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.