEADER" goes down has perpetuated over a more than reasonable sample size. It can only be explained by the fact that they finally got to TOUCH the ball. BB is a touch/feel type of game where you just don't catch the ball for the first time after 5-mins of being ignored as your PG dribbles away 19-20 seconds of the 24, and make a shot with no time to do your thing. We are now seeing comfort level increased with more evenly distributed handling and shooting of the ball. Its due to the constant movement and sharing of the rock. Its natural for a shooter to shoot better and a passer to pass better when the get to touch the ball more often. RR DOMINATED every aspect of the game, yes DOC holds some responsibility for that, but in the end, DRAMATIC change coincided with Rondo's exit. IS IT REALLY A COINCIDENCE or can you look at what I provided in the numbers, and accept what I am saying and come to terms that it is what it is? There, MY OPINION.

 

In response to RallyC's comment:

 

In response to jtkl's comment:

 

In response to RallyC's comment:

 

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!

 

 

You stated facts and ignored other relevant facts. You failed to apply your logic consistently. e.g. The Celtics are 12-4 without Jared Sullinger.  And of course you commited a very common logical fallacy discussed above. 

 

 

Sully was a secondary, supplementary player who was having a strong rookie season when he went down. He had a GREAT attitude and was showing his potential, BUT NOBODY can ever imply that Sully had a significant impact on the personality or playing style of the Celtics this season. He was ALWAYS a positive influence, but had no control over the style or personality of the team. Also, this is about Rondo, the guy who was chasing assists during loss after loss and who got suspended twice this year for lack of personal control, not model citizen, modest, Sully. Ya ever hear of a "red herring"? Sully is your red herring......This is all about GONDO.

 

 

You keep missing the point. You can't hold up record as proof minus a player then ignore the loss of another player. The evidence in both cases is equal The Celtics win without Rondo this year. They win without Sullinger this year. They win without Barbosa this year. Heck they win without Garnett this year.

 

In fact they were 18-7 without Garnett the year of his knee Injury. 

 

Your proof is meaningless. And a logical fallacy besides that. 

In response to jtkl's comment:

You're simply a lost cause. I will leave you to your man crush. I will be thinking about you the day Rondo is sent on his way. Please, stay away from sharp objects, rooftops, and medications at that time. Take care.

In response to RallyC's comment:

How often do major trades happen? I predict you will be wailing in despair. 

Debating Rondo is like debating religion or politics. You are either on the pro Rondo side or the anti Rondo side and nobody is going to convince the other to change perspective.

We, of the please trade the over-rated petulent Rondo perspective, can only rejoice that the Celtics are demonstrating improvement in virtually every basketball catagory beginning EXACTLY when Rondo went down... and that cannot be disputed.  Would we be playing as well with Rondo?  That is just a matter of opinoin... and I think not. 

and the bottom line for me, as a fan, is that I enjoy watching this team's dynamic play much more with Bradley and Lee out front. 

These "reply to post" posts are too stinkin, long!

 

Anyway--  this Rondo saga may all turn out well:

 Rondo now knows he has to take the energy spent pounding the ball and offense and use it instead to stay in front of is guy on defense.  Doc should reinforce that staying in front and still getting steals is more important than assists.

In response to rameakap's comment:

Whoa, those trade ideas are pretty stinking awesome

Again, please point to me a game or half, and/or quarter where Rondo has "pounded the ball for 19 or 20 seconds?  That would lead to only one pass and a desperation shot.  I hope someone can go back and watch a whole game and count how many possession actually end with RR dribbling for almost 20 seconds.  

I think since that was mentioned here a while back folks have taken it and ran with it....

If that was the case statistics across the board for players would be down if he was holding the ball so long as some are claiming.

IF rondo is holding the ball so long:

why were foks complaigning on the PP ISO and turnovers, hero ball threes?

Terry's inability to hit open jumpers?

Lee inability to hit open jumpers??

KG's inabilty to play in the post or rebound?

JG ability to score or be consistent on both ends of the court

-----------

If Rondo is traded, so be it.  I am not the GM.  Im a CELTIC fan.  Rondo is not a Vin Baker or any of the other washed up players that have wore green.  I think if he is traded the Celtics will not get near the value in return.

