Rondo rated 3rd best PG by Ball Don't Lie

The little guy has come a long way in three years. Rated 3rd best PG in the NBA according to Ball Don't Lie:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Ranking-the-point-guards-10-through-No-1;_ylt=As2Yu5346.gqe8QA9fSPI7G8vLYF?urn=nba-263267

great read - thx, steve.

Rajon has become A Man (though not THE Man) on a team and in a system that doesn't even play to many of his strengths all that well, IMHO, and now is an equal partner among the starters. and why not - he's earned it !

Michael

Rather than starting a new thread, I thought I'd piggy-back on this one.

This from Realgm.com

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/68819/20100823/rivers_calls_rondo_smartest_player_hes_coached/#

bob

.

nice find, bob - and quite an accolade !

there's been lots of talk about Shaq being a liability on high pick and roll defense. seems to me that how Rondo manages the pick and roll will have a lot to say about how effective we'll be against that offense. i think he's got some defensive adjustments to make, but hey, he's the steals leader, with the highest basketball IQ Doc has ever coached, so i guess i'll just watch and cheer from the sidelines !

Michael

Michael

Rondo just withdrew from Team USA.

bigpygme wrote:nice find, bob - and quite an accolade !

there's been lots of talk about Shaq being a liability on high pick and roll defense. seems to me that how Rondo manages the pick and roll will have a lot to say about how effective we'll be against that offense. i think he's got some defensive adjustments to make, but hey, he's the steals leader, with the highest basketball IQ Doc has ever coached, so i guess i'll just watch and cheer from the sidelines !

Michael

Michael

Michael,

Shaq, as a pick-and-roll defender, should be less of a liability than some have predicted because the pick-and-roll isn't best defended at the baseline, it's best defended out on top where the pick-and-roll happens. If KG/Pierce/Davis and the rest of the Celtic bigs whose men are setting the picks do their job then the ball will penetrate less and get to Shaq less.

At least, that's how it's drawn up on paper.

I'm not a big fan of the "just funnel them to the big guy" philosophy of defense. D12 is a helluva shotblocker. He also picks up a lot of fouls. The reason is that he picks up fouls because everybody's funneling their man to him AND he has to guard his man (and will pick up a foul or two there) too.

bob

.

bobheckler wrote:

bigpygme wrote:nice find, bob - and quite an accolade !

there's been lots of talk about Shaq being a liability on high pick and roll defense. seems to me that how Rondo manages the pick and roll will have a lot to say about how effective we'll be against that offense. i think he's got some defensive adjustments to make, but hey, he's the steals leader, with the highest basketball IQ Doc has ever coached, so i guess i'll just watch and cheer from the sidelines !

Michael

Michael

Michael,

Shaq, as a pick-and-roll defender, should be less of a liability than some have predicted because the pick-and-roll isn't best defended at the baseline, it's best defended out on top where the pick-and-roll happens. If KG/Pierce/Davis and the rest of the Celtic bigs whose men are setting the picks do their job then the ball will penetrate less and get to Shaq less.

At least, that's how it's drawn up on paper.

I'm not a big fan of the "just funnel them to the big guy" philosophy of defense. D12 is a helluva shotblocker. He also picks up a lot of fouls. The reason is that he picks up fouls because everybody's funneling their man to him AND he has to guard his man (and will pick up a foul or two there) too.

bob

.

understand, i do like the move overall, but had been lured by the press that came out into thinking negatively about Shaq as a defensive risk up high. i take your point, though. thanks for your description - i guess i can put the concerns to rest a bit better now.

regards,
Michael

Bob,

Actually I like the funnel better than you do. Probably a vivid recollection of the old old days. But, the way I figure it, unless either Jermaine or Shaq completely bombs out, they'll have 12 fouls to spread over 48 minutes. And, if and when Perk comes back, they'll have 18. And, in a pinch, Davis could play center against certain guys, making it 24.

My point is that this looks like center by committee to me. Which means that some of the concerns we'd usually have with an all-star center who's going to average 37 MPG would not apply nearly so strongly. Of course, there will be other concerns. How's their mobility in general? Can they fit in with the Celtics' offence (or vice versa)?

