I'm not a fan od the per36 measurement.
What are you against?
in this circumstance, there's an attempt to make a case about fga per game with and without a person, when the per minute difference is a difference of a couple of fractions...per 36 it's a difference of .8.
I also don't see how, in the argument, it's not a predictive kind of thing, and I'm being told it's not. You're telling me at the averaged per minute rate, with statistics from 3 months ago, Rondo
would have given the ball to green .8 more than what he's getting now. Or that per minute, he was touching the ball .2 more.
I wouldn't mind taking the per36 from that time period, to the per36 til now which is 12.4 vs 12.9. But even still...I just don't like it. I guess it's a personal preference in this particular argument.
I think if we are arguing JG on Rondo assists, I think it's a much bigger set of data, like where was Jeff taking his shots then compared to now? I'd love to know, since Jeff was on the bench much, how many of the +.8 shots were attributed to JET or someone else rather than Rondo.
And again, I feel as if we're just coming from a statistical point of view, we are doing ourself a disservice. I am not the only person who felt like Jeff Green would be wide open and he wouldn't get the pass. Does Rondo miss things? Sure. Do I think it was a trust issue? Probably. Was some of it attributed to Jeff Green? Absolutely. And to Doc? Yep.
I think to use that one piece to argue against what my opinion was, is kind of weak. Do I expected a fully drawn up report? Heck no. I'm just saying...Per36...for that?
For example, in the 43 games that Rondo played, Jeff Green was assisted by Rondo 28 times...in 43 games. Compared to 102 to Paul Pierce. I just think it's half an argument.