Are these PGs better than our Rondo?

[BballTim]

Curry and Westbrook are the two I have pause about mostly because I think they are more SG then PG.

Okay, let's forget about position for a second.  Who brings the most value to their team?  Who is the hardest for the other team to defend?  Who depends less on their teammates in order to be successful?

The latter point is really what's most relevant to the "build around" question.  Rondo is a nice player, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't depend on his teammates to a large degree in order to do what he does best. 

You can't say the same for the other guards on the list, other than that as point guards they are all very reliant on their big men to back them up defensively, and, to a lesser extent, on their shooters to spread the floor so they have space to drive and kick.

  That's completely meaningless unless you're planning on putting Rondo on the court with 4 players who are completely unable to put the ball in the basket. Maybe you're planning on surrounding him with players who don't see very well?

The Celtics are planning on putting him on the floor at all times with 4 guys who have never averaged more than 16 points a game for a full season.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that Rondo will be surrounded with anything better than mediocre offensive talent this season.

In that situation, any of the listed point guards could just take more shots and average 20-25 points a game.

Rondo, on the other hand, is limited in how much of a role he can take on offensively because he has a much more limited set of offensive tools to work with.

  First of all the less able his teammates are to create their own shots and score on their own, the more valuable Rondo is to the team. He'll still get a lot more assists than those other point guards despite scoring less. Not to mention, those other point guards will all be less efficient scorers with the defenses loaded up against them.

  Beyond that, though, how well a player performs when they're on a weak team seems like a pretty poor method of deciding whether you're able to build around them. In other words, how relevant do you think how Rondo performs with no good teammates is to how he performs when he *does* have good teammates? Rondo's value (according to you) goes down when he's on a team of bad scorers, so clearly it rises when he's on a good team. Likewise, a player's ability to take a ton of shots when you surround them with flotsam is less valuable when you put better players on the floor with them.

[D.o.s.]

Curry and Westbrook are the two I have pause about mostly because I think they are more SG then PG.

Okay, let's forget about position for a second.  Who brings the most value to their team?  Who is the hardest for the other team to defend?  Who depends less on their teammates in order to be successful?

The latter point is really what's most relevant to the "build around" question.  Rondo is a nice player, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't depend on his teammates to a large degree in order to do what he does best. 

You can't say the same for the other guards on the list, other than that as point guards they are all very reliant on their big men to back them up defensively, and, to a lesser extent, on their shooters to spread the floor so they have space to drive and kick.

  That's completely meaningless unless you're planning on putting Rondo on the court with 4 players who are completely unable to put the ball in the basket. Maybe you're planning on surrounding him with players who don't see very well?

The Celtics are planning on putting him on the floor at all times with 4 guys who have never averaged more than 16 points a game for a full season.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that Rondo will be surrounded with anything better than mediocre offensive talent this season.

In that situation, any of the listed point guards could just take more shots and average 20-25 points a game.

Rondo, on the other hand, is limited in how much of a role he can take on offensively because he has a much more limited set of offensive tools to work with.

  First of all the less able his teammates are to create their own shots and score on their own, the more valuable Rondo is to the team. He'll still get a lot more assists than those other point guards despite scoring less. Not to mention, those other point guards will all be less efficient scorers with the defenses loaded up against them.

  Beyond that, though, how well a player performs when they're on a weak team seems like a pretty poor method of deciding whether you're able to build around them. In other words, how relevant do you think how Rondo performs with no good teammates is to how he performs when he *does* have good teammates? Rondo's value (according to you) goes down when he's on a team of bad scorers, so clearly it rises when he's on a good team. Likewise, a player's ability to take a ton of shots when you surround them with flotsam is less valuable when you put better players on the floor with them.

I think Derrick Rose's career is a great example that bears out Tim's point. Especially the bolded, we saw that with Miami shutting him down in the playoffs two years ago.

Full disclosure: I think Rose is/was a phenomenal player, but you know, I realize not everyone sees him that way.

