What's Up with Teams not Playing Point Guards Anymore?

[Effigy]

Point guards are typically the worst defenders on the floor. If you can replace your 6'0 guy with a 6'5 guy who's better at defense, that's a huge improvement on that end.

That's why you have centers and 3&D wings to help out. Who's going to organize these guys on the offensive end then?

Somebody taller. There's no reason a taller player CAN'T play point guard. We've certainly seen it. The issue has always been that there are just way more 6'0 guys and so therefor, there are more really good 6'0 guys. But this feels like another inefficiency that some teams are going to try to take advantage of.

[mg]

Players across the board, even in the frontcourt, are expected to handle, pass and shoot the ball. Guys who can't shoot/handle the ball are being phased out in general. You have to be an elite defender or shooter to be on the floor if you are a non-creator.

The 6' PG is becoming extinct as teams don't want the weak link defensively especially if they already have players at other positions who can create/handle.

[Marvin Martian]

Because there aren't any real point guards anymore aside from CP3 and Hali. The top PGs in the league are really just score first combo guards with mediocre playmaking.

[SkyBill40]

Teams like Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, and even the Lakers are opting out of playing point guards - is there a reason for this?

Cooper Flagg, Amen Thompson, Devin Booker, and even Luka Doncic aren't PGs. Why are they playing that position then?

Can't speak deeply for any team other than PHX: Truth is, we just don't have a starter quality and our FO is stupidly putting faith into what was already a failed project in Booker running point and somehow thinking Green will be able to do so when he's cut from the same scorer's cloth as Booker. We had a decent PG in Jones last season but he wasn't an ideal fit with the rest of the ball dominant roster we had with Booker, Beal, and Durant. He'd probably be better now seeing it's more balanced, but he wanted money and we don't have any to give. We do have capable backup PGs in Gillespie and another in Goodwin, but that's about it.

As to the others, it could be a matchup kind of thing; it could also be a "let's see if this works" experiment. And lastly, especially with HOU, it's a case of desperation since their main PG is out with a major injury and they have no other choice in the matter.

[Bucks4005]

Because if you have a bigger guy to handle the ball, you don’t have to hide the short guy on defense. If you 6-1, 6-2, you better be a bulldog of a defender like Beverly or have quick handles, otherwise the taller lineups can just attack you repeatedly. Short guys, you a,so have to have a reason to play them, so they basically have to be an A+ in ball handling and speed to win against defenses to make the advantage over just playing a 6-4 guy with a B handle, etc. to make it worth the disadvantages you have on defense.

I mean, you can see a clear athleticism/size gap in an example like Trae Young vs Ja Morant. Both seem similar sized, but Young is inefficient in comparison to Morant because Morant is just faster, more explosive, etc. and even then, neither would be really looked at as plus defenders just because they’re so small. Obviously, there are exceptions. Like Chris Paul as a defender was that quick handed guy who could just harass you all game and his handle was so tight with his quicks that he didn’t have any trouble getting shots off. But again, those guys are the exception at that size. More likely their athleticism is closer to Trae Young level than Chris Paul level.

[Saul Goodman]

It’s funny I remember when the point guard position was the most saturated but I feel like maybe theres a shortage with guys like kyrie Dame Hali VanVleet getting hurt/old

[tsherkin]

What is a PG. to start?

If we're talking about little dudes who barely shoot and set the table by pounding the rock at the top of the arc waiting for a set play to develop, or otherwise run PnR, that's not really an archetype of significant value in today's game. We have competent ball-handling and PnR action from larger players now, so it's somewhat obsolete.

And then whitehops hit an important note about general style of play, worthy of a repost.

it's one of the developments with playing 0.5 basketball, which pretty much the entire league tries to do now. that involves every player on the floor being able to make decisions, handle/pass so the traditional PG responsibility is spread out more. wings and bigs have gotten better in recent years so the added size defensively is a plus.

you still need players that can create advantages/get two defenders on the ball but some teams can make that work without a "true PG". tonight the rockets are playing the pistons and both teams are playing their thompson twin at PG more so that'll be cool to see.

You get guys who do volume playmaking. You get your Cade's and your Trae's (and he's even a small guy) and your Luka's and so forth, but distributed playmaking is more common. Bigs being involved in the playmaking is more common. You try to have a couple guys on the floor who can make good decisions so the offense can run even when they're on the bench and you don't look like Utah when Stockton sat and they had to run Shandon Anderson or Howard Eisley, or whomever. Etc, etc.

