What a Difference KG Makes

Bill Simmons writes:

Sorry for bastardizing "Leo the Late Bloomer," one of my daughter's favorite bedtime stories and a true classic. But I couldn't help it. Not only has Rajon Rondo's belated emergence been the most fascinating subplot of a storybook Celtics season, but he's just like the character in that book. Like Leo, Rondo never spoke. Like Leo's father, Celts fans spent an inordinate amount of time wondering when Rondo would "draw" (in this case, play with consistency) or "write" (in this case, bang home open jumpers). Leo had patient parents who believed in him; Rondo had veterans such as Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, role models who provided the confidence and toughness he desperately needed, eventually springing him from his on-court shell and altering the course of his career. We always hear about the value of young teams adding veterans, but after watching the effects over the course of an 82-game season, it's probably impossible to exaggerrate the importance of polished, professional, competitive, proven veterans on young guys who don't know what the hell they're doing.

I think this is pretty far off-base. The reality is that Rajon Rondo played pretty well for a terrible 2006-2007 Celtics team. When you added Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to the mix, had Paul Pierce play a full season, and rounded out the rotation with some decent veterans, the team was much better. That put Rondo in a position where people notice that he plays pretty well. But relative to last year, he's rebounding is a bit worse, his free throw shooting is a bit worse, and his field goal percentage is better. None of that would be shocking for a guy of his age, but it's especially non-shocking when you consider that it's harder to rebound when you're competing with the Big Ticket and better teammates give him more open looks.

He's a pretty good player, and deserves credit for contributing to the team. But there's no dramatic transformation here.

Comments

This is when Simmons is at his most insufferable. He writes 3/4 of his column about some mediocre player that noone outside of Boston cares about. I'm surprised you read it.

Posted by eriks | April 27, 2008 10:05 AM

What eriks said. He, and every insufferable Boston fan like him, is why the Red Sox are beginning to reach Evil Empire levels of hatred pretty much everywhere else. (The Patriots are way past that, but that also has a lot to do with Belichick.) Go Cubs!

Posted by Ready for change | April 27, 2008 10:21 AM

Sometimes it helps to actually watch the games. I know that's not so important to uber-nerds who depend upon recently-invented stats to do their thinking for them, but anyone who watched more than a handful of Celtics games in each of the past two seasons would have noticed the huge leap in Rondo's performance and confidence. Simmons, as usual, is correct here.

I sure as hell would rather have Rondo than Matt's favorite player, the despicable Gilbert Arenas.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 10:25 AM

I despise Simmons less than most people seem to. Probably because I despise Boston-area sports less than most people (outside New England) seem to. But it's never occurred to me that Simmons is anything but a glib writer who occasionally stumbles upon a felicitous turn of phrase. Mostly, though, he peppers his columns with pop culture allusions that make my teeth hurt. In other words, he's not an analyst. I'm not even sure he considers himself an analyst. He's more of an aspiring Rick Reilly type, looking for a catchy riff that will resonate with his audience.

Posted by Ari | April 27, 2008 10:25 AM

By "he" I meant Simmons, of course. I'm sure in his next column we'll all be treated to a discussion about how great the Patriots' draft picks are.

Posted by Ready for change | April 27, 2008 10:27 AM

Did you read this Jackie MacMullen article about Ray Allen's influence on Rondo

Posted by Andrew | April 27, 2008 10:28 AM

Ready to whine writes: "By "he" I meant Simmons, of course. I'm sure in his next column we'll all be treated to a discussion about how great the Patriots' draft picks are."

If you'd actually read more than a handful of Simmons columns you'd realize he doesn't do that sort of garbage.

But you're a Cubs fan, so I can understand why you'd be insanely bitter.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 10:34 AM

MoeLarryAndJesus- I will fully admit I haven't read Simmons' column regularly for at least a year now. I used to be a big fan. But really, there are only so many "My God, the Patriots and Red Sox are so unbelievably awesome I have to write another column about it and tie it in with a cliche pop culture reference" columns I could take before I gave up. (Whining about the refs in that Week 9 Pats vs. Colts game - a game the Pats won, mind you, really took the cake.) I still think the levels of losing column (and subsequent amendments) was one of the best pieces written by anyone at ESPN.
I am bitter; but hey, the Cubs have the second best record in baseball, so maybe things are looking up! In the meantime, thanks for changing my name from "ready to change" to "ready to whine", that was so clever!