But I sort of like the funnel idea because it allows the perimeter guys to overplay in exaggerated fashion, and it limits the lateral movement the big guys have to make and leaves them in better defensive rebounding position.

I guess all of us will be coming up with theories and strategies about this rather intriguing team, which will make the proof of the pudding (aka games) more interesting.

I was thinking the other day that IF (and it seems like a BIG "if" to me Perk comes baak and regains his previous form by playoff time, I can't think of any other team in history that had three legitimate starting centers (not PFs masquerading as centers) simultaneously manning the center position.

Another thought I had. I'm too lazy to do the research, but it seems to me that the Celtics will probably outweigh ever other team in the league this season.

It's definitely going to be a unique season for all of us. There's no telling in what direction it will go. I personally believe I'd be very comfortable with their contending chances IF they could get a defensively minded "3" at least by midseason and IF they can avoid major injury problems.

Sam

Sam wrote:Bob,

Actually I like the funnel better than you do. Probably a vivid recollection of the old old days. But, the way I figure it, unless either Jermaine or Shaq completely bombs out, they'll have 12 fouls to spread over 48 minutes. And, if and when Perk comes back, they'll have 18. And, in a pinch, Davis could play center against certain guys, making it 24.

My point is that this looks like center by committee to me. Which means that some of the concerns we'd usually have with an all-star center who's going to average 37 MPG would not apply nearly so strongly. Of course, there will be other concerns. How's their mobility in general? Can they fit in with the Celtics' offence (or vice versa)?

But I sort of like the funnel idea because it allows the perimeter guys to overplay in exaggerated fashion, and it limits the lateral movement the big guys have to make and leaves them in better defensive rebounding position.

I guess all of us will be coming up with theories and strategies about this rather intriguing team, which will make the proof of the pudding (aka games) more interesting.

I was thinking the other day that IF (and it seems like a BIG "if" to me Perk comes baak and regains his previous form by playoff time, I can't think of any other team in history that had three legitimate starting centers (not PFs masquerading as centers) simultaneously manning the center position.

Another thought I had. I'm too lazy to do the research, but it seems to me that the Celtics will probably outweigh ever other team in the league this season.

It's definitely going to be a unique season for all of us. There's no telling in what direction it will go. I personally believe I'd be very comfortable with their contending chances IF they could get a defensively minded "3" at least by midseason and IF they can avoid major injury problems.

Sam

sam,

Nice to see you posting again.

I'm not sure I understand your point about limiting the big guys' lateral movement. If the perimeter guys are overcommitting to the passing lanes and/or steals and the ball gets into the paint you either have a mid-range jumper with nobody in your face (unless your center comes out to meet them quickly and then they're not in defensive rebounding position, but his man is) or they drive to the iron and your center has to come over to challenge the layup and that's lateral movement. I prefer positional man-to-man defense with a swarming backup. That's different than "funneling". In 2008, when KG looked like the reincarnation of Bill Russell, I might say otherwise but we don't have that kind of amazing intimidator anymore.

On another issue:

Shaq/JO/Perk = 860#
Shaq/JO/Erden = 820#

and our "light" lineup
JO/Erden/Perk = 775#

Bynum/Gasol/Ratliff = 765#
Oden/Przybilla/Camby = 737#
Okur/Fesenko = 484#
Howard/Gortat/Orton = 761#
Z/Magloire/Juwan Howard = 779#
Horford/Zaza/J Collins = 755#
Chandler/Hayward/Mahinmi = 731#

We might not outquick a lot of them, but we'll throw their backs out trying to keep us from laying on them...

bob

.

Bob,

There really hasn't been much to post about. I figured Rondo's leaving the USA team could get more play here, but I guess I was wrong.....again!

I've also been putting the last touches on our Paris book, which is FINALLY going to be published. It's taken up a lot of time. And my wife and I are also working for the local Chamber of Commerce. Greeting, advising, informing, and schmoozing about a town we love...the perfect job for us. We should be paying them rather than the reverse. And our apparently moribund company finally has a large project that's keeping me pretty busy. Things will quiet down when the Chamber of Commerce closes for the season in October, we send the book off, and this project ends.

