PDA

View Full Version : Star Point Guards...Overrated?



Eielson
6/9/2010, 02:30 PM
It seems that it's usually "common knowledge" that great teams have great point guards. He touches the ball on every possession, and it makes sense. However, I've watched Derek Fisher led teams beat numerous teams with better point guards. In fact, just this year, his team has already beaten Deron Williams' and Steve Nash's. Throw in Chris Paul and you have what is considered by many to be the best three point guards in the league right now, and they have one thing in common: 0 championships. In fact, I don't think any of them have even made it to the finals. I started thinking deeper, and wondered if Parker and Billups could possibly have been the only "star" point guards to win Championships since Joe Dumars and Isiah Thomas won two championships in the late 80's/early 90's. I compiled a list, and I'm thinking I was right. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of these:

Championship Point Guards:
Ron Harper: 5
Tony Parker: 3
Derek Fisher: 2
John Paxson: 2
Kenny Smith: 2
Avery Johnson: 1
BJ Armstrong: 1
Chauncey Billups: 1
Rajon Rondo: 1
Jason Williams: 1

The only one that could be argued as the best player on his team is Chauncey Billups. Parker was awfully good, but he wasn't as good as Duncan, and that's about it for people even in the realm of being a star point guard. Most of these other point guards are the 4th best player at best, and often the worst starter.

2008-2009 Champions: Lakers
Point Guard: Derek Fisher

2007-2008 Champions: Celtics
Point Guard: Rajon Rondo

2006-2007 Champions: Spurs
Point Guard: Tony Parker

2005-2006 Champions: Heat
Point Guard: Jason Williams

2004-2005 Champions: Spurs
Point Guard: Tony Parker

2003-2004 Champions: Pistons
Point Guard: Chauncey Billups

2002-2003 Champions: Spurs
Point Guard: Tony Parker

2001-2002 Champions: Lakers
Point Guard: Derek Fisher

2000-2001 Champions: Lakers
Point Guard: Ron Harper

1999-2000 Champions: Lakers
Point Guard: Ron Harper

1998-1999 Champions: Spurs
Point Guard: Avery Johnson

1997-1998 Champions: Bulls
Point Guard: Ron Harper

1996-1997 Champions: Bulls
Point Guard: Ron Harper

1995-1996 Champions: Bulls
Point Guard: Ron Harper

1994-1995 Champions: Rockets
Point Guard: Kenny Smith

1993-1994 Champions: Rockets
Point Guard: Kenny Smith

1992-1993 Champions: Bulls
Point Guard: BJ Armstrong

1991-1992 Champions: Bulls
Point Guard: John Paxson

1990-1991 Champions: Bulls
Point Guard: John Paxson

the_ouskull
6/9/2010, 04:12 PM
Good thread.

First of all, based off of how they are currently playing, it's pretty easy to see what would happen if you were to, I don't know, replace Fisher with one of the players you've mentioned so far.

For example, swapping Fisher for Deron Williams would equal about nine more wins for the Lakers, and a lifetime of ridicule for the Jazz of Salt Lake Cit... nevermind that last part.

http://www.queencityhoops.com/playerSwapPage.php

The numbers that BBR comes up with, based solely on WS, are 3.9 wins for Fish, and 10.3 for Williams, which happens to also be how many assists per game he averaged in the playoffs this year.

...but aside from the fact that that's too easy to do, it's a lot easier to attack the logical fallacy of your argument.

Fisher may play point guard for the Lakers, but in all of his time there, he's never once led the team in assists. In fact, pretty much since the championship runs began, Kobe has been the one to lead the team in assists every season. Fisher may "run the offense," but Kobe makes it go. Kobe is a star, and he's his team's best passer - at least statistically. Does this not, in a manner of speaking, make him LA's "star point guard?"

Backing things up 20 years, we have:

