Why aren't pass first PGs more important?

[pillwenney]

Pass first point guards are critically important for "system" teams, but less so for teams that prefer a one-on-one or run-and-gun mentality.

There just aren't that many teams in the NBA any more that are disciplined enough to run offensive sets all the time. A team like the Jazz depends on the point guard to run the offense. A team like the Nuggets just let whoever has the ball try and score.

This shift to less organized offenses has led to their being a dearth of pass-first PGs. Guys want to get theirs first as opposed to getting their teammates involved. Its what makes guy's like Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Jason Kidd so valuable. They have figured out that if they get their teammates involved, they still end up getting theirs, but so do their teammates.

Look at the best teams in the league: The Lakers (Fisher), The Hornets (CP3), The Spurs (Parker), The Jazz (Williams), The Suns (Nash), The Celtics (Rondo) and The Pistons (Billups). All of these PGs have figured out that their team is best when they give the ball up and run their sets.

Baron Davis and Allen Iverson are awesome players. I'm not sure that they make their teammates better, though.

Not necessarily--it depends on the sysem. The Princeton, for instance, really calls for more of a shooting PG because the offense is primarily run through the bigs.

But generally speaking, your point is valid.

[Parasight]

If you pass too much and become tentative in the Finals you'll get eaten up period. You need to be capable of passing and scoring. Makes sense to me.

[Scalabrine]

I think what you need out of the Point Guard, and this stat will support it, is defense, you need decision making, you need to have him be a threat on the perimiter and they cant just leave you open enough to get off a good shot because you will hit it more times than not, he cant dominate the ball like the star player does because that will often make the ball stagnant and teamwork wins championships, you need a smart player who knows when the best time to score to keep the defense honest is and when to keep the ball moving, if that makes them pass first then you need a pass first point guard. The Knicks and Pacers were both big sucesses in the past because of Chris Childs, Charlie Ward, Mark Jackson, Travis Best all of these guys werent absolute juggernauts on offense but they werent liabilities either, they did there job and thats what was best for the team.

Aside from Parker I think every one of those point guards fit what the bill that I wrote above. Parker fits most of that but he isnt a defender and he is a better scorer than all of them but he still put the team first and made smart decisions for the team.

[Bgil]

Pass first point guards are critically important for "system" teams, but less so for teams that prefer a one-on-one or run-and-gun mentality.

There just aren't that many teams in the NBA any more that are disciplined enough to run offensive sets all the time. A team like the Jazz depends on the point guard to run the offense. A team like the Nuggets just let whoever has the ball try and score.

That doesn't make sense. Define "system teams". Don't make the mistake of thinking that something which appears chaotic to you is unstructured. Do you really think a team like the Nuggets could come out against defensive scheme's people were paid tons of money to produce and actually win if they didn't have a very detailed structure behind their actions? That's not how it works.

Generally, the offenses with the most free-flowing style are the ones with the largest playbooks. All that free-flowing and chaos is really just players running smoothly through dozens of options and reads. Those offenses, like the Nuggets, are designed so they look like they are chaotic so defenses don't easily predict what they're doing.
In reality, if you were to tape a bunch of really good players playing a game with zero offensive structure it wouldn't look like that at all. It basically looks like everyone but the ball handler and the guy trying to call for the ball are just standing around doing nothing (and usually looking at the ball).
If you see guys in constant motion then that's structured and schemed out in advance, guaranteed.


That said, "pass-first" PG's are basically PG's that can't score well not PG's who choose not to. They aren't valuable because they can't score and can't keep defenses honest. Even Kidd, whose shooting is notoriously bad, still needed to threaten to take a fast break all the way or post the opponent up in order to be effective. He's even had to chuck up three's from time to time.

Ideally, any "pass first" PG is a major threat to score and that opens up the passing lanes for him. Once he learns to score well then you get Billups, Marbs, J-Will (don't forget he shot a TON of threes in his early career) and so on.

[sp6r=underrated]

Pass first point guards are critically important for "system" teams, but less so for teams that prefer a one-on-one or run-and-gun mentality.

There just aren't that many teams in the NBA any more that are disciplined enough to run offensive sets all the time. A team like the Jazz depends on the point guard to run the offense. A team like the Nuggets just let whoever has the ball try and score.

That doesn't make sense. Define "system teams". Don't make the mistake of thinking that something which appears chaotic to you is unstructured. Do you really think a team like the Nuggets could come out against defensive scheme's people were paid tons of money to produce and actually win if they didn't have a very detailed structure behind their actions? That's not how it works.

Generally, the offenses with the most free-flowing style are the ones with the largest playbooks. All that free-flowing and chaos is really just players running smoothly through dozens of options and reads. Those offenses, like the Nuggets, are designed so they look like they are chaotic so defenses don't easily predict what they're doing.
In reality, if you were to tape a bunch of really good players playing a game with zero offensive structure it wouldn't look like that at all. It basically looks like everyone but the ball handler and the guy trying to call for the ball are just standing around doing nothing (and usually looking at the ball).
If you see guys in constant motion then that's structured and schemed out in advance, guaranteed.


That said, "pass-first" PG's are basically PG's that can't score well not PG's who choose not to. They aren't valuable because they can't score and can't keep defenses honest. Even Kidd, whose shooting is notoriously bad, still needed to threaten to take a fast break all the way or post the opponent up in order to be effective. He's even had to chuck up three's from time to time.

