ImageImageImage

Rondo said this........

Moderators: bisme37, Froob, Darthlukey, Shak_Celts, Parliament10, canman1971, shackles10, snowman

User avatar
GreenDreamer
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,871
And1: 7
Joined: Dec 10, 2008

Re: Rondo said this........ 

Post#81 » by GreenDreamer » Sat Jun 27, 2009 6:23 am

GuyClinch wrote:
+/- is not an entirely useful stat. Adjusted +/- should be though. Just like has been explained to you by sully as to why it is not.


You are wasting your time. He doesn't understand or doesn't care to admit its limitations. Its already been explained quite well that Rondo plays with the big 3 - but never without them. That House is used when the team is losing and so on.. All these play into inflating his +/-. This is of course why they invented ADJUSTED +/-. It's why they show the lineups and not just the overall number at 82games. The statistical community understands its limitations but GreenDreamer does not and tries to deflect it saying that WE don't understand it. LMAO.


I'm not a fan of adjusted plus/minus as it is a nice IDEA but has a critical FLAW - it attempts to predict what a player's actual base plus/minus would be. That you would plug said player into another lineup and his performance would either help or hinder his teamby that amount. That honestly cannot be done becuase

1. The stats do not describe the USAGE of a player - eg. Is a guy primarily used as a help defender? Does he pick up the other teams best player? Is the offense reliant on his playmaking? Is the offense perimeter or post oriented? Things like that.

2. Assumes that a player is carried by or carries other players which is why his plus/minus is the way it is. The other players are assigned values according to their production and the ratings of certain lineups. They try to break it down imn an intelligent fashion, and rate according to the game situation, but it is still problematical. What is missed is how much or how little the other players actually rely on the player himself to get what they want.


3. Plus/minus is a NON-INTERPRETIVE stat. Paul or Ray or KG or Rondo's plus/minuses aren't what they are because somebody assigned any value whatsoever. They are simply a record of what actually happneded, scoreboardwise, when a player was in the game. Attempting to say what another player would do playing in that system, being used that way, playing those minutes, with those teammates is VERY problematical.

4. Every team is going to have guys with "good" adjusted plus/minus ratings and ones with "bad" adjusted plus minus ratings. Why? We every team has its guys who they do better with than other guys, and their guys who hold them back. That is how a guy liek Randy Foye actually looks good in this rating system. How the hell can you then use those numbers to compare them to players from other teams?

In addition there are other serious issues which seemingly escape these guys. They weight the playoffs as being worth two times what the regular season is ( they used to have it at TEN times, but I guess they realized how stupid that is). Take Chris Paul, for example, he had a pretty miserable playoffs this year, but that lasted 5 games. That is ten regular season games in this system. So one really good playoff run will make a guys numbers lookgreat, even if he wasn't so good before. Conversely they will hammer a good playersnumbers, like Chris Paul (mind you I am fully aware how this HELPED Rondo this season, and Paul didn't end up getting hammeerd anyways(). The question? What about the guys on teams which didn't even make it? They are fine. Five bad postseason games could take down a player who was superb over 82 regular season games. It just isn't well thought out. Mind you, I've been fully aware of these stats since they first came out. Here's the present roll for teh C's.



http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers.php?year=2009 playoffs&team=BOS

Paul Pierce gets slammed in these ratings an Kendrick Perkins 1 year adjusted plus/minus is negative NINE POINT FIVE!!! You have to be kidding me. The guy IS one of the team's most valuable players, yet this system rapes him just as it did Rondo last season. Which is even more odd considering that Rondo finished 16th in the league ov erall adjusted ratings after his rookie season, and suddenly turned into a tub of goo in our Title season (according to this system), finishing in the cellar. Now he isgood again. Please. Why? Well Rondo is now considered a guy who carries others instead of being carried himself. He doesn't carry them this much, nor was he ever carried that much.

This whole thing is full of holes. Hell, according to them Perk deserved a -11.5 adjusted plus/minus for the regular season. Give me a friggin break.
User avatar
GreenDreamer
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,871
And1: 7
Joined: Dec 10, 2008

Re: Rondo said this........ 

Post#82 » by GreenDreamer » Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:18 am

sully00 wrote:
GreenDreamer wrote:I was keeping this one in my back pocket, but I'll let you guy sin on it. Rondo finished 3rd in defensive winshares this season, and 6th past season. So, they can track this stat back to the 73-74 season. So who are the guards, both PG and SG's to finish in the top 5 in this stat?

