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

[tsherkin]

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

Neither of them count based on the discussion we were having. Haliburton is 6'5, and Shai is both 6'6 and a scoring title winner who has averaged 30+ ppg in like three consecutive seasons. He looks more like a Jordan archetype than a traditional PG, especially since they off-handled with J Dub in ways similar to how Chicago used Pippen.

Lowry was the PG for the Raptors.

Yeah, he's the closest example, though a bit more of a scorer than the archetype which is commonly described by the phrase "traditional" or "classic" PG. And of course, he wasn't actually the centerpiece of that team, Kawhi was what drove the title, though I suppose that was not an established requirement of my point. He was a 14/9 ish guy who played solid D, drove and set the table, for sure.

So, he's a good mention, for sure. I suppose the point I was making is that the original comment to which I responded posited that you NEED a traditional PG to being a winning team, which was obviously inaccurate. Whether you measure success by titles or RS wins, it just isn't a requirement for team success at all.

There are playmakers of one variety or another on every team, but very often, they diverge from any sort of traditional playmaker archetype... unless you have redefined "traditional" to mean "of the past 20 years" instead of spanning the arc of NBA history.

[tsherkin]

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

Well, that brings us back to the definition of traditional. I never said anything about "white," so let's leave race out of this.

But if you look at the size, style and so forth of players, then there is little "traditional" about contemporary playmakers on most of the winning teams. There are exceptions, it's not like you CAN'T win with those guys (even without an expanded definition), but then you devolve into consideration of whether or not they are roleplayers versus stars versus centerpieces. There aren't a lot of classical playmakers in focal roles for good teams. There are some of them in support roles for good/winning teams, but not really that many.

Most teams don't advance the ball and run a slow, set offense anymore. They push the ball, they run some basic stuff that anyone can really manage. You see a lot more combo guards and big guards/wings who operate like those 6'3, 6'4 guys we used to call "combo guards" because they didn't have the full breadth of skill associated with the concept of a "point guard."

This isn't a semantic argument. Yes, it's relevant to be aware of the language you're using and its implications of course, but there are meaningful, substantive differences in how playmaking is done in most cases compared to the traditional concept of a point guard in today's league.

[HMFFL]

For some reason Phoenix thinks Book is a PG, which he is not. It's never looked that good. To me Book has been playing worse since CP3 left.

There does seem to be a glaring decline or lack of motivation. I look forward for Book vs Luka again to see if Booker has that fire he once had.

[giberish]

There's a few different answers.

First, Luka is a PG (and LeBron has been a quasi-PG for a while as well).

Second, sometimes it's at least partially due to injuries (Houston most notably).

Third, teams will play more size for defense and hope to get by on offense.

Forth, some teams will look to divide traditional PG responsibilities between several players. Even if none is a traditional PG having several good secondary ball-handler/playmakers working together can be very effective (GS has been very effective like that).

Finally, sometimes it's a tank/player development move, such as SA running Sochan at PG or Houston with KPJ (Dallas with Flagg looks like that as well).

[Charlie Sollers]

What year is this? "Traditional" point guards haven't existed in a long time.

[dhsilv2]

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.

The question was who's going to organize them. And the answer is...any and all of them. More and more often you need guys who can run an offense and you need multiple. So wings and centers (hi jokic) can organize and run an offense.

[LockoutSeason]

Every team runs a variation of the triangle offense. Traditional PGs are dead, and you can’t win a title with them anyway.

[threethehardway]

Every team runs a variation of the triangle offense. Traditional PGs are dead, and you can’t win a title with them anyway.

Not really.

Most teams run a simple pick and roll offense that relies on a scorer to penetration a defense to cause the defense to rotate and to break down.

There's no reason to have a Ricky Rubio type of PG when running slow, plodding sets, haven't been en vogue since the Seven Seconds Or Less Suns. If a team "requires" traditional point guard, they might as well rethink their entire coaching staff and roster.

Only teams that run triangle sets are the Nuggets and Warriors.

[tsherkin]

Every team runs a variation of the triangle offense. Traditional PGs are dead, and you can’t win a title with them anyway.

That's not really true. There are read-and-react principles instead of heavily-architected systems much more often, for sure, but those existed before and alongside the triangle as well. The concept of spacing isn't exclusive to the triangle.

[Archx]

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.

The question was who's going to organize them. And the answer is...any and all of them. More and more often you need guys who can run an offense and you need multiple. So wings and centers (hi jokic) can organize and run an offense.

Ooh... i understand what you mean. I mean sure, yeah agreed but then again, ask yourself, how many of these type of players did the NBA actually have since 2000's even? It think it's hard to find that type of quality player that can run your offense every single game for many years. Even if you include someone like Divac, he was a great passer but still not really a true playmaker. If you would round up the numbers i guarantee there were still more smaller PG players than F/C like you said.

But if we look at the future, yeah NBA is moving in that direction but still you see many teams who are furiously looking for a true PG to lead their offense. I think they'll never be extinct.

[LockoutSeason]

Every team runs a variation of the triangle offense. Traditional PGs are dead, and you can’t win a title with them anyway.

Not really.

Most teams run a simple pick and roll offense that relies on a scorer to penetration a defense to cause the defense to rotate and to break down.