[PhoSita]

Curry and Westbrook are the two I have pause about mostly because I think they are more SG then PG.

Okay, let's forget about position for a second.  Who brings the most value to their team?  Who is the hardest for the other team to defend?  Who depends less on their teammates in order to be successful?

The latter point is really what's most relevant to the "build around" question.  Rondo is a nice player, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't depend on his teammates to a large degree in order to do what he does best. 

You can't say the same for the other guards on the list, other than that as point guards they are all very reliant on their big men to back them up defensively, and, to a lesser extent, on their shooters to spread the floor so they have space to drive and kick.

  That's completely meaningless unless you're planning on putting Rondo on the court with 4 players who are completely unable to put the ball in the basket. Maybe you're planning on surrounding him with players who don't see very well?

The Celtics are planning on putting him on the floor at all times with 4 guys who have never averaged more than 16 points a game for a full season.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that Rondo will be surrounded with anything better than mediocre offensive talent this season.

In that situation, any of the listed point guards could just take more shots and average 20-25 points a game.

Rondo, on the other hand, is limited in how much of a role he can take on offensively because he has a much more limited set of offensive tools to work with.

  First of all the less able his teammates are to create their own shots and score on their own, the more valuable Rondo is to the team. He'll still get a lot more assists than those other point guards despite scoring less. Not to mention, those other point guards will all be less efficient scorers with the defenses loaded up against them.

  Beyond that, though, how well a player performs when they're on a weak team seems like a pretty poor method of deciding whether you're able to build around them. In other words, how relevant do you think how Rondo performs with no good teammates is to how he performs when he *does* have good teammates? Rondo's value (according to you) goes down when he's on a team of bad scorers, so clearly it rises when he's on a good team. Likewise, a player's ability to take a ton of shots when you surround them with flotsam is less valuable when you put better players on the floor with them.

I think Derrick Rose's career is a great example that bears out Tim's point. Especially the bolded, we saw that with Miami shutting him down in the playoffs two years ago.

Full disclosure: I think Rose is/was a phenomenal player, but you know, I realize not everyone sees him that way.

Sure, but that's true of almost any scorer.

How efficient a scorer will Rondo be with defenses loaded up against him?

[D.o.s.]

Curry and Westbrook are the two I have pause about mostly because I think they are more SG then PG.

Okay, let's forget about position for a second.  Who brings the most value to their team?  Who is the hardest for the other team to defend?  Who depends less on their teammates in order to be successful?

The latter point is really what's most relevant to the "build around" question.  Rondo is a nice player, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't depend on his teammates to a large degree in order to do what he does best. 

You can't say the same for the other guards on the list, other than that as point guards they are all very reliant on their big men to back them up defensively, and, to a lesser extent, on their shooters to spread the floor so they have space to drive and kick.

  That's completely meaningless unless you're planning on putting Rondo on the court with 4 players who are completely unable to put the ball in the basket. Maybe you're planning on surrounding him with players who don't see very well?

The Celtics are planning on putting him on the floor at all times with 4 guys who have never averaged more than 16 points a game for a full season.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that Rondo will be surrounded with anything better than mediocre offensive talent this season.

In that situation, any of the listed point guards could just take more shots and average 20-25 points a game.

Rondo, on the other hand, is limited in how much of a role he can take on offensively because he has a much more limited set of offensive tools to work with.

  First of all the less able his teammates are to create their own shots and score on their own, the more valuable Rondo is to the team. He'll still get a lot more assists than those other point guards despite scoring less. Not to mention, those other point guards will all be less efficient scorers with the defenses loaded up against them.

  Beyond that, though, how well a player performs when they're on a weak team seems like a pretty poor method of deciding whether you're able to build around them. In other words, how relevant do you think how Rondo performs with no good teammates is to how he performs when he *does* have good teammates? Rondo's value (according to you) goes down when he's on a team of bad scorers, so clearly it rises when he's on a good team. Likewise, a player's ability to take a ton of shots when you surround them with flotsam is less valuable when you put better players on the floor with them.

