Why Is Rajon Rondo Like A Christmas Tree?

[Eric Albert]

>"dforant1" <dforant1 at nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>yeah, Rondo played less because Williams would have had 40 &20! Our boy 
>needs a tutor. His speed is his biggest asset but not up to the challenge of 
>the craftier guards.

Now I'm really confused. You're saying Doc put in Eddie House because
House is better at guarding Williams than Rondo is? Did you watch the game?
It seemed to me that Williams scored much easier on House, as do most
point guards.

In any case, Williams is a great point guard on a team that was playing
hard and well all game. Williams played 43 minutes (as opposed to his
usual 37). Either Rondo and House guarded him all that time (48 minutes
between them), with no double-teaming.

You can't have it both ways. In six more minutes than average, Williams
basically got his averages in points and assists. That means that, no matter
which of our points was on him, we did an average, or better, job of
guarding him, compared to other teams.

So what's the problem? Neither Rondo *OR* House was "lit up." Williams
never got close to 40 and 20. In fact, given that point is a very strong
position for them, and our real strength is at three other positions, I'd
say holding their point to 22 points and 11 assists is great. (Williams
scored 41 against Dallas two weeks ago.)

I just can't understand bashing Rondo for this game. Does anyone have
an actual argument, as opposed to "Rondo would have played terribly in
some other universe"?

-- Eric