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

[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.

  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.

They don't -- neither in points per 100 possessions, nor in net point difference (this is particularly glaring in pre-Thibodeau times, by the way). Check facts much?

edit: My comment is not actually true -- though the Bulls did rely exclusively on Rose in pre-Thibodeau times.

[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

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.

They don't -- neither in points per 100 possessions, nor in net point difference (this is particularly glaring in pre-Thibodeau times, by the way). Check facts much?

they carry their team with little help is not a prerequisite of a point guard. thats what the best player is for a la Lebron, Michael. They weren't point guards. I'm not disputing that Rose and Paul and great players but im saying the specific position of point guard.

[Rondooooooooo]

what im saying, and i think the OP is that people put too much stock for point guards in how much they score. in accordance with the afore mentioned definitions of point guards scoring has little to do w/ how great a pg you are compared to leadership and facilitating. docs said it that rondo is the smartest player he's coached, i think that is grounds to say that he can run an offense very well.

[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.

  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.

They don't -- neither in points per 100 possessions, nor in net point difference (this is particularly glaring in pre-Thibodeau times, by the way). Check facts much?

they carry their team with little help is not a prerequisite of a point guard. thats what the best player is for a la Lebron, Michael. They weren't point guards. I'm not disputing that Rose and Paul and great players but im saying the specific position of point guard.

So it seems what you're saying is  that Rose and Paul are not "great point guards", but "great players who play the PG position"? Excuse me if that isn't making any sense.

[saltlover]

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 ratings, 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.

If you normalize the statistics, you're still giving a qualitative difference.  In my example, I wasn't saying that the player with the 46% shooting percentage and 11.7 assists per game is .09 better than the player with a 50% shooting percentage and 10.7 assists per game (or comes out .09 better according to your metric.)  I was saying I think the guy with the higher shooting percentage is better, and should be reflected as such in a rating scheme.  I bet if you were to poll people on which is the better point guard, most would take the 50% FG and one less assist per game.

Also, you're already double-counting assists by using both assists per game and assist-to-turnovers.  The scale issue just makes it that much more pronounced.  It's only because Nash is such a better shooter than Rondo that he can get ahead of Rondo in the rankings -- otherwise you might as well just leave out the shooting percentage altogether, and just say who is the better/higher volume passer.

[RyNye]

and just say who is the better/higher volume passer.

volume passer.

...

volume passer?

That's a silly qualifier.




(EDIT: Just because someone does a lot of something doesn't make them a volume 'X.' Kevin Love is not a volume rebounder. Chris Paul is not a volume stealer. That doesn't make sense. When someone is talking about a volume scorer, they aren't saying they score a lot, but that they put up a lot of shots. It's a negative qualifier, because it signifies inefficiency and poor basketball IQ. A volume passer would have to be someone with an abysmally bad assist-to-turnover ratio, to signify that they just pass the ball too much regardless of the situation. Just because Rondo and Nash get a lot of assists doesn't make them volume passers. It's meaningless.)

[AB_Celtic]

...

If you normalize the statistics, you're still giving a qualitative difference.  In my example, I wasn't saying that the player with the 46% shooting percentage and 11.7 assists per game is .09 better than the player with a 50% shooting percentage and 10.7 assists per game (or comes out .09 better according to your metric.)  I was saying I think the guy with the higher shooting percentage is better, and should be reflected as such in a rating scheme.  I bet if you were to poll people on which is the better point guard, most would take the 50% FG and one less assist per game.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there... and here's why. One additional assist per game leads to AT LEAST two extra points scored by your team in that game. Simple fact. A difference of 50% to 46% shooting, as an earlier poster added, only affects the game by two points if you take 25 shots. So a player with one more assist leads to more points than a player shooting 50% vs 46%. I'd take the 46%/11.7 player.

...

Also, you're already double-counting assists by using both assists per game and assist-to-turnovers.  The scale issue just makes it that much more pronounced.  It's only because Nash is such a better shooter than Rondo that he can get ahead of Rondo in the rankings -- otherwise you might as well just leave out the shooting percentage altogether, and just say who is the better/higher volume passer.

ATTR is more a measurement of turnovers than of assists. It takes into account how effective you are with your passing, something that simple "turnovers per game" cannot compute, because you have no idea how many passes that player is making.

[saltlover]

and just say who is the better/higher volume passer.

volume passer.

...

volume passer?

That's a silly qualifier.

If his rankings are highly weighted on assists per game, less so on assists-to-turnover, and little on shooting percentage then that's what you're getting -- which point "better",) and which point guard passes most ("high volume passer".)

Mind you, I love and adore Rondo and would rather have him on this team than Chris Paul or Steven Nash -- I just think he needs to make a rating system that is less weighted on assists, or flat-out say that's what he's intentionally doing.

[saltlover]

...

