The Argument for trading Rondo for Chris Paul (with or without a Paul extension)

[Fafnir]

Yes, another CP3 thread but I am hoping this one has a comparitively easy solution.

The word is out that the Celts would be willing to trade for Paul with not assurances that he will resign.  Given that I think he is a much better player than Rondo, I am on board with that.

So here is my question.  What would Paul's options be for leaving Bos after the season?  In other words, if you have to be to a team with cap space (which neither the Knicks or Lakers have or in a sign and trade (where the Celts would potentially get something of value back). 

Also, how much money would Paul be leaving on the table in either scenerio with the new CBA.  My understanding is that it could be a lot.  And I mean, a lot.

So I think DA has this thing figured out.  If the Celts were to trade for Paul, I am reasonably comfortable with the idea that he will indeed resign.

I am not comfortable as you are.

I understand that.  But again, what exactly are Paul's options for leaving and how much would it cost him.

Serious question that I am asking.  Does anyone have an answer?

From John Hollinger's insider article breaking the CP3 to the Knicks thing down he says this:

compared with leaving the Hornets and signing with another team for the full maximum, he'd be leaving about $30 million on the table.

He'd lose one year off the deal and a total of 30 million if he left the C's for another team in free agency.

As for what teams could have room to sign him to the max, Orlando, Pacers, Nets, Kings, Warriors, and many others depending on amnesty clause and stretch exception usage.

[droopdog7]

Yes, another CP3 thread but I am hoping this one has a comparitively easy solution.

The word is out that the Celts would be willing to trade for Paul with not assurances that he will resign.  Given that I think he is a much better player than Rondo, I am on board with that.

So here is my question.  What would Paul's options be for leaving Bos after the season?  In other words, if you have to be to a team with cap space (which neither the Knicks or Lakers have or in a sign and trade (where the Celts would potentially get something of value back). 

Also, how much money would Paul be leaving on the table in either scenerio with the new CBA.  My understanding is that it could be a lot.  And I mean, a lot.

So I think DA has this thing figured out.  If the Celts were to trade for Paul, I am reasonably comfortable with the idea that he will indeed resign.

I am not comfortable as you are.

I understand that.  But again, what exactly are Paul's options for leaving and how much would it cost him.

Serious question that I am asking.  Does anyone have an answer?

From John Hollinger's insider article breaking the CP3 to the Knicks thing down he says this:

compared with leaving the Hornets and signing with another team for the full maximum, he'd be leaving about $30 million on the table.

He'd lose one year off the deal and a total of 30 million if he left the C's for another team in free agency.

As for what teams could have room to sign him to the max, Orlando, Pacers, Nets, Kings, Warriors, and many others depending on amnesty clause and stretch exception usage.

Thanks. So it is pretty much what I figured.  Not only would he be leaving a good chunk of change on the table, neither the knicks or the lakers have a remote possibility of signing Paul as a free agent.  He'd need a sign and trade, which I understand is also capped by the new CBA.  So he'd get less in a sign and trade than he would signing with the Celts.  And on top of that, the Celts would get something in return for him.

So like I said, I am comfortable with trading for Paul because he would either resign or we'd get something back for him.  My money would be on him resiging.

[indeedproceed]

2010-2011 stats (I am ignoring last year's playoffs, simply because the sample size is too small for Paul to actually make any good judgments ... yeah yeah, his performance against the Lakers was great, but it is not indicative of his average quality of play. Remember how many 3s Lebron his in the Celtics series? And then he started hitting less? Regression to the mean, baby); also, just looking at last year, and not career, if someone else wants to do the career comparison feel free.

