Star PGs don't bring the rings; should i be worried?

[JohnnyG]

Year – Champion (Starting Point Guard - Franchise Player/s)
1991 – Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1992 - Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1993 - Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1994 – Houston (Sam Cassel – Hakeem Olajuwon)
1995 – Houston (Sam Cassel – Hakeem Olajuwon)
1996 – Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1997 – Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1998 – Chicago (Ron Harper– Michael Jordan)
1999 – San Antonio (Avery Johnson– David Robinson/Tim Duncan)
2000 – Los Angeles Lakers (Ron Harper – Shaquille Oneal)
2001 – Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Shaquille Oneal/Kobe Bryant)
2002 – Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Shaquille Oneal/Kobe Bryant)
2003 – San Antonio (Tony Parker – Tim Duncan)
2004 – Detroit Pistons (Chauncey Billups – Pistons!)
2005 – San Antonio (Tony Parker – Tim Duncan)
2006 – Miami (Jason Williams – Dwyane Wade)
2007 – San Antonio (Tony Parker – Tim Duncan)
2008 – Boston (Rajon Rondo – Big 3)
2009- Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Kobe Bryant)
2010 – Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Kobe Bryant)
2011 – Dallas (Jason Kidd – Dirk Nowitzki)
2012 – Miami (Mario Chalmers – LeBron James) or Oklahoma City (Russell Westbrook – Kevin Durant)

The last 22 NBA champions featured either “role players” as point guards and a franchise player NOT playing that position. Sure there are the likes of (borderline stars then) Tony Parker and Rajon Rondo but inarguably Tim Duncan and the Boston’s Big 3 was more important in those champion teams (thus the “franchise” tag)

My questions are these:

Is it safe (assuming of course you have a choice; because there are instances when a “franchise” PG falls into your lap in the draft) to say that a team is better off building a team NOT from a franchise/star point guard?

I provided not-so-in depth stats just what we see initially from that list but is there a stat that can tell us that having franchise/star point guards are due to fail because of the final make-up of your rotation? Say 50M salary cap; 20 percent to your “franchise player” and the rest for the support. Following that formula, it means that you spend less in other positions thus getting less-talented players from the SG-SF-PF-C spots?

Finally, should I be worried that I am a Los Angles Clippers fan? Well, we have the “franchise” tag on Chris Paul and the last 22 years pattern does not bode well for me.

(also posted at the general board and my blog: http://www.johnnybets.com/star-pgs-dont-bring-the-rings-should-i-be-worried.html for general reaction)

[mkwest]

This has been a long talked about subject amongst NBA fans. Everyone says that PG's are the most important position today, yet the Championship teams rarely have a superstar PG leading the way.

In the 80's, Magic and Isiah were on stacked teams, but were the best players on their respective teams more often than not. Magic has 3 Finals MVP's out of 5 championships and Isiah has 1 out of 2. In the 2000's, both Billups and Parker earned a Finals MVP. Duncan is the face of the San Antonio Spurs, but Parker did lead the way and was very deserving of the Finals MVP that was given to him. You can easily say that Magic is not your prototypical pg, while Isiah, Parker and Billups were/are all shoot first PG's. Does a more traditional pass first PG get it done?

If you only chose to look at the last 21/22 years, the Finals MVP's have been:

C: 7 Times (Olajuwon, O'neal & Duncan)
PF: Twice (Duncan & Nowitzki)
SF: Once (Pierce)
SG: 9 Times (Jordan, Bryant & Wade)
PG: Twice (Billups & Parker)

Outside of positions, I see 5 of them being players that I rank in my personal Top-10 of all time. Then you have a player sitting right on the outside of the top 10 (I'll let y'all guess who that is) and another that could very well be in in the top 20, a few future 1st ballot Hall-of-Famers and Chauncey.

Throughout the history of basketball, the Center position has been the most important position. It has been the foundation of so many championship teams. Today, the dominance is very limited. It's been 7 years & 8 champions since a Center/Big/"PF" has been Finals MVP. There are currently a couple of bigs that can potentially lead a team to a title someday, but they have to mature as leaders and further develop as players.

