Is Rondo the best NBA PG? He's almost there.

[AB_Celtic]

In support of Rondo:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1277723-rajon-rondo-why-the-all-star-point-guard-should-say-that-he-is-the-best-pg?search_query=rondo

Against Rondo:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1277105-rajon-rondo-boston-celtics-star-pg-wrong-to-say-hes-best-point-guard-in-nba

Let me begin by clearly defining what I mean when I use the term "point guard."

A point guard, like other player positions in basketball, specializes in certain skills. A point guard's job is to create scoring opportunities for his team. Lee Rose has described a point guard as a coach on the floor, who can handle and distribute the ball to teammates. This involves setting up plays on the court, getting the ball to the teammate in the best position to score, and controlling the tempo of the game. A point guard should know when and how to instigate a fast break and when and how to initiate the more deliberate sets. Point guards are expected to be vocal floor leaders.

The point guard is often thought of an extension of the coach on the floor, or the "quarterback", or floor general. So the point guard must have a close working relationship with the coaches and be very "coachable". He should have frequent discussions with the coach to know exactly what the coach expects of him, and what team strategies to use at a given time. The point guard must know his role on the team. If the team has some excellent scorers, he will want to be a good assist person and get the ball to those players.

If you're still reading, thanks. I realize those are very simplistic definitions of the point guard position, ones that the majority of the CB community probably already know, but I just wanted to get everyone on the same page. We're talking about "point guards" here, not undersized two guards, not chuckers, but distributing, facilitating point guards.

As far as that definition goes, Rondo is in the top three in the current NBA. To prove this, I'm going to examine three key statistics that I believe define a great point guard: assists, assists-to-turnover ratio, and field goal percentage.

Assists Per Game (APG): This one is obvious. The NBA's version of the quarterback, the point guard has to be able to make good passes to set up his teammates to score.

Assits-to-turnover ratio (ATTR): However, just because a point guard has a lot of assists per game, doesn't mean that he's a good passer. If he's making wild passes left and right, odds are he'll connect on a couple of them, and voila, he has 8 assists per game. Great, right? Not really. None of that matters if the guy's also got 8 turnovers per game; if he has an ATT ratio of 1:1, he's a bad point guard.

Field goal percentage (FG%): Some of you might be thinking, "why not points per game?" True, this may be a good measure for some players, such as the forwards in the NBA, but not for the point guard. The point guard's job is to make passes when he can, but take smart shots when he cannot. If a point guard has a low FG%, odds are he's often contested, which means he isn't looking for the open man, and in doing so he's hurting the team. A good point guard takes smart shots only when he has to, and makes them.

So now that I've set up my criteria, on to the comparisons. The following six NBA point guards will be compared against Rajon Rondo. I think we can all agree that these players in addition to Rondo, are the seven best point guards in the 2012 NBA.
1. Chris Paul
2. Derrick Rose (2011 Stats)
3. Deron Williams
4. Russell Westbrook
5. Steve Nash
6. Tony Parker

Point guard rank is first, with all positions rank in parenthesis.

APG:
1 (1). Rondo 11.7
2 (2). Nash 10.7
3 (3). Paul 9.1
5 (5). Williams 8.7
8 (8.). Rose 7.9 (7.7)
9 (9). Parker 7.7
17 (19). Westbrook 5.5

Okay, we all knew that. Rondo is #1 by a full assist per game. Rose, despite being hurt for most of the season, put up pretty similar assist numbers to last season. Also noteworthy is that Westbrook is all the way at #17, after players like Felton, Nelson, and Sessions.

ATTR:
2 (2). Paul 4.38
4 (4). Rondo 3.21
7 (7). Parker 3.03
10 (11). Nash 2.9
16 (18). Rose 2.58 (2.24)
34 (37). Williams 2.2
43 (63). Westbrook 1.51

Rondo is again in the top 2 of our comparison. In case you're wondering, #1 is the amazingly underrated Jose Calderon with a whopping 4.5 ATTR, and #3 is up-and-coming Mike Conley. Westbrook is pretty much out of the conversation here. He's what I said earlier; an undersized two guard... NOT a point guard. In fact, his ATTR is worse than 20 non-PGs in the NBA.

