Is PG really a deep position in the NBA?

[Agnostifarian]

For several years, I've been reading on these Boards that the PG position is the deepest in the NBA. However, our team starts a journeyman and he is backed up by an undrafted rookie and a fringe NBA player coming off an ACL injury. If PG truly is such a deep position, there should be a number of players that we could bring in through a trade or free agency.

Does "deep position" mean there are only a few elite PGs and then a "deep tier" of players who are roughly even? Is there an impression that there are a good deal of backup PGs who are essentially ready to start like Schroder in ATL? Who are some NBA PGs that the 76ers might pursue and when might it happen?

Any help is appreciated.

[MatthewGeigerII]

For several years, I've been reading on these Boards that the PG position is the deepest in the NBA. However, our team starts a journeyman and he is backed up by an undrafted rookie and a fringe NBA player coming off an ACL injury. If PG truly is such a deep position, there should be a number of players that we could bring in through a trade or free agency.

Does "deep position" mean there are only a few elite PGs and then a "deep tier" of players who are roughly even? Is there an impression that there are a good deal of backup PGs who are essentially ready to start like Schroder in ATL? Who are some NBA PGs that the 76ers might pursue and when might it happen?

Any help is appreciated.

I don't know if this is what you meant but I've always heard a similar stance that pg is the "easiest position to fill"... cause you have journeymen like jack/ish/andre miller/jameer that may not be all star/ scoring type of players but can facilitate a team and essentially get the gears going on offense. As opposed to having a good guard and once he dumped the ball down to a sub-par big man with a low FG%, it's useless at that point. Summing it up even further... the pg position in it's nature gives you several opportunities to help a team win a game, passing/shooting where a "big man" really should be mostly shooting (or a short dump pass if drawn defender)...


in terms of the sixers, i think it's great that they are trying to build from the bigs, out, for this reason. same goes with defense (the bigs are the last line of d, met at the rim)... if you have a sub-par defensive guard, it can be masked a little with a great rim protecting/shot altering big such as gobert.

don't know if that helps or is totally not what you were asking but it's how i interpreted the question!

[Agnostifarian]

^^ I've heard some say that defense is as important for a PG as it is for other players--maybe because their primary job is to facilitate. However, there are some PGs that are very good defenders so offense being equal, one obviously prefers a two way player. ,If anything, that speaks to different tiering but not overall depth at the position.

Also, James Harden needs a different type of PG than Deandre Jordan. If you differentiate PGs by sale of play, it makes the position "less deep." Maybe people say the PG position is deep because there are more small people than big people in the world. Also, PGs don't always need to be good shooters to be effective.

Perhaps "PG is the deepest position in the NBA" is a lazy statement... not to cast any aspersions.

[the_process]

There are more good PG's in the league than any other position save perhaps PF. That's what they mean by deepest. It also means there's no point to overpaying for one since you can go out and find a comparable for cheaper. Go through every team in the league and see how many do not have a capable starter. At the very most 5, including PHI. Most not even have a good starter but also a good backup, and that doesn't even talk about the teams who are stashing young guys who are promising (Delon Wright, Jerian Grant; to name a couple.)

[76ciology]

No it's not. C position is the deepest followed by PF position. PG to SF have relatively the same depth.

Before the pace and space game, PG doesn't carry much responsibilities. I think it has got to do with more set plays and less of these free flowing&PnR offense. Average PGs (bring down the ball, orchestrate, space and defend) were passable.

Now, offense is normally perimeter heavy. 3s are less challenged shots while the league favors drives (handcheck; FTs) Guards and small forwards have largest impact on offense. With that nature on perimeter oriented offense and the need of a "2 way" player (high ORPM & atleast 0 DRPM), most of the top players are guards and forwards.

Cs nowadays are mostly for rebounding and rim protection. There are a lot of Cs who can provide those.

[Sixerscan]

No it's not. C position is the deepest followed by PF position. PG to SF have relatively the same depth.