Posted by Ready for change | April 27, 2008 10:43 AM

Rondo's PER went up from 13.1 to 15.6. While maybe not a "dramatic" improvement it is solid change.

I think he was also rated the #1 defensive PG by Hollinger this year. Now KG's impact has been largest on D and defensive basketball stats just aren't good. On the other hand the stats not being good could also be used in favor of arguing Rondo having a big improvement just not an in area where we see well statiscally

Posted by Pioneer10 | April 27, 2008 10:44 AM

Ready for the annual Cubs fizzle replies: "I am bitter; but hey, the Cubs have the second best record in baseball, so maybe things are looking up! In the meantime, thanks for changing my name from "ready to change" to "ready to whine", that was so clever!"

I never said it was clever, but it sure fit.

Meanwhile I'm sorry Simmons' pop culture references bother you so much. I'm sure your own favorite sports writers are deep thinkers who wield prose like modern day F. Scott Fitzgeralds while bitching about Barry Bonds and the evil Belichick. Sure they are.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 10:53 AM

Matt totally leaves out an important part of the column in which simmons tells the story of rondo watching games with allen at his house. I think matt's focus on rebounds is irrelevant as since the Celtics upgraded their front court there would obviously be an increase in their numbers thereby resulting in a decrease in the back court's rebounding numbers. The point of the article is that a young players, or any player for that matter, growth depends on situations which are often out of their control. And in Rondo's case, it's a valid argument that the increase in quality veterans lead to an increase in his quality of play.

Posted by joe c | April 27, 2008 10:58 AM

I thought you only read fatuous blowhard pundits for work; now I see you also read them as a hobby.

To paraphrase Jim Schoenfeld, have another nosebleed, Simmons.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 27, 2008 11:05 AM

Whining about the refs in that Week 9 Pats vs. Colts game - a game the Pats won, mind you, really took the cake.

I'm glad you brought that one up. That was easily the worst Simmons column of all time; a perfect encapsulation of all his flaws as a columnist.

Posted by right | April 27, 2008 11:06 AM

If you don't shut up about KG we're voting for McCain.

Posted by Minnesota | April 27, 2008 11:09 AM

It's funny how Simmons' national profile has been raised more by the hatred so many people now have for Boston-area sports teams and their fans than by the actual success of those teams.

So Boston has had the dominant baseball and football teams so far in this young century, and now the Celtics are back. I can understand how fans in backwaters like DC, Baltimore, and so forth must be suffering. Especially DC - watching the Corpse of Joe Gibbs stumbling around muttering about Jesus must have been very hard for the past few seasons. And Knicks fans... jeez, that must be rough. Or even White Sox fans, who finally saw their team win after so long and the reaction was one long national yawn.

And the best part about being a Boston fan these days is that all three Boston teams will be strong NEXT season, too. Drives ya nuts, huh?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 11:22 AM

Rondo didn't have a much higher FG% this year solely because his heroic veteran teammates were finding him for open looks on 14-foot jumpers. He got those looks last year, too, but he just didn't hit those shots. This year, he's hitting them, and he's also driving to the basket more and employing moves that make people like Steve Nash and Rasheed Wallace look geriatric. He's been huge. He's confident at the point, he gets key offensive and defensive rebounds, his penetration opens things up for the others, he's hitting open jumpers, he plays great D, and on and on. He's vastly improved over last year, even if your sabrmetric approach to basketball analysis doesn't say so.

Sometimes you actually have to watch the games to see what a player did or judge his effect on the outcome. Just perusing the stats isn't enough.

Posted by tinisoli | April 27, 2008 11:41 AM

Sometimes you actually have to watch the games to see what a player did or judge his effect on the outcome. Just perusing the stats isn't enough.

