Are we witnessing Rondo's prime?

[LoneyROY]

Rajon Hondo.

[Tabitha]

Top 15 player, top 15 player...

Who would you take over Rondo right now? I'm thinking Rose and Dirk (when healthy), Pierce (until he shows me otherwise, which will happen soon), Steph Curry, Chris Paul, Dwight, Nash, Kobe, Lebron, Deron, Melo and Tony Parker. I'm strong considering adding Kyrie Irving and James Harden to that list.

.

Would you really take Steph Curry over Rondo? And Pierce over Rondo but not Garnett?

[hugolizard]

I don't rate him that high, maybe around 10th among PGs in the NBA. Honestly I don't care if he can't make his jumpers as long as he can somehow shoots 4X% from the field. His biggest problem is his FT%. You're just not as big of a threat driving in the lane trying to break down the defense when everyone knows you can't make your FTs.

[I_Socrates]

....

Where did I say Nash wasn't a good scorer? I'm probably the biggest Nash fan you will find on this board, don't need to tell me how much better he was offensively than Rondo (scoring/shooting wise); but it would be ignorant of me to say Rondo isn't as good as Nash as a point guard. The role of a point guard (in my humble opinion) is to primarily set up his team mates and run the team, and Rondo does that as well as anyone.

I don't know how you got 'Nash isn't a good scorer' or 'Rondo and Nash are comparable scorers' from what I said, but nonetheless, that definitely not what I said nor meant. They are comparable in terms of being floor generals, and Rondo gets the nod because of his defense. When you can run the offense like they can and get others freebie, open shots, you don't NEED to score as much; that's why Nash was never a prolific scorer, not because he couldn't be, because he'd rather set up his team mates.

[tsherkin]

I disagree. Obviously Boston fans can't answer this impartially anymore since Ray left but I guarrantee you if you asked the fans on our board last year while RAy was still on our team who was most responsible for our turnovers it would 95% Ray Allen and 5% everyone else.

Yeah, but that would be empirically inaccurate, so that opinion wouldn't really matter. It's functionally clear that in 2012, the player most singly responsible for turnovers was Rondo. He had a really, really high turnover rate. Now, that's not a negative, because he matched it with a very high assist rate and those commonly go together. Nash and Magic are recent examples. Kidd, too. So that's to be expected from basically everyone that's not Chris Paul.

In 2012, the Celtics used spot-up possessions 20.6% of the time, and off-screen plays 8.1% of the time.

So far this season? 21.5% and 9.3%.

Basically the same ratios.

The Celtics have been doing a little more pass, pass, pass around the perimeter, then waiting for the guy coming around the down screen to hit the elbow in motion and getting the ball going to the rim that way, that's been a little different. They're playing a little faster this season, so far.

They're still running a lot of screens for Terry, same as they did for Ray. It's important to remember, though, that the offense never flowed through Ray. When they weren't in transition or in the secondary, the Celtics actually ran the ball through Pierce and KG more often than Ray. Just from a shooting volume perspective, Allen got as many shots per game as Bass. Obviously, they changed their approach with him not playing for a third of the season and shooting volume doesn't describe time of sets and stuff, but post-ups for KG and Pierce, as well as Pierce 3s, represented the majority of their primary offense last year, with Pietrus spot-up threes being a big part of things for the 2/3s of the season HE was healthy.

This year, Terry's involved in the offense less than was Ray, but they're still playing some methodical ball. It's not EXACTLY the same, but they're still running the same basic double-downs, the same basic half-court breakouts... the offense is still the same, they're just using more of it and spreading things around a little more. Is it a surprise? No. Terry isn't as good as was Ray, it made more sense to run the ball to Allen more often, he's arguably the best 3pt shooter in the history of the game in terms of major scorers instead of just roleplayers. It's basically him and Reggie and Nash. Terry, less so. Far streakier, lower ceiling, etc. So it's a natural adjustment.

Again, though, you're still talking about a team in the bottom third in pace running a great deal of set offense. You're still talking about a player who, last season as usual, didn't commit a ton of turnovers (quite a few less than many others on the team). Yeah, Boston ran a ton of screens and KG was the king of illegal picks and they picked up some fouls and turnovers from that... that's part of their identity. Boston hasn't radically reshaped their offense in Ray's absence. They've moved a few pieces around, changed a little here and there, tweaked this and that, but it's still effectively the same thing. Methodical offense, post-ups for Pierce and Garnett, lots of double pin-down action for wing touches (either for the catch-and-shoot or a dive into the key), lots of point-to-wing-to-point passes looking for a seem... It's just classic half-court stuff. Not very different.