Ideally, any "pass first" PG is a major threat to score and that opens up the passing lanes for him. Once he learns to score well then you get Billups, Marbs, J-Will (don't forget he shot a TON of threes in his early career) and so on.

Bgil,

Even though I disagree with your posts sometimes, you have good knowledge of the game. Your making a very important point, that a lot of annoucers never make (NBA by far has inferior commentators to the NFL, only Hubie even makes an attempt to go into the X and O's), its teams that stand around (referring to off ball movement) who have the least offensive structure. Are you a scout on some level?

[Mr. Sun]

Ideally you want a PG who can do both, pass and shoot who has the IQ to know when to do either.

[Bgil]

-= original quote snipped =-



Bgil,

Even though I disagree with your posts sometimes, you have good knowledge of the game. Your making a very important point, that a lot of annoucers never make (NBA by far has inferior commentators to the NFL, only Hubie even makes an attempt to go into the X and O's), its teams that stand around (referring to off ball movement) who have the least offensive structure. Are you a scout on some level?

For a while my chosen trade was video editing and post production. I had a job at a company that produced a lot of scouting and instructional footage for various scouting services, several college teams, and even a few NBA teams. Edited a lot of highlight videos that were shown on major sports networks worldwide. I was required to go through the some of the same training classes that NBA/FIBA/NCAA scouts and referees went through.
Then there was a period of about 3 years where I wanted to coach so I devoured every basketball book and instructional video I could find. Even studied coaching in college during that time.

I've had assistant coaching/trainer positions at a few really big name basketball camps. I even interned with a trainer in the Bay Area that trains TONS of high level athletes (Charles Woodson, Kevan Barlow, even Lebron before the draft etc.).

As I was growing up I played a ton, went to tons of domestic camps, and even got invited to several camps on international play where I promptly stunk up the court. Apparently I sucked. Was news to me at the time though

Honestly, I think I just hit a TON of dumb luck and got to spend a lot of time with basketball minds far greater than I could ever dream of being.

[tsherkin]

Incidentally, that list is wrong; Isiah Thomas won his second and last championship in the 89-90 season, not in 91-92 or 92-93.

The titles went like so:

2007 SAS
2006 MIA (Jason Williams is pretty much pass-first but stupid)
2005 SAS
2004 DET (That different from Isiah? Not as good but similar)
2003 SAS
2002 LAL
2001 LAL
2000 LAL
1999 SAS
1998 CHI
1997 CHI
1996 CHI
1995 HOU
1994 HOU
1993 CHI
1992 CHI
1991 CHI
1990 DET (Isiah Thomas was the team's leading scorer)
1989 DET (Thomas = leading scorer after Dantley was traded)
1988 LAL (Magic)
1987 LAL (Magic)
1986 BOS (They had DJ, if you want to count him, he ran the O a lot)
1985 LAL (Magic)
1984 BOS (DJ?)
1983 PHI (Mo Cheeks)
1982 LAL (Magic)
1981 BOS (Does Tiny count?)
1980 LAL (Magic)

Of some note is that there have been several Finals squads with more conventional point guards.

Chicago and Los Angeles (the three-peat) won titles using the triangle system, one that emphasizes big guards and action through the wing players and the post as opposed to a small point guard. So that's 9 years right there. The Spurs have been using Parker and yeah, he's been a scoring guard but you also have to consider pace and the other weapons on the team; Parker's playing next to a gifted post passer and an excellent wing passer (several, actually), so he was never going to be a high-volume assists guy.

He's not necessarily a "pure" point guard but he doesn't shoot all that much, he constantly sets the offense up at the top of the circle, runs the pick-and-roll with Duncan a lot, etc. It's hard to call him something OTHER than a pure point guard. He's only taken 13-15 shots since his second year, he's not really a scoring guard, he just posts numbers because of efficiency and the fact that other teams can't really double-up on him too often because of the weapons elsewhere in the floor. He's kind of what I envision Monta Ellis being, eventually, at least stylistically (and Monta's a better mid-range shooter who finishes similarly well around the rim).

Bgil's comment is a good one; teams that don't look like they have as much structure are usually read-and-react offenses. Or something like Phoenix. Everything about their fast break is broken down by options, separated into primary and secondary break options, they get chances for quick pick-and-rolls, pull-up jumpers, etc.

Even the worst NBA coaches have at least something going on with their team.

Plus, structured offenses are almost a relative term as well, right? EVERY offense is read-and-react to some degree, even if they have opening sets which they prefer (and in that case, even the Princeton and Triangle and full Motion/UCLA offenses have a couple of key opening sets).

A natural point guard is a rare thing because he's usually a player with more scoring ability than he's using. Most guards (Iverson, Marbury) end up taking that a little too far and thus take themselves out of the territory of a primary playmaker whose focus is on distribution rather than scoring. With some guys, it's almost a tough call because of the volume of their production but you have to consider efficiency (Nash, Paul, Parker) and their basic role. Nash and Paul are pretty clearly pure point guards, it's what they do and they don't shoot THAT much (certainly not Nash) and even Parker doesn't shoot all that much, just about as much as Paul and he gets fewer touches because there are other playmakers at key positions in San Antonio's offense as I mentioned before.

Bgil, by the way, that's awesome.

[MagicNolesFSU]

Why aren't pass first PG's more important?

Because there isn't enough good ones to go around.

[Teen Girl Squad]

My initial thoght is that a pass first PG can rapidly improve a team but due to that improvement, many times doesn't get the talent they need around them needed to take the leap.