Time for the Rondo Era

[exculpatory]

Jammer

First of all, I respect your intellect and access to bball stats. I also like your e e cummings-like paragraphs. LOL.

Topic 1: Who was the Celtics MVP of not only the Finals, but the ENTIRE playoffs and SEASON in 2007 - 2008. It was the Truth. He was the 1A. Could he have done it without KG - the 1B and the heart and soul of the D? Nope. And visa versa. It was a perfect blending of Super Star skillsets. We can only hope that KG gets back to at least 80% and it happens again this year. That I know we can agree on.

Topic 2: We (and Tommy H) also agree that Paul is the best multi-dimensional "scorer" (NOT player) in Celtic history (and will pass Larry in actual points in April 2011 barring injury). Russell and Bird are the best players in Celtic history, and are amongst the best in NBA history as well.

Topic 3: The Truth vs Kobe/LeBron/DWade during the last 5-10 years. Notice that I refuse to make
comparisons with points and bigs - that is silly. Paul has had a HOF career and is much closer to these guys as a complete player than most people (including you) think. He is amongst the most clutch players of the last decade. For you to say that we would have lost less than 16 games in our fabulous 66 win season if we had Kobe/LeBron/DWade instead of Paul is silly if not preposterous. By the way, I rank Melo and even Wince up there with Paul and the other 3 as the best wings of the last decade.

Let's stop this discourse now please.

Rather, let's focus on winning number 18. Let's hope KG gets back to at least 80%, let's hope Ray has
another great year left in his tank, and, getting back to the OP, let's hope RR plays to his considerable strengths night in and night out (which will mitigate his inability to shoot a consistent J or make a
frigging FT). And no Elrod, the Celtic team of the future can not be built around RR unless a miracle happens and he learns to shoot - which will make him a TRULY elite PG.

Ex

[return2glory]

So we got the guy who thinks Rondo can be Magic Johnson, the one who thinks somehow Baby is a better player then Rasheed Wallace. One who think Walter McCarty was like Sheed [you do know that Rasheed plays defense and neither Baby or Walter can... right?]. And one who loves Paul Pierce.

I'm with the one who loves Paul Pierce.

BBD is a better player than Wallace. I would never say that about Wallace from 3 years ago, but a 36 year old Wallace isn't as good as Davis now. The 0 points tonight and the the 37% from the field and about 25% from 3's for the season proves that. While Wallace can play defense down low, and he problems with help defense and playing defense away from the basket. Wallace can't move his feet any more.

[return2glory]

Rondo Era?

Doesn't that require a jumpshot?

IMO, it does. And without a jumpshot, there is no Rondo Era.

[sam_I_am]

Paul Pierce has been the best of the big 3 since day 1. KG as a defensive big man is the rarer commodity and an essential piece of a championship team. For that reason his arrival was so necessary for us to have a championship. But KG has never been good enough offensively to lead a team to the finals - even in his MVP season.

If you compare Paul Pierce's career and KG's prior to their joining together it is hard to say who had the better career with the exception of the MVP trophy. PIerce actually had more than 1 season where he got out of the first round of the playoffs and an ECF appearance. KG only won playoff series the year his team lost in WCF. KG definitely had better talent around him with Sprewell and Cassell. Prior to Big 3 Pauls best teammate was Toine and his best PG was..... Chucky Atkins. The best big man he ever played with was Tony Battie.

During finals win over LA it was Pierce who put on the superman cape and led the Celts to what most would say was an IMPOSSIBLE victory over the Lakers. To do it, Paul had to shut down Kobe Bryant and carry the load offensively. Oh yeah, the team also face a 26 pt. deficit. This may go down as the greatest performance by a player on both ends of the court in NBA finals history. Certainly by a Celtic.

Paul Pierce - like Kobe, Magic, Bird, Lebron, MJ and KG too - is not good enough to win a title when Antoine Walker is his best teammate. He needed KG but he is still good enough to take this team to the promised land with a washed up KG - as long as KG can still defend like a second team big man.

