Shoot first Point Guards

[nickagneta]

Gotta say that I agree with the OP, but need some clarification. I don't like shoot first PGs but if they are a shoot first PG that can score efficiently, still effectively facilitate an offense, and do not view themselves as the first scoring option, then they can be extremely outstanding PGs.

I don't want my PGs thinking they are the #1 scoring option on a team and so have to shoot or have to score and do so to the detriment of the team's offense all around. The list of shoot first PGs that have done this is very long. I don't want those types of players.

Of those discussed.

Irving is a very good passer and good floor general but he does have that idea that he is his team's number one scoring option and I think it hurts his team. I think its one of the reasons for his statistically okay year but one in which many are thinking he has had a poor year.

Wall, unfortunately, has a bit of the same problem. I think he is a better passer than Irving but not as good as a facilitator but again, goes through long stretches of games where he feels he has to be the team's #1 option even when he doesn't.

Westbrook and Rose, to me, are definitely,"ball hogging, shoot first to the detriment of the team, I will pass the ball and wrack up some assists but its all about my shot first" PGs.

Curry, to me is just a great shooting PG, like Nash. Not necessarily a shoot first PG but a PG that shoots well.

Parker is not a shoot first PG. He is a PG who has learned to shoot better and so has expanded his game to become a more important scoring option, but he doesn't have the shoot first mentality. If Rondo keeps shooting better and his scoring improves, I see him more in this vein. Just a great PG who got better by making their scoring and shooting more efficient.

[Casperian]

It depends on your definition of transcendent.

...which is a label you grant as a badge of achievement after a player has won it all as the best player on his team. Nobody would call Carmelo (or Fat Lever) transcendent at this point.

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.

Well, thank you for the math lesson, Tim, but I was aware of that fact. However, the number of "transcendent" big men exceeds the point guards by a far higher ratio than just 2:1.

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.

So you would agree that under a salary cap you´d get more bang for your buck if you pay $20 million to a good Center instead of a good PG?

Consequently, wouldn´t you also agree that one main advantage of investing in quality big men lies in the fact, that, 5-on-5, you´re winning a more important match-up in any given game?

----------------------------

Generally, I believe the rule changes allowed PGs who formerly would have been considered mediocre at best to look like stars. However, the number of potentially "transcendent" PGs is roughly the same it has always been. Quality is still quality.
In effect, from a team-building perspective, PG has become even more of a "throwaway position", on which production can be much more easily replaced than on any other position.

As for the OP, I would say that in an ideal world, not only scoring point guards, but point guards in general have become somewhat obsolete and are replaced by a third wing who can defend and play off-the-ball, while the ball can be in the hands of your best scorer/ball-handling wing. In my opinion, the teams you listed were somewhat desperate (not that I blame them), and simply took their best chance of getting into the play-offs.

[D.o.s.]

I think Chris Paul will be an interesting proof point for this discussion. Historically, he's swimming against the tide. But:


• He's their franchise player, the best PG in the NBA and he's getting well up the lists of best PGs ever
• He's their second leading scorer
• He's an excellent two-way player, and a game-changer on each end
• He's playing for a championship coach
• He has a talented supporting cast, including pure scorers, shooters, and one of the best frontcourts in the league that doesn't include the team's respective franchise player

I don't see the Clips as a championship team, but I guess my point is: if Paul can't do it under these conditions, who can?

Chris Paul is still behind, at a minimum, Magic, O, Isiah, Stockton, Cousy, Payton, Kidd, and probably Steve Nash as far as the argument over best point guards of all time go.

By that I mean that his resume doesn't stack up to any of those guys yet. He needs either an MVP or a ring to get into that conversation (although for my money he's the best point guard in the league right now).

Also, "one of the best frontcourts in the NBA that doesn't include the team's franchise player."

So Jordan and Blake don't constitute a high-quality frontcourt unless you don't compare them to any high-quality frontcourts. Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me. The same way Kwame Brown was the best number one draft pick in league history, if you don't compare him to any number one draft picks that are better than him.