Michael Jordan
Gary Payton
Jason Kidd
John Stockton
Paul Pierce (2001-2002 season)
Fat Lever
Anfernee Hardaway
Rajon Rondo


That's it

So can we stop talking about Rondo's overrated defense?


I never said Rondo was "overrated" I said Rondo was a stats defender which this indicates. Pierce was 5th last season as well. Rondo's defense shows up here vividly as it does for 3 of his teamates.

He is better here than he is in a man to man situation.

I think you can make an argument that Lindsey Hunter, Raja Bell, and Shane Battier are 3 of the best on ball defenders in the league in the last 10 years. They have defensive ratings of 106, 109, 110 respectively.

I think Rondo is a good on ball defender but not great, same with Garnett to be honest, Perkins is excellent and Pierce can be when so inspired.

I am not saying that the quantifiable part isn't important but there is also a significant part of it that can't be quantified.


What these stats seek to do is find out who carries the water for their defenses. Who are the guys who make the biggest difference. Who are the one's who prevent the other team from scoring points. Now, you can have a great defender on a bad defensive team, and he isn't going to crack the top if the overall team defense isn't good enough. The team rating will hold him back. These stats haven't exactly been unfriendly to the guys you mentioned when they actually played on good defenses (which were good in large part because of them.

What is more to the point is that when you look at these stats over the years you see that the common wisdom that defense needs good bigs is backed up big time. Having a great defensive big goes a long way to having a strong defense. The top 5 quite often didn't have any wings or guards in it. Considering that there are top rated defensive teams in EVERY season, because such a thing is relative, you find out who are the guyys making the difference for those defenses. very rarely, as you can see, did a guard make the top 5. Why? Pretty simple. Being bigger is an aid to being a good defender. Payton and Kidd were are big point guards. Jordan was a freak. Fat Lever played very big. Pierce is a great defender and a big dude. Penny was a lengthy freak. The only small guy is Stockton and he was legendarily nasty and tough. Rondo is a freakish little bull. There is being a nice man defender, and then there is being like these guys. A completely different level of nasty.

These tats also represent a change in focus in evaluation which is very much like what happened in baseball. In fact, is was the Red Sox own Bill James who changed the way that baseball players were evaluated. Theo is a disciple of this guy, and it has led to two World Series Titles. Youk was targeted because of James's principals, for example. instead of just looking at batting average things like OPS started becoming the better evaluation tool. A guy who hits.280, but who has a .400 on base percentage and and a .590 slugging percentage is generally way better than a .320 hitter with a .370 OBP and a .530 SLG%. We take that for granted now, but 15-20 years ago it wasn't the case. The first guy helps to turn the lineup over better and does more with the hits that he does get. The second guy is better at getting hits, but he makes a higher percentage of outs and doesn't get as many extrabase hits, which more effectively drive runs in. The guys who defy this are the speed guys like Ichiro who is a weapon because of his ability to get around the bases, but generally this is a better way to think about the game.

Well, how about defense in baseketball? Instead of separating something like defenisve rebounding from "defense", it is included. The game is divided into what happens on offensive possessions and defensive possessions. maybe a guy is only a good man defender, but what ig he is a great rebounder, team defender and forces a lot of turnovers? Is that guy a lesser defender than a guy who is great the man defense and mediocre at everything else? Look at Kidd. The guy did everything well on teh defensive end in his prime. In fact, overall, he is still a good defender. he can't stay with guys the way that he used to, but he is still an excellent team defender and rebounder at the 1. He doesn't get that rebound,and theother team does, then the other team gets another shot a scoring two points. Getting a steal takes away the chance of taking any shot. If you are just gambling all day, and letting your man have his way, then you are not a good defender. Especially if you aren't chipping in in other ways. If you cash in on your gambles, though, at a good enough clip then it is worth the risk.

Take Rondo. Maybe there are a couple of guys better at man defense at the point. If there are, there aren't many. Now go to team defense, rebounding and forcing turnovers. How many guys are better in those departments? Those all translate into better defense. Saying that some dude who does a great job on his man and then says to everything else "well, let somebody else do that" doesn't seem to be that great of a way of evaluating players. As has been often remarked by the broadcasters this season, it seems as if there are three Rondo's running around out there at times. The kid is all over the place. Kidd, Payton, and Jordan were like that. The tremendous dip in our defense and rebounding with him of the courtt this postseason was a testament to that.