Shooting (not using TS% ... Rondo is an awful free-throw shooter, which we all know, and that skews his TS% down a good degree. Yes, it is important he can't shoot them and he needs to learn, but for looking at actual production on the offensive end of the court I am looking at normal FG%)-
Chris Paul 15.8ppg at 46.3%
Rondo 10.6ppg at 47.5%
Advantage here is Paul, but honestly not by that much

Play-making-
Chris Paul 9.8 assists per game (Assist Ratio 38.0)
Rajon Rondo 11.2 assists per game (Assist Ratio 44.1)
Advantage here is Rondo by a good margin

Rebounding-
Chris Paul 4.1 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.9)
Rajon Rondo 4.4 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.2)
Advantage here Rondo, but not by much

Steals-
Chris Paul 2.4 steals per game
Rajon Rondo 2.2 steals per game
Advantage Chris Paul, but by a very small margin

Defense-
Unfortunately not a lot of stats to work on here. But in 2011 Chris Paul was on the All-NBA Defensive Second Team, and Rondo was on the All-NBA Defensive First Team. From a subjective standpoint, watching games, Rondo appears to be a better defender, and is recognized around the league as such, so advantage Rondo.

Turnover rate-
Chris Paul 8.6
Rondo 13.6
Advantage Chris Paul, by a big margin

Usage rate-
Chris Paul 22.2
Rondo 19.7
(no "advantage" here, because usage rate isn't really a stat you can say someone is better or worse at, but it is good to look at in the context of other stats)

I am not looking at PER or WP48, because those stats are known to be fairly unrepresentative of actual play (especially PER). WP48 is very contextual, in that the team around you has a very large effect, and we are trying to ignore that for right now.

So what are the differences here? With Chris Paul you have a better scorer, but not by much (and it is worth noting that this marginally higher scoring is due to a higher usage rate, due to not having as many scoring options around him). With Rondo, you get a better defensive PG and better play-maker (though, too, Chris Paul's higher usage rate will necessarily decrease his assist ratio ... however, even adjusted for usage Rondo is better here). Paul has the advantage of being a better ball-handler and won't turn it over as much (though it. In other categories they pretty much break even.

Honestly, I don't think the differences are as big as some people are making them out to be. Both are very good, elite players, with their own unique set of skills. Saying one is "clearly" better than the other is both inaccurate and disingenuous. Instead, you should be focusing on which one fills a need.

Chris Paul adds scoring, and manages turnovers better. However, the scoring advantage is relatively small, and would likely decrease (even as his assist ratio increases with the Big 3 around him). So his main advantage is that the offense will run more smoothly. However, he isn't as good defensively (though that could easily change in the Celtics system, and he isn't a complete schlub defensively). On that level, it does seem that Chris Paul is a better fit, though it is by a pretty small margin, and as the Perkins trade showed, team chemistry goes FAR beyond mere stats.

(So, basically, I am telling people to stop exaggerating Paul's strengths and Rondo's weaknesses and look at this more rationally ... I mean, hell, the same people calling for Rondo's head were the ones who were most p---ed off by the loss of Perkins. Different situations, yes, but team chemistry is something you can't quantify statistically but has a MAJOR effect).

Scoring:

Paul TS%**: 57.8%
Rondo: 49.5%

Paul points per 36 minutes: 15.8
Rondo: 10.3

Chris Paul is a better scorer by a significant margin, both in efficiency and in frequency.

Passing:

Chris Paul AST%***: 45.8%
Rondo: 47.1

Assist to Bad pass ratio:
Chris Paul: 7.7:1
Rondo: 4.8:1

Assists per 36 minutes:
Chris Paul: 9.8
Rondo: 10.8

Chris Paul makes a better ratio of good passes to bad passes, ends his possessions with a pass nearly as often as Rondo, and averages only 1 assist less per 36 minutes than Rondo. Rondo's only advantage is the frequency of his assists, Chris Paul statistically is the better passer otherwise.

Rebounding:

Chris Paul Total rebound percent****: 6.9%
ROndo: 7.2%

Paul Defensive reb %: 12.9
Rondo: 9.7%

Paul offensive rebound percent: 1.6%
Rondo: 4.5%

Defensive Stats:

Paul DRtg~*: 103
Rondo: 100

Rondo and Paul's steal and block %'s (Block percentage/steal % is an estimate of the percentage of opponent two-point field goal attempts blocked/stolen by the player while he was on the floor) are basically identical

Rondo is a better defender than Chris Paul. Not, in my judgement, a margin by which would hamper the Celtics defensive plans if they acquired Paul, but ROndo is the better defender.

Keeping in mind the quality of teammate Paul has consistently dealt with compared to the quality of teammate Rondo has dealt with, objectively (based on statistics), I don't see how you reached the conclusions you did, RyNYE.


