The role of PGs for winning NBA titles

[Slava]

Those stats are surprising in a way because there's an abundance of high usage scoring PGs in the league right now but I guess the championship winning PG debate kind of narrows it down to may be 5-7 teams over the past couple decades. You could also argue that Kobe/Lebron were always the point guards for their respective teams.

Historically, Bigmen win championships... not PGs. so big time stats are going to be skewed more towards bigs then gaurds, especially talking the first 3 or 4 decades of the league, and pre 3point line. you are also kind of diluting the number with the early years when scoring was down from the modern eras.

He took the last couple decades, not even the first couple. When was the last time a big man won the finals MVP? You have Dirk and then back to Duncan in 2005 before that. Its always been scoring wings who have been as important if not more than big men alone.

[pacers33granger]

What I get from this data is that George Hill is more than qualified to be a championship level starting PG.

[Imon]

Those stats are surprising in a way because there's an abundance of high usage scoring PGs in the league right now but I guess the championship winning PG debate kind of narrows it down to may be 5-7 teams over the past couple decades. You could also argue that Kobe/Lebron were always the point guards for their respective teams.

Historically, Bigmen win championships... not PGs. so big time stats are going to be skewed more towards bigs then gaurds, especially talking the first 3 or 4 decades of the league, and pre 3point line. you are also kind of diluting the number with the early years when scoring was down from the modern eras.

He took the last couple decades, not even the first couple. When was the last time a big man won the finals MVP? You have Dirk and then back to Duncan in 2005 before that. Its always been scoring wings who have been as important if not more than big men alone.

I think wings often put up big, gaudy numbers and the impact of bigs is seen more in the +/- area of the game.
FMVPs are awarded more on the statline of the series rather than plus-minuses or other advanced metrics.

At least that's the feeling that I get. Lebron seems to be an exception in that he puts up both the numbers and comes out looking great under advanced stats.

[spacemonkey]

(I know nothing about statistics.)

Would it be possible to weigh the stats by usage rate? Raw stats don't really tell us much about what the PGs are doing, or how often they have the ball in their hands.

[UnbelievablyRAW]

Sadly, the problem a Derrick Rose and CP3 will always face

They're great, but when you get to the playoffs and a taller stronger guy is put on you to slow you down and you're around 6 ft tall you're gonna suffer

Only guy I can remember that would crap on people no matter what was AI but he couldn't win a title either

[SF_Warriors]

I don't like the pg and not needing an elite to win it all argument...championship teams are about the composition of the team and not about how good someone at a certain position is...given how good the PGs are in the league right now..I wouldn't be surprised to see more championship teams with star to above average pgs..

Jkidd took a team to two finals and played a somewhat big role with Dallas when they won

Billups was the main scorer on those detroit team

Isaiah Thomas was the best.player for the bad boy.pistons

Westbrook went to the finals and is a big part of a very good team.
.
I do agree with the sentiment that superstar wings and or bigs more often than not are the main pieces of championship teams. It is very rare for a team to win it all without one for sure


.

[kodo]

I think we're dealing with semantics because it terms of basketball execution, it's really hard to say Lebron isn't a PG in anything but physical size. He brings the ball up, he runs pick & rolls as the ballhandler, he sets up teammates with great assists, he shoots from the outside with great reliability.

I would say these teams were led by their PG:
- Miami ('13, '12)
- Spurs ('14, '07)
- Detroit ('04)

SG:
- Lakers ('10, '09)
- Celtics ('08)
- Heat ('06)

PF:
- Spurs ('05, '03)
- Mavs ('11)

C:
- Lakers ('00, '01. '02)

Even if you keep Lebron at SF, it's still a fairly even split among positions.

I wouldn't compare into the 90s because the style of ball was so different and the rules were so different. A PG trying to attack the basket would just get clotheslined and sent to the hospital, like Isiah Thomas.

[og15]

High assist ball dominate point guards do not win you championships (the only exception are a couple pgs from the 80s that just happen to be about the best of all time).


If you have a guy like Kobe on your team... and he is off everybody else still gets their same looks. If you have a dominate point guard that is having an off game... EVERYBODY'S game suffers.

The only problem here is that there are very few "types" of players who have won championships in the past couple of years and most were the best player in the league. If there were multiple types of teams winning each year, there would be something to say, but for example, there are 5 positions on the court. If it was split evenly, technically, PG's would be the best player on the team 4 times every 20 years.

What wins championships is having a great team, it doesn't matter who is leading this or that, it is having a great team that compliments itself and generally best if the team can play both ends.

