Shoot first Point Guards

[BballTim]

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.

  Kobe's dynasty wasn't any greater than Isiah's. And you might not have heard of Dennis Johnson, he was a pretty decent pg in his day.

[Fafnir]

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.

Westbrook isn't even all that inefficient, even his chucking of 3s is roughly around break even line. He definitely plays ugly though.

[wdleehi]

You have to go back to the 80's to find teams winning titles with the best player being a PG. 


Parker, while a great PG, played with Duncan. 




It is really hard to build a title contender around the smallest position on the court. 

[D.o.s.]

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.

Kobe wasn't the best player on his team for their three-peat.

And if your definition of a "dynasty" is a pair of Finals wins, then I think you need to rethink the term.

At any rate, the whole premise of this thread is flawed. Championships are determined by the talent on the floor, regardless of the position. With so few talented wings and big men, and so many top shelf point guards, we'll most likely be looking at a team winning the Finals lead by a scoring point guard in the next few years. Past performance does not indicate future results.

[Phil125]

Kobe wasn't the best player on his team for their three-peat.

And if your definition of a "dynasty" is a pair of Finals wins, then I think you need to rethink the term.

I knew I'd get some comments for putting Lebron on there. They are a good team with no PG though.

Also yes DJ was a decent PG but he was maybe the 6th best player on those teams.

[D.o.s.]

I agree with you, but I think that you're really talking about ball dominant scorers, rather than shoot first point guards.

Rose's Bulls got stifled in the playoffs not because he was the point, but because the Heat could throw LeBron on him. Carmelo's suffered the same way since he came to the Knicks. We saw Durant go through the same thing in the playoffs last year without Westbrook--which is why I'd argue that, if the Thunder are going to go all the way, they need both of those guys.

[BballTim]

You have to go back to the 80's to find teams winning titles with the best player being a PG. 


Parker, while a great PG, played with Duncan. 




It is really hard to build a title contender around the smallest position on the court.

  Since the early 80s there's been a fairly small number of players who have been the best player on the bulk of the title teams. Position-wise, the distribution is pretty even. There aren't really any positions that are inherently easier to build title teams around than others because the best way to build a title team is to get a superstar, not a player at a certain position.

[BballTim]

Kobe wasn't the best player on his team for their three-peat.

And if your definition of a "dynasty" is a pair of Finals wins, then I think you need to rethink the term.

I knew I'd get some comments for putting Lebron on there. They are a good team with no PG though.

Also yes DJ was a decent PG but he was maybe the 6th best player on those teams.

  None of DJ's title winning teams contained 5 players that were better than him.

[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.

Westbrook isn't even all that inefficient, even his chucking of 3s is roughly around break even line. He definitely plays ugly though.

  Whenever I look at lists of top scorers or players who take the most shots Westbrook is at or near the bottom in terms of efficiency among them.

[wdleehi]

You have to go back to the 80's to find teams winning titles with the best player being a PG. 


Parker, while a great PG, played with Duncan. 




It is really hard to build a title contender around the smallest position on the court.

  Since the early 80s there's been a fairly small number of players who have been the best player on the bulk of the title teams. Position-wise, the distribution is pretty even. There aren't really any positions that are inherently easier to build title teams around than others because the best way to build a title team is to get a superstar, not a player at a certain position.

I am talking best player on the team.



It is the easiest with a big man as the best player on the team.  (The Dream, Shaq, Duncan, KG, Gasol, Dirk)

Then a swing man that was the best player in the league (Jordan, Kobe and Lebron)

[ssspence]

Objectively speaking, the results of building a team around a PG, much less a 'pass first' PG, have not been strong from a championship perspective.

Those on Csblog who choose to eschew that reality tend to be Rondo fans that just don't want to hear it. But it should (and presumably for the front office will) be a consideration as this team makes major decisions between now and the end of Rondo's current deal. I think the Cs will have to feel very strongly about finding a star player in the short term in order to keep Rondo through his prime, instead of using him -- their best asset -- in trade to locate that star.

[wdleehi]

Objectively speaking, the results of building a team around a PG, much less a 'pass first' PG, have not been strong from a championship perspective.

Those on Csblog who choose to eschew that reality tend to be Rondo fans that just don't want to hear it. But it should (and presumably for the front office will) be a consideration as this team makes major decisions between now and the end of Rondo's current deal. I think the Cs will have to feel very strongly about finding a star player in the short term in order to keep Rondo through his prime, instead of using him -- their best asset -- in trade to locate that star.

The best thing that could happen to the Celtics is to pick that other star player to go with Rondo in this upcoming draft.

[ssspence]

Objectively speaking, the results of building a team around a PG, much less a 'pass first' PG, have not been strong from a championship perspective.

Those on Csblog who choose to eschew that reality tend to be Rondo fans that just don't want to hear it. But it should (and presumably for the front office will) be a consideration as this team makes major decisions between now and the end of Rondo's current deal. I think the Cs will have to feel very strongly about finding a star player in the short term in order to keep Rondo through his prime, instead of using him -- their best asset -- in trade to locate that star.

The best thing that could happen to the Celtics is to pick that other star player to go with Rondo in this upcoming draft.

I tend to agree. Though, a) if it appears the Cs won't get a high draft choice in the 2014 draft before the 2014 trade deadline; or b) they don't end up with one at draft time; i think they'll consider dealing Rondo.

[BballTim]

You have to go back to the 80's to find teams winning titles with the best player being a PG. 


Parker, while a great PG, played with Duncan. 




It is really hard to build a title contender around the smallest position on the court.

  Since the early 80s there's been a fairly small number of players who have been the best player on the bulk of the title teams. Position-wise, the distribution is pretty even. There aren't really any positions that are inherently easier to build title teams around than others because the best way to build a title team is to get a superstar, not a player at a certain position.

I am talking best player on the team.



It is the easiest with a big man as the best player on the team.  (The Dream, Shaq, Duncan, KG, Gasol, Dirk)

Then a swing man that was the best player in the league (Jordan, Kobe and Lebron)

  I'm talking about the best player on the team as well. In what way is it easier to build around Shaq or Duncan or Hakeem than it was around Magic? How much easier was it to build around KG or Dirk than Isiah? And whichever Gasol you're talking about was only the best player on his team in Memphis.

[BballTim]

Objectively speaking, the results of building a team around a PG, much less a 'pass first' PG, have not been strong from a championship perspective.

Those on Csblog who choose to eschew that reality tend to be Rondo fans that just don't want to hear it.

  The people on celticsblog who push that reality tend to be people who don't understand that title teams are built around transcendent players and it's silly to draw any other conclusions from the roster. Sure, you don't need any particular kind of point guard if you have LeBron  or Shaq or Duncan, but if you don't have a LeBron or Shaq or Duncan then your team's equally unlikely to win a title whether you build around a point guard or wing or big.