Got it.

[BballTim]

It depends on your definition of transcendent.

...which is a label you grant as a badge of achievement after a player has won it all as the best player on his team. Nobody would call Carmelo (or Fat Lever) transcendent at this point.

 No, more for people who were the best player on multiple title teams. Not sure why it bothers you that I'd call players like that transcendent, although it makes me a little ill putting Kobe in the list.

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.

Well, thank you for the math lesson, Tim, but I was aware of that fact. However, the number of "transcendent" big men exceeds the point guards by a far higher ratio than just 2:1.

  So not only do you not come up with a definition of transcendent players, you don't even come up with a list of transcendent players. But based on that you proclaim that the number of transcendent big men exceed the number of transcendent point guards by many multiples. Too funny. Let's hear your list of transcendent bigs and point guards, the people who are and aren't on the list should be interesting to say the least.

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.

So you would agree that under a salary cap you´d get more bang for your buck if you pay $20 million to a good Center instead of a good PG?

  You get the most bang for your buck by paying the money to the player that will have the biggest impact on the game. Pau makes more money than CP, I'd rather pay CP than Pau. Kevin Love makes the same as Westbrook, I'd probably lean towards KL.

  What I meant above was, for instance, compare Dwight Howard to Chris Paul. If you evaluated the players based on their skill level on all basketball skills (shooting, rebounding, ball-handling, passing, whatever) CP would dust him. However, DH can impact a game as much as CP because even though he's less skilled he's bigger. But if they both have a similar impact on the game then it's not clearly better to have one than the other.

Consequently, wouldn´t you also agree that one main advantage of investing in quality big men lies in the fact, that, 5-on-5, you´re winning a more important match-up in any given game?

  It's not that any particular matchup is the most important, it's how badly you win the matchup. In 2008 Perk probably won the center battle vs Bynum/Odom and Rondo won the pg matchup vs Fisher, but neither were as important to us as the SF matchup where PP was much better than Walton or Sasha.

[Vox_Populi]

Chris Paul is still behind, at a minimum, Magic, O, Isiah, Stockton, Cousy, Payton, Kidd, and probably Steve Nash as far as the argument over best point guards of all time go.

By that I mean that his resume doesn't stack up to any of those guys yet. He needs either an MVP or a ring to get into that conversation (although for my money he's the best point guard in the league right now).

Which is shame because he should have had an MVP in the 07-08 at least, and he's probably better than everyone on that list barring Stockton, Magic, Thomas, and maybe Robertson.

The good news is that he isn't very old and his game isn't based around athleticism or penetration. If he fails to win as his team's best player, maybe he'll land on a contender in his mid 30s and win something. Happened to Kidd, could happen to him too. 

[LarBrd33]

Moranis, you're going to be told that Rondo was not the 4th best player on that team, with no regard for the fact that 3 veteran HOFers were brought together that year to win a championship, and Rondo was fortunate enough to land in an ideal situation for talented young passer & defender. Wait for it....

  Rondo was the 4th best player on the 2008 title team. In 2010 KG was far from healthy. Look at the stats for the 4 players in the playoffs:

PP: 19/6/3
RA: 16/3/3
KG: 15/7/3
RR: 16/6/9

  Considering that Rondo (iirc) had the best +/- of the four as well, it's probably easier to make a case he was the best and not the worst. Also, his play dropped somewhat after the middle of the Magic series when he picked up an injury, before that all of the numbers were skewed more  in his direction (he was probably something like 17/7/11).

And they didn't win that year.

  That's true. Rondo picked up a leg injury during the Magic series. Up until that point they had dispatched the best team in the league (with the best player in the league) and were in the process of sweeping the Magic. After that they weren't the same team.

Boston's mini run was all about dominant defense.  Rondo was not the best player on our 2010 team.  You take Rondo off that team, our defense still flourishes and Pierce still scores the ball.  You take Pierce off the team, it struggles to score.  You take KG off that team, the defense falls apart.  Proven fact.