Before the pace and space game, PG doesn't carry much responsibilities. I think it has got to do with more set plays and less of these free flowing&PnR offense. Average PGs (bring down the ball, orchestrate, space and defend) were passable.

Now, offense is normally perimeter heavy. 3s are less challenged shots while the league favors drives (handcheck; FTs) Guards and small forwards have largest impact on offense. With that nature on perimeter oriented offense and the need of a "2 way" player (high ORPM & atleast 0 DRPM), most of the top players are guards and forwards.

Cs nowadays are mostly for rebounding and rim protection. There are a lot of Cs who can provide those.

One might say that a big reason why Cs are asked to provide such little production is because the position is so shallow. A good center certainly provides more than rebounding and rim protection.

The reason why the league is more perimeter oriented is because there are a lot more good perimeter players than there are big guys. And that makes sense, given that there significantly more normal size people in the world than there are 7 footers.

[76ciology]

No it's not. C position is the deepest followed by PF position. PG to SF have relatively the same depth.

Before the pace and space game, PG doesn't carry much responsibilities. I think it has got to do with more set plays and less of these free flowing&PnR offense. Average PGs (bring down the ball, orchestrate, space and defend) were passable.

Now, offense is normally perimeter heavy. 3s are less challenged shots while the league favors drives (handcheck; FTs) Guards and small forwards have largest impact on offense. With that nature on perimeter oriented offense and the need of a "2 way" player (high ORPM & atleast 0 DRPM), most of the top players are guards and forwards.

Cs nowadays are mostly for rebounding and rim protection. There are a lot of Cs who can provide those.

One might say that a big reason why Cs are asked to provide such little production is because the position is so shallow. A good center certainly provides more than rebounding and rim protection.

The reason why the league is more perimeter oriented is because there are a lot more good perimeter players than there are big guys. And that makes sense, given that there significantly more normal size people in the world than there are 7 footers.

This is just my observation. So this is just my theory not a general rule of sorts.

Efficiency. Go where there is least pressure, that's the motto in the triangle offense and the current GSW offense. On offense, there's less pressure on 3s since defense naturally prioritised the paint. Then the league also incentivised attacks to the rim with the handcheck rule (I would guess there's a growing rate of 3pts made and fta).

Highest pressure on defense is offensive production at the C position, specially on post-ups. You have to cross several bridge to score. 1.) the shotclock 2.) fronting to prevent u from catching the ball 3.)low FT rate compared to drives 4.)tight defense 5.)scoring against guys with 9'3-9'5" reach (that's less than 6-9" from the rim). I've posted in one of the other thread in this board, how the evolution of bigs starts from less assisted buckets and more shots in the paint into more assisted buckets and less shots in the paint. I guess, eventually, most realized resistance is futile.

Why would you force yourself to go up against naturally the best defenders on the opposing team (usually at the C position), when you can score more extra points per shot via 3s and fts from the perimeter (Demarcus Cousins know this)? Guys like Curry and KD are scoring at will even against the best defenders like Kawhi or Iggy. Because stay to tight at the perimeter, they will drive and get to the line. Sag off a little at the perimeter, and they will shoot over you at atleast 35-40 3pt%.

That for me explains why the offense became perimeter oriented and why Cs nowadays are just usually asked to protect the rim and rebound in order to minimize weakness (inefficient offense) and magnify strength (mimic impact of wings+guards).

Now, I think that it's easier to be a high impact C than a high impact PG. Most Cs nowadays are long, mobile and coordinated (rarely skilled). And it's easier to teach this guys to provide high impact with their rebounding and rim protection. Look at the Nuggets' pride of Nurkic and Jokic. Whitney, Mahinmi, Mason Plumlee.. these guys are the type of guys you can easily get with mid to low 1st rounder.

Whereas all though there's a larger population of smaller guys, teaching them to have the handles of Kyrie, shooting of Curry, basketball IQ of Cp3 or simply just the all-around games of Teague or Jrue/Teague (top of their HS class) is more of a gift than something you can teach.

[HeJind]

No it's not. C position is the deepest followed by PF position. PG to SF have relatively the same depth.

Before the pace and space game, PG doesn't carry much responsibilities. I think it has got to do with more set plays and less of these free flowing&PnR offense. Average PGs (bring down the ball, orchestrate, space and defend) were passable.

Now, offense is normally perimeter heavy. 3s are less challenged shots while the league favors drives (handcheck; FTs) Guards and small forwards have largest impact on offense. With that nature on perimeter oriented offense and the need of a "2 way" player (high ORPM & atleast 0 DRPM), most of the top players are guards and forwards.

Cs nowadays are mostly for rebounding and rim protection. There are a lot of Cs who can provide those.

How is C the deepest? They lierally got rid of the C position for the all-star game because there weren't enough good centers lol. More teams have quality PG's than quality C's IMO. Also more quality backups.

[76ciology]

No it's not. C position is the deepest followed by PF position. PG to SF have relatively the same depth.

Before the pace and space game, PG doesn't carry much responsibilities. I think it has got to do with more set plays and less of these free flowing&PnR offense. Average PGs (bring down the ball, orchestrate, space and defend) were passable.

Now, offense is normally perimeter heavy. 3s are less challenged shots while the league favors drives (handcheck; FTs) Guards and small forwards have largest impact on offense. With that nature on perimeter oriented offense and the need of a "2 way" player (high ORPM & atleast 0 DRPM), most of the top players are guards and forwards.

Cs nowadays are mostly for rebounding and rim protection. There are a lot of Cs who can provide those.

How is C the deepest? They lierally got rid of the C position for the all-star game because there weren't enough good centers lol. More teams have quality PG's than quality C's IMO. Also more quality backups.

More because Cs nowadays are more of role players than all-stars. The star Cs shifts to PF like Cousins, Towns (i consider him) and AD. If they include Cs, they might be forced to put a guy like DeAndre Jordan or Whiteside over Lilliard or some legit star caliber guard or forward. There are more population of PG than C but there are a lot more good Cs than good PGs.

[ET Da Gawd]

There are no good skilled centers outside the obvious ones, being a 6'9-7'0 rebounding body does not constitute being a center in my eyes, nonetheless being enough to deem the position deep. Its a rarity to see big men who actually know how to play in the post and use proper footwork

[Mik317]

yes and no.

You can get a serviceable PG pretty easy and win with him.

However, a great PG opens up so much more. Its not really about the position thio but rather the responsibility of creating for yourself and others....and knowing when to do so. Many starting PGs can only do one of those things..and only to a mediocre level. You can win with a servicable PG..but you better have a great iso scorer on your team..or LeBron. MCW didn't work because he's mediocre at both. Ish isn't a long term guy because he just cannot be the main option.

The Last champions had dudes that could get their own shots but also set others up (Curry, Bron, Wade, Kobe, TP, Manu, Kidd, to a lesser extent Dirk, Pierce.) People go..."oh Miami won with Chalmers" and ignore that Bron AND Wade both basically ran the team.

You need a creator off the bounce. When plays break down, they can make things happen. That is what a PG is supposed to do..whether that comes from that spot or not..is another question.

[Sixerscan]

No it's not. C position is the deepest followed by PF position. PG to SF have relatively the same depth.

Before the pace and space game, PG doesn't carry much responsibilities. I think it has got to do with more set plays and less of these free flowing&PnR offense. Average PGs (bring down the ball, orchestrate, space and defend) were passable.

Now, offense is normally perimeter heavy. 3s are less challenged shots while the league favors drives (handcheck; FTs) Guards and small forwards have largest impact on offense. With that nature on perimeter oriented offense and the need of a "2 way" player (high ORPM & atleast 0 DRPM), most of the top players are guards and forwards.