[tsherkin]

it would be ignorant of me to say Rondo isn't as good as Nash as a point guard. The role of a point guard (in my humble opinion) is to primarily set up his team mates and run the team, and Rondo does that as well as anyone.

You mean he gets out of the way of the offense and lets it run, yes? Boston uses screens and simple, uncontested passes. Their offense is extremely effective and has been for years because it's lynchpins are Garnett and Pierce. Rondo is LESS effective as a point guard because he doesn't make teams pay for leaving him open and he's not as effective at drawing defensive attention away from his teammates. Were he on a team where he had less talent around him (e.g. he didn't have two HoF scorers shouldering the shooting load), this would be more readily visible. To an extent, anyhow. There's a reason people consistently bring up the 2010 Finals when they talk about Rondo and his impact on team offense, yes? It's basically emblematic of the major issue with him as an offensive player. It's not wise to totally ignore him, but you'd rather him go off than Garnett and Pierce, because those guys will make you pay a lot worse than will Rondo, and a lot more often. Miami treated him in a somewhat similar fashion, playing looser defense on him than on the Big Three, a strategy that worked with some success (although of course there were other factors in that series, not the least of which included bone spurs in Ray's ankles).

This is the root of the argument; Rondo doesn't DO as much for his team's offense. Those high assist numbers are compelling and shiny, but they aren't themselves indicative of him being actively involved in creating shots for others.

There are a couple of interesting posts over on ElGee's blog to consider:

One is a direct discussion of Rajon Rondo from this past summer.

Another is about something called Opportunities Created, which is related to what I've been discussing, the idea that Rondo isn't really "creating" for his teammates but rather just ending the possession with basic passes that Ray, Pierce, really anyone could have made. More often than his peers, anyway, since obviously Rondo doesn't ONLY do that.

A third discusses the Spacing Effect, and how that is important to strong offense... and thus an area in which Rondo falls flat compared to his peers because he's a crap 3pt shooter without a dominant mid-range J.

Not that in ElGee's study, he does attempt to correct for Boston's poor offensive rebounding in his examination of Boston's poor performance in ORTG. He discusses how Boston's weak PG depth left Pierce and Ray Allen running the offense when he was out of the game, and how that impacted Rondo's on/off scores. He compares some other in/out data between Rondo, Paul and Nash. An important quote from that first link:

This is a pattern we see consistently, over time, with all the high-pressure, high creation players. When guys are able to take their own offense and use it pressure the defense on a regular basis, either by calling their own number or a teammate’s, it inflates the Global Efficiency of a team to a significant degree. We don’t see an effect this large with Rondo, and it makes it unlikely that he could be part of an elite offense without being surrounded by elite offensive players.

A good quote from the second link:

There is a fairly strong correlation with assists (R=0.83). However, the error rate in certain players is enormous, which was the impetus for the stat in the first place; we want to know who’s creating opportunities, not simply who is passing to good players.

This stuff is all food for thought. None of it says that Rondo isn't a star player, none of it says that he isn't among the best PGs in the league. You can't really undermine those points, because there's still a ton of data that agrees with those notions. Rondo looks a lot like pre-09 Jason Kidd. Doesn't really put elite pressure on a defense, but can do more than some analysis suggests, has an extremely well-rounded game, has benefited from teammates and competition in terms of how he's viewed compared to his peers (and market has certainly helped his popularity)... but falls off when you compare him against the more dominant offense guards at his position. Rondo, like Kidd before him, is very talented and a valuable player... but because of his own inadequacy as a scoring threat compared to his more skilled peers, his ability to impact an offense without elite offensive players around him is limited (again, comparatively speaking).

[bballjunkie281]

I'm sorry but anyone who says they would take Irving over Rondo is talking out of their ass. Irving is a great shooter/scorer but a poor facilitator for a PG and a HUGE liability on defense.

[tsherkin]

I'm sorry but anyone who says they would take Irving over Rondo is talking out of their ass. Irving is a great shooter/scorer but a poor facilitator for a PG and a HUGE liability on defense.

Mmm... he'd look better as a facilitator if he had a more polished team with superior roleplayers instead of what he's got in Cleveland right now. More to the point, there's no inherent value to a volume distributor, it always depends on the player. A point who can pressure a defense with probing drives and make them pay with perimeter shooting while playing unselfish ball and looking for his teammates is typically going to be at least as, if not more, valuable than a point who primarily dishes to others without also presenting a strong threat as a shooter.

