The role of PGs for winning NBA titles

[fluffernutter]

Don't forget guys like Payton and Stockton also made the finals but just so happened to run into the GOAT.

Payton is a good call. Stockton, I realize, I didn't include because he wasn't the best player on his team... but I included Parker. So yeah, Stockton's another good call, but in a way, he and Parker both support the premise that you don't generally want your PG passing a certain threshold of involvement. Stockton's also an example of how insufficient secondary scoring can harm your chances to win (Old Stockton, in the Finals, anyway, and moreso in 97 because I think his knee gives him a fairly legit out in 98).

Isn't this all just an effect of the PG position simply not being as important as Center/Wing? The best "pure" point guard (Stockton) with endless unbreakable PG-style records is clearly not the guy to build a championship-winning team around. For that you would far prefer the best "pure" center ever (Kareem perhaps) or the best "pure" Forwardy type player ever (Lebron) or the best wing (Jordan).

Think about paying a pure HOF PG the max salary and filling in the rest of the team.

Compare with paying a pure HOF Center the max salary and filling in the rest of the team.

It should come as a shock to nobody that the first option isn't the best, and hasn't won much.

You can't say point guard X or Y got close but ran into the GOAT. How come the point guard X or Y isn't the GOAT? Because they were not able to beat the HOF center or wing to prove it. Because frankly, size and defense > increased offensive production from the team.

Point guards should not be max players barring a true freak like Magic. For any sub-6'5 player, for example, you are way better off trading that stud for size.

It's kinda sad but true. I wish it were not. I love great Point Guards and great Point Guard play. But they simply don't matter on the defensive end and that drop off isn't made up by better offense. Nash couldn't do it. CP3 isn't even close, and he's not even that bad at defense. Either history and common sense teaches us this, or we are living through a very weird freak of probability.

[hands11]

i think in theory if a ring team is supposed to have a BALANCED offense, and if by default the pg has the ball in his hands more than any other player,,,then it is counterproductive to have a "great" pg on the team because he will need the ball to be great. this takes away from the others. there's only so much time a player can have on any posession.

is oscar going to be 100% oscar if he has to pass to other great players. in such a case i prefer a less ball-dominant pg. conversely, okc needs a ball dominant pg because westbrook and durant is all they have.

Which is the problem.

WB is amazing, no doubt, but they would be better off with KD, a less good PG and better post player/center.

i.e. Moving Ellis to SG and getting a PG that isn't as good.

KD and Dirke would have won titles by now.

I don't think OKC is going anywhere this year and the clock is ticking on KD leaving if they don't.

Problem with OKC is you have KD and WB that are both #1 options and WB has the ball. I would move Surge to center and KD to PF/PG and fill in as needed around that. Remake the roster.

[hands11]

i think in theory if a ring team is supposed to have a BALANCED offense, and if by default the pg has the ball in his hands more than any other player,,,then it is counterproductive to have a "great" pg on the team because he will need the ball to be great. this takes away from the others. there's only so much time a player can have on any posession.

is oscar going to be 100% oscar if he has to pass to other great players. in such a case i prefer a less ball-dominant pg. conversely, okc needs a ball dominant pg because westbrook and durant is all they have.

This is propably the closest to reality right now

As a Title Team you need multiple players on offense who can carry the Team for stretches especially the other(s) is(are) taken out of the game(either by beeing on the bench^^,injured or just shut down by the defense)

So if we look at the Bulls for example... if Rose is back at 22/7 Level and he plays and is not shut down then the Bulls have a fair chance of Winning any Game... but if an elite defender takes him out of the Game... the Bulls offense is basically dead

The Clippers are simillar.. while not as dependend if Paul is shut down they offense runs only through Blake.. and while hes improving hes still not great at getting his Points without Paul... at least not as efficient.

You need 2 or 3 Players who can work together seemlesly but also can take over by themselves if needed.

A Dominant PG tends to completly controll the Offense... and this is a huge disatvantage at least come playoff time.. where the Game slows down,defensives get tougher and more focused

Exactly.

Which is why I'm so torn about how the Wizards are constructed. I'm glad they are better then they have been in a long time, but less happy that Wall will be making $15,756,438 $16,784,031 $17,811,625 starting 2016.

Its a team build to get out of the first round and maybe even the second, but not a title.

Not unless there is a perfect storm and they can pull off elite defense and do a DET.

At least Wall is unselfish so he can tone it down if needed, but you are spending a ton on that position when you could spend that on an elite PF. At least the Wizards have the space to sign KD in 2016 and if not him, Cousins can walk on in 2018. Lets see what the new cap looks like after the new NBA deal. Maybe his contract will be less bad.

Its a catch 22 for them though. They needed to keep Wall to get legit and you need to get legit to land big FAs. I just wish Wall would make no more then 15M.

OKC has the same problem with WB. LAC with CP3. BRK with DW. and CHI with DR.

Teams need to stop over paying PGs.

Oddly enough, IND with PG, Pelicans with AD and NY with Melo are better positioned to build title teams even though all 3 are worse teams right now then the teams just mentioned. But by adding the right pieces, they can make the leap to elite.

[hands11]

Don't forget guys like Payton and Stockton also made the finals but just so happened to run into the GOAT.

Payton is a good call. Stockton, I realize, I didn't include because he wasn't the best player on his team... but I included Parker. So yeah, Stockton's another good call, but in a way, he and Parker both support the premise that you don't generally want your PG passing a certain threshold of involvement. Stockton's also an example of how insufficient secondary scoring can harm your chances to win (Old Stockton, in the Finals, anyway, and moreso in 97 because I think his knee gives him a fairly legit out in 98).

We should not be drawing the line at finals appearances. That is where the point is most magnified.

Last finals is interesting though. Both teams where designed correctly. Its just SAS was a machine and Wade couldn't do his full on Wade act.

[Hendrix]

I don't think it has anything to do with PG's being a bad position to build around, or a case of them getting shutdown easily.

Imo it has to do with the fact that there just so happened to be 'generational talents' at the other positions over the last 20 years. Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Duncan have won 16 of the 20 championships over the last 20 years. Think about that. That means there isn't a lot of championships to go around for the rest of the teams.

I think it says more of the fact that you need a generational talent to win a ship than it does that there's a problem with PG's. I mean, there has been plenty of great PG's on championsip or finals teams. In the last 20 years of the 40 teams that have made is to the finals, 20 teams have had an all star PG, so I think they are obviously important. Payton, Stockton, Billups, Parker, Rondo, Westbrook, and Kidd have all been big impact guys for great teams.

Last time there was a 'once in a generation' player at PG (Magic), he didn't have much of a problem getting rings. There just hasn't happened to be one in a while.

[JonFromVA]

How often has a great PG ended up on a great team?

Just look at what happened when New Orleans drafted CP3. They won 20-more games with him, and were no longer knocking on the lottery. That team could only become so good.

Magic and Parker were unique cases as they were drafted on to good teams. They also knew better than to hog the ball at the expense of their teammates.

[OvertimeNO]

I don't think it has anything to do with PG's being a bad position to build around, or a case of them getting shutdown easily.

Imo it has to do with the fact that there just so happened to be 'generational talents' at the other positions over the last 20 years. Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Duncan have won 16 of the 20 championships over the last 20 years. Think about that. That means there isn't a lot of championships to go around for the rest of the teams.

I think it says more of the fact that you need a generational talent to win a ship than it does that there's a problem with PG's. I mean, there has been plenty of great PG's on championsip or finals teams. In the last 20 years of the 40 teams that have made is to the finals, 20 teams have had an all star PG, so I think they are obviously important. Payton, Stockton, Billups, Parker, Rondo, Westbrook, and Kidd have all been big impact guys for great teams.

Last time there was a 'once in a generation' player at PG (Magic), he didn't have much of a problem getting rings. There just hasn't happened to be one in a while.

You can't discount the idea that systems/teams aren't as important as the generational nature of the talent, because even the guys you mentioned didn't start winning titles until they were surrounded by the right complement of teammates, and with the right system. And for whatever reason, those things just seem more difficult to do when you've got a ball-dominant PG as the primary point of attack on offence.

[Hendrix]

You can't discount the idea that systems/teams aren't as important as the generational nature of the talent, because even the guys you mentioned didn't start winning titles until they were surrounded by the right complement of teammates, and with the right system. And for whatever reason, those things just seem more difficult to do when you've got a ball-dominant PG as the primary point of attack on offence.

I don't see how that is true.

Basketball is about ORTG, and DRTG. There have been piles, and piles of teams lead by PG's that had extremely efficient offences. Nash, Kidd, Billups, Paul, Stockton, and Deron have all lead their teams to top 5 offenses (which is a good enough offense for a title). There was nothing wrong with their offense, the reason most of those teams didn't win a ring was because of defense (aside from Billups). I don't really see much evidence that there's a problem with top flight PG's generating a good offense within a system.

[OvertimeNO]

You can't discount the idea that systems/teams aren't as important as the generational nature of the talent, because even the guys you mentioned didn't start winning titles until they were surrounded by the right complement of teammates, and with the right system. And for whatever reason, those things just seem more difficult to do when you've got a ball-dominant PG as the primary point of attack on offence.

I don't see how that is true.

Basketball is about ORTG, and DRTG. There have been piles, and piles of teams lead by PG's that had extremely efficient offences. Nash, Kidd, Billups, Paul, and Deron have all lead their teams to top 5 offenses (which is a good enough offense for a title). There was nothing wrong with their offense, the reason most of those teams didn't win a ring was because of defense (aside from Billups). I don't really see much evidence that there's a problem with top flight PG's generating a good offense within a system.

Edit: Completely misread your post, replied nonsensically. Don't RealGM at work, kids.

There's a lot of correlation/causation stuff going on. I don't have any ideas nor do I care to speculate. It does seem more complex than first glance, though. Even bringing up your point about defence: is it possible that the reason why those PG-focused teams couldn't defend their opposition better, was because it's harder to defend a team that isn't so heavily-reliant on a PG as the primary ballhandler/scorer?

[JonFromVA]

I don't really see much evidence that there's a problem with top flight PG's generating a good offense within a system.

However, winning titles isn't about regular season efficiency. It's about being able to execute when facing top teams who've had plenty of time to prepare & game plan against what you do.

The Cavs used to make a big deal about taking Chauncey Billups out of the game - "cut off the head of the snake" they'd say. The Spurs stopped LeBron in 2007 by conceding him the jump shot, but by bringing 2 or 3 help defenders to cut him off from getting in the paint. The Bulls were able to conquer the Lakers by using Pippen to guard Magic.

The strategy against any great player is the same - when the going get rough, stop him and force someone else to beat you.

So there are two counters to this ... have an unstoppable player, or have a terrific team with guys who can step up if the defense is able to stop your star.

This is where a ball movement base team that's not wrapped all around one player to generate their offense has an advantage. On the flip side, they need to figure out how to share the ball and everyone has to be capable of playing off the ball.

I suppose the closest thing we've seen to an unstoppable PG was Allen Iverson, but his ball dominance was problematic.

[OvertimeNO]

I suppose the closest thing we've seen to an unstoppable PG was Allen Iverson, but his ball dominance was problematic.

Right. And when Iverson experienced his greatest success, he was slotted as a shooting guard, and playing for a team so perfectly assembled to cater to his quirks that it would prove completely unsustainable.

[Cloud777]

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.

Wait, what? Once Phil put Kobe on who? Hopefully you aren't referring to A.I. because it was Tyronn Lue who locked him. Kobe had nothing to do with it.

[Hendrix]

You can't discount the idea that systems/teams aren't as important as the generational nature of the talent, because even the guys you mentioned didn't start winning titles until they were surrounded by the right complement of teammates, and with the right system. And for whatever reason, those things just seem more difficult to do when you've got a ball-dominant PG as the primary point of attack on offence.

I don't see how that is true.

Basketball is about ORTG, and DRTG. There have been piles, and piles of teams lead by PG's that had extremely efficient offences. Nash, Kidd, Billups, Paul, and Deron have all lead their teams to top 5 offenses (which is a good enough offense for a title). There was nothing wrong with their offense, the reason most of those teams didn't win a ring was because of defense (aside from Billups). I don't really see much evidence that there's a problem with top flight PG's generating a good offense within a system.

Edit: Completely misread your post, replied nonsensically. Don't RealGM at work, kids.

There's a lot of correlation/causation stuff going on. I don't have any ideas nor do I care to speculate. It does seem more complex than first glance, though. Even bringing up your point about defence: is it possible that the reason why those PG-focused teams couldn't defend their opposition better, was because it's harder to defend a team that isn't so heavily-reliant on a PG as the primary ballhandler/scorer?

I don't really get your point tbh. What does your defense have to do with having your offense run through the PG? They are 2 different sides of the ball.

[Hendrix]

I don't really see much evidence that there's a problem with top flight PG's generating a good offense within a system.

However, winning titles isn't about regular season efficiency. It's about being able to execute when facing top teams who've had plenty of time to prepare & game plan against what you do.

The Cavs used to make a big deal about taking Chauncey Billups out of the game - "cut off the head of the snake" they'd say. The Spurs stopped LeBron in 2007 by conceding him the jump shot, but by bringing 2 or 3 help defenders to cut him off from getting in the paint. The Bulls were able to conquer the Lakers by using Pippen to guard Magic.

The strategy against any great player is the same - when the going get rough, stop him and force someone else to beat you.

So there are two counters to this ... have an unstoppable player, or have a terrific team with guys who can step up if the defense is able to stop your star.

This is where a ball movement base team that's not wrapped all around one player to generate their offense has an advantage. On the flip side, they need to figure out how to share the ball and everyone has to be capable of playing off the ball.

I suppose the closest thing we've seen to an unstoppable PG was Allen Iverson, but his ball dominance was problematic.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't have other players capable of stepping up, and good ball movement. Even Duncan had TP, and Man. Shaq and Kobe had each other. LBJ had Wade, and Bosh. KG had Ray and PP. Etc... I'm not saying 1 PG plus scrubs are going to win a championship or anything.

I'm simply saying that you can have a championship calibre offense with a PG running the show, and defense is a completely different story.

[OvertimeNO]

I don't see how that is true.

Basketball is about ORTG, and DRTG. There have been piles, and piles of teams lead by PG's that had extremely efficient offences. Nash, Kidd, Billups, Paul, and Deron have all lead their teams to top 5 offenses (which is a good enough offense for a title). There was nothing wrong with their offense, the reason most of those teams didn't win a ring was because of defense (aside from Billups). I don't really see much evidence that there's a problem with top flight PG's generating a good offense within a system.

Edit: Completely misread your post, replied nonsensically. Don't RealGM at work, kids.

There's a lot of correlation/causation stuff going on. I don't have any ideas nor do I care to speculate. It does seem more complex than first glance, though. Even bringing up your point about defence: is it possible that the reason why those PG-focused teams couldn't defend their opposition better, was because it's harder to defend a team that isn't so heavily-reliant on a PG as the primary ballhandler/scorer?

I don't really get your point tbh. What does your defense have to do with having your offense run through the PG? They are 2 different sides of the ball.

The other team's defence.

[JonFromVA]

I don't really see much evidence that there's a problem with top flight PG's generating a good offense within a system.

