Eliminating Turnovers Thanks to Rondo?

Good post. I'll note one point -- in addition to removing Rondo's high personal turnover rate from the equation, the post-Rondo improvement in turnover rate is because of the spread offense, not in spite of it. That, plus running more.

To me, it's no surprise at all. Increased ball movement puts the defense on its heels, leading to better shot opportunities (a less well-defended shot is less likely to result in a turnover) and fewer steal opportunities (defenders can't sit back and play the passing lanes as easily when the ball is constantly moving). Add an increased emphasis on running that results in great shots and few turnovers, and there you have it -- a significant, and predictable, improvement in turnover rate.

The biggest surprise to me was Pierce's relatively reasonable turnover rate. He has some awfully "loud" turnovers that make him look old or have you question his decision-making, but I guess he's not that bad overall.

This article must have been written before last night's game (LOL)

Sam is our resident stats guy, but I think taking one stat out of context can bring on misleading conclusions.

While I think Rondo could learn a thing or two about the value of pushing the ball all the time, there were a lot things outside of Rondo's control that came together to give what I believe to be a false impression of his value, or lack there of.

-Most of the same period when Rondo was playing - AB was not. The Celtics were scoring less PPG - as both a function of their opponents scoring more PPG (missing Bradley's D) and the Celtics playing more of a structured, slowed down offense (because the bench was playing pretty poorly) - most of this had nothing to do with Rajon.

-Since Rondo went down, Lee, Terry, AB, Green and even Wilcox have been playing MUCH MUCH better. This is clearly due to the increase in minutes and them beginning to find their place. This is not Rondo's fault, nor should we point to their improvement having much to do with Rondo not being on the court. Most of this had nothing to do with Rondo

-January was the team's best defensive month of the season, and Rajon played in 11 or 12 of those games.

When I was in Jamaica for my honeymoon - Boston got 30 inches of snow. Since my return, we have gotten 3. Does me being in town mean less snow? According to a writer like this - who looks at one stat and tries to make it fit his predetermined storyline, I guess so. But I cant control the weather - and Rondo cant control all of the variables that make a team click.

Sorry Brian, I am not not buying it.

I am up for the task Bob.

You can send your contributions to Sams Board c/o: The Paul and Erin Permanent Vacation Fund

This article makes perfect sense to me. Clearly we need to fire Danny and Doc. Doc becomes GM, Danny becomes GM of the Sox finally allowing him to pursue his baseball fantasies, KG becomes the new coach and PP replaces Scal on the sidelines. when Rondo returns we grease his hands so he won't hold the ball so much. anything else you wants fixed? let me know

Outside wrote:Good post. I'll note one point -- in addition to removing Rondo's high personal turnover rate from the equation, the post-Rondo improvement in turnover rate is because of the spread offense, not in spite of it. That, plus running more.

To me, it's no surprise at all. Increased ball movement puts the defense on its heels, leading to better shot opportunities (a less well-defended shot is less likely to result in a turnover) and fewer steal opportunities (defenders can't sit back and play the passing lanes as easily when the ball is constantly moving). Add an increased emphasis on running that results in great shots and few turnovers, and there you have it -- a significant, and predictable, improvement in turnover rate.

The biggest surprise to me was Pierce's relatively reasonable turnover rate. He has some awfully "loud" turnovers that make him look old or have you question his decision-making, but I guess he's not that bad overall.

Pierce TO rate didn't really surprise me. He is below his career average anyway. He is getting a few more now as he is handling the ball a LOT more with RR out. Pierce TO's look bad when he does them and a lot of people (especially BDC) consider him a turnover machine. Its kind of like his game, not flashy but very effective. His turnovers are ugly, but they only count as one. Rondos turnovers are the "flashy" type and we tend to think we can live with them when in reality they are no better than a ugly turnover.
I guess what surprised me on the list was Jeff being right there with Paul and also Rondo being a lot higher than anyone else.

