RealGM

Let me start of by posting this list. It is this season's top 20 in Win Shares.

1. LeBron James-CLE 14.6
2. Chris Paul-NOH 12.3
3. Dwyane Wade-MIA 11.0
4. Pau Gasol-LAL 10.7
5. Dwight Howard-ORL 10.7
6. Kobe Bryant-LAL 10.5
7. Ray Allen-BOS 9.7
8. Brandon Roy-POR 9.2
9. Paul Pierce-BOS 8.6
10. Tim Duncan-SAS 8.2
11. Rajon Rondo-BOS 8.1
12. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 8.1
13. Yao Ming-HOU 8.1
14. Chauncey Billups-TOT 8.0
15. Rashard Lewis-ORL 7.9
16. Nene Hilario-DEN 7.6
17. Mo Williams-CLE 7.6
18. David Lee-NYK 7.5
19. Andre Miller-PHI 7.3
20. Troy Murphy-IND 7.3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... aders.html

You see that guy wedged in between Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki? He's pretty good, and I think that people just might be getting a feel for that right about now. Garnett would be in the top 20 as well if it wasn't for his missed time. It is a hard list to stay on when you miss games. Winshares takes into account a player's own statistical performance along with the team's, as well as the amount of playing time a guy has. Rondo only averages 33 minutes a game, if he averaged 36, his wins shares would be higher.

Note: Ray is having a great year, isn't he? Paul's numbers are expected.

The funny thing is that Rondo is a hard guy to evaluate solely on stats, as so much of his game revolves around his overall impact on a game, especially with regards to defense and being a floor general. Yet, even then, he still shines. You take guys like that out of your lineup, and you are going to hurt. He's a big time player in this league.

The fact of the matter is that the Celtics have issues with depth and overall chemistry. The starters and a couple of the bench guys play well together, but we have played most of the season with a bench that has a lot of guys who are useful in SOME games, but not many who are useful in EVERY game. In the starting lineup, Perk is a good player, but even he can really be a liability against certain teams. The result being that the Celtics, as a team, really revolve around four players Paul, Ray, KG and Rondo. The four of them carry the bulk of the load for this team. Lose any one of them,and we are severely impacvted. Lose any two of them, and we are in DEEP trouble.

I found it interesting that some people around here were (and probably still are) of the mistaken belief that Rondo was holding us back in some way. That the "Starbury" acquisition was going to make everything hunky dory. I know that Marbury is rusty, but I'm also aware of something else - Marbury isn't as good as Rondo. More than that, I don't think that Marbury has ever been as good as Rondo is right now.

Sure, he put up pretty good stats at one time.... by dominating the ball on marginal to bad teams. Somebody here actually brought up that Marbury twice averaged 8.9 assists per game for a season, as if that were proof of Marbury being a better passer than Rondo. Well, he did that playing 38.7 minutes per game one season and 40.2 in the other. Interestingly enough, those were both split seasons, and he was traded both years. Rondo is averaging 8.4 assists per game NOT dominating the ball on a GREAT team. He is doing that playing 33.2 minutes per game. If you look at the stats for all three seasons on a "per36minute" basis, what you get is Marbury averaging 8.3 assists in the first season and 8.0 assists in the second (per 36minutes). Rondo? 9.1 assists per 36.... not dominating the ball, with better assist to turnover ratios as well. Those are just the assist stats. Rondo also knows how to actually run a good offense.

"But, but, but he scored more points!!!" That's nice. Did he score them efficiently? This is a guy who has a career average of 19.6 points per game... but has shot .434 from the field and .326 from the arc during that career. His career eFG is only .477 and his career TS% is .529. The latter having a lot to do with being the recepient of "star calls" for quite a long time, and being a good free throw shooter. Rondo, meanwhile, is just getting his legs under him as a scorer at the beginning of his career. Even then, his career eFG is .487 and career TS% is .515. This season his eFG is .523 and his TS% is .550. As he develops these will just continue to climb. You can say "Well, Stephon scored a lot more". That is true, but then again should he have been shooting that much to begin with? I think not.