I'm seriously thinking about starting another message board called "Paris Demystified," which is the title of our book. A place for veteran Paris vacationers to exchange viewpoints on Paris and prospective Paris visitors to have questions answered. It will also be a good place to promote the book, which we think is quite unique. There's only one other similar board to my knowledge, and it's for all countries rather than focusing on Paris. The Paris portion is interesting but fairly tiny. We'll see what happens.

On the defense thing, I only meant that, if the perimeter players are funneling their guys into the middle, the opponents are less likely to go baseline and force the center to pick them up laterally. It's not a major point; and I, too, prefer man-to-man defense if you've got the team to play it. I always felt that too much emphasis on help defense was a sort of gimmicky crutch. But it has done pretty well by them.

Sam

Sam, I'm glad to hear that things are going well on the Paris book. I'm sure it feels great to see that coming to fruition. You've been a busy bee, with that and your other activities.

Bob, as far as "funneling" defense goes, I've always been a fan of directing the offense to a dominating defensive center. Part of that is the age I grew up in with Russell, Chamberlain, Thurmond, and other excellent defensive centers. (When I played, I was a shot-blocking center, and the parts of the game I enjoyed the most were rebounding and blocking shots, so I have that bias.)

Everything has its advantages and disadvantages, and you've pointed out the disadvantages of funneling the defense to the center. On the plus side, it allows the perimeter players to take more chances defensively, which leads to steals and easy baskets. The shot-blocking, rebounding center also limits drives to the basket when a perimeter player is beaten, and the main opportunity for the offense is (as you point out) the mid-range shot, but that is something of a lost art, and if you're going to pick your poison, that's not a bad one to pick. Another aspect is that when the perimeter defenders aren't beaten but purposefully funnel to the center and the defense is prepared for that, you trap the ball with multiple players and put the offense under tremendous pressure. The whole thing can take a psychological toll on the offense, which gets gunshy and tentative. When it works well, it can crush the will of the opponent.

The strategy when I played was to cut off everything to the baseline and force the offense to the middle, where you had the center and other help. What I've seen for a while in the NBA is that teams give the offense the baseline, which just strikes me as odd, but I'm sure these guys know what they're doing. I suppose the idea could be that the player can't hurt you that much if he's behind the backboard, and it limits the danger mostly to a pass for an opposite-corner three (which happens a lot). Personally, I don't want to give somebody like Steve Nash an open path baseline, but he can probably hurt you no matter what you do.

I can say that I'm NOT a fan of funneling the offense to a hacking center who puts the offense on the line. Last time I checked, shooting percentages from the line were pretty good, even for lousy free-throw shooting teams.

Outside

Outside wrote:Sam, I'm glad to hear that things are going well on the Paris book. I'm sure it feels great to see that coming to fruition. You've been a busy bee, with that and your other activities.

Bob, as far as "funneling" defense goes, I've always been a fan of directing the offense to a dominating defensive center. Part of that is the age I grew up in with Russell, Chamberlain, Thurmond, and other excellent defensive centers. (When I played, I was a shot-blocking center, and the parts of the game I enjoyed the most were rebounding and blocking shots, so I have that bias.)

Everything has its advantages and disadvantages, and you've pointed out the disadvantages of funneling the defense to the center. On the plus side, it allows the perimeter players to take more chances defensively, which leads to steals and easy baskets. The shot-blocking, rebounding center also limits drives to the basket when a perimeter player is beaten, and the main opportunity for the offense is (as you point out) the mid-range shot, but that is something of a lost art, and if you're going to pick your poison, that's not a bad one to pick. Another aspect is that when the perimeter defenders aren't beaten but purposefully funnel to the center and the defense is prepared for that, you trap the ball with multiple players and put the offense under tremendous pressure. The whole thing can take a psychological toll on the offense, which gets gunshy and tentative. When it works well, it can crush the will of the opponent.