Cs nowadays are mostly for rebounding and rim protection. There are a lot of Cs who can provide those.

One might say that a big reason why Cs are asked to provide such little production is because the position is so shallow. A good center certainly provides more than rebounding and rim protection.

The reason why the league is more perimeter oriented is because there are a lot more good perimeter players than there are big guys. And that makes sense, given that there significantly more normal size people in the world than there are 7 footers.

This is just my observation. So this is just my theory not a general rule of sorts.

Efficiency. Go where there is least pressure, that's the motto in the triangle offense and the current GSW offense. On offense, there's less pressure on 3s since defense naturally prioritised the paint. Then the league also incentivised attacks to the rim with the handcheck rule (I would guess there's a growing rate of 3pts made and fta).

Highest pressure on defense is offensive production at the C position, specially on post-ups. You have to cross several bridge to score. 1.) the shotclock 2.) fronting to prevent u from catching the ball 3.)low FT rate compared to drives 4.)tight defense 5.)scoring against guys with 9'3-9'5" reach (that's less than 6-9" from the rim). I've posted in one of the other thread in this board, how the evolution of bigs starts from less assisted buckets and more shots in the paint into more assisted buckets and less shots in the paint. I guess, eventually, most realized resistance is futile.

Why would you force yourself to go up against naturally the best defenders on the opposing team (usually at the C position), when you can score more extra points per shot via 3s and fts from the perimeter (Demarcus Cousins know this)? Guys like Curry and KD are scoring at will even against the best defenders like Kawhi or Iggy. Because stay to tight at the perimeter, they will drive and get to the line. Sag off a little at the perimeter, and they will shoot over you at atleast 35-40 3pt%.

That for me explains why the offense became perimeter oriented and why Cs nowadays are just usually asked to protect the rim and rebound in order to minimize weakness (inefficient offense) and magnify strength (mimic impact of wings+guards).

Now, I think that it's easier to be a high impact C than a high impact PG. Most Cs nowadays are long, mobile and coordinated (rarely skilled). And it's easier to teach this guys to provide high impact with their rebounding and rim protection. Look at the Nuggets' pride of Nurkic and Jokic. Whitney, Mahinmi, Mason Plumlee.. these guys are the type of guys you can easily get with mid to low 1st rounder.

Whereas all though there's a larger population of smaller guys, teaching them to have the handles of Kyrie, shooting of Curry, basketball IQ of Cp3 or simply just the all-around games of Teague or Jrue/Teague (top of their HS class) is more of a gift than something you can teach.

I think you are just setting your expectations lower of what constitutes a high impact center versus a high impact point guard. Look at those names you listed for each position.

[76ciology]

Center position
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/9

PG position
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/1

- there's almost twice the number of center who's got non-negative RPM than PGs (46 non-negative RPM Cs vs 24 non-negative RPM PGs).
- After the big 4 PGs (CP3, Curry, Lowry and Curry), there's really a shallow depth of good impact PG compared to Cs.

[76ciology]

semi-related because age is also a factor. I think Spurs and Pop are great in anticipating and evolving based on the trend. They went from playing big that set the trend to the heavy ball and player movement that everyone has been trying to copy.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

Duncan's been having negative (0-ish) OBPM since 2010-2011. It's the start of heavy pace and space; post-Lakers twin towers era. Start of LeBron small ball era. He transformed his game to the modern prototype C model of non-heavy offense but defensive heavy defense model.

[76ers 2020]

I'm not sure the defensive numbers for the point guards are all that relevant. or at least not as relevant compared to the centers. Good point guards are getting past their man. There are 19 centers with positive ORPM and 34 point guards.

[76ciology]

I'm not sure the defensive numbers for the point guards are all that relevant. or at least not as relevant compared to the centers. Good point guards are getting past their man. There are 19 centers with positive ORPM and 34 point guards.