Remember that there's a big difference between playing with Jason Terry/Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett versus playing with Tristan Thompson, Anderson Varejao, Alonzo Gee and Dion Waiters or whomever else.

Yeah, Irving doesn't put up sexy assist numbers, but he's a highly efficient scoring threat who isn't a ball-hog, and that's actually more important. Meantime, he'd look better on defense if there was any real semblance of organization or serious defensive talent behind him. Again, it's easy to play D when KG is backing you up and you have the legacy of Thibodeau's defensive system going through your players as opposed to what the Cavs have. Varejao is a good defender, but who else? He's not a DPOY-caliber player and while the Cavs force turnovers and dominate the defensive boards, they struggle on D all over the place. Irving is a point guard, the least important defensive position, and he's not even that bad on D for his position.

[bballjunkie281]

I'm sorry but anyone who says they would take Irving over Rondo is talking out of their ass. Irving is a great shooter/scorer but a poor facilitator for a PG and a HUGE liability on defense.

Mmm... he'd look better as a facilitator if he had a more polished team with superior roleplayers instead of what he's got in Cleveland right now. More to the point, there's no inherent value to a volume distributor, it always depends on the player. A point who can pressure a defense with probing drives and make them pay with perimeter shooting while playing unselfish ball and looking for his teammates is typically going to be at least as, if not more, valuable than a point who primarily dishes to others without also presenting a strong threat as a shooter.

Remember that there's a big difference between playing with Jason Terry/Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett versus playing with Tristan Thompson, Anderson Varejao, Alonzo Gee and Dion Waiters or whomever else.

Yeah, Irving doesn't put up sexy assist numbers, but he's a highly efficient scoring threat who isn't a ball-hog, and that's actually more important. Meantime, he'd look better on defense if there was any real semblance of organization or serious defensive talent behind him. Again, it's easy to play D when KG is backing you up and you have the legacy of Thibodeau's defensive system going through your players as opposed to what the Cavs have. Varejao is a good defender, but who else? He's not a DPOY-caliber player and while the Cavs force turnovers and dominate the defensive boards, they struggle on D all over the place. Irving is a point guard, the least important defensive position, and he's not even that bad on D for his position.

That "if he had better players to facilitate to" excuse was the same excuse Kings fans used for Tyreke Evans in his rookie year. Irving systematically passes up open teammates while being double-teamed. True, he is able to finish at an impressive rate even while being double teamed, but a PG has to trust his teammates even if they suck, otherwise he develops bad habits and is unable to run a team. Do you think if you surround him with better players he will all of the sudden change his game entirely to accommodate that? It's the way he plays, and while there are a lot of great things in his game, this style of play makes for a stagnant offense and hurts his teammates already shaky confidence.

And as for his defense, he was rated as the WORST defender in the league with over 300 plays defended. If you watch Cavs games you see him regularly lit up on that end of the floor, and he looks almost like he doesn't try out there.

I'm not trying to hate on Irving. I think he will be a great player but he is nowhere near Rondo's level as far as the total value he brings to a team, and I don't see him getting there in the foreseeable future.

[tsherkin]

That "if he had better players to facilitate to" excuse was the same excuse Kings fans used for Tyreke Evans in his rookie year. Irving systematically passes up open teammates while being double-teamed. True, he is able to finish at an impressive rate even while being double teamed, but a PG has to trust his teammates even if they suck, otherwise he develops bad habits and is unable to run a team. Do you think if you surround him with better players he will all of the sudden change his game entirely to accommodate that?

Yes, yes I do. Irving is far smarter than Evans and is a much more willing passer.

I don't propose that he'd suddenly turn into Steve Nash, but he'd look a lot better in that context. His role is a little different than Rondo's, right, he's ASKED to score, and as a primary scoring threat, sometimes you take a questionable shot here and there. You try not to make a habit of it, and Irving is young. Jordan wasn't a lot different, not that I'm saying Irving is that good. I am, however, saying that his scoring ability is more of an asset than volume passing without a lot of teeth behind it.

I'm not trying to hate on Irving. I think he will be a great player but he is nowhere near Rondo's level as far as the total value he brings to a team, and I don't see him getting there in the foreseeable future.

