The Effect of a Great Point Guard

ManicBullsFan · Post #1 » by **ManicBullsFan** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:22 pm

Is there any position that is more important?

Can a team win it all with a great point guard and 6 other above average players mixed with vets?

With the swing towards small lineups is the point guard now even more important?

I know in the history of the NBA young stars have never been traded without an extreme circumstance. And I'm not going speculate of suggest what the bulls should do because it doesn't matter.

JackFinn · Post #2 » by **JackFinn** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:35 pm

since 90/91, non of the championship teams had a great point guard.
Which also means that all the great point guards in the past 17-18 years weren't able to win it all. And some of them had great teammates. Like Malone, or Kemp, or Stoudamire and Marion, or Mourning, or Barkley, or...uh...Mashburn and Jim Jackson?

ManicBullsFan · Post #3 » by **ManicBullsFan** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:38 pm

Kidd and Nash have almost run out of time.

I guess all you need is a proficient point guard to win it all.

girlygirl · Post #4 » by **girlygirl** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:50 pm

Having a great point guard is very nice, but it doesn't necessarily equal winning championships.

Look at the Spurs. While Tony Parker is a terrific overall player, as an actual PG he's probably average to slightly above average. Same with the Pistons -- Billups is a very good player, but not a great PG -- he's a good one. The Heat won with Jason Williams, who has never been considered among the best PGs in the league, despite his fancy passing ability. Some teams have won titles without having any real PG (like the Lakers of recent years). Meanwhile the Nets haven't been to the NBA Finals in years despite having Kidd, and neither the Mavs nor the Suns have made it to the Finals with Nash. Stockton got to the Finals twice but never won. Kevin Johnson never led his team to a NBA title, did he? I doubt either the Hornets or the Jazz are going to win the NBA title anytime soon, despite the presence of Paul and D-Will.

If you already have a bunch of good players, a great PG should be able to elevate the team's play to the point of making the team a championship contender. But even that doesn't always happen.

Given the choice, I'd take a great PG on my team any day. But you don't necessarily need one to win a title.

Post #5 » by **DuckIII** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:08 pm

JackFinn wrote:since 90/91, non of the championship teams had a great point guard.

Hold on there, Jack. We might have different definitions of "great" and how you are using the term. And I agree with the point you are making generally.

But San Antonio has had Tony Parker for 3 of their championships and he won Finals MVP last year. And Billups won Finals MVP for Detroit.

tclg · Post #6 » by **tclg** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:16 pm

yeah those guys were pretty good

JackFinn · Post #7 » by **JackFinn** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:17 pm

DuckIII wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Hold on there, Jack. We might have different definitions of "great" and how you are using the term. And I agree with the point you are making generally.

But San Antonio has had Tony Parker for 3 of their championships and he won Finals MVP last year. And Billups won Finals MVP for Detroit.

Yeah I'm seldomly coherent. Re-reading my post, my thoughts disagree with my expression of them. The thread is about gauging the importance of the point guard. So I meant to say that non of these championship teams had a point guard as their best player (which I didn't say at all). Meaning that it might not be the most important position.

tclg · Post #8 » by **tclg** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:20 pm

center is the most important position go look at the championships and its easy to see

Post #9 » by **suckfish** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:35 pm

I think it's fairly obvious that a good 'true' PG is a very important piece to have, more important than a good big? No way, look at coldfish's sig, it's big>small.

The general point Jack Finn was making is right, I think it's easier to win with a good big than with a good PG and it's kind of backed up historically.

They say the two most important spots in basketball are the Point Guard and Center positions, with Centers coming very rare these days the PF and C position may as well merge and be classified as one position.

Look at our bulls, if you could grab an exceptional PG or an exceptional low post anchor, what would you take? You better damn well take the big! We don't have either of theses positions really, both are very important but if your choosing one over the other, really you should take the low post big.

Good bigs are rarer to find these days, particularly low post scoring bigs, sure PG's don't grow on trees but you can get away with filling that position with an average player if you have a solid big.

Really you need the guards to link up with the bigs and vice versa, but if your picking between one or the other, go big. Bigs need the guards to handle the ball so they can concentrate on getting into position, guards need the bigs to patrol the interior defensively and to get high percentage looks inside drawing fouls.

Post #10 » by **Rerisen** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:51 pm

Suckfish has the right of it. The teams that have won championships have almost always had great big men. So if all your point guard has to do is come down and dump it into the post to begin your offense, there is no (or way less) need for a super talented creator and passer like Nash to get everything going.

Also, I think even a great PG is capable of being slowed or shutdown much moreso than a scoring post player. Some of the defensive efforts Pippen put on various PG's the Bulls faced on the way to championships come to mind.

JackFinn · Post #11 » by **JackFinn** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:01 pm

As Charles Barkley might say, "Caseta must be turning in his grave."

bullzman23 · Post #12 » by **bullzman23** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:05 pm

I pure point-guard may not be vital (though it obviously doesn't hurt), but great guards are pretty damn important.

Off the top of my head, the Robinson/Duncan and the Hakeem/Thorpe duo's were the last teams to win without great guards. Neither of these teams were considered to be elite champions, and both won directly after Jordan left.

musiqsoulchild · Post #13 » by **musiqsoulchild** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:51 pm

A great BIG + Good PG >>>>>> Good Big + Great PG.

Atleast in my opinion.

p_s · Post #14 » by **p_s** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:58 pm

musiqsoulchild wrote:A great BIG + Good PG >>>>>> Good Big + Great PG.

Atleast in my opinion.

you are correct, sir.

Also, a difference needs to be drawn between a pure PG and scoring PG. I think the simplest difference is who the player creates for -- others or himself. Parker can run the offense, but usually creates for himself. Parker is not a pure PG, but he is an excellent scoring PG. Nash creates for others more often than himself.

Chauncy is a good scoring PG -- he won one.
Parker
Cassell (?)