I think Derrick Rose's career is a great example that bears out Tim's point. Especially the bolded, we saw that with Miami shutting him down in the playoffs two years ago.

Full disclosure: I think Rose is/was a phenomenal player, but you know, I realize not everyone sees him that way.

Sure, but that's true of almost any scorer.

How efficient a scorer will Rondo be with defenses loaded up against him?

Right. I think that's the bit that's got us all waiting on guilded splinters--can Rondo make opposing defenses pay for playing him against the pass, especially now that he doesn't have such decorated teammates?

I don't know about you guys, but that's going to be one of the big things that I'll be watching for this upcoming season, once he makes it back onto the court.

[Boris Badenov]

Curry and Westbrook are the two I have pause about mostly because I think they are more SG then PG.

Okay, let's forget about position for a second.  Who brings the most value to their team?  Who is the hardest for the other team to defend?  Who depends less on their teammates in order to be successful?

The latter point is really what's most relevant to the "build around" question.  Rondo is a nice player, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't depend on his teammates to a large degree in order to do what he does best. 

You can't say the same for the other guards on the list, other than that as point guards they are all very reliant on their big men to back them up defensively, and, to a lesser extent, on their shooters to spread the floor so they have space to drive and kick.

  That's completely meaningless unless you're planning on putting Rondo on the court with 4 players who are completely unable to put the ball in the basket. Maybe you're planning on surrounding him with players who don't see very well?

The Celtics are planning on putting him on the floor at all times with 4 guys who have never averaged more than 16 points a game for a full season.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that Rondo will be surrounded with anything better than mediocre offensive talent this season.

In that situation, any of the listed point guards could just take more shots and average 20-25 points a game.

Rondo, on the other hand, is limited in how much of a role he can take on offensively because he has a much more limited set of offensive tools to work with.

  First of all the less able his teammates are to create their own shots and score on their own, the more valuable Rondo is to the team. He'll still get a lot more assists than those other point guards despite scoring less. Not to mention, those other point guards will all be less efficient scorers with the defenses loaded up against them.

  Beyond that, though, how well a player performs when they're on a weak team seems like a pretty poor method of deciding whether you're able to build around them. In other words, how relevant do you think how Rondo performs with no good teammates is to how he performs when he *does* have good teammates? Rondo's value (according to you) goes down when he's on a team of bad scorers, so clearly it rises when he's on a good team. Likewise, a player's ability to take a ton of shots when you surround them with flotsam is less valuable when you put better players on the floor with them.

I think Derrick Rose's career is a great example that bears out Tim's point. Especially the bolded, we saw that with Miami shutting him down in the playoffs two years ago.

Full disclosure: I think Rose is/was a phenomenal player, but you know, I realize not everyone sees him that way.

Sure, but that's true of almost any scorer.

How efficient a scorer will Rondo be with defenses loaded up against him?

Right. I think that's the bit that's got us all waiting on guilded splinters--can Rondo make opposing defenses pay for playing him against the pass, especially now that he doesn't have such decorated teammates?

I don't know about you guys, but that's going to be one of the big things that I'll be watching for this upcoming season, once he makes it back onto the court.

Rondo's mid-range game was very good last year, and while I haven't seen it broken down this way my recollection is that a fair number of those shots were pull-ups off the dribble - in other words, shots he created for himself.

If he returns as that same kind of threat, and still has the quickness to drive by his man if he's played more closely, I think his offensive productivity can still be excellent even if defenses are keying on him a bit more. All he needs is a few cutters and/or spotup shooters, and I think the likes of Sully, Olynyk, Green, Bass etc. can hit open shots if Rondo gets them the ball.

There's also evidence that ACL injuries are correlated with improved mid-range shooting (presumably because that's all you can do for a few months). That could help.

[kozlodoev]

The Celtics are planning on putting him on the floor at all times with 4 guys who have never averaged more than 16 points a game for a full season.