Definitions of stats used:

**TS% True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws. Since more goes into PPG than just how often you make a FG (as in what kind of FG it is, FTA's, etc..), this is a much more comprehensive gauge of how good a scorer/shooter a player is)

***AST%: Assist percentage is an estimate of the percentage of teammate field goals a player assisted while he was on on the floor.

**** Total rebound percentage is an estimate of the percentage of available rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor.

~* Dtrg: Points allowed per 100 possessions while the player in question is on the floor.

Source:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=rondora01&y1=2011&p2=paulch01&y2=2011

[droopdog7]

2010-2011 stats (I am ignoring last year's playoffs, simply because the sample size is too small for Paul to actually make any good judgments ... yeah yeah, his performance against the Lakers was great, but it is not indicative of his average quality of play. Remember how many 3s Lebron his in the Celtics series? And then he started hitting less? Regression to the mean, baby); also, just looking at last year, and not career, if someone else wants to do the career comparison feel free.

Shooting (not using TS% ... Rondo is an awful free-throw shooter, which we all know, and that skews his TS% down a good degree. Yes, it is important he can't shoot them and he needs to learn, but for looking at actual production on the offensive end of the court I am looking at normal FG%)-
Chris Paul 15.8ppg at 46.3%
Rondo 10.6ppg at 47.5%
Advantage here is Paul, but honestly not by that much

Play-making-
Chris Paul 9.8 assists per game (Assist Ratio 38.0)
Rajon Rondo 11.2 assists per game (Assist Ratio 44.1)
Advantage here is Rondo by a good margin

Rebounding-
Chris Paul 4.1 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.9)
Rajon Rondo 4.4 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.2)
Advantage here Rondo, but not by much

Steals-
Chris Paul 2.4 steals per game
Rajon Rondo 2.2 steals per game
Advantage Chris Paul, but by a very small margin

Defense-
Unfortunately not a lot of stats to work on here. But in 2011 Chris Paul was on the All-NBA Defensive Second Team, and Rondo was on the All-NBA Defensive First Team. From a subjective standpoint, watching games, Rondo appears to be a better defender, and is recognized around the league as such, so advantage Rondo.

Turnover rate-
Chris Paul 8.6
Rondo 13.6
Advantage Chris Paul, by a big margin

Usage rate-
Chris Paul 22.2
Rondo 19.7
(no "advantage" here, because usage rate isn't really a stat you can say someone is better or worse at, but it is good to look at in the context of other stats)

I am not looking at PER or WP48, because those stats are known to be fairly unrepresentative of actual play (especially PER). WP48 is very contextual, in that the team around you has a very large effect, and we are trying to ignore that for right now.

So what are the differences here? With Chris Paul you have a better scorer, but not by much (and it is worth noting that this marginally higher scoring is due to a higher usage rate, due to not having as many scoring options around him). With Rondo, you get a better defensive PG and better play-maker (though, too, Chris Paul's higher usage rate will necessarily decrease his assist ratio ... however, even adjusted for usage Rondo is better here). Paul has the advantage of being a better ball-handler and won't turn it over as much (though it. In other categories they pretty much break even.

Honestly, I don't think the differences are as big as some people are making them out to be. Both are very good, elite players, with their own unique set of skills. Saying one is "clearly" better than the other is both inaccurate and disingenuous. Instead, you should be focusing on which one fills a need.

Chris Paul adds scoring, and manages turnovers better. However, the scoring advantage is relatively small, and would likely decrease (even as his assist ratio increases with the Big 3 around him). So his main advantage is that the offense will run more smoothly. However, he isn't as good defensively (though that could easily change in the Celtics system, and he isn't a complete schlub defensively). On that level, it does seem that Chris Paul is a better fit, though it is by a pretty small margin, and as the Perkins trade showed, team chemistry goes FAR beyond mere stats.

(So, basically, I am telling people to stop exaggerating Paul's strengths and Rondo's weaknesses and look at this more rationally ... I mean, hell, the same people calling for Rondo's head were the ones who were most p---ed off by the loss of Perkins. Different situations, yes, but team chemistry is something you can't quantify statistically but has a MAJOR effect).