For some reason it seems absolutely impossible to convince Matt of that simple fact.

Posted by Antid Oto | April 27, 2008 12:07 PM

Rondo's PER went up from 13.1 to 15.6. While maybe not a "dramatic" improvement it is solid change.

It's also not unusual for the difference you'd see from year one to year two. Players tend to get better as they get more experience in their first few years.

Posted by Mo | April 27, 2008 12:10 PM

I stopped reading at "Bill Simmons"

Posted by 55 | April 27, 2008 12:30 PM

MoeLarryandJesus, Boston does indeed have some good teams this decade, but I'll always have this:

19-NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Posted by Eli Manning | April 27, 2008 12:33 PM

"(Rando is) a pretty good player, and deserves credit for contributing to the team. But there's no dramatic transformation here."

It's not as if anyone could have foreseen something like this before the season started:

Rajon Rando and Kendrick Perkins are two of the luckiest guys on the planet. Especially Rondo, who is the new Tony Parker - an average talent who is in precisely the right place at precisely the right time to make the hoi polloi think he's actually really good.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 12:33 PM

Wow. Matt you don't watch Celtics basketball. Hilarious.

Tinisoli is absolutely correct. Rondo has greatly, greatly improved.

Posted by Yup | April 27, 2008 1:22 PM

First of all, I like both stats and Bill Simmons. And I hate Boston teams (I'm still recovering from the ALCS...). So, I like to think I judge his columns somewhat fairly.

First of all, Simmons specifically talks about "consistency," so I'm not sure how looking at averages, as opposed to standard deviations, tells you anything. Rondo had more than a few brilliant moments last year - I remember being impressed by some of his Kirlenko-esque stat lines.

Also, Simmons makes the point that Rondo improved as the year went on. He's making the point that Rondo is better NOW than he was at the beginning of this season. So of course, any statistical improvement is going to be damped - a better set of statistics to look at would be the last two months of the season versus the first two.

As far as hitting open jumpers - well, we don't really have a metric for that right now. He IS shooting better this year, part of which is probably a product of having better teammates, but it's had to deconflate that with natural improvement. If a guy who's watched 82 Celtics games this year is telling me a large part of that is the player hitting more open jumpers, then I really don't have a better way of checking.

On the other hand, returning to the "better teammates" theory - wouldn't an intuitive consequence of better offensive teammates be a decrease in usage? Rondo's usage actually INCREASED this year - usage and shooting percentages are generally agreed to be negatively correlated, so that makes Rondo's increased shooting percentage a bit more impressive.

Perhaps most critically, I think that if you only look at traditional stats, you're not really looking at the "transformation" Simmons is talking about. Consider two paragraphs down from the one Matt quoted:

From Boston's game against Detroit on Dec.19 to Game 2 of the Atlanta series Wednesday -- two home games that I attended -- the difference in Rondo's on-court demeanor was remarkable. Old Rondo carried himself like a little brother who didn't want to screw things up for his big brothers, someone who had confidence in his athletic ability and little else. He never talked on the court, never bitched at the referees, never changed his expression and seemed like an odd fit for a particularly charismatic group of Celtics, somewhat of an enigma, the wild-card youngster for the season. When Chauncey Billups abused him in the second half of an eventual defeat, I remember walking back to my father's house in 10-degree weather and deciding the Celtics couldn't win a title with such a green point guard; they probably had a more realistic chance of prevailing in 2009. But Rondo kept getting better and better through the winter, and there was a pivotal moment in March when Rafer Alston got physical with him on the opening tip and Rondo belted him back, then defiantly stood his ground, ready to trade punches in a nationally televised road game. Watching from home, I remember thinking, "He made it! He's all grown up!"

I'd agree that you can challenge the assumption that this "change in attitude" has tangibly made the Celtics a better team, but you don't really have a basis to challenge whether it happened or not. I mean, just on the basis of how many games he's watched, Bill knows better than any of us (unless somewhere here works for the Celtics or something...)

Just my two cents...

