The role of PGs for winning NBA titles

[stitches]

I did some research on the PGs of the last 20-21 years since I've noticed that the teams who win NBA championships usually don't have an all-star level PGs. For the 21 seasons I reviewed, the team that became a champion had an all-star PG in the respective year only twice - both San Antonio with Tony Parker as their main PG(2007 and 2014).

The average stats for the starting PGs of the championship teams were as follows:
Age: 29.05
MPG: 29.67
PPG: 11.2
RBPG: 2.84
APG: 4.44
STL: 1.18
BLK: 0.2
TOV: 1.7
FG%: 44%
3P%: 34%
FT%: 78%

I kind of expected the PPG to not be very high, but even the APG number seems quite abysmal for the position. The average winshare per 48 minutes is 0.135. Most of them are between 4th and 7th best player on their team according to that stat. The only PG to be leading that category for his team in a championship year was Chauncey Billups with .198.

I haven't done the same for the other positions(I might do it this weekend if there is enough interest), but even without doing it, to me it seems clear that the PG position is one of the least important position when it comes to winning titles. Yes, a good PG will make your team good enough to be a playoff team, but it seems like teams would be much better off concentrating their resources into other positions(if possible) if they want to contend for a title.

[Slava]

Those stats are surprising in a way because there's an abundance of high usage scoring PGs in the league right now but I guess the championship winning PG debate kind of narrows it down to may be 5-7 teams over the past couple decades. You could also argue that Kobe/Lebron were always the point guards for their respective teams.

[kinghasnoequal]

They just need to be able to shoot the 3 and play defense. It's too easy to shut down PG if need be.

[montestewart]

Those stats are surprising in a way because there's an abundance of high usage scoring PGs in the league right now but I guess the championship winning PG debate kind of narrows it down to may be 5-7 teams over the past couple decades. You could also argue that Kobe/Lebron were always the point guards for their respective teams.

Not a lot of teams win titles, and a few great players (Kobe, LeBJ, MJ, Duncan) lead the mass of those teams. Many of them act as PGs. To me, it's really too short a list to rule out an exceptional and higher minutes/usage PG leading (or co-leading) a team to a championship.

[Chris_SoCal]

High assist ball dominate point guards do not win you championships (the only exception are a couple pgs from the 80s that just happen to be about the best of all time).


If you have a guy like Kobe on your team... and he is off everybody else still gets their same looks. If you have a dominate point guard that is having an off game... EVERYBODY'S game suffers.

[stitches]

They just need to be able to shoot the 3 and play defense. It's too easy to shut down PG if need be.

Well, the 34% 3 point shooting on average doesn't suggest that this is the case. About half of them are below the league average of 36%.

[Melvinlocker]

I did some research on the PGs of the last 20-21 years since I've noticed that the teams who win NBA championships usually don't have an all-star level PGs. For the 21 seasons I reviewed, the team that became a champion had an all-star PG in the respective year only twice - both San Antonio with Tony Parker as their main PG(2007 and 2014).

The average stats for the starting PGs of the championship teams were as follows:
Age: 29.05
MPG: 29.67
PPG: 11.2
RBPG: 2.84
APG: 4.44
STL: 1.18
BLK: 0.2
TOV: 1.7
FG%: 44%
3P%: 34%
FT%: 78%

I kind of expected the PPG to not be very high, but even the APG number seems quite abysmal for the position. The average winshare per 48 minutes is 0.135. Most of them are between 4th and 7th best player on their team according to that stat. The only PG to be leading that category for his team in a championship year was Chauncey Billups with .198.

I haven't done the same for the other positions(I might do it this weekend if there is enough interest), but even without doing it, to me it seems clear that the PG position is one of the least important position when it comes to winning titles. Yes, a good PG will make your team good enough to be a playoff team, but it seems like teams would be much better off concentrating their resources into other positions(if possible) if they want to contend for a title.

I love comparative studies like this.

I will be interested in seeing what you post about the other positions. Based on the research I have done, and the research of others, it seems like the common denominator is controlling the paint on both ends as nearly every team in NBA history, sans Jordan's Bulls, had a high quality, two way player down low. I'll be interested to see what your thoughts are on big men and their correlation to winning championships.

I must concede that this is changing rapidly as big men are moving to the perimeter for offensive efficiency purposes,

see: http://www.gotbuckets.com/2014/05/01/pa ... -shooting/

while guards are becoming slashers to accommodate for a lack of attempts at the rim. I think we are seeing a reversal of functions that has been initiated by the increased role of the three point shot in the NBA. Would love to hear your thoughts on this stuff whenever you finish.

[stitches]

Those stats are surprising in a way because there's an abundance of high usage scoring PGs in the league right now but I guess the championship winning PG debate kind of narrows it down to may be 5-7 teams over the past couple decades. You could also argue that Kobe/Lebron were always the point guards for their respective teams.