Scoring:

Paul TS%**: 57.8%
Rondo: 49.5%

Paul points per 36 minutes: 15.8
Rondo: 10.3

Chris Paul is a better scorer by a significant margin, both in efficiency and in frequency.

Passing:

Chris Paul AST%***: 45.8%
Rondo: 47.1

Assist to Bad pass ratio:
Chris Paul: 7.7:1
Rondo: 4.8:1

Assists per 36 minutes:
Chris Paul: 9.8
Rondo: 10.8

Chris Paul makes a better ratio of good passes to bad passes, ends his possessions with a pass nearly as often as Rondo, and averages only 1 assist less per 36 minutes than Rondo. Rondo's only advantage is the frequency of his assists, Chris Paul statistically is the better passer otherwise.

Rebounding:

Chris Paul Total rebound percent****: 6.9%
ROndo: 7.2%

Paul Defensive reb %: 12.9
Rondo: 9.7%

Paul offensive rebound percent: 1.6%
Rondo: 4.5%

Defensive Stats:

Paul DRtg~*: 103
Rondo: 100

Rondo and Paul's steal and block %'s (Block percentage/steal % is an estimate of the percentage of opponent two-point field goal attempts blocked/stolen by the player while he was on the floor) are basically identical

Rondo is a better defender than Chris Paul. Not, in my judgement, a margin by which would hamper the Celtics defensive plans if they acquired Paul, but ROndo is the better defender.

Keeping in mind the quality of teammate Paul has consistently dealt with compared to the quality of teammate Rondo has dealt with, objectively (based on statistics), I don't see how you reached the conclusions you did, RyNYE.


Definitions of stats used:

**TS% True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws. Since more goes into PPG than just how often you make a FG (as in what kind of FG it is, FTA's, etc..), this is a much more comprehensive gauge of how good a scorer/shooter a player is)

***AST%: Assist percentage is an estimate of the percentage of teammate field goals a player assisted while he was on on the floor.

**** Total rebound percentage is an estimate of the percentage of available rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor.

~* Dtrg: Points allowed per 100 possessions while the player in question is on the floor.

Source:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=rondora01&y1=2011&p2=paulch01&y2=2011

Stats are great, and again, I appreciate the work.  But like I said before, in this case, they leave out a significant portion of the "truth".  

Again, Rondo's inability to shoot can be absolutely debilitating to the offense.  This is magnified in crunch time and in the playoffs.  Is this captured in these stats?  Not sure.

Anyway, Paul is better no question.  And by a comfortable margin IMO.

[RAcker]

2010-2011 stats (I am ignoring last year's playoffs, simply because the sample size is too small for Paul to actually make any good judgments ... yeah yeah, his performance against the Lakers was great, but it is not indicative of his average quality of play. Remember how many 3s Lebron his in the Celtics series? And then he started hitting less? Regression to the mean, baby); also, just looking at last year, and not career, if someone else wants to do the career comparison feel free.

Shooting (not using TS% ... Rondo is an awful free-throw shooter, which we all know, and that skews his TS% down a good degree. Yes, it is important he can't shoot them and he needs to learn, but for looking at actual production on the offensive end of the court I am looking at normal FG%)-
Chris Paul 15.8ppg at 46.3%
Rondo 10.6ppg at 47.5%
Advantage here is Paul, but honestly not by that much

Play-making-
Chris Paul 9.8 assists per game (Assist Ratio 38.0)
Rajon Rondo 11.2 assists per game (Assist Ratio 44.1)
Advantage here is Rondo by a good margin

Rebounding-
Chris Paul 4.1 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.9)
Rajon Rondo 4.4 rebounds per game (w/ rate 6.2)
Advantage here Rondo, but not by much

Steals-
Chris Paul 2.4 steals per game
Rajon Rondo 2.2 steals per game
Advantage Chris Paul, but by a very small margin

Defense-
Unfortunately not a lot of stats to work on here. But in 2011 Chris Paul was on the All-NBA Defensive Second Team, and Rondo was on the All-NBA Defensive First Team. From a subjective standpoint, watching games, Rondo appears to be a better defender, and is recognized around the league as such, so advantage Rondo.

