The role of PGs for winning NBA titles

[crazy_me_87]

Well History is pretty clear at that topic

even the PGs who "lead" their Team to titles(Big O,Magic,West,Parker,Isiah,etc) had HOF Big Men at their side

My theory is that a PG unless you are Magic or Penny, is usually the smallest and weakest player on the court
come playoff time this gets important... because the game becomes pretty physical

you can throw a bigger defender at them on the perimeter and foul him hard at drives.he cant shoot over a bigger defender and as soon as he drives he hits the floor... this will wear out almost every PG over 4 series

guys like Penny and Magic are the exeptions because they had SF Bodys at the PG Position

And Thomas,Parker,Billups had amazing Teams around them none of them dominated the Finals .. especially Parker and Billups FMVPs are pretty interchangable... 2004 Ben Wallace could as well have gotten the FMVP or even Rasheed... 2007 Parker averaged 21/6 and Duncan 18/10 .. its not as if Parker was THAT clear of a FMVP

my Point is... PGs almost never "lead" their Teams to titles.. if they win.. they do in all time great TEAMS with at least 1 wing or Big who is clear HOF caliber

[day1086]

- Again, as a Spurs fan, I've seen a few glaring examples of a PG getting shut down by a longer defender the past few years. Danny Green is the best PG defender in the NBA IMO, and as a poster on SpursTalk highlighted with numbers, it can be quantified. He completely shut down Chris Paul in 2012. Curry was completely eliminated from the 2013 series once Pop switched Green onto him(and Leonard onto Thompson, which completely ended Corey Matthews's series). Green against Lillard was the same result, too.

Westbrook was the only PG to have some success against Green, and I don't even know if he is really considered a PG lol.

I can't speak for cp3 or Lillard, but curry had nothing to do with the defense.

Curry hurt his ankle in game 2 and was hardly able to jog up and down the court for the rest of the series. He let Jarrett jack handle the ball while he sat in corners because he simply wasn't physically able.

[og15]

As I said here in a previous thread about Derrick Rose, PG is by far the most overrated position in NBA basketball(just NBA ball, I don't believe they face the same problems in college or High School). IMO, the reason is that it's much easier for the media and public to relate to them(height, style of play, etc).

It's very difficult for the average person to relate to a big man for obvious reasons. Superstar wings are different, as their style of play and flashy style transcends everything.

History has taught us that if a PG is your best player, you're going to have a very difficult time winning a championship. It takes very special circumstances, such as Isiah winning with a defense-first supporting cast and Billups winning with a balanced team with arguably the greatest defensive frontcourt in NBA history IMO.

As others have mentioned, it's just way too easy to shut down a star PG in the playoffs when he's the #1 option/highest usage player. The league is always full of athletic wings with huge wingspans that will virtually always win the battle against the PG.

The only outlier is Magic Johnson, and he was a 6'9 genetic freak, one of the top 3 players in the history of the league IMO.

Some points:

- Isiah Thomas's role for the Bad Boys Pistons is a little overrated IMO. That team was much more well-balanced than they are given credit for.

- The 2013 Spurs came close to winning a title with a PG as their best player, but as we feared, Parker was completely eliminated from the series in the latter part of the Finals. Duncan and Leonard kept the Spurs in it, but TP was horrific in the most important games of the series.

- The 2014 Spurs won a title with Tony Parker being virtually useless in the playoffs. He had the 2nd worst on/off metrics on the roster, the Spurs won 2 clinching games without him playing, he only had 2 or 3 high quality games throughout the playoffs. It was evident all season that he was going to struggle due to the fatigue from 2013(deep playoff run + Summer of international basketball), as Pop had to shut him down at points during the regular season.

- As a Spurs fan, I'm very familiar with a PG's struggles in the playoffs. Outside of parts of 2002, and then 2007(where he was still the 3rd best player on the team) and 2013, Parker has been underwhelming in the playoffs throughout his career.

- I actually like Chris Paul's style of play in the playoffs. He performs well in the post-season and his usage rate is usually appropriate IMO. He gets criticized for deferring to other players, but that's the proper role for him to play IMO. If Griffin can take the next step and become a legit playoff #1 guy, the Clippers will be much better off with CP3 being an elite #2 guy IMO. The Clippers didn't lose last year because of Paul, they lost due to their other glaring flaws, which will probably by the case again this season.