However, winning titles isn't about regular season efficiency. It's about being able to execute when facing top teams who've had plenty of time to prepare & game plan against what you do.

The Cavs used to make a big deal about taking Chauncey Billups out of the game - "cut off the head of the snake" they'd say. The Spurs stopped LeBron in 2007 by conceding him the jump shot, but by bringing 2 or 3 help defenders to cut him off from getting in the paint. The Bulls were able to conquer the Lakers by using Pippen to guard Magic.

The strategy against any great player is the same - when the going get rough, stop him and force someone else to beat you.

So there are two counters to this ... have an unstoppable player, or have a terrific team with guys who can step up if the defense is able to stop your star.

This is where a ball movement base team that's not wrapped all around one player to generate their offense has an advantage. On the flip side, they need to figure out how to share the ball and everyone has to be capable of playing off the ball.

I suppose the closest thing we've seen to an unstoppable PG was Allen Iverson, but his ball dominance was problematic.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't have other players capable of stepping up, and good ball movement. Even Duncan had TP, and Man. Shaq and Kobe had each other. LBJ had Wade, and Bosh. KG had Ray and PP. Etc... I'm not saying 1 PG plus scrubs are going to win a championship or anything.

I'm simply saying that you can have a championship calibre offense with a PG running the show, and defense is a completely different story.

It's historically been difficult to keep other ball handlers happy when you have a ball dominant PG.

It was problematic that Rondo couldn't shoot well early in his career. He had to have the ball in his hands, but that was another situation where a very good PG landed on a terrific team as opposed to having that team built around him.

Also offense can't be decoupled from defense ... take the Suns for instance, or often the Nuggets.

My point is just that there's a lot of factors in play, and it may very well be easier to build a championship team with your best player being something other than your pg.

[og15]

However, winning titles isn't about regular season efficiency. It's about being able to execute when facing top teams who've had plenty of time to prepare & game plan against what you do.

The Cavs used to make a big deal about taking Chauncey Billups out of the game - "cut off the head of the snake" they'd say. The Spurs stopped LeBron in 2007 by conceding him the jump shot, but by bringing 2 or 3 help defenders to cut him off from getting in the paint. The Bulls were able to conquer the Lakers by using Pippen to guard Magic.

The strategy against any great player is the same - when the going get rough, stop him and force someone else to beat you.

So there are two counters to this ... have an unstoppable player, or have a terrific team with guys who can step up if the defense is able to stop your star.

This is where a ball movement base team that's not wrapped all around one player to generate their offense has an advantage. On the flip side, they need to figure out how to share the ball and everyone has to be capable of playing off the ball.

I suppose the closest thing we've seen to an unstoppable PG was Allen Iverson, but his ball dominance was problematic.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't have other players capable of stepping up, and good ball movement. Even Duncan had TP, and Man. Shaq and Kobe had each other. LBJ had Wade, and Bosh. KG had Ray and PP. Etc... I'm not saying 1 PG plus scrubs are going to win a championship or anything.

I'm simply saying that you can have a championship calibre offense with a PG running the show, and defense is a completely different story.

It's historically been difficult to keep other ball handlers happy when you have a ball dominant PG.

It was problematic that Rondo couldn't shoot well early in his career. He had to have the ball in his hands, but that was another situation where a very good PG landed on a terrific team as opposed to having that team built around him.

Also offense can't be decoupled from defense ... take the Suns for instance, or often the Nuggets.

My point is just that there's a lot of factors in play, and it may very well be easier to build a championship team with your best player being something other than your pg.

I question how true this is. Really depends on the player you are referring to. For example, some of Chris Paul's favorite teammates have been other ball handling guards. Pargo, Bledsoe, and he's actually too willing to give the ball to Jamal for example. Sure if the PG is ball hog and never passes, then yea, they won't get along, but maybe if you're talking about Iverson in his young days with Stackhouse.