Jordan didn't have dominant centers/bigs on his team, but he's a pretty special case. Role players that could rebound and defend were needed. Kobe had Gasol who was a high quality big at the time that played a very big role on those championship teams.

Pierce (KG), Parker (Timmy), Billups (Wallace boys), Wade (Shaq) & Nowitzki (Chandler) all had great big men that were a huge factor on the Defensive end. This year's finals would probably end up being LeBron/Durant or Westbrook. They have some bigs, but none of them are on the level of the previously mentioned bigs defensively. These teams are more exceptions to the rule like a Jordan team would be and that is not to discredit Chris Bosh in anyway. He's doing what he's supposed to be doing, but not really putting up the numbers of a KG, Timmy or Shaq.

____________________________

For the Clippers, I feel that Chris Paul is a first ballot Hall-of-Famer and a top 3-5 player in the league. Blake may become a Hall-of-Famer and is currently a top 10-15 player in the league. That is two high quality players who are relatively young.

We don't know who our SG is. 9 of those 22 championships have been led by a SG, but those SG's are named Michael and Kobe. Outside of that, Wade is the only 1 to get it done.

Outside of this finals, only 1 team has been led by a SF and that was Paul Pierce.

The 4 spot has some depending how you classify Tim Duncan. Ultimately, they can be thrown in with the Centers as bigs. More often than not, you're getting elite scoring/defense out of these positions. Blake can and will provide the scoring, but where will the defense come from? It is pertinent that both Blake and DeAndre improve on the defensive end by leaps and bounds if this team is going to try to become a championship contender. If they don't improve, then you think about adding someone that can be that defensive anchor.

At the end of the day, I'm thrilled that we have Paul and not worried that our best player is a PG. It's more important to have an elite player period. It is essential. I just think that our growth and development must take place on the defensive end.

Def Ratings of past 21 Championship Teams
2011 Dallas - 8th
2010 Lakers - 4th
2009 Lakers - 6th
2008 Celtics - 1st
2007 Spurs - 2nd
2006 Heat - 9th
2005 Spurs - 1st
2004 Pistons - 2nd
2003 Spurs - 3rd
2002 Lakers - 7th
2001 Lakers - 21st
2000 Lakers - 1st
1999 Spurs - 1st
1998 Bulls - 3rd
1997 Bulls - 4th
1996 Bulls - 1st
1995 Rockets - 12th
1994 Rockets - 2nd
1993 Bulls - 7th
1992 Bulls - 4th
1991 Bulls - 7th

Defensive Rating is not the be-all, end-all for defense, but it gives you an idea what you're looking for. Only 2 championship teams were outside of the top 10 in point allowed per possession. 13 of the 21 teams were top 5. If the Heat hold on, it will be 14 of 22 (64%). Outside of whoever is leading you on the offensive end, you need great team defense to win the championship.

[og15]

It's really all about building a good team. Obviously from the list, just going by "star", there were 3 titles won with star PG's in that span.

Then going by best player on your team, there's arguably one with Billups. SF obviously fares worst in terms of championships won with the best player as a SF (KG was the best player on the Celtics), but we definitely wouldn't then say that a superstar SF, or a SF as your best player isn't conducive to winning championships.

If you pair a superstar PG with prime Duncan, KG, Dwight Howard, Shaq, they win a championship. You pair them with a solid defensive team and a solid second scorer, again, they can win it all. You pair them with Carlos Boozer and Mehmet (Deron), or with a pretty solid cast, but for only one year in David West and Tyson Chandler, but with no bench, and with West only being an above average, not great second guy (Paul), or they just get unlucky a lot and have a team that can't truly defend (Nash), or injuries, or a combination of these things, then no, they likely don't win.

It isn't a blanket statement of PG = no championship. It's just been a stretch where the best PG's for the most part have not been in the right situations. Like mentioned, the names behind the recent championships have not had much variety the past few seasons.