Paul actually killed the Spurs in New Orleans when Bowen guarded him in 2008. Pop switched Bowen onto Peja after the Spurs were down 0-2(and Peja was subsequently eliminated from the series), and the Spurs were better off for it.

- Again, as a Spurs fan, I've seen a few glaring examples of a PG getting shut down by a longer defender the past few years. Danny Green is the best PG defender in the NBA IMO, and as a poster on SpursTalk highlighted with numbers, it can be quantified. He completely shut down Chris Paul in 2012. Curry was completely eliminated from the 2013 series once Pop switched Green onto him(and Leonard onto Thompson, which completely ended Corey Matthews's series). Green against Lillard was the same result, too.

Westbrook was the only PG to have some success against Green, and I don't even know if he is really considered a PG lol.

While I don't disagree with Green being good against PG's, the 2012 playoffs vs Paul might not be the best example. Chris Paul got injured right at the end of game 5 vs Memphis. His production dropped after that because he had little lift and explosiveness. For a guy his size, those little things are going to affect your ability to produce.

Still, Green is a great guy to defend him, but that series wasn't the best example. The Clippers were 3-2 in the playoffs before game 5 vs Memphis when Paul and Griffin both got injured, then went 1-4 the rest of the way. Don't get me wrong, SA was a much better team and would have won either way, but the Clippers would just have looked better in defeat, maybe win 1-2 games, that's the only difference that was going to happen.

Paul jammed the middle finger on his right hand in the first quarter before straining his right hip flexor in the fourth.

"I felt a little sharp pain in my leg," Paul said. "I'll be all right."

Paul held his midsection for several possessions in the final minutes of the game before checking out with 1:24 remaining and the Clippers trailing by eight.

"I was trying to go, but I couldn't," Paul said. "I wanted to, tried to."

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/stor ... -grizzlies

The finger jamming is whatever, it happens, everyone has those kind of injuries, you play through it and you perform. The hip flexor was a bigger issue because it was correlated to an earlier groin injury he had in the regular season and it took away his explosiveness. When you're already little, you need your explosiveness.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2012/5/10/3 ... lies-video

Game 1-5 vs Memphis:
22.6 ppg / 5.2 rpg / 7.8 apg / 47% FG / 39% 3PT / .589 TS% / 6.8 fta

Game 5 and 6 vs Memphis:
15.0 ppg / 7.0 rpg / 5.5 apg / 42.3% FG / 22.2% 3PT / .508 TS% / 4.0 fta

vs SA:
12.8 ppg / 4.0 rpg / 9.3 apg / 36.8% FG / 33.3% 3PT / .431 TS% / 1.3 fta

There were two things. After game 5, Paul could not get all the way to the basket on plays anymore, and he wasn't really able to get to the line anymore.

Some Clippers fans had suggested that the team should actually have sat Paul and Griffin in Game 1 and 2, or at least game 1, acknowledging that on the road against SA would be hard wins anyways, and better off taking your chances with healthier Paul and Griffin at home and for the rest of the series than them just playing less healthy for the whole series.

While Green is certainly an excellent defensive player, it wasn't Paul at his best by any means and statistically, Paul shot better with Green on the floor in that series than with him on the bench. He was just bad for the series as a whole, didn't matter who was guarding him.

I think his production vs Klay Thompson this past season is a better barometer of what a healthier Paul can still do against the long defender. He's not the 21-22 pts on 60%+ TS guy that he's shown in many playoff series', but he still put up a solid 17/5/9/42% FG/46% 3PT/.556 TS%/113 Ortg in 35 mpg while running around chasing Curry.

[Rob Diaz]

^^ Maybe, the point stands about PGs being limited, though.

I'm a fan of Paul, as I said, I generally defend his playoff performances. Adding to my point, and something that people forget, Tony Parker was pretty bad in that series vs. the Clippers, too. He shot poorly and while Paul was criticized for that series, Parker didn't really outplay him. The difference in that series was Duncan's 21-10 per game and the shooting from the Spurs' role players(Green, Leonard and Neal).