I agree with you that stats seem to suggest Rondo was the best player on that team, but it's not really telling the whole story.  When it comes to win shares, defensive rating and just common knowledge of the 2010 Boston Celtics... KG remained the most important player on that team. 

[BballTim]

Moranis, you're going to be told that Rondo was not the 4th best player on that team, with no regard for the fact that 3 veteran HOFers were brought together that year to win a championship, and Rondo was fortunate enough to land in an ideal situation for talented young passer & defender. Wait for it....

  Rondo was the 4th best player on the 2008 title team. In 2010 KG was far from healthy. Look at the stats for the 4 players in the playoffs:

PP: 19/6/3
RA: 16/3/3
KG: 15/7/3
RR: 16/6/9

  Considering that Rondo (iirc) had the best +/- of the four as well, it's probably easier to make a case he was the best and not the worst. Also, his play dropped somewhat after the middle of the Magic series when he picked up an injury, before that all of the numbers were skewed more  in his direction (he was probably something like 17/7/11).

And they didn't win that year.

  That's true. Rondo picked up a leg injury during the Magic series. Up until that point they had dispatched the best team in the league (with the best player in the league) and were in the process of sweeping the Magic. After that they weren't the same team.

Boston's mini run was all about dominant defense.  Rondo was not the best player on our 2010 team.  You take Rondo off that team, our defense still flourishes and Pierce still scores the ball.  You take Pierce off the team, it struggles to score.  You take KG off that team, the defense falls apart.  Proven fact.

  Let me guess. You took this word for word from your explanation about why Rondo wasn't instrumental in our 2012 run and how the team would have no trouble in last year's playoffs without him.

  In 2010 we scored (rough calculation) 98 a game up until Rondo's injury, 89 a game after it. Our offense didn't flourish without Rondo in those playoffs, game 7 in the finals is a testament to that proven fact.

[Moranis]

A transcendent player is a player that has won multiple titles as his teams best player.  There can be exceptions for multiple time league MVP winners with numerous finals appearances, but those are rare.

Thus, there are 3 active transcendent players IMO, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, and Lebron James (I would have argued he was transcendent before the title, based on all the MVP's and overall team success even without the title, but he is cemented now).  Shaquille O'Neal is the most recent transcendent player to retire.  Before him you had Jordan and Hakeem.  I would have listened to arguments for Karl Malone.  No other player with a large portion of their career in the 90's or later is a transcendent player (and that includes KG who for all the individual success had no team success during his prime). 

[ssspence]

Also, "one of the best frontcourts in the NBA that doesn't include the team's franchise player."

So Jordan and Blake don't constitute a high-quality frontcourt unless you don't compare them to any high-quality frontcourts. Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me. The same way Kwame Brown was the best number one draft pick in league history, if you don't compare him to any number one draft picks that are better than him.

Got it.

Right. San Antonio probably has a better front court than LAC. OKC probably has a better frontcourt LAC. But neither of those teams is built around Chris Paul -- they're built around those front court players.  San Antonio and OKC are built around the strengths of Duncan (a PF) and Durant (a SF) respectively. LAC is built around the strengths of Paul, a PG and already, easily, one of the best of all time. So it's a good test of building around a PG, considering he's amazing and their front court is good.

How is this complicated again?

[Casperian]

So not only do you not come up with a definition of transcendent players, you don't even come up with a list of transcendent players. But based on that you proclaim that the number of transcendent big men exceed the number of transcendent point guards by many multiples. Too funny. Let's hear your list of transcendent bigs and point guards, the people who are and aren't on the list should be interesting to say the least.

It was you who used the word "transcendent" to describe players you can build around, just like it was you who used the word "player of given skill level" to make your point. Those wishy-washy terms can mean anything. It´s why I put the word in quotation marks. It´s the reason why I formulated my post in questions.