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Good article. I agree about Rondo needing to put up some jumpers during games. I can't count how many times on Friday where I yelled at Rondo to shoot the 15 footer. When he doesn't shoot that shot, the team scrambles to find another good shot.

When he first came out of college, Jason Kidd was only a tad bit better than Rondo with respect to his shooting. The biggest difference between these 2 guys is that when you dared J-Kidd to shoot, he would let it fly. He missed more than his share, but it still kept defenses honest in a sense where the defender would think "He's gong to shoot again, so I need to play up a little more". Rondo needs to start shooting those jumpers if that's the best shot the team can get. If he knocks it in - great. If he misses - well, hey, it was a good shot, better than giving the ball to Pierce with 3-4 seconds left and forcing him to take an even tougher shot.

[GuyClinch]

^^^ This all sounds good - and seems good on TV. But I got to say the more games you watch in person the more this idea makes you cringe. When guys miss wide open jumpers its kind of embarrasing for the fans and for the guy taking them. When Rondo took that jumper at the end of regulation in MSG - honest to god - all the C's fan were just dying inside..

I think Doc got the idea because at the end of the next OT session he put House in.

Pete

[GreenDreamer]

Nice OP by Elrod. Good stuff. Pretty much where I am coming from, minus the getting to the line 10 times a game bit. I don't want Rondo to become a human battering ram. He's just too little to pull that off.

I have seen no reason to chaange my opinion regarding the issues with this team, and what is the main problem. This weekend has just helped to reinforce them.

It's the offense.

It is terrible.

We just played the Knicks. A team which plays zero defense, and is loaded with scorers, but who don't play intelligently on the offensive end. The plan? Shut their offense down. Here's an idea: how about we light them up on the other end. You know, the end they are really bad at. Did we? Absolutely not.

I was happy to see Doc use Rondo with the second unit against the Knicks. It was a little disjointed out there, but if they stick with it the benefits will be large. Why is disjointed? Well, Doc wasted training camp, the preseason, and the first 12 games of this season playing Ray with them. A move that NEVER should have been made. Now Ray looks exhausted already, and they will have to get used to playing with Rondo. I thought a good example of that came in this past game, when Rondo found Shelden open right near the basket, and Shel didn't have a clue that nobody was near him, and went into the "post up the invisible defender routine." He's not used to playing with someone who can break a defense down like Rondo can. That stuff wont happen when they are familiar with each other. It is going to take a few games to iron out the kinks.

I think that Rondo has to get used to shooting jumpers, and needs to be encouraged to take them. The less he thinks about it, the better off he'll be. He wont be great, but he'll be much better at it.

I thought Ryan made a very good point in another thread regarding teh first 20 possessions of the Magic, where the Celtics scored 11 of their 13 points on the 7 possessions where Rondo got a pick. That leaves 2 points to the remaining 13 possessions. Call me crazy, but those numbers are kind of incongruous. Yet, Doc wants to run the offense the way he wants to. He takles the ball out of the kids hands because he wants to, and then he whines about it. It is getting old.

The defense could be better, though I thought it did well the last couple of games. Expecting to completely shut down good offenses is not a feasible NBA strategy. You got to score points on the other end. The Patriots were a team built on defense, but Brady almost always found a way to get those points when the defense wasn't enough, case in point his explosive second half of their second SB victory, when the Patriots' defense imploded.

This team is in a bad way right now, and the only guy who is get them out of it is #9. I love Paul, but there is only so much he can do, and he can KEEP on doing that with Rondo running the show. That is the great thing about Rondo, he's a true point guard. It isn't like he's going to turn into Allen Iverson any time soon. He actually passes the ball, and knows who to pass to. He just needs the ball to do that.

[tombattor]

Rondo era? You kidding me? He's an excellent talent, but he's not a player that can carry a team. He can't shoot and therefore is a huge liability on offense. What team ever was carried by such a liability and went somewhere?

This is Paul's team and they will go as far as Paul can carry them. At this point, I don't think Ray is up there any more. His game has slipped a bit. He's still a good player. And at times, he can carry the scoring load, but he can no longer do it anytime we need him to. KG, I'm not sure if he's getting himself back or not, but he just doesn't have the athleticism he did even as recently as last year. Rondo, you don't even have to guard him. Enough said.