Not a lot of teams win titles, and a few great players (Kobe, LeBJ, MJ, Duncan) lead the mass of those teams. Many of them act as PGs. To me, it's really too short a list to rule out an exceptional and higher minutes/usage PG leading (or co-leading) a team to a championship.

Well actually, there are 10-12 different "teams"(depending on how you differentiate a team - for example Miami 2006 is a completely different "team" than Miami 2012-2013, Spurs 1999 is a completely different "team" than Spurs 2014) that have won the title in that period. Even if you eliminate the ambiguity and use strictly different franchises, the number is 8.

[WhatsMyName]

The average stats for the starting PGs of the championship teams were as follows

Are these regular season stats or playoffs?

I would rather use median than average (or both) for that statistic because it's such a small sample size that some big outliners have a huge impact on average and median can somewhat negate that. In this case the Miami and Lakers teams are a third of the sample and both in a way constructed were a PG couldn't "get his stats" (triangle and LBJ/Wade ball handler).

It would probably interesting to include the other finalist in the stat or have a separate stat for them, just so you can get more data and have a better view of what leads to winning in the playoffs.

[DoubleLintendre]

PG importance on championship teams comes up fairly often on the GB, the averaged stats adds a little more depth to the ongoing discussion. PGs quality and pure stat production doesn't seem to be very important on recent championship teams, the players at the position are more role players than main components of a team's engine. Other than Chauncey, the other champ PGs are fairly average players which generally excel at off-ball play or non-dominant ball handling (faciliating) roles, and aren't expected to "run the team" like you imagine when you think of classic PGs. You could probably switch the champ PGs with another average PGs around the league and have the same championship results.

Exceptional defense and having some form of dominant (team anchoring) big man seem to be the main ingredients in a championship recipe. PGs are sadly more like a spice in recent years.

[montestewart]

Those stats are surprising in a way because there's an abundance of high usage scoring PGs in the league right now but I guess the championship winning PG debate kind of narrows it down to may be 5-7 teams over the past couple decades. You could also argue that Kobe/Lebron were always the point guards for their respective teams.

Not a lot of teams win titles, and a few great players (Kobe, LeBJ, MJ, Duncan) lead the mass of those teams. Many of them act as PGs. To me, it's really too short a list to rule out an exceptional and higher minutes/usage PG leading (or co-leading) a team to a championship.

Well actually, there are 10-12 different "teams"(depending on how you differentiate a team - for example Miami 2006 is a completely different "team" than Miami 2012-2013, Spurs 1999 is a completely different "team" than Spurs 2014) that have won the title in that period. Even if you eliminate the ambiguity and use strictly different franchises, the number is 8.

I'll take that 8, to the degree that Duncan was critical to all Spurs championships, as was Kobe to all Lakers championships, and my point was really about the exceptional players that teams get who allow teams to win championships.

Trimming further (with "the mass of those teams") you can pull out the '04 Pistons, '06 Heat, the 11 Mavs, and that leaves the mass of championships with a small number of teams and great players. A PG could become one of those players that leads a team to multiple titles. A PG was (in my opinion) the best player on the '04 Pistons. Just saying I can't rule it out based on available evidence, because it's really a small number of players that lead teams to championships. My money's on a great player, and he might play any position.

[jirojan]

a high scoring 2/3 is much more important imo...jordan, kobe, manu, clyde, id even consider dirk and lebron as a player of this mold (kinda lol)

[Chris_SoCal]

Not a lot of teams win titles, and a few great players (Kobe, LeBJ, MJ, Duncan) lead the mass of those teams. Many of them act as PGs. To me, it's really too short a list to rule out an exceptional and higher minutes/usage PG leading (or co-leading) a team to a championship.

Well actually, there are 10-12 different "teams"(depending on how you differentiate a team - for example Miami 2006 is a completely different "team" than Miami 2012-2013, Spurs 1999 is a completely different "team" than Spurs 2014) that have won the title in that period. Even if you eliminate the ambiguity and use strictly different franchises, the number is 8.

I'll take that 8, to the degree that Duncan was critical to all Spurs championships, as was Kobe to all Lakers championships, and my point was really about the exceptional players that teams get who allow teams to win championships.

Trimming further (with "the mass of those teams") you can pull out the '04 Pistons, '06 Heat, the 11 Mavs, and that leaves the mass of championships with a small number of teams and great players. A PG could become one of those players that leads a team to multiple titles. A PG was (in my opinion) the best player on the '04 Pistons. Just saying I can't rule it out based on available evidence, because it's really a small number of players that lead teams to championships. My money's on a great player, and he might play any position.

Of course Chancie was probably the best player on that piston team. However would you consider him a ball dominate high assist guy? A point guard can be your best player on the team but you really don't want that is ball dominate. Even if a guy gets a lot of assists it is bad for your team if he dominates the ball.

[cool007]

PGs or any player should be doing whatever their team needs to win games/championships.