This also leads me to a guy like Chris Paul. People criticize his man defense, which could be much better, but his overall defense is great. This is also reflected in this sta. He grabbs boards and gets a ton of steals. The Hornets are a much worse defensive team when he is isn't out there. Instead of asking who would do those other things if he wasn't out there, they just criiticize the things which could be better, at least as they see them. I think that our defense asks Rondo to be more disciplined than Paul, which causes him to get ferwe steals, but they are comparable in many ways. I think Rondo is better, but not by a crazy amount.
User avatar
GreenDreamer
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,871
And1: 7
Joined: Dec 10, 2008

Re: Rondo said this........ 

Post#83 » by GreenDreamer » Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:47 am

sully00 wrote:
GreenDreamer wrote:We are shooting free throws when behind? Didn't really think that one through, eh?


No you didn't the opponent is shooting FT's we are shooting 3's. That is why there is 35% change in offense in only about 10% of the mins played.

If we are making a move to IMPROVE the offense, where is the improvement? Any answers? There is a massive degradation of the defense, which I'm pretty sure doesn't really help us.s You'd figure that we'd at least get better, right? We don't. Doc makes a dopey move which doesn't pay off. It fails 10 ten times, but he says on the 11th "See, I knew it would work out!!!" Good job Doc.

Kind of funny how you don't really have an answer here.


Again you are hiding Rondo's lack performance in the team numbers. Eddie House individually is a much better offensive player than Rondo in the Clutch. 50% shooter 30 points per 48. That is the offense we go from none to some. Like I said my expectation is the +/- is much more situational, Eddie House is another player who statistically a pretty effective defender in Boston of course you think that he is resonsilble for a 35% collapse in defense.


I'm not hiding anything. If Rondo is being taken out to improve the offense, then this is only justified by an offensive IMPROVEMENT. There is none. Eddie shoots the three better? That's nice. Where is the advantage? Did iyt occur to you that there were plenty of situations in which we wer the ones shooting the free throws and our offensive rating is still like this? With Eddie out there in the clutch we were 12 and 17 in the regular season. That is not winning basketball. It isn't as if this was just confined to final possessions either, as Doc sometimes pulled Rondo out with well over a minute to go. I can only think of one instance in which it actually "worked", which was against the Hawks early in the season. Paul still had to hit a very difficult fade away over marvin Williams to make that happen. The times it didn't work were far more numerous.Without a capable playmaker, they couldn't seal the deal. hell, they turned the ball over badly on a few of them.

On teh Christmas Day game against the Lakers we were down by 5 points with 1:28 to go, and Ray and Paul got blocked by Pau Gasol on three pointers on consecutive possessions to effectively destroy any chance that we had of winning. The reason being that the first block led right to a fastbreak dunk for Ariza. Yeah, Eddie got them great spacing when Pau is swatting people on the arc. They just went right after them. That was typical of the kind of stupidity that went on when Rondo left games in these situations. It isn't like Rondo never makes a mistake in these situations, but play losing percentages, you play losing ball. Play winning ones, you play winning ball.
GuyClinch
RealGM
Posts: 13,345
And1: 1,478
Joined: Jul 19, 2004

Re: Rondo said this........ 

Post#84 » by GuyClinch » Sat Jun 27, 2009 11:46 am

Plus/minus is a NON-INTERPRETIVE stat. Paul or Ray or KG or Rondo's plus/minuses aren't what they are because somebody assigned any value whatsoever. They are simply a record of what actually happneded, scoreboardwise, when a player was in the game. Attempting to say what another player would do playing in that system, being used that way, playing those minutes, with those teammates is VERY problematical.


Your verbose posts are "problematical" as well. The statisticians understand their own statistics better then you do. (Which of course is not surprising).

Here is a quote from your favorite site - 82games.

Unfortunately, however, the plus-minus stat doesn’t always fare particularly well in the messy real world of NBA basketball. For one thing, some players spend most of their time on the court in the company of very good teammates, while others frequently play in tandem with much weaker players. The plus-minus stat doesn’t account for these inequities at all. Likewise, some guys always find themselves matched against the opponent’s best players, while others more often face the opposing team’s second unit. That’s another big problem as far as the plus-minus stat is concerned. What’s needed, of course, is some way of adjusting the plus-minus stat to account for all such potential confounds.


Let me see who was proven to play in almost EXCLUSIVELY with very good teamates - ahh was it Rajon Rondo? No wonder you don't like adjusted +/-. Its likely to adjust Rondo downward. But no just continue to wallow in your own arrogance imagining everyone who disagrees with you as intellectually inferior. Yeah that's the ticket. You are winning so many fans.
User avatar
GreenDreamer
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,871
And1: 7
Joined: Dec 10, 2008

Re: Rondo said this........ 

