how do you define positions?

[falcolombardi]

debating positions and roles in basketball seems to always be a topic of contención, specially cause the criteria seems to be often arbitrary

for example some big playmakers like magic are seen as full fledged point guards, while other big playmakers like lebron or luka are seen like forwards

the distinction between shooting guards and point guards often seems to either come down to height or shooting guard is the one who passes less, shots more and plays off ball more

but even this is not consistent, as players like wade and harden were considered shooting guards

the difference between a shooting guard and a forward seems to come down to vague height categoríes but this is not a constant either

as teams with two tall wings often have the slightly smaller one be called a shooting guard

what do you think is the way that makes more sense to classify positions or roles in basketball?

cause it honestly seems to me that separaring "height positions" (big, wing, guard) and "role positions" (point guard, off guard, rim protector) would help a lot to clean confusión

[parsnips33]

I always like the heuristic of "you are what you guard" but even that is not perfect

[Dutchball97]

I just go by the officially listed positions.

[feyki]

In the basics of the basics, on court location define it. Respectively it goes as 1 longest distance to the rim player, 2 second longest, 3, 4 second closest to the rim and last number 5 closest player to the rim.

Who cares? I was caring lot about it back then, but there are perimeter and inside players.

[Texas Chuck]

I always like the heuristic of "you are what you guard" but even that is not perfect

I like this the least.

Mainly because its a PNR league now and almost every team auto-switches so you rarely are defending one position the bulk of the game anyway. But also because a guy like Magic Johnson is clearly the PG, but he basically never defending the opposing PG with Nixon or Cooper or Scott or whomever handing that assignment. Same with Luka now. He's clearly the MAvs PG but doesn't defend them. Or even on the champ Mavs, Marion defended the PG because Kidd no longer could, but nobody would say Marion was the PG and Kidd the SF.

I think 95% of the time its obvious what position a guy should be called. Then there are guys like Giannis who defy positions that I tend to just think of as playing "superstar".

[clearlynotjesse]

I like Brad Stevens's ball handler/wing/big designations. I think when team-building, you shoot for 2-3 of each (including some overlap) and not worry about whether they're a PG/SG/SF/PF/C.

[penbeast0]

I always like the heuristic of "you are what you guard" but even that is not perfect

I like this the least.

Mainly because its a PNR league now and almost every team auto-switches so you rarely are defending one position the bulk of the game anyway. But also because a guy like Magic Johnson is clearly the PG, but he basically never defending the opposing PG with Nixon or Cooper or Scott or whomever handing that assignment. Same with Luka now. He's clearly the MAvs PG but doesn't defend them. Or even on the champ Mavs, Marion defended the PG because Kidd no longer could, but nobody would say Marion was the PG and Kidd the SF.

I think 95% of the time its obvious what position a guy should be called. Then there are guys like Giannis who defy positions that I tend to just think of as playing "superstar".

Magic was not the PG on the Lakers during most of his time with Nixon.

Generally, I go by size and defensive assignment (though even that isn't clear with height and weight both as factors). The popular term point guard is the primary exception to this rule, with it referring to the main ballhandler most of the time (unless the main ballhander is not one of the two smallest guys on the court for the team in which case we tend to use the "point forward" nomenclature). But other than PG, it generally is a workable shorthand and the whole idea isn't terribly important in most offensive and defensive schemes anyway.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I finally have a somewhat consistent methodology that I use. PG is the only position I define based on offensive role. He is the lead ball-handler on the perimeter (and usually the team's primary distributor). The other positions I define more so by defensive role; specifically, the likelihood of guarding the smallest opposing player (SG) to biggest opposing player (C). Players that are more-post oriented on both ends are also more likely to be a C for me but that's where it starts to get fuzzy...

[Heej]

Imo positions are defined by who you guard and your offensive skillset which imo are both derivatives of height and fluidity/coordination (can't decide on one word to describe the quality we all know that I'm talking about)

Height determines the range of positions you can play in and your mobility narrows down that range due to affecting your skillset imo. That's why you have guys that can be 6'8 guards like Lamelo while others are relegated to being wings or even bigs. The more coordinated you are the more perimeter oriented your skillset on both offense and defense can be.

So while you can define it with all these nebulous concepts like who you guard on defense or what you do on offense I honestly think if you wanted to figure out the simplest and most fool-proof method for defining positions it would be to plot players on a graph where the x axis is height and the y axis is mobility/fluidity/coordination/whatever you wanna call it. And then have diagonal zones that delineate the positions.

