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

[dtrader]

^This.

Also, I think it's important to remember that aside from the playoffs, last year was somewhat of an "off" year for CP3.  Comparing one of Rondos best years to what was probably CP3s worst might not look like a very fair comparison if they both return to their career average next year.  I suspect both will still be at the top of the league at their position, but I doubt CP3 scores under 18 a game next year regardless of where (of with whom) he's playing.  If this same comparison was attempted with Rondo scoring 10 points a game and CP3 scoring 20, it wouldn't be much of a comparison at all.  

I agree that this deal shouldnt even be considered unless CP3 would agree to an extension.  Losing Rondo for anything less than a fully committed CP is a no go.

[TheTruthFot18]

CP3 would be an "INSTANT" energy and big hit with the Boston fans and players and would be Doc's new son..  Rhondo is a bit too "MOODY" for my tastes. One play he looks better than CP3 , then the next three plays he looks like he is on vacation handling the ball lost in never never land.

CP3 NEVER quits .........he is the ENERGIZER BUNNY of the NBA.

Thats because he doesnt have a ray allen, paul pierce, or KG like teammate who can carry the scoring, energy, hustle when he's out of it. If he didnt bring constant energy (by force) he would not be an elite pg. Or as elite as he is now.

Not a knock on CP3 btw, just looking at the whole argument here

[guava_wrench]

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.

What percentage of those are Rondo not taking an open break away layup on a turnover and instead waiting for Ray Allen to run down the court for a silly assist? (Of course, that also lowers his PPG and FG%)

There really aren't any stats to show definitively that Rondo is a better passer than Paul. The best we can say right now is that they are both elite at passing.

[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.

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?

  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.

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?

  This would show up in the fg% differences between the Celts and the Hornets, wouldn't it? And, yes, the Celts get better shots, but since it comes from more passes, it comes at the expense of his possible assists. If (for example) Rondo makes 10 passes and the recipient takes 7 shots, while Paul makes 10 passes and his teammates take 8 shots and both Paul and Rondo have 1 turnover out of those 10 passes, they'll both have the same number of turnovers per pass but Paul will have a better assist/turnover ratio.

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.

  You're using stats that you don't understand at all. Check out their on court/off court numbers at 82games, the Celts score 111 ppp when Rondo plays, the Hornets score 110 ppp when Paul plays. This doesn't just take into account pace, but it's in spite of the Hornets having an advantage in offensive rebounds, so they basically average more shots per possession.

[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.

What percentage of those are Rondo not taking an open break away layup on a turnover and instead waiting for Ray Allen to run down the court for a silly assist? (Of course, that also lowers his PPG and FG%)

  I don't know. How many times does CP3 pass to a teammate when they're both running up the court?

[bruinsandceltics]

I was for this plan the moment the Rumors started.

CP3 makes this team better this year, which is likely our last chance to win a title therefore I want to see us do anything to go for it.

Even if it means having nothing left for after this year.

[Fafnir]

 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.

The Hornets have worse offensive talent around CP3 by a wide margin than what is aroudn Rondo right? So the fact that their teams are tied for offensive efficiency last year is pretty strong evidence in support of the offensive numbers that shows CP3 led units widely outperform Rajon Rondo led units offensively.

[greg683x]

I dont see how this is such a no-brainer for so many people, maybe I'm missing something....

Chris Paul has all but come out and said he doesnt want to play in Boston b/c he doesnt see a future there...

BUT Chris Paul did say it is possible that he would sign an extension in LA.

To me, this says, he DOESNT want to play here.  I know some feel he'll be enamored with the fact that he'll be playing with Pierce, KG, and Ray.  But even if he does, he knows theyre gonna be all gone in a year or two, so I dont understand how that factors into the equation.  Paul said he feels theres no future in Boston, if he was gonna be enamored with playing here with the big three it would have been in 2007.

The only way Paul stays here is if he falls in love with playing for Doc.  Yes we could sign some other big name free agents, but it's a HUGE risk, we might be able to attract the same free agents to play with Rondo.

As far as money goes, I'm pretty sure Chris Paul has already shown hes willing to leave out that last year and 30 million bucks.  He's already acknowledged that New York can't trade for him and wont be able to offer a max deal. So CP might as well come out and say, 'Look, I'm going to New York bc I wanna play with my friends unless you can offer me the MAX and a legit shot at a title over the next 5 years, which I dont feel the Boston Celtics can do.'

IMO, if youre the celtics you dont give Rondo away, for that small of a window.   

[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?

  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.

What I'm saying is that Rondo gets 1 more turnover from a bad pass than CP3 per contest, and he gets one more assist at the hoop than CP3 does. That's a 1 for 1 trade. Does that in any way set Rondo apart as a passer above Chris Paul?

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?

  This would show up in the fg% differences between the Celts and the Hornets, wouldn't it?

It does, the Celtics are #1 in FG%. Hornets are 18th.

And, yes, the Celts get better shots, but since it comes from more passes, it comes at the expense of his possible assists. If (for example) Rondo makes 10 passes and the recipient takes 7 shots, while Paul makes 10 passes and his teammates take 8 shots and both Paul and Rondo have 1 turnover out of those 10 passes, they'll both have the same number of turnovers per pass but Paul will have a better assist/turnover ratio.

That's a hypothetical without meaning here. Boston has the higher FG%, so A) the less passes are still mitigated by the higher success rate of the shot attempts by the C's, and B) Rondo's bad pass/assist ratio is 40% higher than CP3's. There shouldn't be any question here where the discrepancy is.

 You're using stats that you don't understand at all. Check out their on court/off court numbers at 82games, the Celts score 111 ppp when Rondo plays, the Hornets score 110 ppp when Paul plays. This doesn't just take into account pace, but it's in spite of the Hornets having an advantage in offensive rebounds, so they basically average more shots per possession.

I had one flaw in my post. One flaw, and [dang] you, you found it. You're right, I messed up with ORtg, confused it with ON/Off the court. Paul's higher ORtg just means he's significantly better at scoring than Rondo is.



Also, I'd still like the following discussed, it was glossed over earlier with my stupid gaff.

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.

[BballTim]

 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.

The Hornets have worse offensive talent around CP3 by a wide margin than what is aroudn Rondo right? So the fact that their teams are tied for offensive efficiency last year is pretty strong evidence in support of the offensive rating that shows CP3 led units widely outperform Rajon Rondo led units offensively.

  Somewhat, the Hornets without Paul score 99 in ppp, the Celts without Rondo clock in at 101.5.

[indeedproceed]

  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.

[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.

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?

  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.

What I'm saying is that Rondo gets 1 more turnover from a bad pass than CP3 per contest, and he gets one more assist at the hoop than CP3 does. That's a 1 for 1 trade. Does that in any way set Rondo apart as a passer above Chris Paul?

  See my response to Fafnir, it makes a decent sized difference.

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?

  This would show up in the fg% differences between the Celts and the Hornets, wouldn't it?

It does, the Celtics are #1 in FG%. Hornets are 18th.

And, yes, the Celts get better shots, but since it comes from more passes, it comes at the expense of his possible assists. If (for example) Rondo makes 10 passes and the recipient takes 7 shots, while Paul makes 10 passes and his teammates take 8 shots and both Paul and Rondo have 1 turnover out of those 10 passes, they'll both have the same number of turnovers per pass but Paul will have a better assist/turnover ratio.

That's a hypothetical without meaning here. Boston has the higher FG%, so A) the less passes are still mitigated by the higher success rate of the shot attempts by the C's, and B) Rondo's bad pass/assist ratio is 40% higher than CP3's. There shouldn't be any question here where the discrepancy is.

  I'm not going to re-do the work, but compare the shot to assist ratio for the big three compared to the players CP3 passes to the most, consider that you'd have to basically make double the passes to get the assists and you'll find that the difference in passes is greater than the difference in fg%. And that ignores that if Rondo passes to KG and KG passes it to PP, PP might pass instead of shooting and so on. Clearly you won't find stats for this, but you have to consider things like that if you're deciding who's a better passer based on a straight statistical comparison.

 You're using stats that you don't understand at all. Check out their on court/off court numbers at 82games, the Celts score 111 ppp when Rondo plays, the Hornets score 110 ppp when Paul plays. This doesn't just take into account pace, but it's in spite of the Hornets having an advantage in offensive rebounds, so they basically average more shots per possession.

I had one flaw in my post. One flaw, and [dang] you, you found it. You're right, I messed up with ORtg, confused it with ON/Off the court. Paul's higher ORtg just means he's significantly better at scoring than Rondo is.



Also, I'd still like the following discussed, it was glossed over earlier with my stupid gaff.

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.

  This won't really capture what you're looking for, but the Celts efg% is 5% better with Rondo playing, the Hornets 4.8% better with Paul playing.