If that's the case then there's 69 centers with positive DRPM. Where Cs doesn't have much offensive responsibility.

[Sixerscan]

Center position
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/9

PG position
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/1

- there's almost twice the number of center who's got non-negative RPM than PGs (46 non-negative RPM Cs vs 24 non-negative RPM PGs).
- After the big 4 PGs (CP3, Curry, Lowry and Curry), there's really a shallow depth of good impact PG compared to Cs.

Well RPM notoriously includes height as a variable in its regression, so that's not very surprising. RPM also greatly values things like defensive rebounding and shotblocking, some would say too much. Either way, that has less to do with the depth of the position and more with teams being inherently better at those things when big men are on the court versus small ball.

It also tends to overvalue guys that play complimentary roles in elite offenses (Chalmers for example magically went from a positive offensive player with LeBron to a negative after he left), while conversely docking guys like Okafor that have to create more themselves. Point guards are more likely to be in the position where they have to create for themselves, turn the ball over, have to force bad shots at the end of the clock, etc.

Advanced stats are less valuable when comparing guys that have completely different roles on their teams. You need a higher RPM to be considered "good" as a center than as a point guard, especially defensively.

[bedjawII]

Here's all we need to consider. Ish struggles to find a job and Zaza Pachia is a borderline all star. Tell me what's the deeper position.

[76ciology]

Center position
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/9

PG position
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM/position/1

- there's almost twice the number of center who's got non-negative RPM than PGs (46 non-negative RPM Cs vs 24 non-negative RPM PGs).
- After the big 4 PGs (CP3, Curry, Lowry and Curry), there's really a shallow depth of good impact PG compared to Cs.

Well RPM notoriously includes height as a variable in its regression, so that's not very surprising. RPM also greatly values things like defensive rebounding and shotblocking, some would say too much. Either way, that has less to do with the depth of the position and more with teams being inherently better at those things when big men are on the court versus small ball.

It also tends to overvalue guys that play complimentary roles in elite offenses (Chalmers for example magically went from a positive offensive player with LeBron to a negative after he left), while conversely docking guys like Okafor that have to create more themselves. Point guards are more likely to be in the position where they have to create for themselves, turn the ball over, have to force bad shots at the end of the clock, etc.

Advanced stats are less valuable when comparing guys that have completely different roles on their teams. You need a higher RPM to be considered "good" as a center than as a point guard, especially defensively.

Good post. Well, personally I think RPM is designed to reflect the +/- in context on who makes the most impact in the style of play nowadays.

It's like there's a model for every player and the closer they are to that ideal model of today's game, the higher they are graded. Length also plays a great factor specially in today's sort of positionless basketball, where you need guys to be able to play multiple positions.

And the way I see it, there's a lot more players closer to the ideal player of their position at the C position than at the PG position. A lot more rebs+blks centers (good centers) over shoot+create+Atleast not so negative defense PGs (good point guards).

[76ciology]

Here's all we need to consider. Ish struggles to find a job and Zaza Pachia is a borderline all star. Tell me what's the deeper position.

[url]
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/12/2/9837458/zaza-pachulia-mavericks-bucks-breakdown-stats[/url]

Pachulia sure alters a lot of shots at the rim. Opponents are shooting 49 percent on shots inside of five feet when Pachulia is defending, per NBA.com player tracking data. That's a respectable mark that's significantly better than outgoing Dallas center Tyson Chandler and barely worse than DeAndre Jordan, the big man Dallas really wanted this summer.

The rear end is for Pachulia's most obvious skill: rebounding. He's 11th in the league in rebound percentage and is coming off a 21-rebound performance against the Portland Trail Blazers. He's the platonic ideal of the fundamentally sound big man your youth coach wished you could be. He sneaks into the areas where he knows the rebound will fall, then backs his ass up to root opponents out of them. That ensures a teammate will get the rebound even when he can't himself because he can't jump over my laptop.

read the rest at the link.