Then there are the small matters of defense and rebounding. Marbury has never, at any point of his career, been anywhere near being what Rondo is in those areas. Not even remotely close. Those are big parts of the game, people.

Bottom line, I like getting Marbury, but for anyone (including Doc) to even entertain the idea of playing this guy over Rondo at meaningful times is not good. Marbury isn't what he used to be, and I don't think that what he used to be was all that wonderful either. He can help us... as a backup and as a 2 in a small lineup. Rondo is the show. He's the guy who actually plays the efficient game and elevates the level of his teammates play. It is who he is. He's one of the best in the business. He can have bad games like anyone else... but his bad games usually mean disaster for this team, and his absence certainly means that. That is the mark of a true star player's impact.

All I know is that Mark Cuban flipped out about the winshares statistic recently. I have to research it more, but that top 20 list looks pretty solid. Troy Murphy?

Banks2Pierce wrote:All I know is that Mark Cuban flipped out about the winshares statistic recently. I have to research it more, but that top 20 list looks pretty solid. Troy Murphy?

Have you seen the way the guy has been playing recently?

EDIT:

Great post by the way. If the first half of yesterday's contest was any look into the future of this team without Rondo, I'm pretty scared.

GreenDreamer wrote:"But, but, but he scored more points!!!" That's nice. Did he score them efficiently? This is a guy who has a career average of 19.6 points per game... but has shot .434 from the field and .326 from the arc during that career. His career eFG is only .477 and his career TS% is .529. The latter having a lot to do with being the recepient of "star calls" for quite a long time, and being a good free throw shooter. Rondo, meanwhile, is just getting his legs under him as a scorer at the beginning of his career. Even then, his career eFG is .487 and career TS% is .515. This season his eFG is .523 and his TS% is .550. As he develops these will just continue to climb. You can say "Well, Stephon scored a lot more". That is true, but then again should he have been shooting that much to begin with? I think not.

In 04/05 he was at 57.5% TS for an 82 game season - This was also the last time he was on a team with proper spacing, for that matter, and it wasn't even his best year shooting the 3-ball.

If he can replicate that then he's already more valuable than house, who's also had a career TS% of 50.3% FWIW and is only this year being an efficient scorer.

Rondo's an above average facilitator [great passer, good head, no range that hurts everyone].

But you can find the stats you want, and everyone here has seen just how much KG is worth to this team. He's missed what.. 5 games this year out of 50? How does he not make the list yet Rondo is top 11?

Maybe we can win without KG because we have about 6 PFs on this team. But if anyone should be credited with wins KG is one of them. We've seen the defense without him just simply not be able to get stops.

celticfan42487 wrote:Rondo's an above average facilitator [great passer, good head, no range that hurts everyone].

But you can find the stats you want, and everyone here has seen just how much KG is worth to this team. He's missed what.. 5 games this year out of 50? How does he not make the list yet Rondo is top 11?

Maybe we can win without KG because we have about 6 PFs on this team. But if anyone should be credited with wins KG is one of them. We've seen the defense without him just simply not be able to get stops.

Agreed. These stats are usually a little skewed. I may be in the minority, but I think we have a much better chance at winning any game with KG and without Rondo than with Rondo and without KG.

I think that does put you in the minority tombattor, though it may be as celticfan42487 pointed out due to the depth we have at the pf compared to the depth we have at the pg position. Eddie House, Gabe Pruitt, and Stephon (yet at least) simply can't replicate what Rondo does for this team. Our strength off the bench seems to be what we saw as a weakness early in the season, Powe, Davis and Scal, who can all fill the PF role. Not anywhere near as well as KG, but servicable. Our real, undisguisable weakness is our back-up pg play with Eddie being an out of position SG, Gabe being an inexperienced tweener, and Stephon being rustier than a northern Maine pick-up truck. I don't put a ton of stock in statistics, but I do know when Rondo is out our offense turns into Jim O'Briens offense, give a star a ball and stand around the 3 point line. Couple that with Rondo being a very disruptive defender, and his absence hurts more than KG's IMO.

tombattor wrote:

celticfan42487 wrote:Rondo's an above average facilitator [great passer, good head, no range that hurts everyone].