Of course it can't be Rondo's fault. It never can be Rondo's fault. Nothing can be Rondo's fault.

Just as the improved record has nothing to do with Rondo going down. It's all just an accident or a natural phenomena because Rondo is our God.

Good grief, can't some of you people open up your eyes? When he was injured many were predicting failure for this season. The very first game (against Miami, if I remember correctly) we won without him - but that was just an aberration - the other guys just played harder according to Rondo's fan base. Just you wait and see. This improved play wont last long.

Well we are 13-4 now and things are looking brighter every day. I am not a Rondo fan. I am a Boston Celtics fan and if we are better off without Rondo then so be it.

I am not saying we are better or worse without RR. (chicken way out)
But I pretty much know the answer to this question, but will ask anyway. If Jason Terry, Paul Pierce, Brandon Bass had went down instead of RR and the records were the same as without Rondo, how many would be ready to run these guys out of town? How many would say we are better without them?

tardust,

That's a hypothetical question for which there is no answer.

The reality, as I see it, is that we are without a doubt playing better without Rondo.

But in an attempt to answer your question: I would not hesitate to separate any player from the team if it meant that I could watch the kind of team basketball, i.e. old-time Boston Celtics BB that I've been able to watch since Rondo went down. I repeat, I am not a Rondo fan (nor a Pierce fan, nor a KG fan nor an Bradley fan, although I certainly like some players more than others). I am a Boston Celtics fan and I would be willing to trade anyone if it improved the team.

Here's a hypothetical question for you:
If we take it all this year would you still maintain that it had nothing to do with Rondo being out?

Berlin-T wrote: Here's a hypothetical question for you:
If we take it all this year would you still maintain that it had nothing to do with Rondo being out?

Nothing to do with Rondo being out? No, of course it would have something to do with him being out. Every player has been stepping up, playing with more intensity, finding their role, and with AB leading the way - the defensive intensity has been picking up, and this in turn helps all aspects of the team's success. They also signed Jordan Crawford, Terence Williams and DJ White. They are a very different team than they were in December and early January.

But that is different than saying they are winning BECAUSE Rondo is out - a conclusion that I completely reject. Since Rondo has been out, everyone from coaches to starters to bench players has had to re-evaluate the way they do things - and they have all found a better, faster, more effective and efficient way to do things.

Is it possible that Rondo needs to review his game and come back as a leader of a pack of fast breaking, full court pressing demons - maybe. But the idea that the Celtics are better off with the best pure PG in the NBA, just boggles my mind.

I'm taking the liberty of repeating a post I made on another thread because it may be more appropriate to this thread:

I have a theory that, during the first part of the season, even though Bradley was out, the Celtics actually had a surplus of talent—to the point that there just wasn't room to capitalize on all the talent. When Bradley first came back, the situation was exacerbated.

Now, with the losses of Rondo, Sullinger and even Barbosa, the popular belief is that other players are stepping up. While that's true, I believe the heart of the dynamic is that there is now room for players such as Green, Lee and Terry to get the most out of their potential while avoiding the previous traffic jam..

In other words, what they originally had was an excess of talent, which ironically gummed up the works. Now they're utilizing the available talent more completely; and,
fortunately, the diverse nature of the talent is such that the various skills are complementing each other quite nicely.

The good news is that, with several players routinely contributing more to the team (including benefits from the improved health status of at least three—Bradley, Green, Wilcox) , I believe it's the equivalent of adding at least two or three quality players to the roster.

I also believe the theory that the Celtics are better without Rondo (and wouldn't Sully have to be included too?) is neither true nor false. It's simply beside the point. Because the point is not what they've lost but what they've gained via the incremental contributions of so many players.

And finally, isn't Doc doing a super job of motivating each player individual so as to encourage each player to push his individual limits?

Go Celtics!

Sam

mrkleen09 wrote:Sam is our resident stats guy, but I think taking one stat out of context can bring on misleading conclusions.