[og15]

^^ Maybe, the point stands about PGs being limited, though.

I'm a fan of Paul, as I said, I generally defend his playoff performances. Adding to my point, and something that people forget, Tony Parker was pretty bad in that series vs. the Clippers, too. He shot poorly and while Paul was criticized for that series, Parker didn't really outplay him. The difference in that series was Duncan's 21-10 per game and the shooting from the Spurs' role players(Green, Leonard and Neal).

Yea, the Clippers in 11-12 were a pretty awful defensive team too, no doubt, 18th in Drtg during the season or something. I agree, I do still prefer teams where the PG's role is to create good team offense, but not that he must go out and HAVE to score a lot of points to keep the team afloat. I have no problem with them scoring a lot of points either, but if my team is built in such a way where my PG has to initiate and then score so many unassisted baskets, I think my team has issues in itself.

[hands11]

Well History is pretty clear at that topic

even the PGs who "lead" their Team to titles(Big O,Magic,West,Parker,Isiah,etc) had HOF Big Men at their side

My theory is that a PG unless you are Magic or Penny, is usually the smallest and weakest player on the court
come playoff time this gets important... because the game becomes pretty physical

you can throw a bigger defender at them on the perimeter and foul him hard at drives.he cant shoot over a bigger defender and as soon as he drives he hits the floor... this will wear out almost every PG over 4 series

guys like Penny and Magic are the exeptions because they had SF Bodys at the PG Position

And Thomas,Parker,Billups had amazing Teams around them none of them dominated the Finals .. especially Parker and Billups FMVPs are pretty interchangable... 2004 Ben Wallace could as well have gotten the FMVP or even Rasheed... 2007 Parker averaged 21/6 and Duncan 18/10 .. its not as if Parker was THAT clear of a FMVP

my Point is... PGs almost never "lead" their Teams to titles.. if they win.. they do in all time great TEAMS with at least 1 wing or Big who is clear HOF caliber

Which is why you see so many titles attached to MJ, Kobe, Wade types. And now LeBron. Paul Peirce was in this category as well.

One man wrecking machines. Playoff defenses are tough. Those types don't need to pass to score. And they played great D on the other best players. But with so much focus on them inside and out, they open the floor so they can pass as well.

K Leonard played that role last year and its why people are high on Paul George. And KD is in the running for this type as well.

[Imon]

Well History is pretty clear at that topic

even the PGs who "lead" their Team to titles(Big O,Magic,West,Parker,Isiah,etc) had HOF Big Men at their side

My theory is that a PG unless you are Magic or Penny, is usually the smallest and weakest player on the court
come playoff time this gets important... because the game becomes pretty physical

you can throw a bigger defender at them on the perimeter and foul him hard at drives.he cant shoot over a bigger defender and as soon as he drives he hits the floor... this will wear out almost every PG over 4 series

guys like Penny and Magic are the exeptions because they had SF Bodys at the PG Position

And Thomas,Parker,Billups had amazing Teams around them none of them dominated the Finals .. especially Parker and Billups FMVPs are pretty interchangable... 2004 Ben Wallace could as well have gotten the FMVP or even Rasheed... 2007 Parker averaged 21/6 and Duncan 18/10 .. its not as if Parker was THAT clear of a FMVP

my Point is... PGs almost never "lead" their Teams to titles.. if they win.. they do in all time great TEAMS with at least 1 wing or Big who is clear HOF caliber

Which is why you see so many titles attacked to MJ, Kobe, Wade types. And now LeBron. Paul Peirce was in this category as well.

One man wrecking machines. Playoff defenses are tough. Those types don't need to pass to score. And they played great D on the other best players. But with so much focus on them inside and out, they open the floor so they can pass as well.

K Leonard played that role last year and its why people are high on Paul George. And KD is in the running for this type as well.

I disagree.
I think MJ is the exception because he didn't have an all-star level big on his team during his championship runs but the other guys had other all-star bigs.

Kobe's first 3 with Shaq (who was better than Kobe) then his next two with Pau.
Wade with Shaq (who wasn't great but still good) and then with Bosh (plus Lebron the best player in the NBA).