Turnover rate-
Chris Paul 8.6
Rondo 13.6
Advantage Chris Paul, by a big margin

Usage rate-
Chris Paul 22.2
Rondo 19.7
(no "advantage" here, because usage rate isn't really a stat you can say someone is better or worse at, but it is good to look at in the context of other stats)

I am not looking at PER or WP48, because those stats are known to be fairly unrepresentative of actual play (especially PER). WP48 is very contextual, in that the team around you has a very large effect, and we are trying to ignore that for right now.

So what are the differences here? With Chris Paul you have a better scorer, but not by much (and it is worth noting that this marginally higher scoring is due to a higher usage rate, due to not having as many scoring options around him). With Rondo, you get a better defensive PG and better play-maker (though, too, Chris Paul's higher usage rate will necessarily decrease his assist ratio ... however, even adjusted for usage Rondo is better here). Paul has the advantage of being a better ball-handler and won't turn it over as much (though it. In other categories they pretty much break even.

Honestly, I don't think the differences are as big as some people are making them out to be. Both are very good, elite players, with their own unique set of skills. Saying one is "clearly" better than the other is both inaccurate and disingenuous. Instead, you should be focusing on which one fills a need.

Chris Paul adds scoring, and manages turnovers better. However, the scoring advantage is relatively small, and would likely decrease (even as his assist ratio increases with the Big 3 around him). So his main advantage is that the offense will run more smoothly. However, he isn't as good defensively (though that could easily change in the Celtics system, and he isn't a complete schlub defensively). On that level, it does seem that Chris Paul is a better fit, though it is by a pretty small margin, and as the Perkins trade showed, team chemistry goes FAR beyond mere stats.

(So, basically, I am telling people to stop exaggerating Paul's strengths and Rondo's weaknesses and look at this more rationally ... I mean, hell, the same people calling for Rondo's head were the ones who were most p---ed off by the loss of Perkins. Different situations, yes, but team chemistry is something you can't quantify statistically but has a MAJOR effect).

Scoring:

Paul TS%**: 57.8%
Rondo: 49.5%

Paul points per 36 minutes: 15.8
Rondo: 10.3

Chris Paul is a better scorer by a significant margin, both in efficiency and in frequency.

Passing:

Chris Paul AST%***: 45.8%
Rondo: 47.1

Assist to Bad pass ratio:
Chris Paul: 7.7:1
Rondo: 4.8:1

Assists per 36 minutes:
Chris Paul: 9.8
Rondo: 10.8

Chris Paul makes a better ratio of good passes to bad passes, ends his possessions with a pass nearly as often as Rondo, and averages only 1 assist less per 36 minutes than Rondo. Rondo's only advantage is the frequency of his assists, Chris Paul statistically is the better passer otherwise.

Rebounding:

Chris Paul Total rebound percent****: 6.9%
ROndo: 7.2%

Paul Defensive reb %: 12.9
Rondo: 9.7%

Paul offensive rebound percent: 1.6%
Rondo: 4.5%

Defensive Stats:

Paul DRtg~*: 103
Rondo: 100

Rondo and Paul's steal and block %'s (Block percentage/steal % is an estimate of the percentage of opponent two-point field goal attempts blocked/stolen by the player while he was on the floor) are basically identical

Rondo is a better defender than Chris Paul. Not, in my judgement, a margin by which would hamper the Celtics defensive plans if they acquired Paul, but ROndo is the better defender.

Keeping in mind the quality of teammate Paul has consistently dealt with compared to the quality of teammate Rondo has dealt with, objectively (based on statistics), I don't see how you reached the conclusions you did, RyNYE.


Definitions of stats used:

**TS% True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * (FGA + 0.44 * FTA)). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws. Since more goes into PPG than just how often you make a FG (as in what kind of FG it is, FTA's, etc..), this is a much more comprehensive gauge of how good a scorer/shooter a player is)

***AST%: Assist percentage is an estimate of the percentage of teammate field goals a player assisted while he was on on the floor.

**** Total rebound percentage is an estimate of the percentage of available rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor.