On the other hand, we have Paul Pierce. He's been very efficient this year, shooting almost 50% from the field and 3-pointers while shooting 80+% FTs. That's with him being the focal point of the opposing team's D, every game. He may not have the highlight reels guys like Kobe, Lebron or D-Wade does, but he's right up there with them, as far as scoring is concerned. PP can score from just about everywhere on the court, he can find teammates when he's double and triple teamed, and gets to the free throw line.

[GuyClinch]

This is a solution looking for a problem. The OP (and his supporters) are assuming our current offense isn't getting players good shots. I disagree. We are getting frequent open looks at the basket and both Paul and Rondo hit people inside.

The reason why the offense hasn't been up to snuff is that KG, Wallace and RA have not been executing well. After getting the ball in positions where they should be able to convert they are missing both layups and long distance shots.

In otherwords it's not Doc's scheme that's at fault. Its the play of several players..

Pete

[ryaningf]

This is a solution looking for a problem. The OP (and his supporters) are assuming our current offense isn't getting players good shots. I disagree. We are getting frequent open looks at the basket and both Paul and Rondo hit people inside.

You're right there, Pete. This offense does get open looks--from the perimeter. The reason people advocate putting the ball in Rondo's hands is that he gets open looks--from the inside. It's important to diversify, so it's not a question of going through Rondo ALL THE TIME. But, as we're currently constructed, we usually start out running the normal offense, getting jump shots, and then, depending on whether we're hitting or not, we adjust. The smarter move, IMO, would be to start off going through Rondo, setting him picks, calling for high picks, and as a result starting with higher percentage, inside shots at the beginning of the game, and then later when the defense adjusts going back to the motion offense. That's the OP's point, IMO--we must put the initial thrust of the offense on Rondo's shoulders--because it gives us the best chance to win.

The reason why the offense hasn't been up to snuff is that KG, Wallace and RA have not been executing well. After getting the ball in positions where they should be able to convert they are missing both layups and long distance shots.

In otherwords it's not Doc's scheme that's at fault. Its the play of several players..

Pete

It is the play of several players. Problem is, we must face the question of whether it's bad playing or a lack of ability. Doc, it seems, is coaching this team like it's still 2007. It's not. Rondo and Perk have gotten better, Ray and KG have gotten worse, yet we the structure of the offense remains the same. We could minimize the aging of Ray and KG's injury by running the offense through Rondo early in the game, getting easy buckets, getting our confidence up (which in turn gets our defensive energy up), and then fall back late in the game on the old standby plays to get the big buckets. That's the beauty of putting more of the offensive onus on Rondo--it would actually lengthen the reign of the Big 3. If we keep up on our current course, the decline will be more precipitous than it has to be....

[GuyClinch]

The smarter move, IMO, would be to start off going through Rondo, setting him picks, calling for high picks, and as a result starting with higher percentage, inside shots at the beginning of the game, and then later when the defense adjusts going back to the motion offense.

They set picks for both Rondo and Paul frequently. The gist of what your really saying is that you don't think Paul gets good shots for people. I can't say I agree with your theory - especially if you factor in that he gets good shots for himself.

The smarter move, IMO, would be to start off going through Rondo, setting him picks, calling for high picks, and as a result starting with higher percentage, inside shots at the beginning of the game, and then later when the defense adjusts going back to the motion offense. That's the OP's point, IMO--we must put the initial thrust of the offense on Rondo's shoulders--because it gives us the best chance to win.

This is just not true. In our offense both Paul and Rondo get easy looks for our guys on the inside and outside. The alley oop then KG couldn't finish should be a memrorable example of an inside look that was botched (yesterday) but both MD and Ray Allen botch some inside looks. They just aren't converting that well. KG has no lift - nor does Wallace.

Again this goes back to a fundamental misconception I think - and something you see on all kinds of message boards. The idea that scheme is so important and that if the 'dumb' coach changes something the problems will be solved.