Don´t try to turn it around and put the onus on me to explain your arbitrary definitions.

You get the most bang for your buck by paying the money to the player that will have the biggest impact on the game.

Self-explanatory. It´s still wishy-washy.

What is "impact", Tim? Is it only definable with the term "given skill level"?

What I meant above was, for instance, compare Dwight Howard to Chris Paul. If you evaluated the players based on their skill level on all basketball skills (shooting, rebounding, ball-handling, passing, whatever) CP would dust him. However, DH can impact a game as much as CP because even though he's less skilled he's bigger. But if they both have a similar impact on the game then it's not clearly better to have one than the other.

So, you´re saying a 7ft passer would impact the game more than a 6ft passer with the same "skill level"? And let me guess, "skill level on all basketball skills" is all those levels put together, divided by their amount, to give you one giant meta level?  Don´t you think you´re simplifying things a bit too much, here?

It's not that any particular matchup is the most important, it's how badly you win the matchup. In 2008 Perk probably won the center battle vs Bynum/Odom and Rondo won the pg matchup vs Fisher, but neither were as important to us as the SF matchup where PP was much better than Walton or Sasha.

If we follow your definition, and considering the amount of productive point guards in the league, you´re effectively arguing against max money for point guards, as the gap in production between the 5th and, say, the 20th PG is a lot smaller than on any other position, but you`d still pay them the same percentage of your total cap room as you would a comparable big guy.

[byennie]

Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency, and some leadership. Point guards can win by scoring, by passing, and by playing defense. But if they are going to have the ball in their hands, they need to turn it into an efficient offense. That's why dominant big men are much more likely to lead to championships - they all are high efficiency players who shoot high percentages and give you more possessions via blocks, rebounds, and few turnovers. More possessions, more conversions... win games.

At the end of the day, basketball is won by scoring more points which only happens two ways - getting more possessions or scoring more points per possession. A point guard influences this with his decisions just as much as with his talent.

Wal and Irving are both very good players, probably good enough to play PG for a championship team, but on the same token they could learn a thing or two from Tony Parker (for example), and they could both increase their chances significantly by becoming real leaders and defenders.

[BballTim]

So not only do you not come up with a definition of transcendent players, you don't even come up with a list of transcendent players. But based on that you proclaim that the number of transcendent big men exceed the number of transcendent point guards by many multiples. Too funny. Let's hear your list of transcendent bigs and point guards, the people who are and aren't on the list should be interesting to say the least.

It was you who used the word "transcendent" to describe players you can build around, just like it was you who used the word "player of given skill level" to make your point. Those wishy-washy terms can mean anything. It´s why I put the word in quotation marks. It´s the reason why I formulated my post in questions.

Don´t try to turn it around and put the onus on me to explain your arbitrary definitions.

You get the most bang for your buck by paying the money to the player that will have the biggest impact on the game.

Self-explanatory. It´s still wishy-washy.

What is "impact", Tim? Is it only definable with the term "given skill level"?

What I meant above was, for instance, compare Dwight Howard to Chris Paul. If you evaluated the players based on their skill level on all basketball skills (shooting, rebounding, ball-handling, passing, whatever) CP would dust him. However, DH can impact a game as much as CP because even though he's less skilled he's bigger. But if they both have a similar impact on the game then it's not clearly better to have one than the other.

So, you´re saying a 7ft passer would impact the game more than a 6ft passer with the same "skill level"? And let me guess, "skill level on all basketball skills" is all those levels put together, divided by their amount, to give you one giant meta level?  Don´t you think you´re simplifying things a bit too much, here?

  This doesn't seem to be overly productive. You seem to take issue with the fact that I use "terms" that don't have "exact meanings". I can see why that would bother you. In the interest of common courtesy you'll probably want to go back over your old posts and explain exactly what you mean every time you used terms like "good", "bad", "elite", "skilled", or anything similar, then we can start on that post of mine.