- the Pistons under Isiah, the only "great" point guard champion, arguably
- 3 straight Bulls rings, led by Scottie Pippen's roughly 6.5 assists per game over that first run. (as opposed to Paxson's 3.0 assists per)
- 2 straight Rockets rings for which, while Kenny Smith was the starting point guard, starting every game in which he appeared that season, Sam Cassell and Scott Brooks (yes, that one) combined for as many minutes as Smith played. Their assist totals, respectively? 4.2, 2.9, 2.0. None of them led the team in assists. MAD MAX, Vernon Maxwell, was the team leader that season, with 5.1 per game. (The Dream was actually third on that team with 3.1 per game, or, in terms everybody here can more easily understand, more than Tiny Gallon had all last season, only per game. In fact, Mario Elie even had more dimes per game than Cassell did - 3.1 to 2.9.) This team was the definition of "point-guard-by-committee" which allowed the team to run the offense through Hakeem in the low post. Genius. Just ask The Admiral, who is still biting on pump fakes.
- 3 straight Bulls rings, this time with Ron Harper listed as the starting point guard. Yeah, it was Pippen again. Harper's 2.6 assists per game WAS good for fourth, however - and even Rodman out-assisted Steve Kerr.
- the lockout season saw a real point guard come out to play again as Avery Johnson dished out 7.4 dimes per in a lockout-shortened 50 game season, and a playoff run that even saw his scoring average go up by three per game.
- 3 straight Lakers rings with - Ron Harper's 3.4 being good for third on the team, behind Kobe and Shaq; Fisher's 4.4 being good for second behind Kobe (don't get too giddy, Fisher-lovers. Shaq, Brian Shaw, and Rick Fox were the next three names...); and Fisher (injury) and Lindsey Hunter (suck) combining to average only 4.2 per game, and even their combined 4.2 wouldn't have led the team, falling short to Kobe again.
- Tony Parker, with 5.3 per game, almost looked like a real live point guard against Jason Kidd, who was old THEN, and was nine years older than Parker, and looked it.
- Chauncey Billups. He, like everybody else on that team, was not great, but they were all really good, and really committed to winning - together. They were a TEAM. They were, in fact, such a team, that Chauncey Billups, who once scored no points in Norman, became a star, simply by leading them/being their best player.
- Parker again. He's getting warmer.
- Yes, Jason Williams, of the white chocolate variety, was officially the starting point guard... and he averaged 4.9 dimes, which was good for second on the team. But D-Wade was the playmaker of this team. (6.7) And, let's not forget about Gary Payton and his 3.2 per. Future HoF guy, there.
- Parker. By jove, I think he's got it.
- Rajon Rondo wasn't Rajon Rondo yet, but he DID lead the team in assists. Kinda like Kenny Smith led the Rockets in assists, though. Rondo put up 5.1 per. The fourth-place guy, Ray Allen, put up 3.1 per. It was a team effort as the vets showed the rook(ish) with a ton of potential the ropes.
- Fisher, who I've already discussed enough, although now he's finishing third, behind not just Kobe, but also Pau.

It's looking like being paired with an elite PLAYMAKER, not necessarily point guard, is what winning's about... I mean, look at the last 20 years worth of NBA Championships like this and see who stands out to you...

Isiah.
Jordan x 3.
Hakeem x 2.
Jordan x 3.
Tim Duncan.
Shaq x 3.
Duncan.
Chauncey Billups.
Duncan.
D-Wade.
Tony Parker.
Paul Pierce.
Kobe.
?

Chauncey and Parker stand out to me because you can argue that, even when they were the best player on their championship teams, they weren't... (Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, and Rip Hamilton - Duncan and Ginobili)

I'm not sure what all of this means, but I'll bet it gave you a lot of sh*t to ignore. Basically, a team doesn't need a star point guard, but a star playmaker, regardless of their position. Or, going another way with it, look at the same last 20ish championships. Were ANY of those won without a go-to guy? That's why I'll argue all day long that the Piston 2004 team was as good as any championship team I've seen in a long time. Aside from (helping the internal drama to) bumping the Lakers off the perch, they were also a "know-your-role" team. Aside from their two primary handlers, Billups and Hamilton, nobody on the team averaged more than one and a half turnovers per game. And they only averaged about two and a half per.

They defended the sh*t out of you, they didn't turn the ball over, and they played like a total team - no egos. If you round up fractions, (9.6, 9.5, and 9.5) then they had seven players average double-figure scoring. They had 13 players average double-digit minutes, even! They were TEAM, and I was a fan.

Did I mention that they beat the Lakers?

-----

Short Version: Star playmakers are never over-rated, regardless of their position. But, what qualifies someone as a "star" is subjective. The talent around them is usually a big part of that equation.

the_ouskull

Curly Bill
6/9/2010, 06:11 PM
I don't know if you have to have a star point guard to win, but you better have a damn good one. Of course it largely depends on the rest of the cast as well.

Kinda like the old belief you had to have a dominant big man. You really don't - if the rest of the cast is good enough.

the_ouskull
6/9/2010, 07:05 PM
Exactly. It's about how different players complement one another. Then, how they fix that dynamic around their difference-making stars. BAM! Insta-team! If you're a smart point guard that plays good defense and doesn't turn the ball over, and aren't an offensive liability (i.e. - a good eFG% and the ability to get to the rim and/or draw a few fouls) then you'll find a team that wants you. But, if you're that guy, and you're not playing with any other star-caliber players, and - lest we forget - other good complementary players, then you're not going to win it all.

-----

Atl: Bibby is damaged goods now. Too old. