Lakers 0-3---Celtics 0-2......Lack of cohesion, or paper tigers?

[Celtics18]

#1 We have last year's 29th most productive player in the game in Rondo (5th amongst point guards)

What statistic are using for this?

Hey man the premise of this thread is how we look on paper.  I don't doubt that Rondo's impact is felt far more in reality than "on paper".  Just like you can't simply look at KG's statistical impact "on paper" and compare it to his impact in the real world. 

So if I'm looking on paper, the easiest way to figure out how "productive" a player is... is to look at their efficiency stat.  It's a simple equation.  Points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks... subtract missed FG, subtracted missed FT and subtract turnovers.   Pretty simple and covers all the major traditional stat categories.

Rondo was the 29th most productive player by that equation... and behind CP3, Westbrook, Rose and Deron (in that order). 

It's not infallible, but it makes sense.  For example, we can compare Rondo to CP3.  Rondo averaged more assists than Chris Paul, for instance... But is it more statistically "productive" to average 12 points and 12 assists as Rondo did  ... or is it more productive to average 20 points and 9 assists like Chris paul did?  If we assume each assist results in 2 points ... then techically Rondo was responsible for 36 points... Chris Paul was responsible for 38 points.  Then CP3's higher shooting percentages (CP3 = 48%/37%/86% .... Rondo = 45%/23%/59%), higher steals (CP3 = 2.5 ... Rondo = 1.7) and lower turnovers (CP3 = 2 ... Rondo = 3.6) make up for Rondo's higher rebounds.  It becomes a no-contest on who was more productive ON PAPER.  Chris Paul's efficiency number = 24.5 (5th best in the league).  Rondo's efficiency number = 19.3 (29th best in the league).  A lot of H2H-Point fantasy leagues are based on that stat, btw.  Of course, most around the NBA would argue that Chris Paul's impact in the real world is FAR greater than "on paper" as well... so either way, it's probably a no-contest.

Feel free to look at them yourself:  http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?league=00&season=22011&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&splitScope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All%20Teams

If you are looking at efficiency numbers, it makes more sense to use one like this one, which includes the playoffs:

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/playerstats/12/1/eff/1-1