But you can find the stats you want, and everyone here has seen just how much KG is worth to this team. He's missed what.. 5 games this year out of 50? How does he not make the list yet Rondo is top 11?

Maybe we can win without KG because we have about 6 PFs on this team. But if anyone should be credited with wins KG is one of them. We've seen the defense without him just simply not be able to get stops.

Agreed. These stats are usually a little skewed. I may be in the minority, but I think we have a much better chance at winning any game with KG and without Rondo than with Rondo and without KG.

You see that guy wedged in between Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki? He's pretty good, and I think that people just might be getting a feel for that right about now. Garnett would be in the top 20 as well if it wasn't for his missed time. It is a hard list to stay on when you miss games. Winshares takes into account a player's own statistical performance along with the team's, as well as the amount of playing time a guy has. Rondo only averages 33 minutes a game, if he averaged 36, his wins shares would be higher.

I think that was fairly clear, and I didn't edit my OP. Garnett has missed 11 games this season, and he is only averaging 32.2 minutes per game. He was right up there with the other three for most of the season despite his low minute load, but missed time kills you in a stat like winshare. A guy who plays at a high level, who is playing heavy minutes and doesn't miss any games will have a higher winshare than one who plays at an even higher level, but doesn't play a heavy minute load and has missed significant time.

Winshares seek to apply a value score to a player depending a players own performance and how that relates to a team's performance, and how much they play matters. If a guy plays like Michael Jordan, but misses a lot of games and doesn't play that many minutes per game, his winshare is going to be lower than many guys who are inferior players, but who play heavy minute loads over a full season. That is just common sense. A guy doesn't win you games sitting on the bench in street clothes, no matter how good he is.

Of all of the metrics out there for public consumption, I think this has the most validity. It seeks to take into account a players total game, offensively and defensively, and measure how that player's production helps his team win. A hyper efficient shooter who plays a solid all around game and plays heavy minutes for his team, like Ray for example, gets undervalued in a system like PER, but in winshares he actually gets due respect. It isn't perfect, but it surely seems to rank players fairly based on how much they play and how well they play and how that translates to winning games.

A few guys who were doing quite well in this stat earlier in the season were Jameer Nelson and Danny Granger. They stopped playing due to injury, and so their winshares are lower than other guys who aren't as good as them. It is fair, though, as they are no longer contributing ANYTHING to team wins while injured. That's life.

Bad-Thoma wrote:I think that does put you in the minority tombattor, though it may be as celticfan42487 pointed out due to the depth we have at the pf compared to the depth we have at the pg position. Eddie House, Gabe Pruitt, and Stephon (yet at least) simply can't replicate what Rondo does for this team. Our strength off the bench seems to be what we saw as a weakness early in the season, Powe, Davis and Scal, who can all fill the PF role. Not anywhere near as well as KG, but servicable. Our real, undisguisable weakness is our back-up pg play with Eddie being an out of position SG, Gabe being an inexperienced tweener, and Stephon being rustier than a northern Maine pick-up truck. I don't put a ton of stock in statistics, but I do know when Rondo is out our offense turns into Jim O'Briens offense, give a star a ball and stand around the 3 point line. Couple that with Rondo being a very disruptive defender, and his absence hurts more than KG's IMO.

Personally I think that Rondo and Garnett are relatively equal in their value to the team, and that isn't just because of the bench situation. They are both high quality players, and you don't take guys like that out of your lineup and not take significant damage as a result.

I find it interesting that most people haven't quite wrapped their minds around the following idea:

The fact that the Celtics team performance is so closely tied to Rondo's own performance is a sign of how GOOD he is as a player.

If LeBron sucks, then the Cavs suck. Why? He's a great player who raises the level of his teammates play. If he is off, he team usually struggles right along with him. Rondo isn't as good as LeBron, but he is really good. His impact on a game, across the board, is enormous.

