Stop focusing on the 43% and focus on the principle of the point I'm making. The point I'm making EVEN if we are shooting at a very high rate, it's not sustainable.
The reason why we aren't higher in assists is because our shooting percentage is down no one is hitting shots. And when you aren't hitting 2 point shots you definitely aren't gonna get assists hitting 3 point shots. I believe a pass is with purpose to score that's why you make the pass to the open player. The hockey assist is even better, but if you don't score you don't get the assist you don't get the bucket you don't get anything. We've ended up with a lot of empty possessions meaning a quick shot or turnover. Assist and good passing also move the defense because the defense is only going a rotate in unison so many times someone will lapse. A 3 doesn't give you any ball movement it doesn't give you any 2nd chance points and you only get a kick out long rebounds.
Last night's offense was good but that was against a poor defense so let's see what we get with Dallas.
The Celtics are 10th in the league in assists per game. They are 6th in the league in assist percentage. They are 11th in the league in assist ratio they are 7th in the league in assist to turnover ratio. The Celtics are 7th in the league in three pointers that are assisted at 85.5%.
You're whole assist argument makes little sense. Is your argument just take more 2 pointers? Because we are 24th in the league in making FG% on 2 point shots. That's worse than being 21st in the league in 3FG%.
And the Celtics are 2nd in the league in taking shots where the nearest defender is 6 feet or more away from the shooter.
What these stats say are the Celtics move the ball and assist on a ton of their shots. They create wide open looks. But they are just not a good shooting team and are actually worse at making 2point shots than they are 3point shots.
So what is your point again because I think the stats disprove it, whatever it is?