The strategy when I played was to cut off everything to the baseline and force the offense to the middle, where you had the center and other help. What I've seen for a while in the NBA is that teams give the offense the baseline, which just strikes me as odd, but I'm sure these guys know what they're doing. I suppose the idea could be that the player can't hurt you that much if he's behind the backboard, and it limits the danger mostly to a pass for an opposite-corner three (which happens a lot). Personally, I don't want to give somebody like Steve Nash an open path baseline, but he can probably hurt you no matter what you do.

I can say that I'm NOT a fan of funneling the offense to a hacking center who puts the offense on the line. Last time I checked, shooting percentages from the line were pretty good, even for lousy free-throw shooting teams.

Outside

outside and sam,

When I wrote my opinion about "funneling", I got the feeling I was just arguing over semantics but I didn't bring it up.

Part of my issue, perhaps, is living in the bay area and seeing years of Nellie-ball. His defense is all about gambling. Drives me nuts. Now, to be fair, he doesn't have a Russell or a Howard or even a Perk to funnel the ball towards. It still makes for a very helter-skelter style, but that is perhaps my point. If you are going to funnel the ball towards a player you have to have the player that can get the job done when they reach him.

I don't think anybody will say that it's better to give up the baseline than the middle. Giving up the baseline leads to uproarious dunks from someone; either the ballhandler or the cutter coming down the lane. Doubling on the baseline and then gambling on their escape pass is fine since you've pressured the ball into a situation you have more control over. Your defense loses control when you're out of position because you gambled on the steal. I just like the idea of "everybody has their place and everyplace has their man" and if your man is there then you should be there with them and between them and the basket instead of between them and the ball (unless you are deliberately playing deny defense against that player. Like what Tony Allen did against Kobe. Some guys you just have to admit it's better if they don't get the ball at all, rather than forcing them to take outside shots). If your rebounding is strong and/or they're in a shooting slump (or the man on the perimeter isn't a good shooter), then you can gamble and release. Their missed shot, and our rebound, will result in a fast break for you on your release.

Many teams don't have that intimidating shot blocker and some of them have them coming off the bench (e.g. Birdman Anderson of Denver), so funneling players to the center won't be that effective. Nene of Denver, their starter, is not a player I'd drive players towards. Same with Okur of Utah. You gotta have the horses if you want to do that.

bob

.

bob

.

Bob,

You're absolutely correct -- shot-blocking big men are a rarity these days, so most teams don't have the option of using that type of defense. And being a Warriors fan in recent years has certainly been a frustrating experience for someone who values defense. You can have a gambling, pressure defense that is effective as long as the gambling is part of a coherent scheme, but the Warriors have too often looked like gambling as part of chaos. I've only watched them a little, but I think the USA team at the World Championships is an example of what you can do defensively with an undersized roster.

I really have mixed feelings about Nellie as a coach. On the one hand, I admire the oddball schemes and small-ball he's employed to periodic success with less-than-stellar rosters, but I wonder why he seems so disinterested in having a quality defensive big man and is content to play with four wing players and an undersized or soft big man. You'd think after all these years he would've found a shot blocker at some point instead of seeming to make do with a makeshift roster each year. After a while, "makeshift" has become what he's comfortable with, I guess. But he's won more games than any coach in the history of the league, so who am I to say. I see Sacramento as a franchise doing the right things to get better, especially compared to the Warriors. I liked the Kings getting Dalembert, that presence in the middle. Did the Warriors even try to get him? Oh well.

Outside wrote:Bob,

You're absolutely correct -- shot-blocking big men are a rarity these days, so most teams don't have the option of using that type of defense. And being a Warriors fan in recent years has certainly been a frustrating experience for someone who values defense. You can have a gambling, pressure defense that is effective as long as the gambling is part of a coherent scheme, but the Warriors have too often looked like gambling as part of chaos. I've only watched them a little, but I think the USA team at the World Championships is an example of what you can do defensively with an undersized roster.