[hands11]

Well History is pretty clear at that topic

even the PGs who "lead" their Team to titles(Big O,Magic,West,Parker,Isiah,etc) had HOF Big Men at their side

My theory is that a PG unless you are Magic or Penny, is usually the smallest and weakest player on the court
come playoff time this gets important... because the game becomes pretty physical

you can throw a bigger defender at them on the perimeter and foul him hard at drives.he cant shoot over a bigger defender and as soon as he drives he hits the floor... this will wear out almost every PG over 4 series

guys like Penny and Magic are the exeptions because they had SF Bodys at the PG Position

And Thomas,Parker,Billups had amazing Teams around them none of them dominated the Finals .. especially Parker and Billups FMVPs are pretty interchangable... 2004 Ben Wallace could as well have gotten the FMVP or even Rasheed... 2007 Parker averaged 21/6 and Duncan 18/10 .. its not as if Parker was THAT clear of a FMVP

my Point is... PGs almost never "lead" their Teams to titles.. if they win.. they do in all time great TEAMS with at least 1 wing or Big who is clear HOF caliber

Which is why you see so many titles attacked to MJ, Kobe, Wade types. And now LeBron. Paul Peirce was in this category as well.

One man wrecking machines. Playoff defenses are tough. Those types don't need to pass to score. And they played great D on the other best players. But with so much focus on them inside and out, they open the floor so they can pass as well.

K Leonard played that role last year and its why people are high on Paul George. And KD is in the running for this type as well.

I disagree.
I think MJ is the exception because he didn't have an all-star level big on his team during his championship runs but the other guys had other all-star bigs.

Kobe's first 3 with Shaq (who was better than Kobe) then his next two with Pau.
Wade with Shaq (who wasn't great but still good) and then with Bosh (plus Lebron the best player in the NBA).

Of course you need an AS big as well. Except MJ who is the GOAT.

Point is, you don't need a AS PG with those combinations.

Should add Clyde and Dream to the list.

[JonFromVA]

Magic realized early on that he was going to have to repress areas of his games so his teammates could stay more involved. Phil later used the Triangle to make sure his team's played team-ball.

Winning a championship takes a team. It's very hard to do if that team is over-dependent on their PG, and it really doesn't matter if it's a true PG like CP3 or a point-forward like LeBron.

The team needs to be able to function, even when that player is sitting, having a bad game, or the defense has just loaded up against him.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Yeah, I've argued this for a while now vis a vis PGs. After the 1980s there is basically no correlation between great PG play and winning championships, and yet what do we have today but a whole wash of scoring PGs trying to be their team's star and get their team to a title. But there's just no evidence that works in the end.

I do think its worth noting though that no fewer than 11 of the titles since 1990 were won by Phil Jackson triangle teams, and in the triangle the PG just brings the ball up and goes to spot up. Its actively hostile to ball and stat dominant PGs, as Gary Payton found out. But its not as if the other title winning teams have consistently had the league's best PGs on them either. At the title level its been a roleplayer's position.

[hands11]

Yeah, I've argued this for a while now vis a vis PGs. After the 1980s there is basically no correlation between great PG play and winning championships, and yet what do we have today but a whole wash of scoring PGs trying to be their team's star and get their team to a title. But there's just no evidence that works in the end.

I do think its worth noting though that no fewer than 11 of the titles since 1990 were won by Phil Jackson triangle teams, and in the triangle the PG just brings the ball up and goes to spot up. Its actively hostile to ball and stat dominant PGs, as Gary Payton found out. But its not as if the other title winning teams have consistently had the league's best PGs on them either. At the title level its been a roleplayer's position.

So that said, who are the title teams.

This has me pointing to DAL as a good chance to win it all. And CLE because they have LeBron and Kyrie can play off the ball. You always count in SAS because they are SAS.

But its not OKC or LAC. Probably not CHI.

[fluffernutter]

Isn't this just an straightforward effect of the salary cap?

Best PG ever (once in a 50 year freak = Magic) < best Center ever and also < best Wing ever (Jordan) and also < best Forward ever (Lebron).

If you blow your max on the "best of generation" PG it's a lot less value than "best of generation" C/F who usually ends up winning.

In general, PG < Forward < WING < Center.

PG is simply less important than the other positions. A non-huge PG other than Magic will be problematic, and far worse than Magic.