A lot of it has to do with sloppy and impatient team building though. Teams are too eager to be good and not great, and build a team around their players that can compete at a high level, but can't really take it all the way.

[KGBiggestfan521]

Year – Champion (Starting Point Guard - Franchise Player/s)
1991 – Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1992 - Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1993 - Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1994 – Houston (Sam Cassel – Hakeem Olajuwon)
1995 – Houston (Sam Cassel – Hakeem Olajuwon)
1996 – Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1997 – Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1998 – Chicago (Ron Harper– Michael Jordan)
1999 – San Antonio (Avery Johnson– David Robinson/Tim Duncan)
2000 – Los Angeles Lakers (Ron Harper – Shaquille Oneal)
2001 – Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Shaquille Oneal/Kobe Bryant)
2002 – Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Shaquille Oneal/Kobe Bryant)
2003 – San Antonio (Tony Parker – Tim Duncan)
2004 – Detroit Pistons (Chauncey Billups – Pistons!)
2005 – San Antonio (Tony Parker – Tim Duncan)
2006 – Miami (Jason Williams – Dwyane Wade)
2007 – San Antonio (Tony Parker – Tim Duncan)
2008 – Boston (Rajon Rondo – Big 3)
2009- Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Kobe Bryant)
2010 – Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Kobe Bryant)
2011 – Dallas (Jason Kidd – Dirk Nowitzki)
2012 – Miami (Mario Chalmers – LeBron James) or Oklahoma City (Russell Westbrook – Kevin Durant)

The last 22 NBA champions featured either “role players” as point guards and a franchise player NOT playing that position. Sure there are the likes of (borderline stars then) Tony Parker and Rajon Rondo but inarguably Tim Duncan and the Boston’s Big 3 was more important in those champion teams (thus the “franchise” tag)

My questions are these:

Is it safe (assuming of course you have a choice; because there are instances when a “franchise” PG falls into your lap in the draft) to say that a team is better off building a team NOT from a franchise/star point guard?

I provided not-so-in depth stats just what we see initially from that list but is there a stat that can tell us that having franchise/star point guards are due to fail because of the final make-up of your rotation? Say 50M salary cap; 20 percent to your “franchise player” and the rest for the support. Following that formula, it means that you spend less in other positions thus getting less-talented players from the SG-SF-PF-C spots?

Finally, should I be worried that I am a Los Angles Clippers fan? Well, we have the “franchise” tag on Chris Paul and the last 22 years pattern does not bode well for me.

(also posted at the general board and my blog: http://www.johnnybets.com/star-pgs-dont-bring-the-rings-should-i-be-worried.html for general reaction)

Tony Parker and Billups each won the NBA Finals MVP. A lot of those teams, although the point guards were not considered franchise players, were crucial to their team's success. Little Avery Johnson played an important role with the Spurs. Duncan was amazing but someone needed to give him the ball, while also making sure guys like Sean Elliot contributed as well. In other times, the point guard didn't really play the point guard role but was still labeled a point guard. If you consider the point guard to have ball-handling duties and commanding the offense, Jordan, Kobe, Dwayne, and now LeBron all do that. Essentially, they had point-roles. Especially LeBron right now. None of those teams had bad players at the point guard spot. Maybe they weren't always franchise players, but I am yet to see a championship team without a good point guard.

[madmaxmedia]

None of these generalities matter IMO.

We wouldn't need a star PG either, if we had MJ and his cast, or Shaq AND Kobe.

A great team can come together in different ways, having a star PG can only help that process. There are only a handful of players in this league whose value is MORE than a max contract, CP3 is definitely one of those IMO.

Compare him to Eric Gordon, who before being traded was talked about here as a roughly max contract player. What we're getting out of CP3 is far more (which is not a slight on EJ as much as a compliment to CP3.)

[PG3]

I think its the *scorer* PGs and Chris Paul is definetely not a shoot first point guard. You shouldnt be worried

[og15]

I think its the *scorer* PGs and Chris Paul is definetely not a shoot first point guard. You shouldnt be worried

Scorer PG's have been fine as LNG as they are efficient and th team balances it out. Westbrook was just in the finals, Parkerwas more of a scorer PG when the Spurs won, Billups has always been kind of in the middle. Just be efficient and have a team that is top on defense.