If the Celtics get bounced in the first round who will the blame fall on?  The Celtics have played some inspired ball since RR went down and actually before.  They have not blown anyone out and a couple of games they were lucky to win.

I hope for the best.

 

GO CELTICS!!!!

In response to jtkl's comment:

In response to jtkl's comment:

JTK,

Your more scientific approach is a welcome in additon to the gut-felt posts from some of the best posters we have.  An A-B-A research design claims that we won't have enough data on "the Rondo efect", until Rondo is again is in the line-up and we see if thecurrent  strong team chemistry falls apart and the Celts again become a mediocre team.  Both types of posts are worthy to me. 

In response to postal5's comment:

Good post. 

I love the "facts" frauds. You can take facts to frame any argument you want. 

Example: it's a fact that the Celtics have not been to the NBA finals in two decades without Rondo. 

FACT. 

I'm inspired by the team's current play and on record I think if T-Will works out as point guard Rondo should probably be traded next year. 

That said I'm amazed by how many folks are willing to settle for a good regular season run. 

For myself I'm going to see how this team does in the post-season without Rondo, particularly against the Heat. Seem ok to the facts crowd? Or are we handing out regular season rings now?

I am surprised at how many fans were/are quite content/willing to lose with Rondo than win without him.

Pud

In response to puddinpuddin's comment:

name one please.

In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

I would say that a good (actually great) regular season run beats a bad regular season run... and not making the POs.... by a wide margin.

Overachieving beats underachieving every single time.

Pud

They are definitely a better team when they don't have to pretend like Rondo is their leader. That's for sure. 

 

Perhaps he will grow up and they won't feel the need to pander to him like that next year and that could certainly result in a better team, but this year he was an emotional albatross. It's human nature to turn away from Rondo-style "leadership". He just comes off as such a self-important debbie downer d-bag.

In response to rameakap's comment:

 

I don't like the Dallas trade at all, myself.

 

But I do like the idea of Getting Horford from Atlanta!!

 

IF Ainge could somehow get him even up for Rondo ( I think the contracts work out).......it wuldn be a good deal for both teams (especially if Smith and Rondo are buds, as has been speculated).

 

I don;t see the need to add Williams for Bass in the deal, as we are solid at Guard evn without Rondo next year ( Bradley, Lee, Terry, Crawford, Williams)

 

Horford, Garnett, Melo, Sullinger, Bass as bigs

 

Pierce, Green and McAdoo (first round)

 

thats really looks like a loaded team for the final go around for Pierce and Garnett next year.

 

as Well as putting us in good shape for when the Hall of Famers leave.

 

In response to puddinpuddin's comment:

 

I am surprised at how many fans were/are quite content/willing to lose with Rondo than win without him.

Pud

 

Its called man crushes......only explanation. We see the truth. 0-6, ACL, to 7-0 immediately. Its like going from shooting basketball in the dark for 6, then the lights coming on for the next 7. What happened to change things so abruptly? Geniuses! They are still in the dark. Opening their eyes may help!

 

In response to puddinpuddin's comment:

In response to jtkl's comment:

 

In response to puddinpuddin's comment:

 

In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

 

That said I'm amazed by how many folks are willing to settle for a good regular season run. 

 

I would say that a good (actually great) regular season run beats a bad regular season run... and not making the POs.... by a wide margin.

---

obviously you missed last year. not supising. 

Overachieving beats underachieving every single time.

Pud

 

JTKL, We see the truth. 0-6, ACL, to 7-0 immediately. Its like going from shooting basketball in the dark for 6, then the lights coming on for the next 7. What happened to change things so abruptly? I'd venture to say that the C's have never had such a dramatic change in momentum going from such a losing streak to such a winning streak before. Genius, you are still in the dark. Open your eyes, it may help!

In response to kdp59's comment:

I'm sure you'd like the Dallas deal if you knew that the player we picked 8-12 was a future star. I guess we don't need to swap Bass for Williams... just that with RR, Teague and Jenkins the Hawks are set at guard and have no forwards. We can part ways with Crawford or Lee in another move.

In response to RallyC's comment:

My guess is that this is more like little gurl crushes. Prepubescent. The kind that fill his fan site and want to be his one and only gf.

Pud