For what it's worth, Gerald Wallace is just 3 years removed from averaging more than 16 ppg in 4 consecutive season with Charlotte.

[D.o.s.]

Curry and Westbrook are the two I have pause about mostly because I think they are more SG then PG.

Okay, let's forget about position for a second.  Who brings the most value to their team?  Who is the hardest for the other team to defend?  Who depends less on their teammates in order to be successful?

The latter point is really what's most relevant to the "build around" question.  Rondo is a nice player, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't depend on his teammates to a large degree in order to do what he does best. 

You can't say the same for the other guards on the list, other than that as point guards they are all very reliant on their big men to back them up defensively, and, to a lesser extent, on their shooters to spread the floor so they have space to drive and kick.

  That's completely meaningless unless you're planning on putting Rondo on the court with 4 players who are completely unable to put the ball in the basket. Maybe you're planning on surrounding him with players who don't see very well?

The Celtics are planning on putting him on the floor at all times with 4 guys who have never averaged more than 16 points a game for a full season.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that Rondo will be surrounded with anything better than mediocre offensive talent this season.

In that situation, any of the listed point guards could just take more shots and average 20-25 points a game.

Rondo, on the other hand, is limited in how much of a role he can take on offensively because he has a much more limited set of offensive tools to work with.

  First of all the less able his teammates are to create their own shots and score on their own, the more valuable Rondo is to the team. He'll still get a lot more assists than those other point guards despite scoring less. Not to mention, those other point guards will all be less efficient scorers with the defenses loaded up against them.

  Beyond that, though, how well a player performs when they're on a weak team seems like a pretty poor method of deciding whether you're able to build around them. In other words, how relevant do you think how Rondo performs with no good teammates is to how he performs when he *does* have good teammates? Rondo's value (according to you) goes down when he's on a team of bad scorers, so clearly it rises when he's on a good team. Likewise, a player's ability to take a ton of shots when you surround them with flotsam is less valuable when you put better players on the floor with them.

I think Derrick Rose's career is a great example that bears out Tim's point. Especially the bolded, we saw that with Miami shutting him down in the playoffs two years ago.

Full disclosure: I think Rose is/was a phenomenal player, but you know, I realize not everyone sees him that way.

Sure, but that's true of almost any scorer.

How efficient a scorer will Rondo be with defenses loaded up against him?

Right. I think that's the bit that's got us all waiting on guilded splinters--can Rondo make opposing defenses pay for playing him against the pass, especially now that he doesn't have such decorated teammates?

I don't know about you guys, but that's going to be one of the big things that I'll be watching for this upcoming season, once he makes it back onto the court.

Rondo's mid-range game was very good last year, and while I haven't seen it broken down this way my recollection is that a fair number of those shots were pull-ups off the dribble - in other words, shots he created for himself.

If he returns as that same kind of threat, and still has the quickness to drive by his man if he's played more closely, I think his offensive productivity can still be excellent even if defenses are keying on him a bit more. All he needs is a few cutters and/or spotup shooters, and I think the likes of Sully, Olynyk, Green, Bass etc. can hit open shots if Rondo gets them the ball.

There's also evidence that ACL injuries are correlated with improved mid-range shooting (presumably because that's all you can do for a few months). That could help.

We looked at those numbers on here a month or so ago, from what I remember a much larger number of Rondo's shots from the midrange were assisted than the other PG's we were comparing him to (Nash and Paul, I think?)

[PhoSita]

The Celtics are planning on putting him on the floor at all times with 4 guys who have never averaged more than 16 points a game for a full season.

For what it's worth, Gerald Wallace is just 3 years removed from averaging more than 16 ppg in 4 consecutive season with Charlotte.

Fair enough.  You are correct.  However, I'm sure you're as aware as I am that the Gerald Wallace who accomplished that is long gone.

[bobbyv]

Curry and Westbrook are the two I have pause about mostly because I think they are more SG then PG.

