Shoot first Point Guards

[BballTim]

Big men and scorers win championships.   Great distributors are always secondary to big men and scoring.  There's been instances where the best player on a championship team was a PG (Isiah and Magic), but they were also elite scorers.  Magic always averaged 18+ and had a dominant big man/scorer by his side every championship.  Isiah was his team's top scorer on both title teams.

Historically if you had a choice of one position to build around, you'd pick a dominant C.  History shows you can build a contender with very little as long as you have a dominant big man.   

If you're building around an elite passer (like a Rondo), you're going to need several other all-star players on the same level.  If you have a choice, you don't build around a distributor.  Much more important to have a guy who can put the ball in a hoop... rather than having a guy who can pass to a guy who can put the ball in the hoop.

 If you look at the "modern" (Bird/Magic era forward) nba, there have been a small amount of players that led teams to multiple titles. Bird, Magic, Isiah, MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, LeBron. For those keeping score, that's 2 point guards, 2 shooting guards, 2 small forwards, a power forward and 2 centers. If you look at the other 4 titles you'd have Moses, Dirk, KG and Billups. So`that's about as even a split as you can possibly have.  All 5 positions have accounted for between 5 and 8 titles over a 34 or so year period. There's no pattern. There's no dominant position. Only dominant players.

Kobe won nothing without a big man.  (Gasol should have been the finals MVP after the job the Celtics defense did on him)



In fact, he missed the playoffs.


As for the rest, Bird played with Mchale and Parrish.  Magic had Kareem.  Hall of fame big men.  Top 50 NBA players of all time big men. 


And Detroit wins because of the addition of Wallace to Wallace.

  Bird also played with a HOF point guard. It's true that you need a top level big man to win a title. But start naming teams that didn't have top level players that weren't big. You might find a few, just like you'll find some MJ teams without those HOF big men.

  Also, one thing about those bigs that the stars couldn't win without. Players like Parrish, McHale, the Wallaces, Gasol, or Kareem in his 30s. Try and build a team with that big as your best player, your chances of winning a title would be slim at best.

The only player on the list to win without someone else is the Dream.  Unless you think Mad Max was a great player. 



And of course there can be all-star PGs on title teams.  No one said they couldn't. 



The point is, title teams are not built around them.  They are built around the big men unless you can get Jordan or Lebron.   

  They're built around superstar players no matter their size. They aren't built around bigs unless you get a Shaq or Hakeem or Duncan.

[Phil125]

Oh the nit picking according to the list one guy under 6'6" has lead his team to titles Thomas.  And he was not the leading scorer on the title teams.

[BballTim]

Oh the nit picking according to the list one guy under 6'6" has lead his team to titles Thomas.  And he was not the leading scorer on the title teams.

  That's true. Imagine the league if MJ was just an inch or two shorter, he'd have probably retired ringless.

[gpap]

If the premise of this thread is that shoot first point guards never lead teams to championships and/or fail their teams, then I VEHEMENTLY disagree.

I am not sure when shooting the ball in the net became so frowned upon, but I believe you absolutely NEED a shoot first point guard on your team to take over a game.

I am not saying that a guard should NEVER pass the ball. But I am also saying that a point guard should ALWAYS have the grapefruits to knock down a jump shot and be confident he'll make it.

I understand some have become mesmerized with the way Rondo plays but I also feel that saying shoot first point guards never succeed is largely false.

Also, I am not quite sure what this has to do with Derrick Rose. Rose's issues right now is he just can't stay healthy.

[Casperian]

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.

Would you call Rondo a "transcendent" player? How many PGs in the league would you consider transcendent? Following your definition, why have there been far less transcendent point guards than big men in this league, when there are always far less men with "NBA big" size on this planet?

[D.o.s.]

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.

Would you call Rondo a "transcendent" player? How many PGs in the league would you consider transcendent? Following your definition, why have there been far less transcendent point guards than big men in this league, when there are always far less men with "NBA big" size on this planet?

I'm not going to go so far as to put words in Tim's mouth, but my guess is that he's going to say that in the playoffs, when he's healthy, Rondo is a transcendent PG.

[pokeKingCurtis]

Your opinion of Rondo is different from mine. You are wrong.

[Celtics4ever]

Rondo is a great PG in the playoffs.  Go back and watch some of the series.  He had triple doubles all over the place.   Despite being a pass first guy with a dubious shot he impacted games greatly.

Your opinion of Rondo is different from mine. You are wrong.

Just saying a guy is wrong is a pretty weak argument.

[moiso]

Oh the nit picking according to the list one guy under 6'6" has lead his team to titles Thomas.  And he was not the leading scorer on the title teams.

Isiah was the Piston's leading scorer on the title teams, but not by a large margin.

[BballTim]

Your opinion of Rondo is different from mine. You are wrong.

  There's nothing wrong with being wrong, right?

[Moranis]

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.

I've been saying that for years on this board.  PG is the least successful position, even just based on all star appearances of the last 25 years or so, even among teams in the Finals (not just winners but losers as well).