While I think Rondo could learn a thing or two about the value of pushing the ball all the time, there were a lot things outside of Rondo's control that came together to give what I believe to be a false impression of his value, or lack there of.

-Most of the same period when Rondo was playing - AB was not. The Celtics were scoring less PPG - as both a function of their opponents scoring more PPG (missing Bradley's D) and the Celtics playing more of a structured, slowed down offense (because the bench was playing pretty poorly) - most of this had nothing to do with Rajon.

-Since Rondo went down, Lee, Terry, AB, Green and even Wilcox have been playing MUCH MUCH better. This is clearly due to the increase in minutes and them beginning to find their place. This is not Rondo's fault, nor should we point to their improvement having much to do with Rondo not being on the court. Most of this had nothing to do with Rondo

-January was the team's best defensive month of the season, and Rajon played in 11 or 12 of those games.

When I was in Jamaica for my honeymoon - Boston got 30 inches of snow. Since my return, we have gotten 3. Does me being in town mean less snow? According to a writer like this - who looks at one stat and tries to make it fit his predetermined storyline, I guess so. But I cant control the weather - and Rondo cant control all of the variables that make a team click.

Sorry Brian, I am not not buying it.

Excellent post.

If we do really well in the playoffs without RR, Danny may very well shop him for a very high quality big. Danny will only trade Rajon for a star of equal caliber. We are playing quite well without Rajon, but next year, if RR is still with us, he'll factor into that computer brain of his all he's learned about how well the Celts have done playing this style, and he'll probably adapt his own game to it and improve the Celts overall performace.

Berlin-T wrote:tardust,


Here's a hypothetical question for you:
If we take it all this year would you still maintain that it had nothing to do with Rondo being out?

Hi Berlin,

Not sure where you got that I "maintain that it had nothing to do with Rondo being out". I don't think on any board I post on that I have ever said how I actually feel one way or another. I have posted stats thats or articles that support we are better now. I guess I haven't looked for stats that support we are better with him. He is a talented player that has flaws. I will say that I believe the guys that have "elevated their game" would not have had the opportunity to elevate their game with Rondo.

I remember part of what made Larry Bird so good was that he made players around him better. Championships are generally won as a team being lucky at the same time having the team playing at a high level for series after series. Rondo, however, does not make the players around him better very often. The offense gets too constipated while he controls the pace and the personnel on the Celtics seem to flourish when they are engaged in the offense. Maybe Rondo adjusts to the teams style when he returns. Maybe he doesn't. If he doesn't I would recommend a trade.

OK, I admit it, I don't know. What I don't know is the truth, and I mean the real truth behind all the anti Rondo sentiment.

I hear that he is stubborn, I hear that he is disruptive, that he is a cancer, a thorn, a manyotherthingstoonumberable to mention. That he dominates the ball, that he doesn't get the ball to the right person at the right time. That he is god, thinks he is god or that most of us think he is. I hear so many things here but I just don't know the truth. So what is the truth?

Does Rondo run his own game plan despite what Doc wants?
Does he ignore Doc and the team game plan to run his own?
If he does this, why do Doc and Danny let him?
If he isn't playing with the best interests of the team at heat why do KG and PP let him?
Why does Paul say they are playing for Rondo?
Why has no teamate ever really called him out? Are they afraid of him?
Why? and let's not forget who, when, where, what.
Get down, get dirty, I don't care, Just make sure its the truth and not more opinion.
Thanx for your help.

It is hard to know what his teammates really think because it is not a good practice to deal with issues publicly. I look at the product on the floor. Are they playing better with him out or not? You must factor the already made points that Bradley, Green and Wilcox were not up to speed before he was injured. Sullinger was playing and that is not the case now.

I want to see Rondo next year to see if things work better because there are too many variables involved to know for sure, but I am liking what I see now. If Rondo comes up in a big deal for a pf or c that significantly helps the Cs during the off season, I would say it must be considered.

Much will happen this year before we need to act on next year. I'm guessing things will sort themselves out a lot before then.