[Southpaw]

Star PF/C's win titles in the NBA. Almost all title teams featured an all-star big men playing major roles on their team.

[DeBlazerRiddem]

It's too easy to shut down PG if need be.

I have felt this way too. What you want is a truly dominate player to draw the attention of the defense, so that your PG isn't too bothered with executing the team offense and you can get everyone involved.

If you PG is also your most dominant scorer, then it is simple to send a bunch of guys at the PG to get the ball out of his hands, and then watch as other players try to run the offense or score at a high level.

[co_laper]

Make one starting from the year they made the last big rule changes.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[og15]

If the really good PG is masking flaws on a team and making them look better offensively than they are as a team, then you will have some issues. This is worse if the management doesn't notice this and doesn't build the team to correct them. Actually any player you will have issues in that situation, just that sometimes a bigger guy can overcome that better.

If a bigger guy is guarding my PG, my SF or SG should ideally be able to take advantage of the mismatch they now have. Of course many times that is not the case.

Not all the really good PG's whose teams didn't win it all or didn't go far were losing because PG's are "easy to shut down" or the team want performing adequately on offense. Some were losing because of things like the other team just being better or their team having an inability to defend well enough.

Ideally you want your great PG's in a role where they are more concerned with running a great offense then specifically having to score individually just for the team to stay afloat. That usually will mean having at least one other player that is a capable high level scoring threat even though your PG can score well.

Then again, in general on teams you want to have more than one guy as a good scoring threat anyways.

Also looking at championships is nice, but what about just general team success. Only one team can win and having the best player (or a couple of the best players) in the league is a nice way to do it and PG's are hardly ever that player. Don't really want to use the weak East days of the early 2000's as an example, so let's go to the 90's, Stockton, Payton, KJ. You subtract Jordan from the equation and three PG's could have been huge / primary contributors to championship teams. Tony Parker and Billups recently were big contributors. Kidd with Dallas just not in a scoring role, though Jason Terry is a PG sized player anyways and he helped in a scoring role, so they had both.

Sent from my LG-E970 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[John Long]

Sadly, the problem a Derrick Rose and CP3 will always face

They're great, but when you get to the playoffs and a taller stronger guy is put on you to slow you down and you're around 6 ft tall you're gonna suffer

Only guy I can remember that would crap on people no matter what was AI but he couldn't win a title either

Yup, once Phil put Kobe on him it was over. The last point guard to carry his team to the championship was Isaiah Thomas and he is vastly underrated due to his failures as a GM, not sure why that should tarnish his reputation as a player however he was an all time great.

[og15]

Sadly, the problem a Derrick Rose and CP3 will always face

They're great, but when you get to the playoffs and a taller stronger guy is put on you to slow you down and you're around 6 ft tall you're gonna suffer

Only guy I can remember that would crap on people no matter what was AI but he couldn't win a title either

Yup, once Phil put Kobe on him it was over. The last point guard to carry his team to the championship was Isaiah Thomas and he is vastly underrated due to his failures as a GM, not sure why that should tarnish his reputation as a player however he was an all time great.

Well Iverson wasn't going to average 48 ppg for the series, and he took 41 shots to get that 48 pts in game 1, it wasn't even a really efficient 48 pts. For the rest of the series he averaged 32.5 ppg / .470 TS%, not much different from the rest of the playoffs.

In the previous series vs Milwaukee he averaged 30.2 ppg / .435 TS% and had two games with 16 and 15 pts while taking 26 and 27 FGA. Milwaukee were the ones that actually shut him down, but his team still won due to other things. Ray Allen objectively severely outproduced Iverson in the series.

Iverson wasn't necessarily destroying teams with offensive efficacy through the playoffs, that team was winning on defense and a lot of little other contributions in addition to Iverson's high volume scoring. Problem is that the Lakers weren't a team that their defense alone was going to beat. They hadn't faced a Shaq like big, and they had no answer for a guy like that, sorry Mutombo. If their only requirement was to contain a SG or SF and scrap out for wins, they could have been more successful with that. They actually held Kobe to 24.6 ppg / .501 TS% in the series for example.

So while Philly lost, the reasoning wasn't that simple, though of course I could see why the simple explanation could just be "oh well a bigger guy was just switched on to him and he stopped averaging 48 ppg in 52 mpg that he had been averaging all playoffs", lol

_____

Good that you mentioned Isiah, and again his success shows that it is about the team. Pistons 88-89 were 3rd in Drtg and 89-90 were 2nd in Drtg. In the 89 finals it was Dumars that averaged 27/6 on 58% FG vs the Lakers and obviously got the finals MVP. In the 90' finals, it was Isaiah that averaged 28/5/7 on .629 TS% vs Portland.