The real issue is having a team that is top on defense along with one of the top PG's in the league. Kidd, Payton and Iverson are the only leading their team PG's that had that recently and all have made trip to the finals. Kidd was a poor and inefficient scorer, Iverson couldn't really hang with another scorer and met the Lakers, and Payton met the Bulls. So it's all about building a proper team.

[TwentyOne920]

I think its the *scorer* PGs and Chris Paul is definetely not a shoot first point guard. You shouldnt be worried

Scorer PG's have been fine as LNG as they are efficient and th team balances it out. Westbrook was just in the finals, Parkerwas more of a scorer PG when the Spurs won, Billups has always been kind of in the middle. Just be efficient and have a team that is top on defense.

The real issue is having a team that is top on defense along with one of the top PG's in the league. Kidd, Payton and Iverson are the only leading their team PG's that had that recently and all have made trip to the finals. Kidd was a poor and inefficient scorer, Iverson couldn't really hang with another scorer and met the Lakers, and Payton met the Bulls. So it's all about building a proper team.

Definitely. It's not that scoring PGs won't win championships. it's that they won't win championships if they're the only thing running the team. Parker was an efficient scorer due to his getting into the paint, but he was the second option with Duncan/Ginobili taking over depending on the situation. Derrick Rose goes down, the Bulls are exposed as a good defensive team with only one real offensive option.

[Kalidogg24]

Year – Champion (Starting Point Guard - Franchise Player/s)
1991 – Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1992 - Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1993 - Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1994 – Houston (Sam Cassel – Hakeem Olajuwon)
1995 – Houston (Sam Cassel – Hakeem Olajuwon)
1996 – Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1997 – Chicago (John Paxson – Michael Jordan)
1998 – Chicago (Ron Harper– Michael Jordan)
1999 – San Antonio (Avery Johnson– David Robinson/Tim Duncan)
2000 – Los Angeles Lakers (Ron Harper – Shaquille Oneal)
2001 – Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Shaquille Oneal/Kobe Bryant)
2002 – Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Shaquille Oneal/Kobe Bryant)
2003 – San Antonio (Tony Parker – Tim Duncan)
2004 – Detroit Pistons (Chauncey Billups – Pistons!)
2005 – San Antonio (Tony Parker – Tim Duncan)
2006 – Miami (Jason Williams – Dwyane Wade)
2007 – San Antonio (Tony Parker – Tim Duncan)
2008 – Boston (Rajon Rondo – Big 3)
2009- Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Kobe Bryant)
2010 – Los Angeles Lakers (Derek Fisher – Kobe Bryant)
2011 – Dallas (Jason Kidd – Dirk Nowitzki)
2012 – Miami (Mario Chalmers – LeBron James) or Oklahoma City (Russell Westbrook – Kevin Durant)

1989 - Detroit Pistons (Isiah Thomas)
1990 - Detroit Pistons (Isiah Thomas)

Zeke was the Starting Superstar Point Guard and the Franchise player.
Ironic as well how similar CP3 and Isiah's games are.

[madmaxmedia]

Eric Gordon is going to make $60M for 4 years- would you rather have him or CP3 on our team, taking up 1 of our max slots?

[LOJ]

Eric Gordon is going to make $60M for 4 years- would you rather have him or CP3 on our team, taking up 1 of our max slots?

58M 4 years evens out to about 14.5 per year, Paul will make a considerable more amount than that.

With that said, it's no question I would obviously prefer to have CP3, guy is awesome and is helping to turn this franchise around.

[madmaxmedia]

True. But yeah, CP3 contributes more per dollar than Gordon and a great majority of the league.

Even though Gordon will make less, he makes enough that you can only have him and Blake as the 2 main legs of the team, or CP3 and Blake. With Gordon you'd have a little more room to work with on the rest of the team.

[mj_shoefanatic]

CP3>EJ10