He is probably our most important offensive player as he is the guy who generates our EASY baskets. Barkley was talking about this subject on TNT the other day, regarding another team. Having guys who can score the difficult baskets is very important, but it is how many easy baskets a team gets which really defines their offense, and how successful they will be with it. There was a great article I read after our first game against Denver this season, where a Denver assistant coach identified Rondo is the key player on the Celtics for this exact reason. That a team could live with Ray, Paul and Kevin trying to make constested shots, but that it was Rondo who generated the easy baskets which really killed you. Stop Rondo and you stop the Celtics. He was pretty clear about that.

Rondo accomplishes this by being a GREAT passer and floor general. His ability to get the ball to guys who seem to be totally covered is amazing. His ability to read a defense and work it over is first rate as well. That he does this without a jumpshot is all the more remarkable, and is a testament to his true weapon... his mind for the game. The kid is a basketball genius. Does he have his warts? Yep, but Rondo plays chess wher most other players are playing checkers. Doc recently said that Rondo has the basketball IQ of a 15 year vet. Anyone who knows Doc understands that saying something like that is the highest praise that he can think of.He has the ability to score, but sits back for the most part. He is a very efficient scorer, though, and generates most of his own looks at the basket. He needs to improve as a shooter, but he is young.

He is our second best position defender and a key to our defensive dominance. Kevin, without a doubt, is our best defender, but Rondo is probably the best defensive point guard in the game and can completely screw up an opposing offense, especially when it is point guard dominant. He is also great rebounder at his position, and that contributes a lot to our team defense. I'm a firm believer that defense is half of the game, and Rondo is a beast in that half. I also believe that defense is the thinking man's part of the game, and his great basketball intellect has a lot to do with his dominance in this area. I actually kind of get a kick out of those who criticize his defense. Some people just don't get it.

One thing which I've always admired about him is his knack for squeezing blood from a stone. The kid is the ultimate opportunist and an information freak. Take his penchant for allowing the ball to roll up the floor in front of him to save seconds on the shot clock. He's done that since day one here, and I think that most Celtics fans think that this is normal. Most point guards would think of doing that, and I hardly saw ANYONE in the league do it before Rondo showed up here. His habit of saving loose balls off opposing players is freaky. He is a superb cheater, of the Larry Bird school. Just watch what he does to people out there. He is also always talking to someone during a break in the action... relaying information, picking a teammates brain, working an official, or outright spying on the opposition (remember Tommy's "Spygate" remark? That was classic). The simple act of him walking through in between the first and second free throws to relay information to teammates is a mark of his mentality for the game. Who else does that? He's always looking for an edge.

The crazy part is that he's a baby at his position. Nash was a joke when he was 23 years old, and Rondo is running one of the league's great teams. This kid is just going to keep getting better.

Bad-Thoma wrote:I think that does put you in the minority tombattor, though it may be as celticfan42487 pointed out due to the depth we have at the pf compared to the depth we have at the pg position. Eddie House, Gabe Pruitt, and Stephon (yet at least) simply can't replicate what Rondo does for this team. Our strength off the bench seems to be what we saw as a weakness early in the season, Powe, Davis and Scal, who can all fill the PF role. Not anywhere near as well as KG, but servicable. Our real, undisguisable weakness is our back-up pg play with Eddie being an out of position SG, Gabe being an inexperienced tweener, and Stephon being rustier than a northern Maine pick-up truck. I don't put a ton of stock in statistics, but I do know when Rondo is out our offense turns into Jim O'Briens offense, give a star a ball and stand around the 3 point line. Couple that with Rondo being a very disruptive defender, and his absence hurts more than KG's IMO.

I think you're right. Our depth at PF and Rondo's unique abilities make Rondo pretty irreplaceable. But it's hard for me to overlook the way this team changed when KG got here.

tombattor wrote:

Bad-Thoma wrote:I think that does put you in the minority tombattor, though it may be as celticfan42487 pointed out due to the depth we have at the pf compared to the depth we have at the pg position. Eddie House, Gabe Pruitt, and Stephon (yet at least) simply can't replicate what Rondo does for this team. Our strength off the bench seems to be what we saw as a weakness early in the season, Powe, Davis and Scal, who can all fill the PF role. Not anywhere near as well as KG, but servicable. Our real, undisguisable weakness is our back-up pg play with Eddie being an out of position SG, Gabe being an inexperienced tweener, and Stephon being rustier than a northern Maine pick-up truck. I don't put a ton of stock in statistics, but I do know when Rondo is out our offense turns into Jim O'Briens offense, give a star a ball and stand around the 3 point line. Couple that with Rondo being a very disruptive defender, and his absence hurts more than KG's IMO.