Now, in 1990, for the whole playoffs, Isiah was great. Still, that same season though, it was Dumars that led the scoring charge vs the Bulls with 20/2/4/.578 TS% while Isiah was great overall despite not being so efficient with his points but still put up 18/6/9/.515 TS% as well as 2.9 steals. The thing is that they primarily won because they held the Bulls as a team to .429 eFG% and 101.4 Ortg. Sure Jordan got his, but if you shut down the rest of the team, why does it matter? If whatever PG's people want to mention are on teams that can hold he opponent to those kind of numbers in the conference finals, then they will have great chances of winning.

In 1989 playoffs, Isiah and Dumars were 0.6 ppg away from each other. Dumars was the more efficient scorer, again, it wasn't about one player. Dumars 18/3/6/.541 TS%, Thomas 18/4/8/.481 TS%. That year vs the Bulls, the Bulls shot well but got killed on the glass. The Pistons had 37 more offensive rebounds for the series. Isiah put up 21/5/8 on 39% FG / .456 TS%. It wasn't the most stunning of performances, but the best teams win on the strength of the team and in multiple ways. They had a 36.6% ORB for the series, and if you get that many second chances, it helps your chances at winning a lot. Now luck is part of winning in the NBA, so boo-hoo, it does suck, and the Pistons got the luck of Scott going out for the series with a hammy pull, and then Magic going out in game 2 with a hammy pull and then attempting to play in game 3 to no avail. Generally your chances to beat a team with two starters who were the teams 2nd and 3rd leading scorers jumps exponentially. It's like the Clippers losing Paul and Jamal in a series.

Obviously without your whole starting backcourt, one guy averaging 20/7/13/.616 TS% through the playoffs and another 20/4/2/.594 TS%, and you had swept the playoffs so far. It's not usually easy to replace 40 points on about 60% TS in the final series of the playoffs. No one is going to cry for you though, but obviously we also won't brush it to the side as irrelevant.

The highlighted parts show something important. Teams do the best when they can win in multiple ways. One year the Pistons got past the Bulls because of rebounding prowess. They show worse from the field, but their offense was better because they had so many second chances, and they put up enough offense to win. The next year they limited the Bulls as a team that the baseline offense then needed to win in itself wasn't anything astronomical. If you solidify your team defensively and on the glass, there's a lot more leeway in how much individual offense you need to have high level success.

[TigerInYourTank]

Sadly, the problem a Derrick Rose and CP3 will always face

They're great, but when you get to the playoffs and a taller stronger guy is put on you to slow you down and you're around 6 ft tall you're gonna suffer

Only guy I can remember that would crap on people no matter what was AI but he couldn't win a title either

Yup, once Phil put Kobe on him it was over. The last point guard to carry his team to the championship was Isaiah Thomas and he is vastly underrated due to his failures as a GM, not sure why that should tarnish his reputation as a player however he was an all time great.

Well Iverson wasn't going to average 48 ppg for the series, and he took 41 shots to get that 48 pts in game 1, it wasn't even a really efficient 48 pts. For the rest of the series he averaged 32.5 ppg / .470 TS%, not much different from the rest of the playoffs.

In the previous series vs Milwaukee he averaged 30.2 ppg / .435 TS% and had two games with 16 and 15 pts while taking 26 and 27 FGA. Milwaukee were the ones that actually shut him down, but his team still won due to other things. Ray Allen objectively severely outproduced Iverson in the series.

Iverson wasn't necessarily destroying teams with offensive efficacy through the playoffs, that team was winning on defense and a lot of little other contributions in addition to Iverson's high volume scoring. Problem is that the Lakers weren't a team that their defense alone was going to beat. They hadn't faced a Shaq like big, and they had no answer for a guy like that, sorry Mutombo. If their only requirement was to contain a SG or SF and scrap out for wins, they could have been more successful with that. They actually held Kobe to 24.6 ppg / .501 TS% in the series for example.

So while Philly lost, the reasoning wasn't that simple, though of course I could see why the simple explanation could just be "oh well a bigger guy was just switched on to him and he stopped averaging 48 ppg in 52 mpg that he had been averaging all playoffs", lol

Also, from memory, it was Tyrron Lue, another undersized, quick guard that gave AI problems.

[hands11]

I did some research on the PGs of the last 20-21 years since I've noticed that the teams who win NBA championships usually don't have an all-star level PGs. For the 21 seasons I reviewed, the team that became a champion had an all-star PG in the respective year only twice - both San Antonio with Tony Parker as their main PG(2007 and 2014).