[indeedproceed]

And, yes, the Celts get better shots, but since it comes from more passes, it comes at the expense of his possible assists. If (for example) Rondo makes 10 passes and the recipient takes 7 shots, while Paul makes 10 passes and his teammates take 8 shots and both Paul and Rondo have 1 turnover out of those 10 passes, they'll both have the same number of turnovers per pass but Paul will have a better assist/turnover ratio.

That's a hypothetical without meaning here. Boston has the higher FG%, so A) the less passes are still mitigated by the higher success rate of the shot attempts by the C's, and B) Rondo's bad pass/assist ratio is 40% higher than CP3's. There shouldn't be any question here where the discrepancy is.

  I'm not going to re-do the work, but compare the shot to assist ratio for the big three compared to the players CP3 passes to the most, consider that you'd have to basically make double the passes to get the assists and you'll find that the difference in passes is greater than the difference in fg%. And that ignores that if Rondo passes to KG and KG passes it to PP, PP might pass instead of shooting and so on. Clearly you won't find stats for this, but you have to consider things like that if you're deciding who's a better passer based on a straight statistical comparison.

Well, I'm not sure if this will change you mind, but over the course of the regular season last year, the Celtics average 23.8 assists, the Hornets 20.6. Both Rondo (11.2) and Paul (9.8) averaged roughly 47% of their teams' assists.

Meaning, that the same exact % of assists for both teams were totaled to someone else, meaning Rondo or Paul couldn't get them. I think that's significant in a space where we're talking about opportunities. If you also consider that A) More of Paul's attempted passes will end in misses because his team is not as talented shooting and B) that the Celtics' total assist numbers are higher, I would be pretty surprised if the fact that Pierce, ALlen, and Garnett are all playmakers had much effect on limiting Rondo's potential assist total at all.

Also, I'd still like the following discussed, it was glossed over earlier with my stupid gaff.

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.

  This won't really capture what you're looking for, but the Celts efg% is 5% better with Rondo playing, the Hornets 4.8% better with Paul playing.

Mmm...yes, help me out. I'm not getting the significance there.

[BballTim]

  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.

[BballTim]

And, yes, the Celts get better shots, but since it comes from more passes, it comes at the expense of his possible assists. If (for example) Rondo makes 10 passes and the recipient takes 7 shots, while Paul makes 10 passes and his teammates take 8 shots and both Paul and Rondo have 1 turnover out of those 10 passes, they'll both have the same number of turnovers per pass but Paul will have a better assist/turnover ratio.

That's a hypothetical without meaning here. Boston has the higher FG%, so A) the less passes are still mitigated by the higher success rate of the shot attempts by the C's, and B) Rondo's bad pass/assist ratio is 40% higher than CP3's. There shouldn't be any question here where the discrepancy is.

  I'm not going to re-do the work, but compare the shot to assist ratio for the big three compared to the players CP3 passes to the most, consider that you'd have to basically make double the passes to get the assists and you'll find that the difference in passes is greater than the difference in fg%. And that ignores that if Rondo passes to KG and KG passes it to PP, PP might pass instead of shooting and so on. Clearly you won't find stats for this, but you have to consider things like that if you're deciding who's a better passer based on a straight statistical comparison.

Well, I'm not sure if this will change you mind, but over the course of the regular season last year, the Celtics average 23.8 assists, the Hornets 20.6. Both Rondo (11.2) and Paul (9.8) averaged roughly 47% of their teams' assists.

Meaning, that the same exact % of assists for both teams were totaled to someone else, meaning Rondo or Paul couldn't get them. I think that's significant in a space where we're talking about opportunities. If you also consider that A) More of Paul's attempted passes will end in misses because his team is not as talented shooting and B) that the Celtics' total assist numbers are higher, I would be pretty surprised if the fact that Pierce, ALlen, and Garnett are all playmakers had much effect on limiting Rondo's potential assist total at all.

  I'll (re)do the numbers later if I get a chance, but I think the passing is about twice the effect as the difference in fg%.

Also, I'd still like the following discussed, it was glossed over earlier with my stupid gaff.

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.

  This won't really capture what you're looking for, but the Celts efg% is 5% better with Rondo playing, the Hornets 4.8% better with Paul playing.

Mmm...yes, help me out. I'm not getting the significance there.

  You're describing all the reasons that CP3's teammates are significantly more offensively inept than Rondo's, the difference adds up to a 2-3% difference in fg%.