But in reality it often comes down to talent and execution. If our guys are playing well - either Pierce or Rondo can create for the other guys and we will score and win plenty. OTOH if KG can't off the ground it doesn't matter if Rondo or Pierce throw him that inside pass he will have a harder time converting..

If the coach is doing something incomprehensibly stupid - then yeah I guess you can whine about the scheme. Both both Rondo and Pierce can create good shots for others..so his favoring of Paul (especially in crunch time) is not stupid.

Rondo is a good player but this idea that if Doc was just smart enough to feature him more the C's issues would be solved is silly. Our guys are missing shots NBA players should be making - not to mention 'stars'

Pete

[ryaningf]

The smarter move, IMO, would be to start off going through Rondo, setting him picks, calling for high picks, and as a result starting with higher percentage, inside shots at the beginning of the game, and then later when the defense adjusts going back to the motion offense.

They set picks for both Rondo and Paul frequently. The gist of what your really saying is that you don't think Paul gets good shots for people. I can't say I agree with your theory - especially if you factor in that he gets good shots for himself.

No, like I said, the isolation/pick-and-pop plays with Paul do get good shots--the majority of which are jumpers. Almost every pick that Paul gets from KG ends up in a jumper for Paul or KG; that, or Paul gets to the rim on occasion. Regardless, the majority of the shots that Paul creates are jumpers--which is fine, in moderation. The problem is against good teams that limit Paul's penetration--against those teams, we get perimeter dependent and live and die by the jumper (or 3s, which are worse).

Our motion offense, as a rule (almost), gets nothing but jumpers. Again, that's fine--if we're hitting.

On the other hand, picks for Rondo tend to get inside shots, either coming from Rondo's hands or off the pass. I'd also tend to argue that the jumpers that Rondo gets the team are actually better looks--more open and delivered with on-target passes, instead of the slightly off-target passes which come in our motion offense, or off Paul's creation moves.

So, we have 3 staples--the motion offense, Paul's creation, and when we set picks for Rondo. Only Rondo gets us inside shots. The rest are pretty dependent on making jump shots--especially against the good defensive teams.

The smarter move, IMO, would be to start off going through Rondo, setting him picks, calling for high picks, and as a result starting with higher percentage, inside shots at the beginning of the game, and then later when the defense adjusts going back to the motion offense. That's the OP's point, IMO--we must put the initial thrust of the offense on Rondo's shoulders--because it gives us the best chance to win.

This is just not true. In our offense both Paul and Rondo get easy looks for our guys on the inside and outside. The alley oop then KG couldn't finish should be a memrorable example of an inside look that was botched (yesterday) but both MD and Ray Allen botch some inside looks. They just aren't converting that well. KG has no lift - nor does Wallace.

Agree that KG's lift is compromised right now, and Wallace's legs are dead.

But that Pierce play you reference (the alley to KG) was off an out-of-bounds play and is not illustrative at all of the looks that Paul gets us.

For the most part (and I'd challenge you to track it next game, or next time we play a good defensive team), the looks that Paul creates come when he's double-teamed (leading to a jumper, usually), when he gets a pick (leading to a pop and the subsequent jumper), or when he drives and kicks (and these, sometimes, can lead to inside shots--or kick outs; it's probably a 50/50 proposition).

Again this goes back to a fundamental misconception I think - and something you see on all kinds of message boards. The idea that scheme is so important and that if the 'dumb' coach changes something the problems will be solved.

But in reality it often comes down to talent and execution. If our guys are playing well - either Pierce or Rondo can create for the other guys and we will score and win plenty. OTOH if KG can't off the ground it doesn't matter if Rondo or Pierce throw him that inside pass he will have a harder time converting..

You're right, to a degree, about execution and talent. But our coach is dumb in one respect--he's still calling plays like it's 2007. It's been clear since early in 2008 that this team runs best when the ball runs through Rondo's hands. It just makes it easier on everyone else, and hides Rondo's fundamental flaw. But Doc talks about Rondo's flaw like it cripples his offense--it doesn't, except when Doc lets it.

