Shoot first Point Guards

[Phil125]

Thank God we are not Chicago.  Can't win with him and can't win without him Derrick Rose.  They have about 10 years of this ahead of them.  Sure with a healthy Derrick they can win some games, but they will never win the big ones.  The shoot first point guards never win the big ones.  In the history of the NBA it just doesn't work.  Isiah Thomas and Magic Johnson did not lead their teams in scoring or hog the ball nearly as much.  Its just too easy to swamp that PG with defenders in the finals and limit him.

There are many teams building around their own version of Stephon Marbury and it will lead to nothing but years of mediocre basketball.

Good luck to the following and their years of winning zero championships:

Kyrie Irving and the Cavs
Derrick Rose and the Bulls
John Wall and the Wizards
Stephon Curry and the Warriors.
I'll even put Russell Westbrook and the Thunder on the list.

If history proves anything none of those teams will win a championship as long as one of those hogs has the ball all game.

Why do these teams build around these guys?  I might be proven wrong one day, but 60+ years of championships history has to count for something.

I just do not enjoy watching those guys play ball.  Its not good basketball.

[Monkhouse]

Thank God we are not Chicago.  Can't win with him and can't win without him Derrick Rose.  They have about 10 years of this ahead of them.  Sure with a healthy Derrick they can win some games, but they will never win the big ones.  The shoot first point guards never win the big ones.  In the history of the NBA it just doesn't work.  Isiah Thomas and Magic Johnson did not lead their teams in scoring or hog the ball nearly as much.  Its just too easy to swamp that PG with defenders in the finals and limit him.

There are many teams building around their own version of Stephon Marbury and it will lead to nothing but years of mediocre basketball.

Good luck to the following and their years of winning zero championships:

Kyrie Irving and the Cavs
Derrick Rose and the Bulls
John Wall and the Wizards
Stephon Curry and the Warriors.
I'll even put Russell Westbrook and the Thunder on the list.

If history proves anything none of those teams will win a championship as long as one of those hogs has the ball all game.

Why do these teams build around these guys?  I might be proven wrong one day, but 60+ years of championships history has to count for something.

I just do not enjoy watching those guys play ball.  Its not good basketball.

Disagree on OKC/Warriors...

Warriors actually look they can contend this year. They looked extremely weak the moment Curry was out... Curry alone scores at least 16+ PPG... They need the offense, as well as his improving defense. And Westbrook... Well, we already know hes a beast.

Yes shoot first point guards aren't necessary, but you can definitely build around Kyrie/Curry/Westbrook easier than you can over Rondo, or Nash.

[McHales Pits]

Though I somewhat agree with your premise, I'd hardly consider Wall and Curry shoot-first PGs considering they are Top-5 Assists per Game players in the NBA this season.

[Phil125]

Though I somewhat agree with your premise, I'd hardly consider Wall and Curry shoot-first PGs considering they are Top-5 Assists per Game players in the NBA this season.

Assits do not matter.  Its the amount of time that ball is in their hands.  Look back the games that The Celtics and Heat play against Rose.  Also the Heat against the Thunder in the Finals.  Good defensive teams do well against that type of player.  And you almost always run into that type in the finals.

[McHales Pits]

Assists don't matter? So you are saying that getting the ball to your teammate when he is in good position to score and he converts is a bad thing?

NBA teams are capitalistic. They put the ball in the hands of their best players.

Would you want Rondo to give the ball to Wallace in crunch time so the ball wouldn't be in his hands?

I think the reason that these type of players struggle for team success is because the offense can become stagnant while teammates watch that aforementioned player try to score in isolation or off of a pick.

My point was solely that Curry and Wall get their teammates involved on a nightly basis. I'd hardly say they are hogging the ball when they are getting teammates easy baskets more than any player in the league not named Chris Paul.

[Vox_Populi]

John Wall is not a "shoot first" point guard. I'd also argue neither is Irving. Both have been on incompetent teams for their brief careers where they were their team's best offensive option. In Wall's case, he's somehow managed to average 8 assists for his career.

Besides as far as point guards go, the generalization surrounding their ability in correlation to a Championship team is that, for the most part, they apparently don't even have to be an All-Star. You might as well include every other top point guard in your list.

[PhoSita]

Shoot-first guards have taken on increased importance since the rules changed in the mid-2000s.  I don't think you can really point to the breadth of NBA history as proof that a team built around that kind of player can't win a title. 

Your argument about the amount of time that the ball spends in the guard's hands doesn't make much sense in light of the fact that LeBron and Kobe dominate the ball and yet they've won plenty of titles.  It's all about how points are generated.  These days, dribble penetration is the easiest way to generate points, and every one of the guys you listed creates offense via great dribble penetration.

Indeed, the Spurs won a title with Tony Parker in 2007 (and came REALLY close again this past year), and Parker is at least as much as a shoot-first guy as some of the guys you listed.

You listed a lot of really good players who are largely on very good teams.  Chances are, a team built around one of these star players is going to win a title eventually.

Also I'd strongly disagree with your classification of Curry and Wall as "shoot first" guards as if they aren't willing or capable passers.  Curry and Wall are both averaging nearly 9 assists per game.

[BballTim]

Assists don't matter? So you are saying that getting the ball to your teammate when he is in good position to score and he converts is a bad thing?

  I think he's saying that if you have the ball in your hands enough you'll get a decent amount of assists even if you're shoot first. Iverson had plenty of 7 apg years, he was definitely shoot first.

[PhoSita]

Assists don't matter? So you are saying that getting the ball to your teammate when he is in good position to score and he converts is a bad thing?