Okay, let's forget about position for a second.  Who brings the most value to their team?  Who is the hardest for the other team to defend?  Who depends less on their teammates in order to be successful?

The latter point is really what's most relevant to the "build around" question.  Rondo is a nice player, but I think it's hard to argue that he doesn't depend on his teammates to a large degree in order to do what he does best. 

You can't say the same for the other guards on the list, other than that as point guards they are all very reliant on their big men to back them up defensively, and, to a lesser extent, on their shooters to spread the floor so they have space to drive and kick.

  That's completely meaningless unless you're planning on putting Rondo on the court with 4 players who are completely unable to put the ball in the basket. Maybe you're planning on surrounding him with players who don't see very well?

The Celtics are planning on putting him on the floor at all times with 4 guys who have never averaged more than 16 points a game for a full season.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that Rondo will be surrounded with anything better than mediocre offensive talent this season.

In that situation, any of the listed point guards could just take more shots and average 20-25 points a game.

Rondo, on the other hand, is limited in how much of a role he can take on offensively because he has a much more limited set of offensive tools to work with.

  First of all the less able his teammates are to create their own shots and score on their own, the more valuable Rondo is to the team. He'll still get a lot more assists than those other point guards despite scoring less. Not to mention, those other point guards will all be less efficient scorers with the defenses loaded up against them.

  Beyond that, though, how well a player performs when they're on a weak team seems like a pretty poor method of deciding whether you're able to build around them. In other words, how relevant do you think how Rondo performs with no good teammates is to how he performs when he *does* have good teammates? Rondo's value (according to you) goes down when he's on a team of bad scorers, so clearly it rises when he's on a good team. Likewise, a player's ability to take a ton of shots when you surround them with flotsam is less valuable when you put better players on the floor with them.

I think Derrick Rose's career is a great example that bears out Tim's point. Especially the bolded, we saw that with Miami shutting him down in the playoffs two years ago.

Full disclosure: I think Rose is/was a phenomenal player, but you know, I realize not everyone sees him that way.

Sure, but that's true of almost any scorer.

How efficient a scorer will Rondo be with defenses loaded up against him?

If anything, it'll just give Rondo better angles to pass it to his teammates. If the defense focuses on him, someone will be open.

[Casperian]

You have to consider (at least in Rondo's case) how efficient his "play-making" is. This was (most recently) in another thread, but someone from the Wizards looked at every pass from Rondo that either resulted in a shot or a turnover (where a shot would have likely happened without the turnover) over a 3 month period and found that the Celts scored on (IIRC) 55% or so of those passes.

  Since that includes turnovers, the actual conversion rate on the shots taken would have to be higher than 55%. So the raw fg% on shots taken from Rondo's passes is over 55%. Consider the percentage of Rondo's assists that are for 3s, if the raw fg% is over 55% than the eFG% will be over 61%. The study ignored and-1s and it ignored any passes that resulted in fouls that would lead to foul shots, so (estimating, the league average for TS% is about 8% higher than eFG%) the TS% would be higher than 65%.

  How many point guards have a TS% higher than 65%? *That's* why it doesn't necessarily make sense to value scoring over "play-making".

This doesn´t really address my question, either.
It´s Rondo´s job in the offense (designed with that in mind) to give his teammates better looks. It´s probably the reason why he has a starting spot in the NBA, he should be good at it. Doesn´t prove how it´s more valuable than scoring.

For example, did you subtract the loss in conversion rate of passes from his teammates? Can you even estimate it? Rondo´s not exactly spacing the floor, you know?

What about the fact that opposing defenses know who´s going for the killer pass and can adjust accordingly? Could that potentially increase total turnovers, especially in tight games? What about KG and Pierce, do you think they played a role in Rondo´s "conversion rate from passes" stat?
I could go on, that´s only scratching the surface...

