Critical Lessons From The Lakers

and the fact is, jump shooting as an art is simply fundamentally ‘streaky’ period.

No one consistently shoots ‘their average’ for jump shots in every game. It just doesn’t happen.

I think you are right about his nerves getting in the way. But I think his biggest problem is, when there are no other options than his shot. His shooting percentage from long range is alright when it is 4th or 5th option in a possession. But last night there wasn’t enough movement (Pierce with the flu, Perkins looking like he had just recently come back from injury etc.), and only Ray and Wafer were really involved. And when Kobe backed down to help on defense, there was only one option left. That is what puts pressure on Rondo (much more than the importance of the game), since he doesn’t get the feeling that the game is coming to him.

…I think it will happen in every one of those 7 games (if it goes that far). But NOT if he starts making his jumper-under-pressure. If he masters that one thing… then there is NO DEFENSIVE ANSWER for Rondo and the Celtics in general. How cool would that be?!

Will RR be able to hit his FTs when the pressure is seriously on? And if not, would they be better off with West at the end? Gotta mull that one over…. it’s not obvious, I think.

This team’s efficiency on offense and defense works best by far with our starting 5 on the court and it is not close. And that includes Rondo at point.

Where West will have huge impact is in helping to keep Rondo and Ray rested for those stretch minutes at the end of games.

The problem exhibited last night – Kobe disrupting our offense by the way he sagged off Rondo – was facilitated less by Rondo’s supposed inadequacies as a shooter and more by the fact that Paul Pierce was clearly feeling miserable and not playing up to par. Not only did that mean that Pierce was rarely their as a scoring option for Rondo to pass to, but it also meant that Artest was able to keep Pierce under relative control without having to have Kobe switch over and defend Pierce like in the last game.

We reacted poorly to something we knew was going to happen—there’s really no excuse for it.

But, listen, I don’t care what other points guards would have done in a similar situation. We can’t fault Rondo for failing to turn into Derrick Rose for a night, just like we can’t blame Rose when he fails to turn into Rondo for a night. The Lakers are unique in the fact that they have an All-NBA defender they can use to play free safety. It’s not just that Rondo can’t shoot—it’s that the Lakers have 2 7-footers to protect the rim. Even when guys lay off Rondo he can usually penetrate just fine and run the offense—but he runs into trouble when there are guys who have length to protect the rim.

FWIW, the Lakers defend Westbrook the same way.

is to keep the ball in Rondo’s hands and running our offense.

By taking the ball from Rondo, we’re basically making Kobe’s life easier, which makes his roaming more effective at the same time we’re asking Paul or Ray or KG to step outside of their normal roles and start creating offense for others. So, while Kobe’s roamer defense is an effective defensive tactic, the Cs reaction to that tactic—taking the ball from Rondo—makes that tactic so much more devastating. Here’s why:

By taking the ball from Rondo we:
1. Make it easier for Kobe to double team and roam on defense
2. We put greater pressure on our finishers to create good shots, or make tougher shots, leading to more turnovers, less ball movement, and more contested jumpers
3. We take our best passer, dribbler, ball handler and decision maker from situations where these talents are best employed, and station him on the perimeter and he’ll either be asked to shoot a jumper, or he’ll be ignored by his teammates after he misses a few jumpers, something which kills ball movement and effectively gets us playing 4-on-5 basketball.

You can harp on Rondo making his jump shots as a way to defeat this defense, but even if he’s making his jumpers most teams would rather make Rondo beat them with a jump shoot ALL DAY LONG than would they rather have Paul, KG, or Ray beat them using a well-run offensive game plan. And teams are even more willing to make Rondo beat them when they realize that the Cs tend to take the ball out of Rondo’s hands when he’s not making his jump shot, meaning not only does making Rondo beat them with his jumper lead to missed jumpers, it sometimes leads to the Cs voluntarily going away from their bread-and-butter offensive game plan so as to engage in lower efficiency basketball.

…just about always. He is the very best at what he does, clearly. I ALSO want him to make the easy, wide-open jumper, even when the spotlight is directly on him and the pressure is at max. Just make it.

Really, if you think about it…. it’s kinda nuts that he can’t do that. He’s an NBA PG. He just HAS TO MAKE THAT SHOT. There’s no two ways about it. Well… maybe that’s not completely true….there are 2 ways about it…. Cs can, and have won without it. But man… it’s much, much harder. Because fact is: once Rondo gets that final piece in place, there will be NO stopping him or the Cs’ offense. Literally, there will be no effective defense against the Cs’ O.

