The whole point of me bringing up those other guys is to prove the point that his skills and production is inflated due to who he plays with. If he was in any other system with other players he would not nearly have the same success and in my honest opinion would be exposed as an average point guard. In no way do I think he deserves the elite point guard status he has been given by fans and people around the league. You can put a large number of point guards in this league in that system with those players and get those same results. That is why I do not feel it is all that exceptional.
Obviously what I said cannot be proven by numbers but that doesn't make it some far fetched idea. While I understand you are a stat guy and numbers do prove something, I don't think they prove everything as I've said many times before.
Wk here is a very interesting article that I found fascinating.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=allNow, I ask that you indulge my hubris for a moment, as I am going to go Edith Bunker on you and go off on a seemingly random tangent. I see this article as a metaphor for this discussion, but it will seem as if this has nothing to do with Rajon Rondo or basketball. Once I am done, feel free to go Archie on me, and call me a dingbat if you want.
The essence I took out of the article, broken down into a few sentences, is that people are constantly searching for the one simple thing the explains/measures/encapsulates everything in a nice tidy neat little formula that expresses the nature of some complex interaction, or some metaphysical truth. People do this constantly, be it with religion, economics, politics, finance, sports, and life in general. They are constantly searching for that answer that explains
it, and sometimes they think they find
it, and they then begin to operate using that, sometimes making bets for or against it. Life though doesn't work that way. There are 5 absolutes, death and the 4 forces in the universe. E=Mc2 is just such an equation, and it works because the 4 forces of the universe are absolutes, don't change, but nothing else in life works that way. Life is all about assessing risk, because no matter how brilliant the beautiful formula you have may describe the world, it has a margin for error, and the challenge is to always fairly assess the risk that the equation is wrong. You assess that risk using your life experience, which create and formulate your bias'. Because your assessment is influenced by those biases, often you misinterpret what the equation is telling you, or you choose the equation which best comports with your biases. If you do a great job of properly assessing that risk (ie. your bias and the equation you use are in congruence), then you will be successful, but if you do a poor job of assessing that risk then you will be a failure.
So now you say that I am a stats guy, and yeah I like to use numbers to articulate points. I use the equations, numbers and evaluations that comport with my experience and bias, and you use the evaluations you use. We both use those to articulate points, ideas and concepts. I like everybody love to find that holy grail number that truly expresses the essential nature of the universe. I like everybody gets caught up in believing that once you find
it, then you give away yourself to that equation, and let it drive all of your decision making. If you don't properly assess the risk that the equation is wrong, then at some point you will make a bet on the equation, and it will go against you. Sometimes I do a good job of assessing the margin for error relating to some number I use, and at other times I do a poor job with it. Sometimes I struggle to find an equation that articulates what my biases may tell me, and I follow my biases, hoping to find a number that explains that bias. I had a bias regarding Shane Battier, which said he was a good, and highly under-appreciated player, but I struggled to find a way to measure that. The other article I posted did a good job of articulating what I thought and observed. That of course doesn't make it right or wrong, just that it articulates what I believe. The margin for error for it though may in fact be very low. I would hope that when I use a "stat" to rationalize a bias, that I do properly assess the margin for error, but obviously I can be wrong.
All that being said, please understand exactly what I am saying about Rondo. Do I have a beautiful magical equation that will perfectly articulate how good of a player he is? No, it is all in context, which is the point I believe you are trying to make. I am not arguing that point. I think we both agree that Rondo's performance must be considered in the context of his circumstances, and his circumstances are different from Jameer Nelson's, or Derrick Rose's, or Derek Fisher's, or Steve Blake's. Fair enough.
The point I am articulating is not an absolute one, but a relative one, and relative points are always subject to interpretation and context, which I think we both agree on. Now WOW said that Rondo can't shoot for shyte, Derek disagreed, and Lurker provided some statistical evidence that implied that
Rondo SUCKS as a shooter
.
Now I would like to use Lurker's point coming from a different perspective (hence my roundabout metaphor). Does Rondo suck as a shooter? Well Rondo is making nearly 52% of his shots from the field, and has an effective FG% of 53% and a true shooting % of 55%. Does that mean that Rondo has great shooting skills? No, none of those 3 numbers proves he has good shooting skills. Do the numbers Lurker used prove that he is a bad shooter? Not necessarily. Do the numbers I just posted show that Rondo is a good, or perhaps more accurately, an effective shooter? Well in the context of the performance of other guards in the NBA, yes those numbers to indicate that he is a good or highly effective shooter. He recognizes his relative skills, and exploits those that allows him to be the most effective, so as a result he shoots a very high %. His outcome is very good, so he is effective, perhaps even very effective.
So when I make the argument that Rondo is one of Boston's Big 4, I am looking at his outcome. Perhaps others could do very well, perhaps even better than him, in the same context. That of course does not have anything to do with Rondo's contribution within his context. Rondo's contribution is significant, and he should get measured on his actual contribution. He may not be as talented as a shooter as say Paul Pierce, but he is more effective at shooting the ball than Paul Pierce. He may not be as good a passer as say Chris Paul, but he is very effective at passing the ball. He may not be a great rebounder, but within the context of the Boston Celtics, he is a better rebounder than Paul Pierce. I believe that Rondo is a very effective NBA player. So what is more important, being a better player, or a more effective player?
Wk, now I know how I am, so I reread this post. Even though it may sound like I may be talking down to you, please recognize that is not my intent. Just trying make an observation.