When your money is constrained, by all means spend it on the best possible non-PG max contract.

If you are paying max to a PG, even if it's CP3, it's not money well spent, and will likely fail to achieve a championship.

Get your HOF center/forward, your once-in-a-lifetime SF, or give it up.

[miltk]

I think we're dealing with semantics because it terms of basketball execution, it's really hard to say Lebron isn't a PG in anything but physical size. He brings the ball up, he runs pick & rolls as the ballhandler, he sets up teammates with great assists, he shoots from the outside with great reliability.

I would say these teams were led by their PG:
- Miami ('13, '12)
- Spurs ('14, '07)
- Detroit ('04)

s.

lebron may have been the facilitator on the team, but miami started two sometimes three guards, and lebron wasn't one of them. he was a big who facilitated. whether in reality or on paper, miami found the need to have it's backcourt fitted with legit guard-types wade/chalmers/allen,,,even cole got 24mpg. the POSITION of pg was filled by a pg. the role of facilitator was lebron.

same with magic

[miltk]

i think in theory if a ring team is supposed to have a BALANCED offense, and if by default the pg has the ball in his hands more than any other player,,,then it is counterproductive to have a "great" pg on the team because he will need the ball to be great. this takes away from the others. there's only so much time a player can have on any posession.

can oscar be 100% oscar if he has to pass to other great players? in such a case i prefer a less ball-dominant pg. conversely, okc needs a ball dominant pg because westbrook and durant is all they have.

[NO-KG-AI]

The best players in the league are going to get the majority of the titles, and the best players in the league are usually not a PG, because size matters.

If there were more Magic style PGs, this comparison would look different.

[tsherkin]

I think this comparison should be expanded to include Finalists, not just champions, and should consider that while Billups wasn't an AS in 04, he was still a 5-time All-Star. It should also note that 20-21 years also neatly misses the last Pistons title in 90, with Isiah having perhaps his best postseason run (and of course, definitely misses 89).

It also ignores that while KJ wasn't the best player on the team, he was on the 93 Finalist Suns.

Plus, it ignores that Kidd made the Finals twice.


Meantime, positionally, PG is typically the least-efficient position from which to score (generally the least-assisted), and the most dependent upon others to finish for their impact to be felt. That's a tough way to produce an elite offensive player. There aren't a ton of elite volume PGs, and they aren't often as broadly high-impact as a dominant wing or big.

Also keeping in mind that, as others have noted, there are only so many title-winners. In the past 20 years, we've seen how many dynasties?

We saw the second of Houston's consecutive titles, the second 3-peat from Chicago, we've seen 5 titles from the Spurs, we saw a Lakers three-peat, a Lakers repeat, and Miami won three titles.

So we've seen a lot of the SAME stars winning, which has been a theme in the NBA, aside from the 70s.

Consequently, what we're really seeing is that (as others have noted), the very best players in basketball usually win.

PG is not the spot where you typically see that sort of dominance. That said, even fixing on one position in general is probably not awesome. We've seen at least 5 or 6 titles with the SG as the clear-cut best player, a bunch with the C in that role (more, depending on how you categorize Duncan), but we've seen a few with the SF as well now, right?

This is an intriguing premise in the OP, though. There are tactical considerations which support the idea that star PGs aren't usually the right idea from a single point-of-attack standpoint, for example. Similarly, you might consider two-way impact and the bang for your buck you get out of a PG in terms of that value.


An interesting thought, though. One of the advantages of wings versus PGs is that it is typically far easier for them to play off-ball, which allows the team to shift around defensive focus and make it harder to zone in on that single point of attack, disrupting which might derail the team's whole approach.

[Kabookalu]

One of my theories is that it's easier to find point guards that can compliment star perimeter players than it is to find perimeter players that can compliment star point guards. With Kobe and LeBron all they need to work with is a point who can do a decent job of facilitating the offense and make his open shots. With Nash and Paul they need players who can handle and score off the ball. And it seems harder to find the latter than the former.

Point guards already carry so much responsibilities that it's sometimes nice to just throw the ball to another player and have him give you 2 points without needing to execute the offense to perfection. I think this is why the Clippers hit another stride two seasons ago; they acquired Jamal Crawford that can do this. Too many times I see star points stuck with perimeter players that are only good for stretching the floor.