If the coach is doing something incomprehensibly stupid - then yeah I guess you can whine about the scheme. Both both Rondo and Pierce can create good shots for others..so his favoring of Paul (especially in crunch time) is not stupid.

Didn't say it was stupid--actually, it's smart depending on what came before it. What is stupid is leaning on Paul's creativeness for the entire game, or for long stretches in the first half (or worse yet, relying on Ray's creativeness when paired with the 2nd team). Like I suggested in the last post, Rondo's creative ability should be used to start the game. To use a football analogy, sometimes you use the pass to set up the run. In our case, you use Rondo's creative ability in the first half to set up Paul's clutch ability to close out the game. What you don't do, however, is lean on Pierce all game, tiring him out and letting the defense have multiple chances to defend what amounts to the same play over and over. That's just stupid and that's where Doc fails. Maybe that was acceptable in 2007. Not so much right now.

Rondo is a good player but this idea that if Doc was just smart enough to feature him more the C's issues would be solved is silly. Our guys are missing shots NBA players should be making - not to mention 'stars'

Pete

Yeah, Pete, we all know they're just 'missing' shots. But maybe the time has come to make things easier for them--that is, the time has come to maximize our offensive skills in a manner where the old players aren't counted on all game to carry the brunt of the creative and scoring load; maybe the time has come to minimize our point guard's lack of shooting prowess by keeping the ball in his hands and picking for him in an attempt to maximize the kind of inside shots and easy buckets he's able to secure pretty consistently for the last 18 months of his NBA life. Just saying. That or we can hope to defy Father Time.

To me, it's madness to keep coaching this team like nothing's changed--a hell of a lot has changed. KG was hurt, Ray got old, and Rondo averaged a damn near triple double in the playoffs when the offense was forced to go through him at all times. It's like that was all a dream and Doc's stuck in 2007 running the same plays and using the same rotations--like I said, it's madness....

[GuyClinch]

No, like I said, the isolation/pick-and-pop plays with Paul do get good shots--the majority of which are jumpers. Almost every pick that Paul gets from KG ends up in a jumper for Paul or KG; that, or Paul gets to the rim on occasion. Regardless, the majority of the shots that Paul creates are jumpers--which is fine, in moderation. The problem is against good teams that limit Paul's penetration--against those teams, we get perimeter dependent and live and die by the jumper (or 3s, which are worse).

There are two problems with your theory..

1) Its not really true. 17/55 of Paul's assists are close or dunks. (So 30%) 47/124 (375) of Rondo assists are close or dunks. When you factor in a ton of assists that Rondo gets on the break of his league leading steals or just his hustle I don't think that 7% is significant at all. In fact I'd be willing to be that in the set half court offense Paul gets his teamates better quality shots. In the open court of course Rondo does much better.. Only the C's have access to those kind of stats though.


2) Your assuming that our ability to finish inside makes inside shots so much more useful then outside shots. So that a contest inside shot by a KG is a better then an uncontested outside mid-range shot. I don't agree with this either. In reality both are likely equivalent. I have heard the NBA average for UNCONTESTED jumpers is around 70%. Now obviously your not always getting those shots -and its likely only around 50% for three pointers, IMHO. But its patently ridiculous to assume that we have a Dwight Howard hanging around the rim. We don't have that kind of finisher anymore..

This whole thread reminds me of those stupid threads we had back in the day before the 24 win season in which people theorized that it was Paul Pierce holding the team back and that if only he would get out of the way guys like Gerald Green would blossom.

It's a narrative fallacy. Your making up this nice little narrative - because its so much more intellectually fun then admitting the cold truth. Ray and KG are playing poorly - and its not Rondo, Docs or Paul fault that this team is playing poorly. Its actually their play thats letting them hang on. Doc doesn't need to change his scheme because its fine. Its his players that need to step it up.

Pete

[ryaningf]

No, like I said, the isolation/pick-and-pop plays with Paul do get good shots--the majority of which are jumpers. Almost every pick that Paul gets from KG ends up in a jumper for Paul or KG; that, or Paul gets to the rim on occasion. Regardless, the majority of the shots that Paul creates are jumpers--which is fine, in moderation. The problem is against good teams that limit Paul's penetration--against those teams, we get perimeter dependent and live and die by the jumper (or 3s, which are worse).

