I Overlooked the Intrinsic Value of the Assist

After long and hard thought I have decided my "CG" formula that I have been pushing on this blog as the be all and end all statistic is flawed. Why? I am convinced it undervalues the assist.

I was doodling around with some career CG numbers and discovered that Charles Barkley's career CG is nearly the same as Michael Jordan's. That's not right. The CG statistic loses all its comparative value if it leads one to conclude that MJ and the Fat Boy are of equal value. They're not.

Barkley was productive, yes, but Jordan's productivity was infinitely more valuable because his passing made his teammates and thus his team better. For instance, he basically made Steve Kerr and BJ Armstrong productive players by providing them wide open looks off his penetration and kick. You can't really say the same about Barkley. So, their numbers should not be considered equal. The guy who adds the passing dimension to my team is, in my mind, more valuable than the guy who merely rebounds and scores.

Another prime example why the assist should be weighted came in the Bucks game the other night: If Toni Kukoc isn't setting Dan Gadzuric up perfectly for those dunk shots against the Suns, then Gadzuric probably would not have scored on those particular occasions. Thus, some of Gadzuric's points were directly reliant on Kukoc. Hence, Kukoc made Gadzuric more productive because of his passing, and that ought to be rewarded accordingly.

Having decided that, I am going to recalibrate my numbers giving a weight of (1)1.5 for every assist. I will feature the Modified CG numbers in the next few days.