An outlier like LaMelo would be a little more than halfway on the X axis but then super high up on the Y axis. So he'd fall into the guard category. Someone like Luka is less mobile tbh so he'd be right near the line that separates guards and wings. If you were able to somehow derive the perfect score for approximating a players movement quality I bet this system would give you the most accuracy in defining what position each guy actually is.

[HeartBreakKid]

Your position is defined if you have a certain number of traits that are common within that position, it doesn't have to be 100% the same way a song or video game doesn't need 100% of the tropes of its genre to be part of a particular genre.

Naturally, you are not the position you guard, because you would have to be able to identify what position the opposing player is playing in the first place. You can have defensive roles, but it is much more complex than simply if you are guarding someone who is 6'7 you must be a small forward.


PG - An offensive oriented role. They are the primary ball handler, and usually have to bring the ball pass half court and initiate offense from top of the key (or behind the 3 point line in the NBA). They usually lead their team in assist because they handle the ball the most, they run the Pick and Roll the most, and it's not uncommon for them to be the best passer. They tend to be small so they will guard the other teams ball handlers and pick up a lot of steals per game. Shooting is important. They're usually in back of the court and are one of the two players who will try to slow down fast break offenses.

SG - An offensive role. They're the secondary ball handler, and traditionally the best shooter and off ball player. They tend to camp out by the wings of the perimeter. They're usually in back of the court and are one of the two players who will try to slow down fast break offenses.

SF - Utility based role. They're usually long and athletic, but more mobile than bigs. They tend to camp out by the wings of the perimeter. They usually have limited ball handling skills, so they're main offensive contributions is driving hard or cutting to the basket to pick up fouls and now in modern basketball they should be good at spot up shooting. They are usually the best perimeter defender because of their athleticism and switch to who ever the biggest offensive threat is within reason.

PF - Defensive role. PF in its traditional sense has been phased out in the NBA. But usually they are more athletic of the two bigs. They should be the best roll man in the pick and roll because of their athleticism, and it isn't uncommon for them to be a better rebounder than the C due to their motor and athletic edge. They should be the best at guarding the pick and roll so they should guard the roll man usually. Modern PFs are like SFs really.

C - Defensive role. They usually play the biggest and thus are the best shot blockers. Because they're the best at guarding the paint they're usually going to pick up a lot of rebounds (on top of being mega tall). Offensively, they're the most likely player to score in the low post.

[wojoaderge]

A combination of a player's role on offense, whom he guards, and who else is on the court on his team when he plays

[Doctor MJ]

debating positions and roles in basketball seems to always be a topic of contención, specially cause the criteria seems to be often arbitrary

for example some big playmakers like magic are seen as full fledged point guards, while other big playmakers like lebron or luka are seen like forwards

the distinction between shooting guards and point guards often seems to either come down to height or shooting guard is the one who passes less, shots more and plays off ball more

but even this is not consistent, as players like wade and harden were considered shooting guards

the difference between a shooting guard and a forward seems to come down to vague height categoríes but this is not a constant either

as teams with two tall wings often have the slightly smaller one be called a shooting guard

what do you think is the way that makes more sense to classify positions or roles in basketball?

cause it honestly seems to me that separaring "height positions" (big, wing, guard) and "role positions" (point guard, off guard, rim protector) would help a lot to clean confusión

Some thoughts:

1. The position designation being a 2-way thing doesn’t work in basketball the way it does in a sport with a larger field where long-range scoring is less feasible. Once long-range shooting became established, the basketball world should have divided positions by offense and defense if they wanted meaningful positions.

2. The names of the positions reflect this in their accumulated meaningless with “point guard” being the most ridiculous name imaginable. It literally means “the defense-only player who runs your offense”.

3. All of this gets more ridiculous when we consider all-nba teams where you’re largely focusing on point guards/forwards/centers and pretending they don’t all play quarterback, all while insisting that we need 2 guard, 2 forwards, and 1 center to making a 5 man unit.

4. It’s tempting to simply call all off-ball perimeter guys wings, but that doesn’t describe the difference between stationary vs roving wings. I might call the latter a “rover”, but…

5. While there’s clearly a reason to get more fine-grained in our roles to get names that mean something, but then we get into issues where an offensive player take on multiple roles not just based in lineup but based on what’s going on in the possession. Consider Lonzo Ball who on offense alone is effectively a transition point but a half-court wing.

It all just becomes so messy and this is why I’ve moved further and further away from an All-NBA perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk