fluffernutter wrote: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).
It depends. If you're talking about combo guard-sized and smaller guards running the offense, then I'm inclined to agree. If you're talking about more outlier types likes West, Robertson and Magic, then it's a bit different. It also depends on what you call Wade. 06 Wade was a guard who was the primary volume scorer and ball-handler for his team, not terribly dissimilar to prime Jerry West in that regard. Wade was called a SG, whereas West is often argued as a PG (though some discuss a direct switch of position mid-career as well).
In any case, he was a primary offensive initiator from the guard position. He had more size, though, and more scoring ability than we typically see from the smaller PG types... and was able to get off-ball more effectively as necessary. Same deal with guys like Jordan and Kobe, it was the mix of overall offensive dominance that permitted them to be so individually successful (and then obviously quality of roster which permitted them to compete for titles).
I've always wondered at the notion of a "pure point." We haven't seen one win a title in... ever, I don't think. What we typically consider a "pure point" is a roleplayer by definition. Stockton was like the SUPER pure point, and I wouldn't deign to call him a roleplayer, but he's about as good as it gets when you look at a super-low shooting volume with an extreme emphasis on giving up the ball. Rondo is another example, but far worse and much more obviously suited to a lower-usage complementary role. Jason Kidd was pure point-ish, but he shot a little too much to be called that (he had numerous seasons in the vicinity of 14-16 FGA/g, even in a lower-pace period). And of course, Kidd was an outlier based on defensive value and rebounding ability, which diverges from exactly the premise of a pure point in some ways.
In any case, the value of a pure point is as a roleplayer mostly. You need to be able to challenge a defense with yourself as a threat offensively, otherwise your utility is extremely limited to your team, I agree. It's much easier to make of yourself a more versatile threat as a non-PG player (speaking of PGs as small guard primary initiators).
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.
This is bad logic. It simply means they weren't good enough to BE that level of player, which isn't a sin. There are barely a handful of players who are worthy of a comparison to someone like, say, Michael Jordan. That doesn't diminish the value of someone like, say, Chris Paul. It just means that he isn't a titanic legend in the annals of basketball history (save, perhaps, for the more statistically-minded).
Size is king, of course, because basketball has been and remains a vertical game in many ways. But it's not quite as simple as that, of course.
Nash couldn't do it.
Yeah, but he was close, and didn't have title luck. Injuries, suspensions, they didn't really support him. And, of course, he did run into a superior player a couple of times. Sometimes that happens. There are any number of players who just hit the "wrong place, wrong time" button en route to their failure to win a title. I don't think anyone mostly educated on the topic would question the idea that the Jazz in the late 90s were a title-caliber team... but they had the misfortune of running into the greatest post-60s dynasty in league history, and the GOAT. That's raw luck. Some guys, they don't acquire sufficient roster support in their career to make a spirited run at a title, and/or run into a superior opponent. That doesn't necessarily mean you CAN'T win with that player, just that they didn't win. Not exactly the same thing.
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.
It's generally easier to affect the game more when you're bigger than what we typically see from the PG position, though, that's true. It's harder to be elite on offense from that spot than from the others, it's harder to be an impact defender. It's very difficult to be a title-level player to begin with, regardless of position, as there are factors external to the player which he cannot even control but play strongly into his chances.
All things to consider.
hands11 wrote:
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.
Well, what we are discussing is the winning of NBA titles. We see plenty of teams which are briefly competitive in the first or second rounds. A protracted period of one-and-dones doesn't really get you closer to an NBA title. Maybe expand to include conference finals appearances, that certainly wouldn't be a bad idea, because that's at least on the cusp of a title shot, certainly indicating contention (particularly if it happens more than in one isolated season).