In calcluating the tournovers per 100 possessions, could someone explain to me what constitutes a "posession"?

Does that mean a new team posession like after the other team scores or the ball is turned over by the other team, or does it mean if, for example, Rondo passes the ball to KG, who gains posession and KG then dribbles it off his foot, then KG would have 1 turnover in 1 posession.? What if Rondo made a bad pass to KG? Then would Rondo have 1 turnover in 1 posession but KG would be 0 for 0? How about if you didn't touch the ball in an ensuing team posession where there was a turnover by someone else on the team? Would that player be 0 for 0 after the team posession or was the fact that he was on the floor when the turnover happened count against him? Finally, if you touch/posess the ball multiple times in a team posession, say 3, and there is one tunrover caused by you, is that 1 for 3?

It just sound like a very subjective stat and potentially difficult to calculate.

In addition to just getting a grip on the definition, I guess what I'm getting at is, Rondo posesses tha ball more than any other player on the Celtics I would think. I kind of see him as the Babe Ruth of basketball. Ruth struck out more than any other player but had tons more HR's than anyone else to. Rondo turns the ball over more than anyone else but he also assists out the wazoo. While the other guys TO's/100 are low, I'd take Babe Ruth on my team any day.

I'm just not sure how valid a stat the TO's/100 is yet. Any opinions?

In my opinion, it's not that they're playing better because Rondo left. They're playing better because they're playing a different style—a spread offense that enables
multiple players to take advantage of their respective skills with more open shots; far better movement without the ball; busting their butts on virtually every possession because all five guys are really hustling in transition.

It's very possible that Doc would have taken the team in those directions; and he says the defense was already tightening before Rondo got hurt.

Could all of those things have happened if Rondo were still with the team? Who knows? Probably some more than others. I bet Rondo would have killed to have three or four
teammates streaming down the floor on most plays. That would have made him feel better about pushing the ball more consistently. Better spacing, player movement, and side-to-side ball movement would have opened up better passing lanes for Rondo to exploit and would have encouraged him not to pound the ball into the floor so much waiting for something to open up. The mix of man and zone defenses could have provided an antidote to Rondo's gambling defense by ensuring he would have more backup in that end. Moreover, there have been a number of games in which they really missed Rondo's guidance down the stretch.

Rondo's not stupid. He knows how to take advantage of opportunities. I'm not certain, but I hypothesize that handing Rondo virtually unlimited use of the keys to the limo backfired. To some players, being given such responsibility might have represented a mandate to be responsible for orchestrating the kinds of changes listed above so as to enable teammates to take better advantage of their skills. I believe Rondo's mentality interpreted the gesture as mandating that he wrest such tight control that most of
what happened on the court had to be within Rondo's image. That's why we're now reading about teammates having deferred to him while trying to force fit their talents into a Rondo-centric system.

With the team obviously responding positively to a more egalitarian system, will it be possible for Doc to retract some of Rondo's carte blanche authorization to control things so tightly? Or, once having tasted the view from the top, will Rondo be forever a control freak? That's the main question I have.

In the meantime, I believe it's (let's say) 'ill-advised" to look for a scapegoat and pin all the blame on Rondo. It was the situation, rather than the player, that was the culprit. I have to believe that Rondo's now digesting everything that happens on the team and contrasting that with the part of the season in which he was the controlling factor. Barring a trade, we'll see how adroit and adaptable he is in being a catalyst for positive change.

Sam

KennCelt wrote:I remember part of what made Larry Bird so good was that he made players around him better. Championships are generally won as a team being lucky at the same time having the team playing at a high level for series after series. Rondo, however, does not make the players around him better very often. The offense gets too constipated while he controls the pace and the personnel on the Celtics seem to flourish when they are engaged in the offense. Maybe Rondo adjusts to the teams style when he returns. Maybe he doesn't. If he doesn't I would recommend a trade.