~* Dtrg: Points allowed per 100 possessions while the player in question is on the floor.

Source:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=rondora01&y1=2011&p2=paulch01&y2=2011

stats are great, and again, I appreciate the work.  But like I said before, in this case, they leave out a significant portion of the "truth". 

Again, Rondo's inability to shoot can be absolutely debilitating to the offense.  This is magnified in crunch time and in the playoffs.  Is this captured in these stats?  Not sure.

Anyway, Paul is better no question.  And by a comfortable marging IMO.

Well said.

[fairweatherfan]

In my opinion the only argument against trading Rondo for Paul (assuming such a deal is possible) is from team chemistry - both having a new PG with a strong personality learn the system with a very short camp while dealing with a new set of teammates with equally strong personalities, and the possibility of Paul sulking because he didn't go to the team he wanted. 

I don't think any of us are close enough to the people involved to really have great insight into any possible chemistry issues - also there are indications that a lot of the motivation to trade Rondo may come from existing chemistry problems.

But the talent difference is clear, and long-term we are in a strong position to keep Paul or at least sign-and-trade him for assets.

[indeedproceed]

stats are great, and again, I appreciate the work.  But like I said before, in this case, they leave out a significant portion of the "truth". 

I thought they summed it up really well; Chris Paul is better than Rondo.

Again, Rondo's inability to shoot can be absolutely debilitating to the offense.

Actually, there's an app for that.

ORtg, which is the 'points scored per 100 possessions' is a pretty solid marker for players like Rondo and Paul (moreso for Paul, because of his higher USG rate).

And,

Chris Paul's ORtg: 122
Rondo's: 104

Pretty significant margin.   

This is magnified in crunch time and in the playoffs.  Is this captured in these stats?  Not sure.

Anyway, Paul is better no question.  And by a comfortable margin IMO.

Actually if you look, they have playoff stats too:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=rondora01&y1=2011&p2=paulch01&y2=2011

[droopdog7]

Thanks IndeedP.  Solid work.  Not sure what the difference is between 104 and 122 (or 126 and 105 in the playoffs) but it seems to confirm my thoughts.

Rondo is a borderline great player.  And in a ranking system, he might he pretty close to Paul.  But once you get in the upper echelon, the difference between say the 3rd best PG and the 5th best can be huge. 

Paul is a franchise, game changing player.  Rondo simply is not.

[KG Living Legend]

 What we do know is his first chice is to play with his buddies Melo and Amare In The Big Crapple.

 Does he care if it's 13 million per instead of 18 mil who knows.

 I see it like this, if he really has his heart set on NYC.
  Then I think the worst case scenario for him would be to come here for one year, win a title with KG PP and Ray, and then bolt anyway to play with his buds that are much closer in age. 

 He knows that it would turn his image from one of the classiest young stars in the game to a Lebron like turnaround into a bonafide Jerk.  Anyone agree.

[indeedproceed]

Thanks IndeedP.  Solid work.  Not sure what the difference is between 104 and 122 (or 126 and 105 in the playoffs) but it seems to confirm my thoughts.

Basically it means that for every 100 possessions the players on on the floor, they score 'X' points.

Chris Paul, in 100 possessions, scores 122 points.

Rajon Rondo, in 100 possessions, scores 104 points.

Its a measure of both efficiency scoring and frequency as offensive players.

[Spilling Green Dye]

For those who use "Rondo has a ring, and Paul doesn't!" as their reasoning for not trading really needs to go back and watch the Championship run.

There would be 2 big things that stand out to you:

1)  KG looks healthy and better (he was the biggest reason we won).

2)  Rondo was much less involved in the offense than he is now, and was even more of a liability then.

If Chris Paul were on that team then we would have won in a landslide. 

[BballTim]

Passing:

Chris Paul AST%***: 45.8%
Rondo: 47.1

Assist to Bad pass ratio:
Chris Paul: 7.7:1
Rondo: 4.8:1

Assists per 36 minutes:
Chris Paul: 9.8
Rondo: 10.8

Chris Paul makes a better ratio of good passes to bad passes, ends his possessions with a pass nearly as often as Rondo, and averages only 1 assist less per 36 minutes than Rondo. Rondo's only advantage is the frequency of his assists, Chris Paul statistically is the better passer otherwise.