I think you're right. Our depth at PF and Rondo's unique abilities make Rondo pretty irreplaceable. But it's hard for me to overlook the way this team changed when KG got here.

I'll heartily agree with that, while I hate the cliche, KG changed the "culture" around here.

Bottom line:

ceteris paribus, I'd gladly be willing to go to the playoffs with this team: Plus KG minus Rondo

Rather then minus KG plus Rondo.


And that's before Marbury. Without hesitation.

There are 3 reasons that I don't think Rondo is as important as he is made out to be.

1) Role-playing point guards on great teams are ALWAYS overrated. Happens in college and the NBA.

2) Good defenses exploit Rodno's lack of range. In the finals we had to play House a ton at PG because the Lakers were doubling off him constantly. Very good players do not get forced to the bench like that.

3) Adjusted Plus/Minus stats is a stat that directly measures your effect on your team. Last year Rondo was -5 pts/40min, among the worst of all NBA starters. Now, there are problems with the stat, and I don't believe Rondo is as bad as it says. However, it is probably the most comprehensive statistic available (certainly better than Win Shares), and that fact that Rondo was terrible in it suggests to me that he isn't as great an intangible guy as everyone.

Not saying Rondo is bad. Just that he is still clearly in the Perk/T. Allen/Powe/House category, not the Big Three category.

Golabki wrote:There are 3 reasons that I don't think Rondo is as important as he is made out to be.

1) Role-playing point guards on great teams are ALWAYS overrated. Happens in college and the NBA.

2) Good defenses exploit Rodno's lack of range. In the finals we had to play House a ton at PG because the Lakers were doubling off him constantly. Very good players do not get forced to the bench like that.

3) Adjusted Plus/Minus stats is a stat that directly measures your effect on your team. Last year Rondo was -5 pts/40min, among the worst of all NBA starters. Now, there are problems with the stat, and I don't believe Rondo is as bad as it says. However, it is probably the most comprehensive statistic available (certainly better than Win Shares), and that fact that Rondo was terrible in it suggests to me that he isn't as great an intangible guy as everyone.

Not saying Rondo is bad. Just that he is still clearly in the Perk/T. Allen/Powe/House category, not the Big Three category.

I'll deal with this post in reverse order.

3. The adjusted plus/minus stat is relatively useless in evaluating players. It is based upon a flawed idea that one could actually statistically guage how much a team should scoore or be outscored by with player X on the court. Rondo, or any other player's, plus/minus is set in stone. It is the unique result of what player groups that player has been part of, when he has played, and the opponents lineup that he has played against. That's it. Full stop. A players oncourt/offcourt per 48 margin (a different animal entirely) guages how well the team performed with a player on the court compared to him being off of the court. That is also set in stone, and isn't a matter of interpretation.

The adjusted system, though, effectively penalizes a player for playing with other good players if those players are seen as being "better" than him. Somebody pointed this out to me when it first came out, but I wasn't buying it back then. I am now. The evidence?

http://www.82games.com/ilardi2.htm

Those are the adjusted plus/minus ratings for last season. Rondo is down in the cellar according to them.

http://www.82games.com/ilardi1.htm

Those are the ratings for his rookie year. He's in the top 20 according to them.

Did Rondo forget how to play basketball between his rookie year and his sophmore season? Was he a less effective player during his sophmore season? Did he suddenly start to suck, or was it that this stat said he was great when he had a big impact on a bad team, and then punished him because he had a lesser impact on a great team? I particularly like how Tony Parker is ranked 145th, with a -3.06 rating... the same season he was Finals MVP. Yep, he was really hurting his team out there that bum.