I wouldn't compare Rondo to Larry Bird, thats really not fair, Bird is in the top 5 of all time ever and Rondo arguably is in the discussion of top 5-7 or 8 PG's of this generation, but couldn't carry Cousys jockstrap. Rondo can make others better, he has no choice he can't carry a team on his back, other than one great playoff game, he needs others to carry the scoring load. Unfortunately all those intangibles we loved a few years ago, it seems are missing, because he doesn't or can't play as hard. The defensive ability and intensity isn't the same, don't see him pushing the ball or pace like years ago when if you didn't keep up with him, he'd leave you in the dust and do the one man fast break.

Because he was so fast, quick, dynamic, remember when he had a speed advantage over every point out there? remember how completely he destroyed Mo Williams both ends in the playoffs in 10? he might have been overrated as a franchise player. On this season, he definitely controlled/dominated the ball too much and got too comfortable executing the halfcourt game, on both of these issues it can't all be blamed on him as Doc also let the offense become too predictable. Maybe Doc had too many new pieces and thought he wanted to work on the halfcourt game and the only person he trusted was Rondo and since his assists were so good, we must be doing something right. Well now Doc can see his coaching from beginning of season also has to change. Its not all on Rondo, but theres alot of things in his own game he has to change, when was the last time we saw Rondo fill a lane and finish on a break? instead 8 times out of 10 he runs the opposite way toward the ball, then dribble, dribble, dribble, everybody got so programmed waiting for him to play off him.....don't get me started on his defense.

sam wrote:

With the team obviously responding positively to a more egalitarian system, will it be possible for Doc to retract some of Rondo's carte blanche authorization to control things so tightly? Or, once having tasted the view from the top, will Rondo be forever a control freak? That's the main question I have.

Sam

Yes, that is the main question. I remember on the game-on thread against the Kings, the second game without Rondo where you posted "It looks to me as though the Celts are monopolizing this game because they all got a get out of jail free card."

That really cracked me up, but more than that it was the truth. So if Rondo can learn or be willing to stay in front of his man defensively, push the ball up the court, not stand around pounding the ball thereby letting his teammates "out of jail" then I say hallelujah. If not, then I hope Danny gets a quality big for him.

I never really compared Rondo to Bird other than in the attribute of making their teammates better. Bird was special in many ways that will rarely ever be duplicated or exceeded. With that said, Rondo's style of play seems to inhibit his teammates rather than bring out their strengths. Rondo being the point guard has the responsibility of managing the action on the court. When he slows down the game and selects who gets the ball and when rightfully or not he assumes some of the responsibility for the success of the results. His teammates seem to prosper better in an up tempo, spread style offense that enables them to play to their particular strengths. rondo can play that style as well, we have seen. I hope we see him lead our team next year because he some very special skills that were being wasted before he went down that are downright amazing.

It seems to me that most of the media and fans are walking on eggshells when talking about the Celtics' improvable record without Rondo. Most of them issue disclaimers such as "Nothing against Rondo" or "I'm not saying they're better without Rondo," and then they go ahead and conjecture on how the Celtics are better without Rondo.

Wouldn't any of us like to be a fly on the wall when Danny, Doc and Wyc are
discussing Rondo during the off-season within the context of what went
on during this season and which system is really best for this team? They see what we see—and a heck of a lot more. Do they feel a Rondo-centric offense is to the team's best advantage? If they feel the Celtics 0f 2014 and beyond can thrive together, with some adjustments being made, how certain are they that the adjustments are consistent with Rondo's makeup?

Another question I have is how does the value of Rondo get set in the aftermath of a season-ending injury and the greater success of the team after he, Sully and Barbosa went down? I have a strong suspicion that his value has declined or will tend to do so when trades are being discussed with other teams.

This is just one of many times when I prefer to enjoy the games, root like crazy for the team to persevere, and leave the worrying to Danny, Doc and Wyc.

And, yes, Rondo's still my favorite current Celtics player. This is truly one nutty world.

Sam