FG%
1 (11). Nash .532
3 (37). Parker .480
4 (39). Paul .478
8 (47). Westbrook .457
12 (60). Rondo .448
16 (74). Rose .435 (.445)
26 (105). Williams .407

This is of course Rondo's weak point. He isn't the best shooter and we all know it. However, He is still fifth in our ranking, and only .009 below the shooting guard Westbrook, and only .03 and .032 behind Paul and Parker. Nash is by far and away the highest; a true point guard, he takes shots only when he needs to. Williams is surprisingly last, quite a bit behind Rondo. Also noteworthy is that last season, Rondo was third of the seven in FG%, behind only Parker and Nash.

So, to review, Rondo is first in APG, second in ATTR, and fifth in a tightly packed FG% range. Below are the multiplied values for each player (APG x ATTR x FG%) to give you a sense of the total package for each. Obviously, it's not a perfect measure, as it's not adjusted for the more important factors of a point guard's game and doesn't include intangibles, but it'll give you a ballpark.

1. Paul 19.052
2. Rondo 16.826
3. Nash 16.508
4. Parker 11.199
5. Rose 8.866 (7.675)
6. Williams 7.790
7. Westbrook 3.975

There you have it. By this (amateur) analyst's measure, Rondo is the second best point guard in the current NBA, behind only Chris Paul. This is not a measure of the best player, because if it was, Rose would certainly be higher; top 3 of this seven. What this does tell us is that Rose isn't much of a "true" point guard in the way it has been defined.

Anyways, that's my spiel, and definitely the longest post I've written here on CB. I hope you enjoy, and I hope you respond with insight. Thanks.

AB_Celtic

[Interceptor]

Well, first of all, I think that a big point of contention is going to come with the definition of a "Point Guard". I happen to agree with what you wrote, though. It seems that every team's best ballhander/distributor usually comes in its smallest/fastest package, so that's what the position ends up being. I guess it's a reflection of the competition amongst the many, many 6-footers who can play ball.

Second, your PG has responsibilities on the other end of the floor as well. This is what creates space between Rondo and Nash; Rondo is an excellent defender. I realize that this doesn't have much to do with creating scoring opportunities for your team (other than great D leading to easy buckets on the other end), but it's hard for me to call someone a good PG if they aren't a complete player in terms of helping the team win.

[Rondooooooooo]

this is pretty much the jist of the i've been saying for a while now. its not about who is the flashiest, or scores the most, but thats how modern NBA fans see it unfortunately and thats why most don't believe me/us when we say he's the best PG in the league. i have to keep saying to people he's the best Point Guard not the best player at the PG position. I bet you could play lebron at the PG position all day and he'd be a much better PG than paul, rose n westbrook but thats not the point of a Point Guard. Very nice mathematical way of coming to a conclusion btw. If only more fans were more realistic

[kozlodoev]

its not about who is the flashiest,

Rondo gets a lot of attention for his flashy passes, dribble moves, and steals -- and people tend to gloss over the holes in his game. So yeah.

[saltlover]

TP for the effort (because that's what TP's are for.)

That said, I'd quibble with two decisions you've made.  Firstly, I think a stat like eFG%, or TS%, that takes into account 3-point shooting and/or foul shooting, would be a better measure of a point guard's ability to take the proper shot.  A PG who is good at getting to the line and making free throws deserves credit for that ability, just as does one who is good at making 3-pointers.

Secondly, your conglomerate stat needs work.  By multiplying them all together, you've given assists per game a much higher weighting than field goal percentage.  Let's say there's a point guard like Rondo, who averages 11.7 assists per game.  His ATTR is 3.  Now suppose his FG% is a great 50%.  His score, according to your method, is 17.55.  Now suppose he's essentially the same point guard, but he loses an assist per game, and becomes Steve Nash.  His score drops to 16.05.  Bear in mind, he's still averaging a great 10.7 assists per game.  Now, suppose instead of losing an assist per game, he keeps average 11.7, but his shot stops going in and/or he takes poorer shots.  His FG% drops all the way to 46%, which is mediocre.  His score drops to 16.15.  That loss of a single assist per game is worth so much that it makes a very good shooter look worse than a mediocre shooter.

