I read a Chicago writer come up with a statistical method that show the Chicago PG is the best defensive PG in the league.
A Chicago writer came up with a method that shows that if you are a PG and you go to Chicago and try to score, you will have a very hard time and that Derrick Rose is a big part of that. He also shows that you're in for a tougher time with Nash in front of you than you probably think.
I think you should have more respect for what the author tried to do. He took great care to point out the help-defense biases and limitations of his results. The discussion of Jameer Nelson, for example, also obviously applies to Rose, Rondo, and others.
Like I said before- quantifying defensive value is notoriously difficult because you can't just say that a guy is worth 1/5 of what his defense accomplishes, nor can you say that he is only worth what the player directly across from him accomplishes. The truth lies somewhere between this hollistic approach and a more isolating approach. Context is also a challenge, as the Nash ranking demonstrates.
Good quants will be the first to tell you that they can't tell you the whole story, but they can tell you something useful. Basketballvalue, Hollinger, Synergy, etc will all tell you what the numbers say and you can build an informed opinion based on interpretation thereof. The BR article isn't "wrong." It can't be "wrong;" it's just numbers.
My bottom line in all of this is just to point out that all signs point to Rondo being a substantially better team defender than Paul.