  If there's a particular reason you're questioning my use of the terms then that's another story. I used the term transcendent to describe a group of players. Do you think they aren't? (btw, if you say "Kobe" I won't argue much) I also said that you're much more likely to build a title team around players of that level, no matter the position, than you are building around a lesser player at any particular position. Do you disagree? I also claimed that Chris Paul was more skilled than Dwight Howard. Maybe you disagree with that?

  Another btw, but you keep claiming that there are vastly more transcendent bigs than transcendent point guards without giving so much as a list of which bigs and point guards you consider to be transcendent players. What's the deal with that?

It's not that any particular matchup is the most important, it's how badly you win the matchup. In 2008 Perk probably won the center battle vs Bynum/Odom and Rondo won the pg matchup vs Fisher, but neither were as important to us as the SF matchup where PP was much better than Walton or Sasha.

If we follow your definition, and considering the amount of productive point guards in the league, you´re effectively arguing against max money for point guards, as the gap in production between the 5th and, say, the 20th PG is a lot smaller than on any other position, but you`d still pay them the same percentage of your total cap room as you would a comparable big guy.

  How exactly are you measuring the relative production of players and the gap in production between players? What kind of evidence do you have that the gap's a lot smaller for point guards than for all other positions?

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

The way this debate is playing its as though winning a championship can only be done by following 1 orthodox, irrefutable formula and the two sides are tryin to prove that their viewpoint is that 1 orthodox irrefutable formula.

[crimson_stallion]

So many people argue that you cannot build a team around a pass first PG like Rondo, and argue that we could never be a contender if Rondo is the best or second best player on our team.

First of all, I'd like to know how we define a "contender".  Personally, I'd define a "contender" as a team that either makes the finals or the conference finals - basically a top 2 team in their conference and a legit chance at a title.

I'm going to go out on a limb and bring John Stockton and Jason Kidd into the equation here.

John Stockton was the stereotypical pass-first PG. In fact Stockton was a lot like Rondo in a lot of ways in that he was an exceptional floor general, was tough mentally and physically, and was an excellent defender as well as a capable(if not elite scorer).  The big difference between the two is that Rondo is a far better rebounder than Stockton was, while Stockton was a far better shooter than Rondo is.  Other than this they are pretty close.  Now Utah made multiple NBA finals appearances with Stockton as their second best player (behind Malone) and if you look at the other guys on that team...their talent was not that impressive.  Yet still that Utah team made the playoffs every year that those two guys were together, and were one of the most deadly teams in the NBA for a good 15-20 years.

Jason Kidd joined the New Jersey Nets and turned what was one of the worst teams in the league into a contender pretty much overnight. Jason Kidd was arguably even more like Rondo as a player than Stockton was because Kidd was more athletic, a pretty mediocre shooter, and an elite rebounder by PG standards.  Now you could argue back an fourth about who was the best player on the Nets NBA Finals team (Kidd or Vince Carter) but Kidd was certainly the second best player at the very least, and every guy on hat team was better when Kidd was around.  His leadership and ability to set everybody up for their perfect shots made everybody on the team better, so opponents had to defend everybody (not just the star).

Now I will admit right now that neither the Nets nor Jazz ever won a title with Kidd / Stockton on their rosters, however they both made the finals at least one time and they both were scary good teams during their times. 

That's not to say that building around a shoot first PG is necessarilly a better method - guys like Tim Hardaway dominated in their own ways back then - I'm only saying that you shouldn't write off the value of a great PG, because a team with a great pass first PG (as long as they have a star scorer by their side) can be truly elite.

Deron Williams in Utah was another example.  Those Utah teams were great for a while when he was there, and that 1-2 punch of Williams and Boozer was very effective.

So what I'm basically saying here is that you CAN build a franchise around a guy like Rondo.  All you need to do is add one more star player and you are potentially there.  With all the picks and expiring contracts we have over the next few years, we'll have every opportunity to do that.