Posted by ly_yng | April 27, 2008 1:31 PM

Growing up includes the ability and willingness to throw a punch?

Posted by shah8 | April 27, 2008 2:18 PM

Bill Simmons doesn't pay enough attention to stats for me to take anything he says all that seriously, but he's still funny as hell.

Posted by Dr. Zeuss | April 27, 2008 2:31 PM

There's no real way to separate out the improvement a young player has made by just getting more experience and the improvements that come from playing with better teammates, except... WATCHING THE ACTUAL GAMES!

Posted by Reality Man | April 27, 2008 2:31 PM

shah8 asks: "Growing up includes the ability and willingness to throw a punch?"

Don't be such a candyass. Letting yourself be pushed around on the court and being unwilling to risk pushing back isn't going to lead to success in the NBA. If you don't understand that, stick with badminton.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 2:55 PM

The Wizards really should have sat Arenas this game. Thee last couple of possessions couldn't have made it clearer: Arenas will get you the big shot on one end...and then leave his man wide open for the killer three-pointer at the other.

Posted by Antid Oto | April 27, 2008 3:42 PM

"The Wizards really should have sat Arenas this game. Thee last couple of possessions couldn't have made it clearer: Arenas will get you the big shot on one end...and then leave his man wide open for the killer three-pointer at the other."

Meh. At least as far as the final defensive play went, he was doing the right thing in doubling off West to help on Bron-Bron.

You rather have West shooting that shot than let LBJ get to the basket.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 3:55 PM

I agree about with Antid Oto. That was painful to watch, but watch I did. It was also painful to watch West who grew up 10 miles from Verizon Center do what Areanas could not.

WRT Rondo, he's way better than he was, but I attribute it to Sam Cassell as much as anything.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | April 27, 2008 4:02 PM

he was doing the right thing

But he did it very poorly. The double was weak and the attempt at closeout was pathetic--because he was injured and couldn't move around very well.

Posted by Antid Oto | April 27, 2008 4:32 PM

"WRT Rondo, he's way better than he was, but I attribute it to Sam Cassell as much as anything."

Nah. The improvement was evident well before Cassell joined the roster, which just happened at the beginning of March.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 4:39 PM

Simmions is the world's most literate fanboy - and he hasn't been able to adjust his style for a more national profile.

His greatest weakness is the lack of a good editor when he was starting out at ESPN. Somebody needs to tell him "no" once in a while to a pop-culture, friends, or Boston reference. They work because they were unexpected - now they are annoying space filler (TMQ - please take note).

Anyway on the subject at hand, young PG's are insanely unpredictable. It takes a few years for one to find out how good they'll be (Parker, Nash, Billups for example). In addition, the big question marks on the Celtics was how can three focus points get along, and who's going to distribute the shots. A second year PG isn't the best option. His performance is a pleasant surprise.

Posted by Dervin | April 27, 2008 7:35 PM

So for everybody who's claiming they know better because they "WATCH THE GAMES," I have a question: if you don't live in Boston, how many Celtics games are you going to see in a year? 10, maybe, if you watch a lot of basketball? I don't think seeing Rondo play 10 times gives you some special knowledge. If he happens to have 10 of his best games or 10 of his worst games, you probably have a less-informed opinion than someone who doesn't watch him play at all.

Posted by too many steves | April 27, 2008 9:04 PM

I got off the Bill Simmons bus when all of his columns devolved into things like "that football play was just like when Steve/Jane/Sally (did something) on (random reality show I've never even heard of, let alone watched)."

Once he hit it big he became an insufferable name dropping douche, so that just made it even worse.

Posted by cd6 | April 27, 2008 9:56 PM

I can just imagine the roster of humorless blowhards the Simmons-haters above prefer. Yeesh. Most sports writing is about as readable and informative as shampoo instructions. Simmons is one of the very few exceptions. Paul Zimmerman is another one, which is remarkable considering how long he's been at it. And they both love to toss non-sports references into the mix, which tends to drive assholes crazy.