Of course, this may be what you want, but I think you'd be better off trying to find a way to normalize the three statistics so that they can be compared against each other.

A smaller issue is you may want to take assist per 36 minutes (or 48 minutes, your choice) instead of per game, since players play different amounts.  That said, more minutes means a player is more tired, which could hurt some of his numbers, and I think you can make a reasonable argument for sticking with assists per game.

[Rondooooooooo]

its not about who is the flashiest,

Rondo gets a lot of attention for his flashy passes, dribble moves, and steals -- and people tend to gloss over the holes in his game. So yeah.

i realize that but thats not why i consider him the best. rose is flashy as well as paul and i think thats a major contributor to why people view them as better. im not sayin just flashy plays, flashy numbers as well like PPG

[BballTim]

its not about who is the flashiest,

Rondo gets a lot of attention for his flashy passes, dribble moves, and steals -- and people tend to gloss over the holes in his game. So yeah.

  Most point guards have more holes in their games than Rondo. He's not a great outside shooter or free throw shooter, but he's arguably the best in the league in just about every other point guard skill. Aside from rebounding (where he's pretty good) only CP3 can make a similar claim.

[mgent]

Using the traditional definition of a PG, he's better than Rose and miles ahead of Westbrook, but still a hair behind Paul and Williams in my opinion.

[BballTim]

TP for the effort (because that's what TP's are for.)

That said, I'd quibble with two decisions you've made.  Firstly, I think a stat like eFG%, or TS%, that takes into account 3-point shooting and/or foul shooting, would be a better measure of a point guard's ability to take the proper shot.  A PG who is good at getting to the line and making free throws deserves credit for that ability, just as does one who is good at making 3-pointers.

Secondly, your conglomerate stat needs work.  By multiplying them all together, you've given assists per game a much higher weighting than field goal percentage.  Let's say there's a point guard like Rondo, who averages 11.7 assists per game.  His ATTR is 3.  Now suppose his FG% is a great 50%.  His score, according to your method, is 17.55.  Now suppose he's essentially the same point guard, but he loses an assist per game, and becomes Steve Nash.  His score drops to 16.05.  Bear in mind, he's still averaging a great 10.7 assists per game.  Now, suppose instead of losing an assist per game, he keeps average 11.7, but his shot stops going in and/or he takes poorer shots.  His FG% drops all the way to 46%, which is mediocre.  His score drops to 16.15.  That loss of a single assist per game is worth so much that it makes a very good shooter look worse than a mediocre shooter.

  I didn't read all of the op but when you say "a single assist per game", keep in mind that a player would have to take 25 shots a game in order to get to a single basket a game difference between 46% and 50% fg%.

[kozlodoev]

its not about who is the flashiest,

Rondo gets a lot of attention for his flashy passes, dribble moves, and steals -- and people tend to gloss over the holes in his game. So yeah.

i realize that but thats not why i consider him the best. rose is flashy as well as paul and i think thats a major contributor to why people view them as better. im not sayin just flashy plays, flashy numbers as well like PPG

Rose and Paul have carried teams on their back with little help. That's why people view them as better, and it's a legitimate point of view.

[BballTim]

its not about who is the flashiest,

Rondo gets a lot of attention for his flashy passes, dribble moves, and steals -- and people tend to gloss over the holes in his game. So yeah.

i realize that but thats not why i consider him the best. rose is flashy as well as paul and i think thats a major contributor to why people view them as better. im not sayin just flashy plays, flashy numbers as well like PPG

Rose and Paul have carried teams on their back with little help. That's why people view them as better, and it's a legitimate point of view.

  The teams Rose has "carried on his back with little help" generally outscore their opponents when he's out of the game. He's a great player, and he scores a lot of points, but perception isn't always reality.

[CelticG1]

Rondo is one pf the most flashy entertaining players in the game.