Cs were fine in the first quarter (not half, really), but when the Lakers tightened up their D, and Kobe started roaming and causing ever more trouble, the advantage the Cs were giving away by essentially giving the Lakers an extra man on their defensive team (the roaming Kobe) got to be too much. Why do that? Why give them that leg up, when all you have to do to stop it cold is make a few wide-open jumpers?

Real life called, bothering me again! Don’t you hate it when stupid things like family and real life get in the way of all this virtuality?

…which basically amount to: The Cs are giving away a major advantage — what amounts to any extra man on the Lakers’ defensive team (Kobe the Roamer) — simply because Rondo doesn’t hit those simple, wide-open jumpers. I.e., Rondo could KILL the Lakers’ D easily… all he has to do is make those jumpers at a high rate, which he should be able to do because he is literally WIDE OPEN. 80%, then. Why not? After all, there’s nobody guarding him.

Now, people have argued that Rondo is shooting pretty well from the field. First, much of that good FG% is from layups and bunnies at the rim. Second — truth be told, I’ve NEVER seen Rondo take and consistently MAKE those easy jumpers in a critical game when the defender is sagging off of him. Never! From that I conclude that he just hasn’t conquered his nerves when the spotlight is directly upon him — when the pressure is at maximum, play stops, he’s holding the ball, the arena goes quiet….. and it’s up to him to make that easy, WIDE OPEN jump shot.

Don’t forget too that as his shots clang off the rim, the Cs’ defense takes a hit. Pretty soon, the opponent’s going to take advantage of all those missed shots and start hitting their transition baskets. And then the whole game goes to hell.

The simple, most direct solution is to just make those damn jumpers. Hit 2, 3, 4 in a row, and your opponent’s whole plan disintegrates.

Is the point.

Without that weapon, it’s fighting an uphill battle. You have to work twice as hard to get good offense, since teams can do what Kobe does against Rondo. Take that way, and things become much easier.

“Awful” too strong?

Ok, how about, really not very good? Better for you?

  You must have somehow missed them all, some of them were in the Finals.

No question about it. But the game still exposed this (previously known) weakness, in a way that brought home the importance of fixing it. And I think Doc’s got that in mind, and that’s why he had Rondo taking all those jumpers in the first half. I think they’re working on it.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask to be healthy. That’s pretty much synonymous with going after the championship…. and that’s what we’re all doing.

…that health is not the #1 priority. Of course. Fixing Rondo’s deficiency is an important incremental improvement because it plugs up a weakness which otherwise could be exploited by our opponents. The Cs will not always be perfectly healthy, and foul-free, and playing their best. There will always be imperfections which lead to vulnerabilities. If we can eliminate this one Achilles’ heel, the team will become that much less vulnerable… which could prove very important in the future, especially on those occasions when we’re playing suboptimally for any number of reasons.

when the C’s won it all.

I think health is the main concern, because having all your players available allows Rondo (and everyone else) to each play the game that they’re best suited for.

Rondo only needs to shoot if his regular options aren’t available due to injuries, fouls, or whatever.

Of course, if he COULD shoot better, that would be gravy….

Sure, if the Cs are at full strength and playing well, they can beat the Lakers. And I think pretty handily. After all, in this era we HAVE won a championship with Rondo’s deficiency intact.

BUT WE LOST TWO CHAMPIONSHIPS!

I think that one short sentence pretty well says it all. If you want to assume that the team will always be at full strength and playing their game, then sure, go ahead and ignore these kinds of issues. But that is simply not the case. We are NOT likely to be at full strength at some point in our quest. Last year, that disastrous critical point was reached in Game 6 of the Finals, and it killed us in Game 7. It could happen anytime.

It is when the team is not playing up to its par — for any of many reasons — that these kinds of incremental improvements become CRITICAL. And yeah, I mean “critical.” If Ray’s off his game and missing his shots, and our bigs are wounded and we can’t get the rebounds, if Paul’s wasted and unable to bring it home — those are the times when we need Rondo to stand there and make the easy wide-open shot when Kobe sags (as Kobe always does).

If we say “Oh, we’re more than good enough to beat those guys” and ignore ways of getting better now…. wow, I’d call that a recipe for disaster. A disaster that has ALREADY STRUCK US — twice in the past 3 years.