You cannot rate a player's contribution in this way. It does not work. The team plays the way it does when player X is on the court because that was the way it played. Plus/minus can show if a team is effective or not with a player on the court. That is what it is good for. Trying to "adjust it" is BS, pure and simple. The best players on bad teams are rewarded more than the supporting casts of good teams simply because they are the best players on those teams. Put them on those good teams and the SAME player could very well be rated worse than the guy who was already there. It pales in comaprison to winshare, which at least tries to rate players on what they actually do, as opposed to chosing who is doing "more" and penalizing guys who are supposedly doing "less".

2. In the Finals we had to sub in House because Rondo sprained his ankle. People kind of forget little things like that. It was probably as bad a sprain as the one keeping him out right now, except that he tried to play through it When Rondo was back up to speed again in game 6, he porked them ruthlessly. The first words out of Jackson's mouth after the game regarded their inability to handle him.

It was pretty much as simple as that. The Lakers, in fact, probably played the WORST defense of the four team we faced in the playoffs. Against the better defensive squads it was far more difficult to keep him out of game. Rondo played about 40 minutes a game vs the Pistons for this very reason.

1. Rondo is not a "role player", so I guess he isn't an overrated role player. Role players are guys that you plug in and out of lineups who provide a specific service. Perk is a great example. Sometimes he is of great use, sometimes he sits long periods of time because they need another guy out there who is a better fit.

Rondo is the leader of our offense and the first line of defense. He is second on the team in PER, was in the top 10 in winshares before the injury, and is perhaps the most irreplaceable player on the roster... which is saying a lot considering the players we have here.

I have to say it's been super apparent how valuable Rondo is, especially to our offense. If our defense is completely different when KG is playing (which it is), then the same can be said for our offense with Rondo. Without him, we have no flow and much fewer assists. I know part of this can be chalked up to Marbury being out of game shape (at least mentally) and not being familiar with our plays and players, but still, it's been rather shocking...

Marbury isn't on that win share list only because he hasn't played the full season.

You can't praise Marbury as a starter-level talent when you signed him, only to bemoan him just because you realized he sucks.

Marbury should be able to replace Rondo easily. Just give him more minutes. He's guaranteed to put up 20/8 and cost you the game if you give him the ball for 40 minutes per.

Buckeye-NBAFan wrote:Marbury isn't on that win share list only because he hasn't played the full season.

You can't praise Marbury as a starter-level talent when you signed him, only to bemoan him just because you realized he sucks.

Marbury should be able to replace Rondo easily. Just give him more minutes. He's guaranteed to put up 20/8 and cost you the game if you give him the ball for 40 minutes per.

I'm figuring that you are actually being critical of Marbury here. What a lot of people around here are learning now is that Rondo is really good. It seemed to me that some people actually thought that Marbury was going to be an "upgrade" over Rondo. That he would push aside Rondo when he got here.

While I understand that Marbury is rusty, he also isn't as good as the kid. I don't think that he ever was. Rondo is a lot like Jason Kidd in that he plays a heady all-around game which really elevates the play of those around him, while Marbury was a stat machine who got those stats at the expense of his teammates and winning basketball. I think that he was a good signing as a backup point guard, and that he will even be able to play alongside Rajon against certain lineups when he gets up to speed, but Rondo is the better player.

Marbury has averaged 16 FGA per game for his career. With those 16 attempts he has averaged 19.1 points. Rondo is averaging 9.1 FGA a game this season, and is getting 11.6 points. Would Marbury actually be able to be an effective scorer with so few attempts? Would he actually score more points than Rondo? That is doubtful. It's actually very hard to take so few shots and be able to covert at such a high rate being a guard. It should also be noted that there are only so many shots to spread around, and Rondo is the kind of point guard who concentrates on getting everyone else going, not "getting his" and then only passing to people when he can get an assist. Marbury is definitely trying to fit in here and play unselfishly, but the reality is that he spent most of his career dominating the ball and shooting too much.

In a way these last couple of losses could be a good thing as they have really highlighted to his teammates how important Rondo is, and will enhance their confidence in him and his own selfconfidence. That could be important looking forward.