I like that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 10:36 PM

Rondo didn't have a much higher FG% this year solely because his heroic veteran teammates were finding him for open looks on 14-foot jumpers. He got those looks last year, too, but he just didn't hit those shots. This year, he's hitting them

Yup.

I take a position in between Matthew's and Simmons's. Form what I can tell, Rondo improved his shot since last year - a lot. He's got a fairly decent 18 footer now. The rest of his game was decent last year and is the same this year.

Posted by Al | April 27, 2008 10:40 PM

MLandJ, I don't like Bill Simmons because I don't find him funny. Nothing personal against the guy, just not my style. I read him the same way cd6 does. But then again, I don't really find anyone in the mainstream sports media funny (except Kenny Mayne- what happened to that guy?). There are a few blogs I go to for sports humor, usually specific to the teams I like.

Posted by 55 | April 27, 2008 11:08 PM

Last year: Rondo plays in blowouts against 2nd string players
This year: Rondo plays in meaningful games against the best players in the league…his points go up from 6.4 to 10.6 and he is more efficient, with his shooting% going from 41 to 49. He averages MORE rebounds (3.7 up to 4.2) especially impressive with KG in town, more steals and more blocks and his 3pt% goes up. In terms of intangibles, he plays great defense against top PG’s and is able to handle playing with future HOFers and in important crunch time situations. All these stat increases only come with an uptick of 6 more minutes a game. Furthermore, even though he is handling the ball more, he actually has the same number of turnovers than last year. Of

Posted by Ton | April 28, 2008 12:31 AM

55 writes: "MLandJ, I don't like Bill Simmons because I don't find him funny. Nothing personal against the guy, just not my style. I read him the same way cd6 does. But then again, I don't really find anyone in the mainstream sports media funny (except Kenny Mayne- what happened to that guy?)."

It's fine if you don't like Simmons, but who do you like? The whole "too many pop culture references" objection seems fucking stupid to me, though your brief comment didn't make it.

Simmons makes fun of yahoos and sprinkles in anti-Bush comments - is that it?

Who exactly do the anti-Simmons people prefer, and why? Just curious. I've been reading his stuff since he was on Digital City Boston and my only complaint is his ongoing fascination with reality TV garbage - otherwise I think he's great.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 28, 2008 2:31 AM

ML&J

Part of the problem with Simmons is that now saying that you like him other than the reality tv garbage is like saying you like salad except for the lettuce part. If he goes on for three paragraphs in an extended "real world" metaphor wtf are all his readers over the age of 17 supposed to do?

"My buddy J-Bug and I were hanging out with Michael Jordan in Vegas the other day and J-Bug remarked that the Patriots win streak was just like the alliance they formed on the 6th season of Big Brother" That's not a sports column, that's a D list celebrity's attention whoring myspace page featuring inane commentary on sports.

Another great thing about Simmons... the whole spygate saga hits the news and Bill's first column: "Boy that Shawn Merriman sure is classless." Way to go Bill. It's awesome that his wife beats him in football picks though.

Totally agree that the vast majority of pro sports writers are equally insufferable, though for different reasons.

I tend to read blogs and other indie stuff. Mostly footballoutsiders, deadspin, firejoemorgan, etc.

Posted by cd6 | April 28, 2008 8:59 AM

One way in which Rondo has improved greatly is in taking the ball to the basket. Early in the season, it seemed as though at least two-thirds of those attempts were unceremoniously snuffed. Now, they almost always work. He's much better at finding a way to get his shots off unmolested.

In general, his confidence is light-years better than last fall.

Posted by The Golux | April 28, 2008 12:11 PM

So for everybody who's claiming they know better because they "WATCH THE GAMES," I have a question: if you don't live in Boston, how many Celtics games are you going to see in a year? 10, maybe, if you watch a lot of basketball?

Well, seeing 10 games gives you a better baseline than seeing one or two. But if you live in the area, you can, potentially, see all 82 games. I'm not a fanatic, but I certainly saw way more than 10 games myself. I probably saw at least parts of more than 60.

Posted by rochrist | April 28, 2008 1:18 PM