[jasonxxx102]

More players with ball skills make a classic PG less important. No need to have a classic plate setter when you’re running multiple actions on each play with everyone touching the ball.

This is absolutely not true when it comes to winning basketball

[JRoy]

And Minnesota started ANT with Donte in the backcourt, while Mike Conley came off the bench and only played 13 minutes...

DDV got eaten alive.

[meekrab]

Teams just aren't playing 6'1" guys who can't switch onto a 4, they're still playing "PGs".

[tsherkin]

More players with ball skills make a classic PG less important. No need to have a classic plate setter when you’re running multiple actions on each play with everyone touching the ball.

This is absolutely not true when it comes to winning basketball

What classic PG has won a title any time recently? Minding that the phrase "classic point guard" invalidates selection of scoring points and taller guys?

[Lalouie]

i said, when i saw him in college, that lonzo is the pg of the future..... great passer, great smarts, great vision, great teammate, and a superior playmaker in the open court,,,,, but only pretty ok in the half court

he was what the game was moving to, and that is away from the traditional ball dominant PG with a half court game who gives you buckets from the 3

[jasonxxx102]

More players with ball skills make a classic PG less important. No need to have a classic plate setter when you’re running multiple actions on each play with everyone touching the ball.

This is absolutely not true when it comes to winning basketball

What classic PG has won a title any time recently? Minding that the phrase "classic point guard" invalidates selection of scoring points and taller guys?

First of all, why would traditional pg invalidate guys who score points? As if PGs just never scored points? and what does being tall or short have to do with it either. It's a position, not a body type. We're talking about modern basketball, not the 1950s. Putting some arbitrary restrictions on the position just make it semantic

Superstars win titles but that's a totally different conversation.

[dhsilv2]

Point guards are typically the worst defenders on the floor. If you can replace your 6'0 guy with a 6'5 guy who's better at defense, that's a huge improvement on that end.

That's why you have centers and 3&D wings to help out. Who's going to organize these guys on the offensive end then?

A wing or "center"?

[tsherkin]

First of all, why would traditional pg invalidate guys who score points? As if PGs just never scored points? and what does being tall or short have to do with it either. It's a position, not a body type. We're talking about modern basketball, not the 1950s. Putting some arbitrary restrictions on the position just make it semantic

Because when you say "traditional PG" or "classic PG," you're referring to a specific archetype. Scoring guards who are also playmakers are not "traditional" in terms of what that phrase is commonly used to mean.

Meantime, there are a pile of teams which have been very successful without a conventional PG type. You often have a significant playmaker, but they often also aren't traditional point types at all, and frequently not even super high-volume playmakers.

[MrGoat]

Just because he's tall doesn't mean Luka isn't a point guard. We're talking about a guy who's consistently in the top 5 of the league in assists in his case

[Archx]

Point guards are typically the worst defenders on the floor. If you can replace your 6'0 guy with a 6'5 guy who's better at defense, that's a huge improvement on that end.

That's why you have centers and 3&D wings to help out. Who's going to organize these guys on the offensive end then?

A wing or "center"?

Yes? Rim protectors, etc... To help on defense. It's obvious that is hard to have 5 equally good defensive players on the floor at the same time.

[Jadoogar]

Because there aren't any real point guards anymore aside from CP3 and Hali. The top PGs in the league are really just score first combo guards with mediocre playmaking.

You wouldn't include Trae Young?

[Jadoogar]

More players with ball skills make a classic PG less important. No need to have a classic plate setter when you’re running multiple actions on each play with everyone touching the ball.

This is absolutely not true when it comes to winning basketball

What classic PG has won a title any time recently? Minding that the phrase "classic point guard" invalidates selection of scoring points and taller guys?

Haliburton was very close.
SGA is more of a scoring guard but he is still the leading shot creator.
Lowry was the PG for the Raptors.

[jasonxxx102]

First of all, why would traditional pg invalidate guys who score points? As if PGs just never scored points? and what does being tall or short have to do with it either. It's a position, not a body type. We're talking about modern basketball, not the 1950s. Putting some arbitrary restrictions on the position just make it semantic

Because when you say "traditional PG" or "classic PG," you're referring to a specific archetype. Scoring guards who are also playmakers are not "traditional" in terms of what that phrase is commonly used to mean.

Meantime, there are a pile of teams which have been very successful without a conventional PG type. You often have a significant playmaker, but they often also aren't traditional point types at all, and frequently not even super high-volume playmakers.

Like I said, if you want to insist on the word "traditional" that only describes a short white guy who passes the ball then you're just having a semantic argument.

Have at it