If you normalize the statistics, you're still giving a qualitative difference.  In my example, I wasn't saying that the player with the 46% shooting percentage and 11.7 assists per game is .09 better than the player with a 50% shooting percentage and 10.7 assists per game (or comes out .09 better according to your metric.)  I was saying I think the guy with the higher shooting percentage is better, and should be reflected as such in a rating scheme.  I bet if you were to poll people on which is the better point guard, most would take the 50% FG and one less assist per game.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there... and here's why. One additional assist per game leads to AT LEAST two extra points scored by your team in that game. Simple fact. A difference of 50% to 46% shooting, as an earlier poster added, only affects the game by two points if you take 25 shots. So a player with one more assist leads to more points than a player shooting 50% vs 46%. I'd take the 46%/11.7 player.

...

Also, you're already double-counting assists by using both assists per game and assist-to-turnovers.  The scale issue just makes it that much more pronounced.  It's only because Nash is such a better shooter than Rondo that he can get ahead of Rondo in the rankings -- otherwise you might as well just leave out the shooting percentage altogether, and just say who is the better/higher volume passer.

ATTR is more a measurement of turnovers than of assists. It takes into account how effective you are with your passing, something that simple "turnovers per game" cannot compute, because you have no idea how many passes that player is making.

Regardless, I think you'd be better off using true-shooting percentage or eFG, because they're better measurements of shooting/scoring ability than shooting percentage.  They also have wider ranges of values, which will help the combined metric (although it's still methodologically wrong to combine statistics that are counting statistics and percentages.)

EDITING TO ADD HYPOTHETICAL:

Suppose you have a player who averages 7.5 assists per game and has an ATTR of 2.24.  Almost 2011 Derrick Rose, but with .2 less assists per game.  Now imagine that this player never misses.  He shoots 100% from the field.  His score, according to your method, is 16.8, or just below Rondo.  So what you're saying is that 2012 Rondo is better than 2011 Derrick Rose who makes every shot he takes.  That's my problem with your ranking.

[AB_Celtic]

Regardless, I think you'd be better off using true-shooting percentage or eFG, because they're better measurements of shooting/scoring ability than shooting percentage.  They also have wider ranges of values, which will help the combined metric (although it's still methodologically wrong to combine statistics that are counting statistics and percentages.)

Thank you for seeing my point about the 50%/10.7 vs 46%/11.7.

Your first point I do not disagree with. TS or eFG would be just as good or better than FG%. As for your "methodically wrong" point... I've had a couple disclaimers here that it's not the best measurement, and I realize that. The point is, the qualitative data matches up, and I think that's what matters here.

[saltlover]

Regardless, I think you'd be better off using true-shooting percentage or eFG, because they're better measurements of shooting/scoring ability than shooting percentage.  They also have wider ranges of values, which will help the combined metric (although it's still methodologically wrong to combine statistics that are counting statistics and percentages.)

Thank you for seeing my point about the 50%/10.7 vs 46%/11.7.

I didn't exactly see your point.  It's your method, and you weren't budging, so I gave up (and then added an example while you were replying to further express my point)

[AB_Celtic]

Regardless, I think you'd be better off using true-shooting percentage or eFG, because they're better measurements of shooting/scoring ability than shooting percentage.  They also have wider ranges of values, which will help the combined metric (although it's still methodologically wrong to combine statistics that are counting statistics and percentages.)

Thank you for seeing my point about the 50%/10.7 vs 46%/11.7.

I didn't exactly see your point.  It's your method, and you weren't budging, so I gave up (and then added an example while you were replying to further express my point)

So use my average rank method then. You're too concerned with quantitatives and hypotheticals like a person shooting 100%. That will never happen. For the purposes of this comparison, the method works. It's far from perfect, and will never be an official NBA stat, but it works.

[Donoghus]

I mention this in another thread a couple of weeks ago.

It really comes down to what your expectations are for a PG in the NBA.

Do you want a scorer?  A faciliator? Pass-first, defensive PG? A slasher?

Rose, CP3, Deron, Rondo, Westbrook all bring different things to the table but are all listed as PG.

What exactly do you want out of your PG?  It's about your cup of tea. 

[ianboyextreme]

True point guard, combo guard, 2 guard in pg body- I dont care. Rondo is the best player at the point guard position period. Theres a strong arguement that CP3 is tied but thats it. I though this last playoff run put the arguement to rest.

[saltlover]

Regardless, I think you'd be better off using true-shooting percentage or eFG, because they're better measurements of shooting/scoring ability than shooting percentage.  They also have wider ranges of values, which will help the combined metric (although it's still methodologically wrong to combine statistics that are counting statistics and percentages.)

Thank you for seeing my point about the 50%/10.7 vs 46%/11.7.

I didn't exactly see your point.  It's your method, and you weren't budging, so I gave up (and then added an example while you were replying to further express my point)

So use my average rank method then. You're too concerned with quantitatives and hypotheticals like a person shooting 100%. That will never happen. For the purposes of this comparison, the method works. It's far from perfect, and will never be an official NBA stat, but it works.

All I'm trying to do is show why you don't mix percentages and counting statistics the way you did.  I like that you tried to come up with something -- just wanted to help you make it better.