Rajon Rondo Notches Triple-Double as the Celtics Beat the Bobcats 100-89
That said, there is no debating the impressiveness of the six-game win streak the Celtics are currently on or the manner in which they beat the Bobcats.
Despite blowing an 18-point lead and allowing the Bobcats to stay in the game, there was never any doubt that the Celtics were in control from the start. They came out swinging and built a big lead, then turned back up the heat to seal the deal.
Pacing the Celtics' 100 point night from the starting lineup were Paul Pierce, Avery Bradley and Rajon Rondo, who logged 19, 16 and 17, respectively. Yet, Rondo outdid both Pierce and Bradley by dominating in more ways than just scoring.
He was spectacular all night with his 26th career triple-double that featured 12 assists and ten rebounds to go along with his 17 points on 8 of 11 shooting. Though this was his 26th triple-double, it may have been the first such performance not on national television or against a good team.
For the Celtics, Rondo's performance is a good sign nonetheless. He knew what he had to do to extend the win streak to six games, and he went out and got it done, despite it not being his usual conducive atmosphere for triple-doubles.
Now, the Celtics have responded with a previously unimaginable six-game winning streak after recovering from a four-game losing streak. I'd say they turned things around pretty nicely.
Wednesday night, they will put the win streak on the line as the New Orleans Hornets come to town in what should be one of the most interesting games of the season. It will be the first meeting between the two teams and, more importantly, the father-son, player-coach, NBA duo in Doc and Austin Rivers.
Unless Austin and his Hornets can cool his father's red-hot Celtics, the C's will have a great shot at extending their win streak further.
Until then, though, it will stay at six games behind Rajon Rondo's latest dominating, triple-double performance.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?