I've hypothesized that.  First, the PG does the most work on both ends of the floor.  Thus, because they work harder they tire more quickly and thus are much less effective down the stretch, which is why you don't want that guy being your main scorer or best player.  Second, because they are so much smaller, they take a lot more damage proportionally than any other position.  That damage equates to lost time and inefficiency when playing.  They are just much more prone to getting hurt and therefore you can't rely on them to play 80+ games and be fully healthy for the playoffs when you need them.

Both of these, as well as some other minor things, lead to the conclusion that you should never build around a PG.  It is just too difficult and the results bear that out (Magic was a physical specimen like no other and Isiah was surrounded by HOFers and thus they are more the exception than the rule).   

[Moranis]

Rondo is a great PG in the playoffs.  Go back and watch some of the series.  He had triple doubles all over the place.   Despite being a pass first guy with a dubious shot he impacted games greatly.

Your opinion of Rondo is different from mine. You are wrong.

Just saying a guy is wrong is a pretty weak argument.

He also has had a number of stinker games in the playoffs.  Not just one or two, but a lot.  Rondo is basically the same player in the playoffs as he is in the regular season on a per minute basis.  He plays more minutes in the playoffs and thus ups his totals (he also shoots a bit more frequently), but he is also much less efficient. 

[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.

Would you call Rondo a "transcendent" player? How many PGs in the league would you consider transcendent? Following your definition, why have there been far less transcendent point guards than big men in this league, when there are always far less men with "NBA big" size on this planet?

  It depends on your definition of transcendent. I've been talking about players like Larry, Magic, MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, LeBron, Isiah and Kobe. He's not on that level, although he's probably capable of playing close to the level of the lesser players in that group (Kobe or Isiah) in the playoffs when he's healthy. He's not a "make your team favorites to win the title" player, more like a "give your team a shot at a title" player. Obviously I'd rather build a team around any of those players than Rondo.

  If you want to know why there are more transcendent big men than point guards, it's simple math. You're comparing all the players at two positions to all the players at 1 position. Are there more transcendent bigs than transcendent guards? Probably not. Are there more transcendent bigs than transcendent wings? Doubtful. Are there more transcendent players at any 2 positions than any single position? Yes.

  As for the fact that there are fewer tall players than smaller players? The nba is somewhat height based, meaning that the taller you are, the bigger your impact for a given skill level. If Bradley and Vitor are equally skilled players then Vitor will have more of an impact on a game. If Rondo was the exact player he is but the size of a center he'd be the best player in the history of the game.

  However, there's never been a center in the history of the game that could handle the ball, pass, or move like Rondo. Many centers have had more of an impact on the game than Rajon in spite of that because their size compensates for their lesser skills. This is why, btw, many people (including myself) consider players like Bird and Magic to be so special. They had tremendous skill levels for their size, the best I've ever seen.

[BballTim]

Rondo is a great PG in the playoffs.  Go back and watch some of the series.  He had triple doubles all over the place.   Despite being a pass first guy with a dubious shot he impacted games greatly.

Your opinion of Rondo is different from mine. You are wrong.

Just saying a guy is wrong is a pretty weak argument.

He also has had a number of stinker games in the playoffs.  Not just one or two, but a lot.  Rondo is basically the same player in the playoffs as he is in the regular season on a per minute basis.  He plays more minutes in the playoffs and thus ups his totals (he also shoots a bit more frequently), but he is also much less efficient.

  Rondo's per minute scoring is just over 12% higher in the playoffs than the regular season. Why don't you give us a list of the 15-20 active players who have had the best playoff careers and then let us know how many of those players have higher increases in per minute scoring, and how many of them have increases in scoring at all.

[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.

I've been saying that for years on this board.  PG is the least successful position, even just based on all star appearances of the last 25 years or so, even among teams in the Finals (not just winners but losers as well).

I've hypothesized that.  First, the PG does the most work on both ends of the floor.  Thus, because they work harder they tire more quickly and thus are much less effective down the stretch, which is why you don't want that guy being your main scorer or best player.  Second, because they are so much smaller, they take a lot more damage proportionally than any other position.  That damage equates to lost time and inefficiency when playing.  They are just much more prone to getting hurt and therefore you can't rely on them to play 80+ games and be fully healthy for the playoffs when you need them.

Both of these, as well as some other minor things, lead to the conclusion that you should never build around a PG.  It is just too difficult and the results bear that out (Magic was a physical specimen like no other and Isiah was surrounded by HOFers and thus they are more the exception than the rule).   

  The results don't bear that out at all. You're looking at all the teams in the finals and marking down which positions the better players play and deciding that the positions that you see the most of is the most valuable. That would make sense if you accounted for the impact transcendent players had on the teams getting to the finals, but you don't.

  For instance, did Pippen enjoy more playoff success than Isiah because he's a SF and not a PG or because his teammate was Jordan? The answer's fairly obvious, but it's exactly the opposite of what your study claims. All you're figuring out is that the players who have the most success are the teammates of superstars.

  What you should look at is the makeup of teams that get to the finals (or conference finals if you need more teams) that *don't* have Bird/Magic/MJ/Shaq/TD/Isiah/Kobe/LeBron. If most of those teams generally have weak point guards then you'll have a point. I don't think you'll find that to be true, though. What you said about the shortcomings of having a pg being one of your best players is probably somewhat true but the benefit of having one of your best players control the ball the most and run the offense is greater than you think.