There's no reason to have a Ricky Rubio type of PG when running slow, plodding sets, haven't been en vogue since the Seven Seconds Or Less Suns. If a team "requires" traditional point guard, they might as well rethink their entire coaching staff and roster.

Only teams that run triangle sets are the Nuggets and Warriors.

The Rockets run triangle sets. They run motion sets out the high post with Adams and Senguin which was a mainstay in the Triangle.

I think the Triangle is more prevalent in the league today than people realize. John Salley said so on one of those morning shows.

[dhsilv2]

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.

The question was who's going to organize them. And the answer is...any and all of them. More and more often you need guys who can run an offense and you need multiple. So wings and centers (hi jokic) can organize and run an offense.

Ooh... i understand what you mean. I mean sure, yeah agreed but then again, ask yourself, how many of these type of players did the NBA actually have since 2000's even? It think it's hard to find that type of quality player that can run your offense every single game for many years. Even if you include someone like Divac, he was a great passer but still not really a true playmaker. If you would round up the numbers i guarantee there were still more smaller PG players than F/C like you said.

But if we look at the future, yeah NBA is moving in that direction but still you see many teams who are furiously looking for a true PG to lead their offense. I think they'll never be extinct.

I'm not for the whole NBA turning into a league of 6'9 same build guys. But as the league is clearly getting more skilled, we have more guys who can do more. So we will slowly see less of these traditional points. I don't think we need them to go away. But not every team will have one. And is prime Lebron not really just a 6'9 super human point guard? Draymond is a weird small ball center who plays point. And we've always had outliers from Magic to Pippen to Grant Hill.

That said modern teams move faster. They don't run sets in the same way and there is constant ball movement. So you really do increasingly need more than one guy who can run the offense. And you really increasingly can't have TWO small guys. So we'll see a trend.

[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.

You wouldn't include Trae Young?

Trae is extremely close though. Personally, I would like to see him reduce his shot attempts a little because some of his attempts are ugly and he should be more focused on doing the little things this season

[Jailblazers7]

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.

Good examples. To clarify my original post as well, you absolutely CAN win with a traditional PG but you don’t NEED one anymore. The formula now is a leading shot creator (SGA, Tatum, etc) who also has enough passing ability to build an offense around. Then you need secondary creators like J-Dubb who can play off that gravity and deliver on the advantages the primary creator generates.

[cornchip]

No need to have an expert ball handler when the vast majority of travels and carries aren't called.

[jbk1234]

Teams often experiment at the beginning of the season. At least two, maybe three of those teams have been forced into it by injuries. The reality is that the NBA was plagued with undersized combo guards who put up a lot of points, played no defense, and weren't particularly good at seeing the entire floor or sharing the ball. Those players were playing PG by default and their teams were better off with them as sixth men. True PGs are a rare bread.

[Doctor MJ]

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?

My 2 cents:

If Luka doesn't count as a point guard, then we need to make sure we're clear on what "point guard" means.

I feel like what you mean by it is a player who is both a) the smallest guy on the court and b) the guy running the offense, which means what you're asking is:

Why aren't teams having their smallest players run the offense?

And the answer there is: The only reason to have any player run your offense is because he's the smartest guy on the court, and so if when you have a big guy who smarter, then you don't have your smallest player run it.

Now there's a broader point here: If you smallest guy isn't your smartest guy, why are you playing him at all?

This might seem like an absurd question, but just remember that almost everyone playing in the NBA today would have been a "big" back in the day, and when the focus on height revolutionized basketball, there were absolutely obituaries for the "little man" with people mourning that their favorite 5'7" guy was now useless.

So at any point, if you're a smallest basketball player and you're not the smartest basketball player, you better be bringing something else to the table or else expect that your coach is hoping to get rid of you.

The best case scenario here is Steph Curry. He doesn't need to be the smartest guy on the court because he's the best shooter in the history of the game. Yay!

In most cases though, these small & not smart players exist in the NBA to deal with the fact that other teams have valuable smalls. If you're building your team around Luka you obviously can't expect him to guard a small, so you better have other players who can.

EDIT: I should also note given your mention of Amen, there's a Giannis exception to the rule above.

If you're by far the greatest physical talent but utterly incapable of figuring out how to make that work off-ball in part because you can't even shoot, then it can make sense to let you play on-ball even if you're not particularly smart about basketball. It comes with a cost letting someone other than your smartest player make the decisions, but if your physical talent is great enough, it can be the best move.

[ShootersShoot]

Teams just put out the best five now which I agree with. Elite teams still need a guy capable of being a primary ball handler though..think bron, jrue, steph, shai, murray. Teams with multiple ball handlers and playmakers generally do well.

[Tnasty4l]

Teams that aren't running with a pg will not be very successful setting up other players to their best ability. Just because you can dribble and pass doesn't make you a pg. It's a mindset to that position.

[tsherkin]

Good examples. To clarify my original post as well, you absolutely CAN win with a traditional PG but you don’t NEED one anymore. The formula now is a leading shot creator (SGA, Tatum, etc) who also has enough passing ability to build an offense around. Then you need secondary creators like J-Dubb who can play off that gravity and deliver on the advantages the primary creator generates.

If you strip away the height requirement, then Hali is a good example of someone you can win with as a core piece, no doubt. But Shai doesn't really play anything like a conventional point guard, so he remains a pretty bad example. He's a fairly archetypical scoring guard in style, size and scoring volume.