There are two problems with your theory..

1) Its not really true. 17/55 of Paul's assists are close or dunks. (So 30%) 47/124 (375) of Rondo assists are close or dunks. When you factor in a ton of assists that Rondo gets on the break of his league leading steals or just his hustle I don't think that 7% is significant at all. In fact I'd be willing to be that in the set half court offense Paul gets his teamates better quality shots. In the open court of course Rondo does much better.. Only the C's have access to those kind of stats though.

Pete, I said shots, not assists. There's a difference. This isn't about assists, it's where we shoot from...we have a major imbalance towards outside shooting, something which bites our ass on the nights when we can't hit a jumper. I'm advocating a more balanced approach...and one that uses Rondo to the benefit and not detriment of the team. Playing through Paul, except in end of game/quarter situations, is a waste of our talents and only serves to tire out our one go-to guy before the 4th quarter.

Like I said, it's about shots. I wish they kept stats on shots produced. Assists are dependent on the receiving party being able to convert. Therefore, assists serve to distort what's actually happening out there.

It's a fallacy to say that Rondo can't get us good shots in the half court. He can, if he's given a pick. The problem is, he isn't, unless a random one is set by one of the bigs, or unless Doc happens to call for a high pick from the sideline. He can create like crazy when you set him some picks.

And you wanna know what? Paul's creativeness usually stems from the picks he gets. It's not like we isolate Paul and expect him to get us good shots--no, we set him picks, and he hits jumpers, gets to the rim, or passes out of the double team for jumpers. All good stuff, all created by the pick that was set for him. My point, simply put, is to run some of those picks for Rondo instead...in the half court. It's about the picks being set, it's that simple.

2) Your assuming that our ability to finish inside makes inside shots so much more useful then outside shots. So that a contest inside shot by a KG is a better then an uncontested outside mid-range shot. I don't agree with this either. In reality both are likely equivalent. I have heard the NBA average for UNCONTESTED jumpers is around 70%. Now obviously your not always getting those shots -and its likely only around 50% for three pointers, IMHO. But its patently ridiculous to assume that we have a Dwight Howard hanging around the rim. We don't have that kind of finisher anymore..

Meh--again, it's about balance. We have no balance. We also have a nice collection of old legs, the kind of legs that struggle hitting jump shots on some nights because they have no lift. Combine those old legs with an imbalance tilted towards jump shooting, and that's a recipe for disaster.

So, yeah, I'd rather take my chances with the ball bouncing off Perk's hands, or KG failing to finish at the rim, then I would with running everything with an eye towards OPEN jump shots. Again, it's about balance. If we are always skewed towards jump shots, it makes us easier to defend, easier for teams to show on our jump shots (making them not so open as they could be), and puts more pressure on ourselves to make jump shots.

Perk and KG (and Wallace if you can get him down there) can still finish pretty well at the rim, not to mention the foul shots and foul trouble engendered against the other team by emphasizing inside shooting.

This whole thread reminds me of those stupid threads we had back in the day before the 24 win season in which people theorized that it was Paul Pierce holding the team back and that if only he would get out of the way guys like Gerald Green would blossom.

It's a narrative fallacy. Your making up this nice little narrative - because its so much more intellectually fun then admitting the cold truth. Ray and KG are playing poorly - and its not Rondo, Docs or Paul fault that this team is playing poorly. Its actually their play thats letting them hang on. Doc doesn't need to change his scheme because its fine. Its his players that need to step it up.

Pete

See, I don't know why you have to keep pulling red herrings at the end of your posts like you're some kind of Nostradamus of RealGM. Talk about a false equivalency, Gerald Green and Rajon Rondo. They're not comparable in any way. ANY WAY. Nor is the supposed narrative fallacy--unless I forgot the time Gerald dropped triple doubles in a playoff series, or was the best player on the floor in a deciding game in the Finals.

It's also getting ridiculous to hear you keep saying that Ray and KG are playing poorly--duh! You seem to advocate a wait-and-see approach. That's the narrative fallacy, dismissing the natural aging process and diminished skills as something that will get better. The chemistry issues on the first team stem from the fact that ability levels have changed but Doc's offensive philosophy, play calling and substitution patterns have not. The narrative fallacy is playing in 2009 like it's still 2007.

[tombattor]

ADJUSTMENT. ADJUSTMENT. ADJUSTMENT.

Why are people (Please Use More Appropriate Word)? We can't run all the offense through Rondo because he can't shoot and they don't need to cover him on the perimeter. Why can't people see that other teams also have a collection of humans with individual brains. So if you keep running the offense through a player who doesn't need to be covered, even if they weren't in the beginning, they will ADJUST accordingly and force that player to make a jumper. That's called ADJUSTMENT. That's why you can't multiply the score at the end of first 6 minutes in the first quarter by 8 and get the final score.

The reason guys like Pierce is so effective and is preferred at the end of the game on offense is because there is no one way to cover him. You sag off of him, then he'll just shoot. If you get up on him, he'll drive by you and if you double him, he'll find an open player.

On the other hand, Rondo, you can pretty much play him to drive every time. And even if he's the second coming, as so many of you believe, if the defense is playing him to drive, he just can't drive and drop 60 on them all night. Oh and if he does get by the D and get to the rim, they can just foul him because he shoots a whopping .333 from the line.

[GuyClinch]

And you wanna know what? Paul's creativeness usually stems from the picks he gets. It's not like we isolate Paul and expect him to get us good shots--no, we set him picks, and he hits jumpers, gets to the rim, or passes out of the double team for jumpers. All good stuff, all created by the pick that was set for him. My point, simply put, is to run some of those picks for Rondo instead...in the half court. It's about the picks being set, it's that simple.

The C's will set picks for any ball handler - even Ray Allen or Eddie House. So your gripe is that Rondo isn't getting enough picks. I disagree.

It's a fallacy to say that Rondo can't get us good shots in the half court. He can, if he's given a pick. The problem is, he isn't, unless a random one is set by one of the bigs, or unless Doc happens to call for a high pick from the sideline. He can create like crazy when you set him some picks.

Nice try. I never said that. My point was its not like Rondo gets us these easy dunks/nice inside shots every time he handles the ball. That's not true - and given the statistics we do have its unlikely he has a sizeable advantage in this department.

So, yeah, I'd rather take my chances with the ball bouncing off Perk's hands, or KG failing to finish at the rim, then I would with running everything with an eye towards OPEN jump shots. Again, it's about balance. If we are always skewed towards jump shots, it makes us easier to defend, easier for teams to show on our jump shots (making them not so open as they could be), and puts more pressure on ourselves to make jump shots.

Every team in the NBA is skewed towards jump shots. Thats how basketball works. People clog the middle and force jump shots. Again your theory is that if we let Rondo handle the ball more - we will get more quality inside shots and dunks. I disagree. In fact I think guys will go under the screen and continue to force us to make jumpers.

If we look at the sortable inside shooting - the C's are among the LEADERS of inside shots. They are around 7th in the league percentage wise.

http://www.82games.com/0809/FGTEAM11.HTM

The only reason in your mind we are taking too many jumpers - is because we are MISSING so many of them. What we need to do his hit some more jumpers to OPEN UP the inside game.

It's also getting ridiculous to hear you keep saying that Ray and KG are playing poorly--duh! You seem to advocate a wait-and-see approach. That's the narrative fallacy, dismissing the natural aging process and diminished skills as something that will get better

KG is coming off major knee surgery so its not really a fallacy to think he might get better. As for Wallace despite what you think people slump. The C's have no choice but to 'wait and see'..Your demonstrably wrong on all fronts..

This idea that Rondo handling the ball more will solve all these execution problems is a narrative fallacy. That's a nice way of putting it. Truth is it would be pretty friggin stupid because teams would get very good at defending Rondo pick and rolls - which are pretty easy to defend in the first place (you just go under the screen).

Pete