I really have mixed feelings about Nellie as a coach. On the one hand, I admire the oddball schemes and small-ball he's employed to periodic success with less-than-stellar rosters, but I wonder why he seems so disinterested in having a quality defensive big man and is content to play with four wing players and an undersized or soft big man. You'd think after all these years he would've found a shot blocker at some point instead of seeming to make do with a makeshift roster each year. After a while, "makeshift" has become what he's comfortable with, I guess. But he's won more games than any coach in the history of the league, so who am I to say. I see Sacramento as a franchise doing the right things to get better, especially compared to the Warriors. I liked the Kings getting Dalembert, that presence in the middle. Did the Warriors even try to get him? Oh well.

outside,

It's a frustrating experience being a Warriors fan if you value defense. It's a frustrating experience being a Warriors fan if you value winning. It's a frustrating experience being a Warriors fan if you value stability. It's a frustrating experience being a Warriors fan. Lucky for me I'm a Celtic fan. I just try to support and root for the local teams whenever they're not playing my team. I went to the Giants game the other night, for the game where they clubbed the Red 16-5. I'm a Giants/A's fan when they're not playing my team.

For most of Nellie's coaching career he's been a mad scientist who thrived on creating mismatches by effectively utilizing tweeners (Chris Mullin, Paul Pressey, Webber (whom he tried to turn into a "point-forward"), Marquis Daniels, 6'7" C Danny Fortson, Junior Bridgeman). Now I think he's just mad. I can't remember ever seeing a coach being so 3-point happy. In his defense (if you can use the word "defense" and Nellie in the same sentence) he runs a very effective running offense. His defensive schemes, however, seem to revolve around getting the ball out of the bottom of the net quicker.

bob

.

Bob,

I think it is largely a matter semantics.

So a semi-related question. What kind of Celtics defense do you believe would put Shaq in a position to maximize his defensive effectiveness?

I had felt it would be to send people right to him so he might at least have a shot at intimidating based on his height alone. I'm afraid that if he had to move and attempt a stop simultaneously, he'd just be reaching and hacking all the time. But maybe I (along with many others) am just overly concerned about holes in his defense.

Sam

Sam -
i'm most concerned about Shaq's mobility - lateral, backward, or in any direction ! to maximize his defensive effectiveness i would think it makes sense to keep Shaq low-post, KG to take high post or otherwise provide the mobility against bigs who move away from the basket, and shut down baseline drives as much as they can to avoid making Shaq move laterally (and foul doing it) ...

maybe that makes sense - does to me anyway (at least until i hear from other posters) ...

Michael

Shaq is who he is at this point in his career. He's not mobile, but he's smart. Personally, here's what I'd do:

-- Keep him in the low- to mid-post area to block a few shots and, more importantly, be in rebounding position.

-- If his man moves to the perimeter (top of the key pick and roll being a likely scenario), either switch with somebody or accept that he's going to stay below the screener. If you're playing a team with a good outside shooter who comes off screens (Billups or Nash, for example), another perimeter player needs to help. It's not ideal, but I'd rather get the ball out of Billups or Nash's hands to whomever you left open.

-- Ideally, have very mobile players around him -- especially behind him, to pick up a slasher that cuts around him. Because of his size, he sets an awesome screen for the opponent's offense as well as his own. I actually like KG behind him rather than in front of him.

Once they work out the defensive scheme so that Shaq knows what to do, he's smart enough to anticipate where he needs to be, and that anticipation can offset his limited mobility to an extent.

Outside

Outside,

It all sounds good. However, I don't assume Shaq and KG will be playing much together because I don't see Shaq starting. I believe Jermaine will add variety to the offense and relative mobility to the defense, and I'd refer those traits to get more minutes and be united with the starters. We'll see about that and whether Shaq will introduce an elephant to the Donkey and Shrek show. Maybe JO and Shaq will switch roles depending on matchups, but that's not usually Doc's MO.

Sam

Sam wrote:Bob,

I think it is largely a matter semantics.

So a semi-related question. What kind of Celtics defense do you believe would put Shaq in a position to maximize his defensive effectiveness?

