Whether it turns into a net positive overall would require further analysis. But the Celts make about 67% of their close/dunk shots and probably about 40% of their jump shots. You get more turnovers attempting a pass into the lane as swinging a pass around the perimeter to an open jump shooter, but the points you get per pass on the successful inside pass is much higher.
Not really, an assist by definition involves a made shot. A turnover by definition is a shot attempt your team doesn't have anymore.
Obviously we all know the definition of an assist and a turnover. But based on fg%, if Rondo makes 15 successful passes down low that result in shots the Celts will get, on average, 10 baskets. If he makes 25 successful passes that result in jump shots, the Celts will get, on average, those same 10 baskets. Same number of assists, 10 fewer possessions. Say it takes 20 passes to get the 15 successful ones to the inside, and 28 to get the 25 successful ones for jump shots. It's still much more efficient for the offense, but almost everyone reading this thread will think that the 28 passes for 10 baskets is much better than 20 for 10 baskets because of the assist/turnover ratios.
But the numbers in question were 1 more basket at the rim a game, with 1 more turnover from a bad pass a game. So basically, the difference is very, very tiny.
I wasn't saying that it would account for the entire difference, but it's probably a significant part of it. Say, for the sake of discussion, Paul and Rondo had their current number of inside assists and turnovers but the same number of overall assists. Rondo has 58 more turnovers but 32 more inside assists. If you use the 15/25 numbers from above, 32 inside assists use about 35 fewer possessions than they would if they were jump shot assists. That's about 60% of the difference.
(both your posts above basically said the same thing, so I'm answering them both here, I read them)
I'm thinking we're getting a bit too far in to purely speculative numbers here, and again, you're not really accounting for any of CP3's albatrosses (lookin at you, Marco Bellinelli), dismissing them out of hand, while completely focusing on Rondo's perceived negative influences.
The point is that Rondo assists more buckets at the rim, but it amounts to roughly one more bucket a game than CP3. He also turns the ball over from bad passes more often (and more often from other factors as well), in nearly a 1 for 1 trade.
All things being equal, it doesn't seem like Rondo's perceived ability to get his teammates 'easy looks' at the rim has a verifiable advantage over Chris Paul's own passing abilities. Even with worse teammates, by the numbers we actually have Chris Paul seems to be as efficient or moreso of a distributor.
Topic: The Argument for trading Rondo for Chris Paul (with or without a Paul extension) (Read 17385 times)