Post#85 » by GreenDreamer » Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:18 pm

GuyClinch wrote:
Plus/minus is a NON-INTERPRETIVE stat. Paul or Ray or KG or Rondo's plus/minuses aren't what they are because somebody assigned any value whatsoever. They are simply a record of what actually happneded, scoreboardwise, when a player was in the game. Attempting to say what another player would do playing in that system, being used that way, playing those minutes, with those teammates is VERY problematical.


Your verbose posts are "problematical" as well. The statisticians understand their own statistics better then you do. (Which of course is not surprising).

Here is a quote from your favorite site - 82games.

Unfortunately, however, the plus-minus stat doesn’t always fare particularly well in the messy real world of NBA basketball. For one thing, some players spend most of their time on the court in the company of very good teammates, while others frequently play in tandem with much weaker players. The plus-minus stat doesn’t account for these inequities at all. Likewise, some guys always find themselves matched against the opponent’s best players, while others more often face the opposing team’s second unit. That’s another big problem as far as the plus-minus stat is concerned. What’s needed, of course, is some way of adjusting the plus-minus stat to account for all such potential confounds.


Let me see who was proven to play in almost EXCLUSIVELY with very good teamates - ahh was it Rajon Rondo? No wonder you don't like adjusted +/-. Its likely to adjust Rondo downward. But no just continue to wallow in your own arrogance imagining everyone who disagrees with you as intellectually inferior. Yeah that's the ticket. You are winning so many fans.


So what you are saying is that this stat in some way is correct in assigning Kendrick Perkins a negative 9.5 "adjusted plus/minus"? Seriously? I'm not just sticking up for Rondo, I'm sticking up for sanity here. This stat is GARBAGE. A guy who actually makes our team better,and without whom we would have been completely f---ed in the playoffs, is no, in any way deserving of such a rating. Paul Pierce did not HURT his teammates this season. He does not deserve a negative 2.0 rating. This whole system is completely misguided in its approach.

It is nice to know that who you play with affects your plus/minus. Really, I had NO idea about such a concept and needed you to tell me about it. I am also aware that playing almost solely against STARTERS also has an affect on this. Rondo couldn't hack it in the second unit? Please. Doc's idiotic coaching is not Rondo's problem. If you want to justify it, that is your business. Rivers saw fit to run his two aging wings into the ground while under playing his 23 year old athletic wonder, and you think that was smart? Mind you this is the same guy who ran Wally into the ground, playing him 44 minutes on back to back nights, one here and one down in Miami, when Wally was dragging his bad leg behind him on the floor. Who not only put Scal out there to pick up his third concussion, but who also put Delonte back out there in even worse shape, after his concussion, with West having to leave several games early because of dizziness. Who has needed needed injuries to open up spots for guys to actually show that they can play, because he is too damn stupid to understand who can play and who can't. This was true for Rondo, Al, Gomes, and Perk. He also flatly refused to play Al and Perk together just because he didn't want to, even though they were begging to. Who publically criticized Al for being a pussy when it turned out that the guy was actually hurt. And K.G.? I've been privately wondering about that one for a while now, knowing what an ass this guy is. Now we have to deal with Rondo being a "liability"? That's nice.

There, I vented. This stat is trash. Nice idea, if it could be done. Take Paul, put him on the Sixers, and his adjusted plus/minus is +10. Playing here, it is a s negative. So what the hell good is it? Plus/minus is a direct record of what happened with a guy on the court. Oncourt/offcourt is a direct record ofa guys impact when on and off the court. It indicates his relative value to his team. it has some value. This thing has almost zero value.
TheOGJabroni
Head Coach
Posts: 6,475
And1: 1,994
Joined: Jul 28, 2007
       

Re: Rondo said this........ 

Post#86 » by TheOGJabroni » Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:22 pm

I honestly have not read much of what has been said lately in this thread but I don't want to start a new threading asking...

Has anyone heard if Danny has been considering his options with Rondo since his 5 year/50 mil comment?
User avatar
Slartibartfast
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 13,912
And1: 10,060
Joined: Oct 12, 2004
Location: Medieval England, Iowa
Contact:

Re: Rondo said this........ 

Post#87 » by Slartibartfast » Sat Jun 27, 2009 6:03 pm

GreenDreamer is Rondo's guardian angel, and rightly so. The oddity of Rondo's game makes it easy to discount him.

The Big 3 need Rondo just as much as he needs them. His athleticism, passing, rebounding and one-man transition game fill in the widening cracks in their games. Paul Pierce dubbed him the team's MVP.

5/50 is a bargain for his importance to the team, but given the bulky salaries of KG and Pierce, it would be nice to get an even better bargain.

Return to Boston Celtics