The average stats for the starting PGs of the championship teams were as follows:
Age: 29.05
MPG: 29.67
PPG: 11.2
RBPG: 2.84
APG: 4.44
STL: 1.18
BLK: 0.2
TOV: 1.7
FG%: 44%
3P%: 34%
FT%: 78%

I kind of expected the PPG to not be very high, but even the APG number seems quite abysmal for the position. The average winshare per 48 minutes is 0.135. Most of them are between 4th and 7th best player on their team according to that stat. The only PG to be leading that category for his team in a championship year was Chauncey Billups with .198.

I haven't done the same for the other positions(I might do it this weekend if there is enough interest), but even without doing it, to me it seems clear that the PG position is one of the least important position when it comes to winning titles. Yes, a good PG will make your team good enough to be a playoff team, but it seems like teams would be much better off concentrating their resources into other positions(if possible) if they want to contend for a title.

I have posted stuff pointing this out many many times.

A great PG is good for getting your team to develop players and establish themselves as a winner. But the best teams that win it all, they have either elite post players or hybrid P/Forward or P/SG types.

MJ, Kobe, Wade
Bird, Paul Pierce, LeBron
Dirk - the most elite S4 ever
Duncan, Dream, Shaq

And even Manu

Magic is an exception but he was huge for a PG and could play all 5 positions so he was really a combination of a PG, P/SG and P/PF. And he had an elite team around him with KAJ and Worth, etc.

That the majority of your title teams over the last 20 year right there.

CP3 is one of the best PGs ever and he isn't winning titles because other teams have those players above.

This is why I'm not a fan of paying more then 12-14M on a PG. Because those other players cost a ton to keep on your team. All those names are 20M players.

Parker has been perfect for SAS. Dude has been making 12.5 for like the last 3 years.

[og15]

I did some research on the PGs of the last 20-21 years since I've noticed that the teams who win NBA championships usually don't have an all-star level PGs. For the 21 seasons I reviewed, the team that became a champion had an all-star PG in the respective year only twice - both San Antonio with Tony Parker as their main PG(2007 and 2014).

The average stats for the starting PGs of the championship teams were as follows:
Age: 29.05
MPG: 29.67
PPG: 11.2
RBPG: 2.84
APG: 4.44
STL: 1.18
BLK: 0.2
TOV: 1.7
FG%: 44%
3P%: 34%
FT%: 78%

I kind of expected the PPG to not be very high, but even the APG number seems quite abysmal for the position. The average winshare per 48 minutes is 0.135. Most of them are between 4th and 7th best player on their team according to that stat. The only PG to be leading that category for his team in a championship year was Chauncey Billups with .198.

I haven't done the same for the other positions(I might do it this weekend if there is enough interest), but even without doing it, to me it seems clear that the PG position is one of the least important position when it comes to winning titles. Yes, a good PG will make your team good enough to be a playoff team, but it seems like teams would be much better off concentrating their resources into other positions(if possible) if they want to contend for a title.

I have posted stuff pointing this out many many times.

A great PG is good for getting your team to develop players and establish themselves as a winner. But the best teams that win it all, they have either elite post players or hybrid P/Forward or P/SG types.

MJ, Kobe, Wade
Bird, Paul Pierce, LeBron
Dirk - the most elite S4 ever
Duncan, Dream, Shaq

Magic is an exception but he was huge for a PG and could play all 5 positions so he was really a combination of a PG, P/SG and P/PF. And he had an elite team around him with KAJ and Worth, etc.

That the majority of your title teams over the last 20 year right there.

CP3 is one of the best PGs ever and he isn't winning titles because other teams have those players above.

This is why I'm not a fan of paying more then 12-14M on a PG. Because those other players cost a ton to keep on your team. All those names are 20M players.

Parker has been perfect for SAS. Dude has been making 12.5 for like the last 3 years.

The problem here is that Chris Paul has been on exactly 1 championship capable team talent wise (last seasons Clippers), and one sort of, maybe could make the finals team if everything went well and their terrible bench didn't kill them. That second one was in his first year in the playoffs and he was the best player in the series his team lost to SA and Duncan was actually the one that got limited by Chandler. It was as even a series as possible between two teams and you play it over 10 times and it would have been 5-5 most likely. The second one was last season, and the Clippers put up 106.3 PPG and 112 Ortg despite Jamal Crawford doing 14/2/35% FG / 29% 3PT / .460 TS% / 95 Ortg, and they lost not because the PG was easy to shut down, or anything like that, even with Paul's turnover blunder in game 5. They lost because the Thunder themselves put up 107.2 PPG / 112.9 Ortg, by far their best offensive series of the playoffs.