  There are a couple of things here that you need to consider: First of all, (from 82games) about 36% of Rondo's assists are close or dunks, about 30% for Paul. These are high risk-high reward passes. More likely to create a turnover, but much higher fg% if the pass is successful. Also, you're measuring passing solely on assists. If Rondo passes the ball to Ray/Paul/KG they can either shoot or pass, just like Paul's teammates. But the big three pass the ball more than average, it will take Rondo more passes to get the same number of assist opportunities. Also, Rondo gets a lot of "hockey assists" which also don't show up in your numbers.

[CelticSooner]

2012

Trading Rondo or Sign and trading Paul

Who gets the C's better pieces? That's what it comes down to with me. Paul will also have leverage which Rondo will not.

[indeedproceed]

Passing:

Chris Paul AST%***: 45.8%
Rondo: 47.1

Assist to Bad pass ratio:
Chris Paul: 7.7:1
Rondo: 4.8:1

Assists per 36 minutes:
Chris Paul: 9.8
Rondo: 10.8

Chris Paul makes a better ratio of good passes to bad passes, ends his possessions with a pass nearly as often as Rondo, and averages only 1 assist less per 36 minutes than Rondo. Rondo's only advantage is the frequency of his assists, Chris Paul statistically is the better passer otherwise.

  There are a couple of things here that you need to consider: First of all, (from 82games) about 36% of Rondo's assists are close or dunks, about 30% for Paul. These are high risk-high reward passes. More likely to create a turnover, but much higher fg% if the pass is successful.

Okay, lets get this point head on, without shifting the field goals. (all #'s from 82games.com)

CP3 'at the rim' assists per game, 2011: 2.93
Rondo 'at the time' assists per game, 2011: 3.93

CP3 'bad pass' assists per game, 2011: 1.28
Rondo 'bad pass' assists per game, 2011: 2.35

So, Rondo gets 1 more assist at the hoop per game, but has one more turnover per game. How is that a net positive?

Also, you're measuring passing solely on assists. If Rondo passes the ball to Ray/Paul/KG they can either shoot or pass, just like Paul's teammates. But the big three pass the ball more than average, it will take Rondo more passes to get the same number of assist opportunities.

I think that conclusion is flawed from the get-go. Since there is more ball-movement (something I'm not contesting), that means there are better shots.

That means that every pass Rondo makes in this system of more elite playmakers has a better opportunity of finding an open man who is taking 'the right shot', and not one that is contested or playing against their respective skill-set.

So Rondo is getting all the benefits of playing with a team that has more disciplined and smarter playmakers, and Chris Paul is receiving zero handicaps for playing with a team full of poor playmakers and mediocre shooters? AND HE STILL MANAGFES TO MATCH RONDO'S PURE POINT RATING?

Also, Rondo gets a lot of "hockey assists" which also don't show up in your numbers.

You're right, but as I say above, CP3 has negative attributes to his teammates style of play as well. When he gets the ball back after passing it off, there is a much greater chance that the pass made to him was ill-informed, or poorly-performed, and he still has to make that work. He also has to understand that the guys he passes to have a greater chance of missing a shot unless he gives them better odds by getting them the ball in the correct position.

So just like you say 'Rondo has to make more passes' to get an assist, Paul's situation is no more accomodating, and is actually less-so, because I guarantee that Trevor Ariza and Marco Bellinili don't know a quarter of what Paul Pierce and Ray Allen know about getting in a position to make a play with the ball.

And despite all that, when Chris Paul is on the floor, his 5-man units manage to out-score Rondo by about 20 points every 100 possessions, which is the truly disparate number here. It accounts for pace, too.

[2short]

If Paul is NOT signed to an extension to me its a no brainer.  We have a top3 or 4 point guard in the nba who has not hit his prime who has already one a championship signed to a very good contract for awhile
Trade this player for a 1/2 season rental ?
no way
the bottom line is not comparing the 2 guards but why would this even be a question for any one if paul doesn't sign extension
chris paul is a better basketball player, point guard maybe, best point guard for our team debatable  BUT for a partial season?