I think took a huge step last year as far as consistency goes. If he continues that consistency or even gets better more dangerous offensively, I think he will be considered a top 2-3 point in the game by the majority.

I absolutely hate talking about "best pure point guard" and stuff like that though. Its a cop out. How many pure pg's are there in the league? You play the pg position, that's what you are, a pointguard. You don't manipulate it and start shaving off things you don't deem as important for a pg. You don't say scoring isn't important for a pg or as important. What it comes down to is who is more valuable.

[kozlodoev]

its not about who is the flashiest,

Rondo gets a lot of attention for his flashy passes, dribble moves, and steals -- and people tend to gloss over the holes in his game. So yeah.

  Most point guards have more holes in their games than Rondo. He's not a great outside shooter or free throw shooter, but he's arguably the best in the league in just about every other point guard skill. Aside from rebounding (where he's pretty good) only CP3 can make a similar claim.

Or to flip your argument around: Rose/Paul/Nash/[insert your favorite PG here] is not a great defender or passer, but he's arguably the best in the league in just about every other point guard skill.

[saltlover]

TP for the effort (because that's what TP's are for.)

That said, I'd quibble with two decisions you've made.  Firstly, I think a stat like eFG%, or TS%, that takes into account 3-point shooting and/or foul shooting, would be a better measure of a point guard's ability to take the proper shot.  A PG who is good at getting to the line and making free throws deserves credit for that ability, just as does one who is good at making 3-pointers.

Secondly, your conglomerate stat needs work.  By multiplying them all together, you've given assists per game a much higher weighting than field goal percentage.  Let's say there's a point guard like Rondo, who averages 11.7 assists per game.  His ATTR is 3.  Now suppose his FG% is a great 50%.  His score, according to your method, is 17.55.  Now suppose he's essentially the same point guard, but he loses an assist per game, and becomes Steve Nash.  His score drops to 16.05.  Bear in mind, he's still averaging a great 10.7 assists per game.  Now, suppose instead of losing an assist per game, he keeps average 11.7, but his shot stops going in and/or he takes poorer shots.  His FG% drops all the way to 46%, which is mediocre.  His score drops to 16.15.  That loss of a single assist per game is worth so much that it makes a very good shooter look worse than a mediocre shooter.

  I didn't read all of the op but when you say "a single assist per game", keep in mind that a player would have to take 25 shots a game in order to get to a single basket a game difference between 46% and 50% fg%.

Still, you can't (or you can, but you shouldn't as a matter of practice) combine statistics that are measured on different scales to come up with another statistic, which is what the OP does.  You need to normalize them in some fashion to the same scale.

[AB_Celtic]

Secondly, your conglomerate stat needs work.  By multiplying them all together, you've given assists per game a much higher weighting than field goal percentage.  Let's say there's a point guard like Rondo, who averages 11.7 assists per game.  His ATTR is 3.  Now suppose his FG% is a great 50%.  His score, according to your method, is 17.55.  Now suppose he's essentially the same point guard, but he loses an assist per game, and becomes Steve Nash.  His score drops to 16.05.  Bear in mind, he's still averaging a great 10.7 assists per game.  Now, suppose instead of losing an assist per game, he keeps average 11.7, but his shot stops going in and/or he takes poorer shots.  His FG% drops all the way to 46%, which is mediocre.  His score drops to 16.15.  That loss of a single assist per game is worth so much that it makes a very good shooter look worse than a mediocre shooter.

I didn't read all of the op but when you say "a single assist per game", keep in mind that a player would have to take 25 shots a game in order to get to a single basket a game difference between 46% and 50% fg%.

This.

My multiplied factors were not meant to give you a quantitative difference between Rondo and the other six; purely qualitative. For instance, if you recalculate their positions based solely on their average rank in APG, ATTR, and FG%, you get essentially the same rankings, with only Rondo and Nash switched.

1. Paul 2.33
2. Nash 2.33
3. Rondo 2.66
4. Parker 3.66
5. Rose 5.33
6. Williams 5.66
7. Westbrook 5.66

I mentioned it wasn't a perfect calculation. Only ballpark.