  I think he's saying that if you have the ball in your hands enough you'll get a decent amount of assists even if you're shoot first. Iverson had plenty of 7 apg years, he was definitely shoot first.

The issue, as always, with this points-versus-assists dichotomy is that it fails to account for the possibility that a shot attempt by the point guard might be a higher percentage opportunity than a pass to a teammate.

What matters most is how many points a player generates and how his team's offense performs when he's on the floor. 

If a player regularly looks for his own shot even when a better shot for a teammate is available, that's bad.  If a player looks for their own shot to the point that their teammates no longer attempt to get open for good looks, that's bad too. 

On the other hand, if player isn't a threat to score with the ball in his hands, that allows the defense to focus more on teammates, which takes away good scoring opportunities; that's bad.  Similarly, when a player regularly refuses to look for his own shot and instead passes to a teammate for a lower percentage opportunity, that's bad. 

I can think of at least one popular "pass-first" point guard who is guilty of the latter habit.

[BballTim]

Assists don't matter? So you are saying that getting the ball to your teammate when he is in good position to score and he converts is a bad thing?

  I think he's saying that if you have the ball in your hands enough you'll get a decent amount of assists even if you're shoot first. Iverson had plenty of 7 apg years, he was definitely shoot first.

The issue, as always, with this points-versus-assists dichotomy is that it fails to account for the possibility that a shot attempt by the point guard might be a higher percentage opportunity than a pass to a teammate.

What matters most is how many points a player generates and how his team's offense performs when he's on the floor. 

If a player regularly looks for his own shot even when a better shot for a teammate is available, that's bad.  If a player looks for their own shot to the point that their teammates no longer attempt to get open for good looks, that's bad too. 

On the other hand, if player isn't a threat to score with the ball in his hands, that allows the defense to focus more on teammates, which takes away good scoring opportunities; that's bad.  Similarly, when a player regularly refuses to look for his own shot and instead passes to a teammate for a lower percentage opportunity, that's bad. 

I can think of at least one popular "pass-first" point guard who is guilty of the latter habit.

  Guilty of the latter habit on a regular basis, or guilty on rare occasions like most players are?

  As for whether the pass or the shot is higher percentage, you're more describing why players are shoot first vs pass first than whether they're shoot first or pass first.

[PhoSita]

  Guilty of the latter habit on a regular basis, or guilty on rare occasions like most players are?

  As for whether the pass or the shot is higher percentage, you're more describing why players are shoot first vs pass first than whether they're shoot first or pass first.

- Guilty of the latter often enough to be noteworthy, but far from a constant concern.

- Part of it comes down to the player's particular strengths, and part of it comes down to the skills of teammates.

As far as that goes, I think what's overrated in some circles is the ability of a pass-first point guard to generate high percentage looks for mediocre teammates.  Likewise, what I think is underrated is the positive effect that a talented scoring ball-handler can have on team offense by way of placing pressure on the opposing defense.


Overall, I think what matters is how well a player functions in their role within a team offense and how complementary that role is to the talent on the team.

People often say Westbrook is a detriment to the Thunder because he shoots so much, but I rather doubt that replacing him with a guy who could average 10-12 assists a game would actually improve the Thunder offense.

On the other hand, I think the Bulls might in fact be better off with a talented passer than with Rose (who I consider to be more or less the same player as Westbrook).

[BballTim]

  Guilty of the latter habit on a regular basis, or guilty on rare occasions like most players are?

  As for whether the pass or the shot is higher percentage, you're more describing why players are shoot first vs pass first than whether they're shoot first or pass first.

- Guilty of the latter often enough to be noteworthy, but far from a constant concern.

- Part of it comes down to the player's particular strengths, and part of it comes down to the skills of teammates.

As far as that goes, I think what's overrated in some circles is the ability of a pass-first point guard to generate high percentage looks for mediocre teammates.  Likewise, what I think is underrated is the positive effect that a talented scoring ball-handler can have on team offense by way of placing pressure on the opposing defense.


Overall, I think what matters is how well a player functions in their role within a team offense and how complementary that role is to the talent on the team.

People often say Westbrook is a detriment to the Thunder because he shoots so much, but I rather doubt that replacing him with a guy who could average 10-12 assists a game would actually improve the Thunder offense.

On the other hand, I think the Bulls might in fact be better off with a talented passer than with Rose (who I consider to be more or less the same player as Westbrook).

  Noteworthy doesn't necessarily mean more than average. And I don't really agree about Westbrook, I don't think that it's generally a good thing when a fairly inefficient scorer leads your team in fga.

[Vox_Populi]

Noteworthy doesn't necessarily mean more than average. And I don't really agree about Westbrook, I don't think that it's generally a good thing when a fairly inefficient scorer leads your team in fga.

Generally it isn't. But the way I see it, Westbrook is inefficient so that everyone else, including Durant, doesn't have to be.

[Phil125]

Look at the dynasties:

Lebron's Heat
Kobe's Lakers
Jordan's Bulls
Bird's Celtics

Please somebody find me a point guard.  All 4 of them played a lot of the time without a PG even on the court.

Parker's Spurs and the Magic's Lakers are the exceptions,  But it can be argued that Parker and Magic were not the best players on their teams.

The Pierce Celtics really won the championship with barely a PG.

Championships are won inside/out not outside/in.

[BballTim]

Noteworthy doesn't necessarily mean more than average. And I don't really agree about Westbrook, I don't think that it's generally a good thing when a fairly inefficient scorer leads your team in fga.

Generally it isn't. But the way I see it, Westbrook is inefficient so that everyone else, including Durant, doesn't have to be.

  That must be how he sees it as well.