Bradley Beal is what I'd consider the dream player to play with if you're a star point guard, at least until he ups his efficiency. He can handle the ball, but also score without it.

[crazy_me_87]

i think in theory if a ring team is supposed to have a BALANCED offense, and if by default the pg has the ball in his hands more than any other player,,,then it is counterproductive to have a "great" pg on the team because he will need the ball to be great. this takes away from the others. there's only so much time a player can have on any posession.

is oscar going to be 100% oscar if he has to pass to other great players. in such a case i prefer a less ball-dominant pg. conversely, okc needs a ball dominant pg because westbrook and durant is all they have.

This is propably the closest to reality right now

As a Title Team you need multiple players on offense who can carry the Team for stretches especially the other(s) is(are) taken out of the game(either by beeing on the bench^^,injured or just shut down by the defense)

So if we look at the Bulls for example... if Rose is back at 22/7 Level and he plays and is not shut down then the Bulls have a fair chance of Winning any Game... but if an elite defender takes him out of the Game... the Bulls offense is basically dead

The Clippers are simillar.. while not as dependend if Paul is shut down they offense runs only through Blake.. and while hes improving hes still not great at getting his Points without Paul... at least not as efficient.

You need 2 or 3 Players who can work together seemlesly but also can take over by themselves if needed.

A Dominant PG tends to completly controll the Offense... and this is a huge disatvantage at least come playoff time.. where the Game slows down,defensives get tougher and more focused

[AussieCeltic]

I think this comparison should be expanded to include Finalists, not just champions, and should consider that while Billups wasn't an AS in 04, he was still a 5-time All-Star. It should also note that 20-21 years also neatly misses the last Pistons title in 90, with Isiah having perhaps his best postseason run (and of course, definitely misses 89).

It also ignores that while KJ wasn't the best player on the team, he was on the 93 Finalist Suns.

Plus, it ignores that Kidd made the Finals twice.


Meantime, positionally, PG is typically the least-efficient position from which to score (generally the least-assisted), and the most dependent upon others to finish for their impact to be felt. That's a tough way to produce an elite offensive player. There aren't a ton of elite volume PGs, and they aren't often as broadly high-impact as a dominant wing or big.

Also keeping in mind that, as others have noted, there are only so many title-winners. In the past 20 years, we've seen how many dynasties?

We saw the second of Houston's consecutive titles, the second 3-peat from Chicago, we've seen 5 titles from the Spurs, we saw a Lakers three-peat, a Lakers repeat, and Miami won three titles.

So we've seen a lot of the SAME stars winning, which has been a theme in the NBA, aside from the 70s.

Consequently, what we're really seeing is that (as others have noted), the very best players in basketball usually win.

PG is not the spot where you typically see that sort of dominance. That said, even fixing on one position in general is probably not awesome. We've seen at least 5 or 6 titles with the SG as the clear-cut best player, a bunch with the C in that role (more, depending on how you categorize Duncan), but we've seen a few with the SF as well now, right?

This is an intriguing premise in the OP, though. There are tactical considerations which support the idea that star PGs aren't usually the right idea from a single point-of-attack standpoint, for example. Similarly, you might consider two-way impact and the bang for your buck you get out of a PG in terms of that value.


An interesting thought, though. One of the advantages of wings versus PGs is that it is typically far easier for them to play off-ball, which allows the team to shift around defensive focus and make it harder to zone in on that single point of attack, disrupting which might derail the team's whole approach.

Don't forget guys like Payton and Stockton also made the finals but just so happened to run into the GOAT.

[tsherkin]

Don't forget guys like Payton and Stockton also made the finals but just so happened to run into the GOAT.

Payton is a good call. Stockton, I realize, I didn't include because he wasn't the best player on his team... but I included Parker. So yeah, Stockton's another good call, but in a way, he and Parker both support the premise that you don't generally want your PG passing a certain threshold of involvement. Stockton's also an example of how insufficient secondary scoring can harm your chances to win (Old Stockton, in the Finals, anyway, and moreso in 97 because I think his knee gives him a fairly legit out in 98).