Once you figured all this out, then put his conversion rate on passes in relation to the league average, converse it in total, absolute point increase on average, compare the increase with a hypothetical scenario where, say, Kyrie Irving (as an example for a scoring pg) played the point for us (I know, that´s unfair), optionally weigh the seperate assists (and shots, of course) from "up 10 in the first" to "down 4 in crunch time", maybe you can come back and explain how his "play-making" ability justifies his usage rate...and even more importantly, almost certain salary increase once his contract expires.

[BballTim]

You have to consider (at least in Rondo's case) how efficient his "play-making" is. This was (most recently) in another thread, but someone from the Wizards looked at every pass from Rondo that either resulted in a shot or a turnover (where a shot would have likely happened without the turnover) over a 3 month period and found that the Celts scored on (IIRC) 55% or so of those passes.

  Since that includes turnovers, the actual conversion rate on the shots taken would have to be higher than 55%. So the raw fg% on shots taken from Rondo's passes is over 55%. Consider the percentage of Rondo's assists that are for 3s, if the raw fg% is over 55% than the eFG% will be over 61%. The study ignored and-1s and it ignored any passes that resulted in fouls that would lead to foul shots, so (estimating, the league average for TS% is about 8% higher than eFG%) the TS% would be higher than 65%.

  How many point guards have a TS% higher than 65%? *That's* why it doesn't necessarily make sense to value scoring over "play-making".

This doesn´t really address my question, either.
It´s Rondo´s job in the offense (designed with that in mind) to give his teammates better looks. It´s probably the reason why he has a starting spot in the NBA, he should be good at it. Doesn´t prove how it´s more valuable than scoring.

  That's a meaningless comment. That's like saying Durant's job is to score so he should be good at it. Rondo's playmaking is more valuable than Rondo (or another point guard scoring because his passes lead to more efficient scoring chances than any point guards trying to score will. It turns out that how many points you get in a certain amount of possessions is important, at least to some people.

For example, did you subtract the loss in conversion rate of passes from his teammates? Can you even estimate it? Rondo´s not exactly spacing the floor, you know?

  Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that a loss in conversion rate happens at all?

What about the fact that opposing defenses know who´s going for the killer pass and can adjust accordingly? Could that potentially increase total turnovers, especially in tight games? What about KG and Pierce, do you think they played a role in Rondo´s "conversion rate from passes" stat?
I could go on, that´s only scratching the surface...Once you figured all this out, then put his conversion rate on passes in relation to the league average, converse it in total, absolute point increase on average

  Again, this was people looking at *every pass* Rondo made that led to a shot or a turnover (that otherwise would have led to a shot) over a three month period. Clearly that takes into account all of the killer passes, and whether the defense is prepared for the passes. And, yes, the person put his conversion rate into the average and into point increase on average.

 Over the period of time in question, the Celts converted roughly 35% of their offensive chances that didn't start with a pass from Rondo and 55% of the chances that did come from a Rondo pass. The 20% increase compares to a league average (from 82games) of about 8%. And since KG and PP try to score with and without passes from Rondo they have something to do with the overall conversion rate but not necessarily with the 20% increase.

, compare the increase with a hypothetical scenario where, say, Kyrie Irving (as an example for a scoring pg) played the point for us (I know, that´s unfair), optionally weigh the seperate assists (and shots, of course) from "up 10 in the first" to "down 4 in crunch time", maybe you can come back and explain how his "play-making" ability justifies his usage rate...and even more importantly, almost certain salary increase once his contract expires.

  The key phrase in this is "hypothetical scenario", which describes a great many of the arguments against him. People come up with perfectly valid and well thought out reasons why a player with Rondo's flaws shouldn't be successful on the court. There seems to be the belief that if people don't see a flaw in their argument or agree with it that the argument somehow trumps what actually happens on the court. Rondo generates good scoring chances for his teammates with his playmaking and passing. It's true that his shooting affects how teams defend him but it doesn't change the fact that Rondo generates good scoring chances for his teammates.

[soap07]

There's something to be said for the fact that as Rondo's role in the offense has grown, the offense as a whole has become worse and worse. This is due to a lack of offensive rebounding, but Rondo certainly contributes to that. All those point guards run better offenses.

