All season long and into the offseason I keep reading posts that suggest the Celtics "need" a backup PG who looks to pass first, shoot second. I understand the importance of a PG who creates for others, but the function of a PG isn't simply racking up high assist totals.
Let's look at Eddie House - yeah his handle is not that great, yeah he is a streaky shooter, but why was he effective? He did a few critical things RIGHT that was critical to our success in the playoffs (and the regular season... which Doc should have kept in mind before he brought in the cancer that is Sam Cassell). Read the following (this applies to ALL PG's, not just backups):
(1) Maintain the pace of the game by not stagnating the offense. The PG need not look for others at all times. He simply has to bring the ball up court and bring the offense to its regular set. It's crucial that players aren't just standing around - when all 5 guys are moving their feet, creating offense is much easier than if you had a PG who brought up the ball, pounded it for 15 seconds, and passed it to a guy for a lower percentage shot. PG's that fit this criteria are Jamaal Tinsley, Baron Davis, Jason Williams, etc. These are players who have talent, but they do more harm than good because they handle the ball and don't "create" for higher percentage situations. This is precisely why assists per game is the most misleading stat, in my mind, when left to decide who is the most effective PG. Being a true PG might also mean you're a ball pounder. In regards to House, he is anything but a true PG, but the offense ran smoother when he was in the game, because he played the rhythm of the game instead of making things more complicated by slowing things down and micromanaging it. I think Doc also deserves his fair share of credit for not calling too many plays, for I think playing too active of a role in the team's offense totally ruins a team's mojo, if you know what I mean.
(2)It is also important to note that any PG who looks to pass first and shoot second still may not know how to run an offense. Teams in the playoffs will expose your weaknesses and your inhibitions during the game. By that I mean, if a team senses that you don't want to shoot, they will make you. Rondo had problems with this, but overall I think he handled himself okay in the grander scheme of things. But his inconsistent play, whether we'd like to believe it or not after winning a title (we still cannot forget the stuff we were doing very wrong), and unwillingness to take the jumper and be assertive at times, led to dead possessions. House had his problems, but when he challenged the opponent to hit shots, they played us differently, and had to adjust more and therefore had more difficulties.
(3) Defend. A PG who does all the right things on one end like Steve Nash, but doesn't get the job done at the other, can hurt you in many ways as well. Staying in front of your guy and forcing turnovers is hard, but PG's who understood how to defend used it as a tool to create more high percentage opportunities at the other end. When Rondo forced like 10 steals (I know I'm exaggerating) in game 6 of the Finals, they resulted in like 5 Ray Allen wide open 3's (not an exaggeration). Bad defense allows the other team to get back quicker on defense from offense and allows them therein to control the pace of the game. Even a "true PG" may not know what it takes to impact the game.
The point of my post is to get across the idea that re-signing House is not a bad idea. Signing some bum who is considered a "true PG", would. If you do the critical things right, you could average the least number of assists per game. It really doesn't matter.