What we see more of is that the team sometimes won't make a good enough effort to compliment the PG with that type of player because they are like "whatever, we have a PG", or maybe they had that player and they traded them to get better at the big man position. I haven't seen much of those guys getting moved because the PG and the wing or other ball handler couldn't get along.

Arenas and Hughes did a great job sharing ball handling / playmaking duties for example. Francis/Mobley were in love.

[JonFromVA]

I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't have other players capable of stepping up, and good ball movement. Even Duncan had TP, and Man. Shaq and Kobe had each other. LBJ had Wade, and Bosh. KG had Ray and PP. Etc... I'm not saying 1 PG plus scrubs are going to win a championship or anything.

I'm simply saying that you can have a championship calibre offense with a PG running the show, and defense is a completely different story.

It's historically been difficult to keep other ball handlers happy when you have a ball dominant PG.

It was problematic that Rondo couldn't shoot well early in his career. He had to have the ball in his hands, but that was another situation where a very good PG landed on a terrific team as opposed to having that team built around him.

Also offense can't be decoupled from defense ... take the Suns for instance, or often the Nuggets.

My point is just that there's a lot of factors in play, and it may very well be easier to build a championship team with your best player being something other than your pg.

I question how true this is. Really depends on the player you are referring to. For example, some of Chris Paul's favorite teammates have been other ball handling guards. Pargo, Bledsoe, and he's actually too willing to give the ball to Jamal for example. Sure if the PG is ball hog and never passes, then yea, they won't get along, but maybe if you're talking about Iverson in his young days with Stackhouse.

What we see more of is that the team sometimes won't make a good enough effort to compliment the PG with that type of player because they are like "whatever, we have a PG", or maybe they had that player and they traded them to get better at the big man position. I haven't seen much of those guys getting moved because the PG and the wing or other ball handler couldn't get along.

Arenas and Hughes did a great job sharing ball handling / playmaking duties for example. Francis/Mobley were in love.

otoh, Bledsoe is no longer on the Clippers. They decided to go with JJ, and Jamaal Crawford has been primarily used as a 6th man in that instant offense role

Arenas and Hughes are an interesting case because they were essentially both combo-guards who thrived in Eddie Jordan's version of the Princeton. Neither of them were very at running a team or a traditional offense.

I feel you're right that teams give up too easily on incorporating multiple ball handlers and it will be real interesting how things go for the Cavs this season, but Irving and Waiters is another great case in point. At least early in their careers, a lot of people like the Wall+Beal combo better because they fit together so much easier.

That doesn't mean that Irving+Waiters can't fit together, or that Beal won't play more on the ball and Wall off the ball in the future, but it's harder and teams don't seem to have time or patience for hard.

Even Manu Ginobili (one of the best SGs of this generation) has been pushed in to coming off the bench because it makes things easier for the Spurs.

[JonFromVA]

I suppose the closest thing we've seen to an unstoppable PG was Allen Iverson, but his ball dominance was problematic.

Right. And when Iverson experienced his greatest success, he was slotted as a shooting guard, and playing for a team so perfectly assembled to cater to his quirks that it would prove completely unsustainable.

Great point. Snow and McKie both averaged more assists than Iverson that season, even though Iverson led the team in USG% by a ton.

[cpower]

I suppose the closest thing we've seen to an unstoppable PG was Allen Iverson, but his ball dominance was problematic.

Right. And when Iverson experienced his greatest success, he was slotted as a shooting guard, and playing for a team so perfectly assembled to cater to his quirks that it would prove completely unsustainable.

Great point. Snow and McKie both averaged more assists than Iverson that season, even though Iverson led the team in USG% by a ton.

Iverson was great, he was inefficient in another way but we can't deny his greatness by just looking at his TS. He can be a 20/10 player with great efficiency if he wanted, but he chose to play a style fits the team and had a lot of success with it. I still believe AI could win a championship, if he had more 3D guys around him and someone who can limit shaq. No matter how inefficient you are, if you can score and deny your opponents from scoring , you can win.