There is no formula on how much they need to be scoring/assisting etc. Each team is different. Usually the team that wins it all have 2 to 3 good/great scorers and bunch of good defenders. Why do we have to limit anyone or put a cap on it?

For example, Rose on Bulls is their best player and best scorer. Somehow Bulls wins the championship this year and Rose is the Finals MVP. Would this be revolutionized? Would this be considered GOAT that scoring PG led the team to the title with not other great scorer (20+ppg scorer) next to him?

Not saying it will happen but game is constantly changing. Bigs don't show power anymore. PGs are more athletic than ever and scoring more than ever.

[montestewart]

Well actually, there are 10-12 different "teams"(depending on how you differentiate a team - for example Miami 2006 is a completely different "team" than Miami 2012-2013, Spurs 1999 is a completely different "team" than Spurs 2014) that have won the title in that period. Even if you eliminate the ambiguity and use strictly different franchises, the number is 8.

I'll take that 8, to the degree that Duncan was critical to all Spurs championships, as was Kobe to all Lakers championships, and my point was really about the exceptional players that teams get who allow teams to win championships.

Trimming further (with "the mass of those teams") you can pull out the '04 Pistons, '06 Heat, the 11 Mavs, and that leaves the mass of championships with a small number of teams and great players. A PG could become one of those players that leads a team to multiple titles. A PG was (in my opinion) the best player on the '04 Pistons. Just saying I can't rule it out based on available evidence, because it's really a small number of players that lead teams to championships. My money's on a great player, and he might play any position.

Of course Chancie was probably the best player on that piston team. However would you consider him a ball dominate high assist guy? A point guard can be your best player on the team but you really don't want that is ball dominate. Even if a guy gets a lot of assists it is bad for your team if he dominates the ball.

Magic had the ball a lot. Styles of play change, and often a few spectacular players lead the charge. Like I said, I'm just not ruling out such an exceptional PG coming up and changing peoples' minds about a ball dominant PG being able to lead a championship team.

PS: You'e right, Billups is not a perfect fit here, but his usage rate is not unlike Magic's, he was a PG leading a team to a championship, and he was a quite a bit better than that average in the OP. Then again, he only won one championship.

[nonjokegetter]

This is pretty cool, thanks stitches.

[stitches]

The average stats for the starting PGs of the championship teams were as follows

Are these regular season stats or playoffs?

I would rather use median than average (or both) for that statistic because it's such a small sample size that some big outliners have a huge impact on average and median can somewhat negate that. In this case the Miami and Lakers teams are a third of the sample and both in a way constructed were a PG couldn't "get his stats" (triangle and LBJ/Wade ball handler).

It would probably interesting to include the other finalist in the stat or have a separate stat for them, just so you can get more data and have a better view of what leads to winning in the playoffs.

It's the regular season. Here are the averages for the playoffs:

Age: 29.05
MPG: 32.33
PPG: 11.65
RBPG: 3.08
APG: 4.13
STL: 1.1
BLK: 0.22
TOV: 1.78
FG%: 43%
3P%: 33%
FT%: 75%

Here are the median numbers for regular season and for playoffs(they come off even worse than when using averages):
attr--reg---playoff
AGE: 29-------29
MPG: 29.4-------32
PPG: 10.4-------10.3
RBPG: 2.6-------3
APG: 4.2-------3.9
STL: 1.1-------1
BLK: 0.1-------0.1
TOV: 1.7-------1.6
FG%: 44%-------43%
3P%: 37%-------34%
FT%: 80%-------75%

[Archerbro]

High assist ball dominate point guards do not win you championships (the only exception are a couple pgs from the 80s that just happen to be about the best of all time).


If you have a guy like Kobe on your team... and he is off everybody else still gets their same looks. If you have a dominate point guard that is having an off game... EVERYBODY'S game suffers.

don't know if I agree with that correlation, (thought is exists).

Bear in mind, one of the best pgs we had was Kidd, and the main reason he lost in the finals? he went up against two teams with an all time great in Shaq and Kobe, and Prime Duncan.

Oh, and his supporting cast was awful in comparison.

There's so many factors into why Kidd and Nash never won in their primes (obviously Kidd did as a supporting player in 11), that I think we simplify it down too much.

[Prokorov]

Those stats are surprising in a way because there's an abundance of high usage scoring PGs in the league right now but I guess the championship winning PG debate kind of narrows it down to may be 5-7 teams over the past couple decades. You could also argue that Kobe/Lebron were always the point guards for their respective teams.

Historically, Bigmen win championships... not PGs. so big time stats are going to be skewed more towards bigs then gaurds, especially talking the first 3 or 4 decades of the league, and pre 3point line. you are also kind of diluting the number with the early years when scoring was down from the modern eras.

[Imon]

Would be awesome we could see the breakdown from each position.

Guys like Shaq and Duncan I think would skew results though since they showed up in the Finals so many times.