Outside of that Paul has been on first round fodder or 2nd round teams in terms of overall talent on both ends.

So even if it is true, citing Chris Paul as the example doesn't help prove the point. Even the hybrid type guys who had won still had to be on great championship caliber teams.

[LLJ]

I wrote several responses and deleted them because this is a such a complex issue that could be argued several ways. I do think og15 comes the closest though when he says that great PGs tend to mask major issues in a team that won't reveal itself until the playoffs. Star PGs can in some ways create some really convincing fool's gold--that doesn't mean PGs themselves are fool's gold, but more that you have to see past the regular season wins and look at the team objectively. Another problem is that GMs are very reluctant to pair ball dominant wings alongside PGs for fear of interrupting touches, when in reality the PG may in fact benefit from another ballhandler to play alongside with.

[Rob Diaz]

As I said here in a previous thread about Derrick Rose, PG is by far the most overrated position in NBA basketball(just NBA ball, I don't believe they face the same problems in college or High School). IMO, the reason is that it's much easier for the media and public to relate to them(height, style of play, etc).

It's very difficult for the average person to relate to a big man for obvious reasons. Superstar wings are different, as their style of play and flashy style transcends everything.

History has taught us that if a PG is your best player, you're going to have a very difficult time winning a championship. It takes very special circumstances, such as Isiah winning with a defense-first supporting cast and Billups winning with a balanced team with arguably the greatest defensive frontcourt in NBA history IMO.

As others have mentioned, it's just way too easy to shut down a star PG in the playoffs when he's the #1 option/highest usage player. The league is always full of athletic wings with huge wingspans that will virtually always win the battle against the PG.

The only outlier is Magic Johnson, and he was a 6'9 genetic freak, one of the top 3 players in the history of the league IMO.

Some points:

- Isiah Thomas's role for the Bad Boys Pistons is a little overrated IMO. That team was much more well-balanced than they are given credit for.

- The 2013 Spurs came close to winning a title with a PG as their best player, but as we feared, Parker was completely eliminated from the series in the latter part of the Finals. Duncan and Leonard kept the Spurs in it, but TP was horrific in the most important games of the series.

- The 2014 Spurs won a title with Tony Parker being virtually useless in the playoffs. He had the 2nd worst on/off metrics on the roster, the Spurs won 2 clinching games without him playing, he only had 2 or 3 high quality games throughout the playoffs. It was evident all season that he was going to struggle due to the fatigue from 2013(deep playoff run + Summer of international basketball), as Pop had to shut him down at points during the regular season.

- As a Spurs fan, I'm very familiar with a PG's struggles in the playoffs. Outside of parts of 2002, and then 2007(where he was still the 3rd best player on the team) and 2013, Parker has been underwhelming in the playoffs throughout his career.

- I actually like Chris Paul's style of play in the playoffs. He performs well in the post-season and his usage rate is usually appropriate IMO. He gets criticized for deferring to other players, but that's the proper role for him to play IMO. If Griffin can take the next step and become a legit playoff #1 guy, the Clippers will be much better off with CP3 being an elite #2 guy IMO. The Clippers didn't lose last year because of Paul, they lost due to their other glaring flaws, which will probably by the case again this season.

Paul actually killed the Spurs in New Orleans when Bowen guarded him in 2008. Pop switched Bowen onto Peja after the Spurs were down 0-2(and Peja was subsequently eliminated from the series), and the Spurs were better off for it.

- Again, as a Spurs fan, I've seen a few glaring examples of a PG getting shut down by a longer defender the past few years. Danny Green is the best PG defender in the NBA IMO, and as a poster on SpursTalk highlighted with numbers, it can be quantified. He completely shut down Chris Paul in 2012. Curry was completely eliminated from the 2013 series once Pop switched Green onto him(and Leonard onto Thompson, which completely ended Corey Matthews's series). Green against Lillard was the same result, too.

Westbrook was the only PG to have some success against Green, and I don't even know if he is really considered a PG lol.

[Johnlac1]

I don't know if the question should be: do you have to have a strong pg to win a title or do you need a strong backcourt? Obviously, it's almost impossible to win a title without a strong frontcourt, but I can't think of too many championship teams that weren't strong in the backcourt. If you go back far enough most of the champ. teams had both star players at both fc and bc. Regardless of whether the star bc player is a pg or a sg like Jordan or Bryant, it's difficult to win a title unless a team is tough fc and bc.