I disagree with this rather vehemently, actually. Irving, like anyone, has his flaws but I think the potency of his offense is sufficient to make him at least comparable in value to Rondo. Remember that Rondo plays on a team with clearly superior weapons around him and a very clear, structured offense. This is not the case in Cleveland, and having those vets totally changes Rondo's responsibility and what he can get away with in terms of his style of play. That cannot be ignored. And of course Rondo is far, far worse as a scoring threat than Irving was even as a rook, so that changes their respective approaches to the game. It's really tempting to look at what Irving does in Cleveland and say he is making a lot of mistakes, but the Evans comparison is not an apt one. Cleveland was A LOT better on offense with him on the floor compared to when he wasn't on the floor last year, and the teammates he's had around him aren't very good at offense... which is an extension of Lebron's time there, only he doesn't even have a really strong set of spot-up shooters as Lebron did.

Roster context matters.

[MrBigShot]

Speaking of Rondo, he has 6 assists at the moment...is this the game where the streak ends?

As far as the question, I don't think we are quite witnessing Rondo's peak. There is still a lot he can do to improve offensively..

[tsherkin]

Would you really take Steph Curry over Rondo? And Pierce over Rondo but not Garnett?

I should have put Steph Curry in my "if he can stay healthy" pile. He's a good passer and a WAY better shooting threat than Rondo, so I think he's got more value, but his health is a big question, his ankles are a concern.

Garnett is playing under 30 mpg, he's 36 with over 46,000 minutes on him (RS-only) and he's fallen off pretty far in several notable areas. I WOULD have taken Garnett over Rondo even two seasons ago, but he's a shell of himself in every way save for defensive rebounding, so I'm too on the fence about him to be confident in choosing him over Rondo. At least at this stage of the season. With the others, I'm confident enough to state it. Shouldn't have with Curry, though.

[mid-post]

I was with you up to the point where you were considering Curry over Rondo. I think that is kind of disrespectful. Especially when you consider Rondo turns it up in the playoffs.

[tsherkin]

I was with you up to the point where you were considering Curry over Rondo. I think that is kind of disrespectful. Especially when you consider Rondo turns it up in the playoffs.

Eh.. I think it's that I don't value volume playmaking without quality scoring to back it up. There are too many volume playmakers in league history who didn't actually seem to impact team offense all that much, and Rondo shows a lot of those markers. I think that Steph Curry would look a lot better in an offense like Boston's than people think... much like what I said of Irving.

I don't think it's disrespectful of Rondo at all, I think rather highly of Curry. His health is an issue and of course he isn't a noteworthy defender, but for Boston? Rondo doesn't do a ton of complicated stuff, doesn't probe all that often with dribble penetration... he swings it around the wing a lot, he hits shooters coming around screens and he makes post entry passes. Not genius-level stuff. Rondo's capable of more, but there's greater value in Curry's ability to space, and he's clearly a very good passer himself. I think people often get wrapped up in the sexy numbers and stuff and forget that basketball offense is really about floor spacing, crisp ball movement and then taking advantage of the defense when it breaks down. It doesn't have to run through one guy rocking crazy APG and, unless it's an Oscar or Magic or Nash or something, it's often better NOT to play that kind of game.

Again, Rondo's a great PG, he is, but like Kidd before him, his lack of personal scoring punch really hurts his value and Boston's offense inflates his APG... but raw APG aren't by themselves all that valuable. I like Rondo, I think he's generally one of the best PGs in the league. I'm not overly fond of a high-APG PG unless he's also a high-efficiency offensive weapon (even low usage), though, because otherwise he's effectively over-reliant upon his teammates and his impact stems from the quality of offensive structure more than anything else. It's why guys like Paul and Nash are better, and it's why players like Irving and Curry strike me as at least as valuable, and perhaps more so. Billups, same thing. No one would confuse Billups for a volume playmaker, he's a pretty methodical guy, he's a great 3pt and FT shooter who draws fouls exceptionally well. That makes him hyper-efficient, and he is a good playmaker. You can be a great playmaker without producing a whack of assists, yeah? Controlling tempo, riding the hot hand, running good plays, fitting into the offense.

See what I mean? I think people are too hypnotized by Rondo's rep and his APG, just like people seem to think bloated volume PPG is inherently valuable.

[mid-post]

See what I mean? I think people are too hypnotized by Rondo's rep and his APG, just like people seem to think bloated volume PPG is inherently valuable.

Hey, I agree with you about the whole APG thing. I'm not sure how much offense he's actually generating, and watching Boston's offense is boooring.

But I still think he's proven himself in the playoffs (assists aside) as an elite competitor, very good defender and a nice quarterback. I think Curry still has a ton to prove.