It's true that his shooting affects how teams defend him but it doesn't change the fact that Rondo generates good scoring chances for his teammates.

Generally, yes. But his own inability to score, shoot or get to the line negates some of that. And there's something to be said that players like Green, Lee and and Terry all played much better once Rondo went down.

[LilRip]

a lot of these hypotheticals will probably get their answer once we see Rondo play this year with worse teammates, and once we see Deron play this year with PP and KG, who despite being shells of their former selves are still pretty reliable. A lot of people have completely written off Deron.

interesting (and likely painful) season we have ahead of us.

[Spicoli]

http://www.hoopsworld.com/top-6-2013-2014-nba-point-guards

Steph Curry
Russell Westbrook
Derrick Rose
Kyrie Irving
Tony Parker
Chris Paul

Who in your opinion is better than Rondo from the above?

IMHO Rondo is better.

All of the following point guards are better players than Rondo:

Irving
Parker
Williams
Rose
Westbrook
Curry
Paul
Conley
Lillard

I then have the following point guards on the same tier as Rondo:

Lawson
Holiday
Rubio
Vasquez

Rondo is too limited on the offensive end to rank any higher IMO.

[PhoSita]

You have to consider (at least in Rondo's case) how efficient his "play-making" is. This was (most recently) in another thread, but someone from the Wizards looked at every pass from Rondo that either resulted in a shot or a turnover (where a shot would have likely happened without the turnover) over a 3 month period and found that the Celts scored on (IIRC) 55% or so of those passes.

  Since that includes turnovers, the actual conversion rate on the shots taken would have to be higher than 55%. So the raw fg% on shots taken from Rondo's passes is over 55%. Consider the percentage of Rondo's assists that are for 3s, if the raw fg% is over 55% than the eFG% will be over 61%. The study ignored and-1s and it ignored any passes that resulted in fouls that would lead to foul shots, so (estimating, the league average for TS% is about 8% higher than eFG%) the TS% would be higher than 65%.

  How many point guards have a TS% higher than 65%? *That's* why it doesn't necessarily make sense to value scoring over "play-making".

This doesn´t really address my question, either.
It´s Rondo´s job in the offense (designed with that in mind) to give his teammates better looks. It´s probably the reason why he has a starting spot in the NBA, he should be good at it. Doesn´t prove how it´s more valuable than scoring.

For example, did you subtract the loss in conversion rate of passes from his teammates? Can you even estimate it? Rondo´s not exactly spacing the floor, you know?

What about the fact that opposing defenses know who´s going for the killer pass and can adjust accordingly? Could that potentially increase total turnovers, especially in tight games? What about KG and Pierce, do you think they played a role in Rondo´s "conversion rate from passes" stat?
I could go on, that´s only scratching the surface...

Once you figured all this out, then put his conversion rate on passes in relation to the league average, converse it in total, absolute point increase on average, compare the increase with a hypothetical scenario where, say, Kyrie Irving (as an example for a scoring pg) played the point for us (I know, that´s unfair), optionally weigh the seperate assists (and shots, of course) from "up 10 in the first" to "down 4 in crunch time", maybe you can come back and explain how his "play-making" ability justifies his usage rate...and even more importantly, almost certain salary increase once his contract expires.

The thing I can't ignore -- and I know the Rondo "believers" have counter-arguments for this -- is that despite Rondo's gradual improvement and increasing assist per game average over the Big 3 era, the team's offense got continuously worse, and was for the most point pretty below average.  The main exception being when Shaq was healthy at the start of the 2010-2011 season.

Whereas, most of the other point guards on the list have been the focal point of teams that are pretty dangerous offensively.

Which team is harder to shut down offensively, the team with Rondo running the offense, or the team with "shoot first" guards like Westbrook, Rose, Curry, and Irving handling the ball?  The on-court evidence that we have from the past few seasons says that the latter group is more dangerous.