I had felt it would be to send people right to him so he might at least have a shot at intimidating based on his height alone. I'm afraid that if he had to move and attempt a stop simultaneously, he'd just be reaching and hacking all the time. But maybe I (along with many others) am just overly concerned about holes in his defense.

Sam

sam,

I can't see many teams, other than Orlando, setting their centers up to bang with Shaq down low. They'll keep them out a bit and have them move towards the hoop on the penetration. No penetration, no movement, so the best defensive posture for Shaq is for our perimeter guys to do their jobs. Then again, that's true a lot.

Shaq has no hops left, it's all size for him. He's not the only 7-footer in the game anymore, so that won't be a startling 'howdy-doo' for our opponents, like it was when he was young in Orlando and LA. My concern with Shaq's lateral mobility (or lack thereof) isn't so much that he can't get in position to stop/intimidate a guard mid-paint (if his mind is in the game he'll see him turn the corner off the screen at the top of the key and know he's coming), it's that he can't get back when said guard passes it to his man who is now free in the paint. It's his lateral movement back that is my concern.

bob

.

Sam,

My comment about KG's defensive position with Shaq was in response to Michael's suggestion about playing KG in the high post. It wasn't intended to imply that it's a done deal that Shaq will be starting, since I don't think we know that yet. Sorry for not being clearer.

bobheckler wrote:
sam,
... It's his lateral movement back that is my concern.
bob
.

bob, that was one of my concerns as well, as i mentioned in my earlier post. glad we share that perspective.

Outside -
thx for your thoughts about Shaq's position in low-mid post defensive position, and your idea (in contrast with mine) about a big (like KG, but not necessarily) playing behind him instead of higher.
as i tried to say (but perhaps was not clear enough), if we cut off opponents' baseline access as a defensive priority, that would minimize the times when there's be someone behind Shaq needing to be covered. as i mentioned and as bob just did, his movement backward is as much a concern to me as laterally.
i still see defending the high pick and roll as an issue that may tend to draw Shaq to fouls instead of effective defense, and that someone else would be better to cover high post D.

but i agree that experience and wits, playing a thinking man's game, will help offset Shaq's decline (to whatever degree) in his physical gifts at this point in his career.

regards,
Michael

Seems to me that none of these positions is seriously at odds with the others. The fact is that we don't have much of a clue what's going to happen. Many times, it's instructive to look back to similar situations. I don't know of any similar situations. Unless the makeup of the team changes dramatically, I certainly can't see myself making comparisons of this team with the Russell Celtics, the Cowens Celtics, the Bird Celtics, or the 2008 Celtics. There are just so many unknowns. I don't even have any idea how likable this team will be.

All of that is why I expect to be glued to the tv screen this preseason and season until I'm cross-eyed.

Sam

Sam wrote:Seems to me that none of these positions is seriously at odds with the others. The fact is that we don't have much of a clue what's going to happen. Many times, it's instructive to look back to similar situations. I don't know of any similar situations. Unless the makeup of the team changes dramatically, I certainly can't see myself making comparisons of this team with the Russell Celtics, the Cowens Celtics, the Bird Celtics, or the 2008 Celtics. There are just so many unknowns. I don't even have any idea how likable this team will be.

All of that is why I expect to be glued to the tv screen this preseason and season until I'm cross-eyed.

Sam

and why i expect to jump on League Pass early this year, now that i've been spoiled by the access i had last year through the benificence of the Board ...

can't wait !

Michael

Good man, Michael. If one thinks of it on a cost per game basis, it's really not all that bad. You get a great seat; have the advantage (most of the time) of expert commentary and replays; don't have to drop loads of money for game tix and parking; avoid traffic jams; and the fridge is much more convenient than concession booths. And, in your case, you can watch games occurring half a country away. What's not to like?

Enjoy!

Sam

thanks for the boost to help make sure i follow through !! the cost only stings for a couple minutes, and i've spent more for less lots of other times.

OK, i figure it at $2.20 per game for 82 games, if LP costs $180. you sure don't get a great seat at an arena for $2.20 ! and i could always watch some other teams besides the C's and get more for my money ! (but i probably won't do too much of that ... i didn't last year.)

Michael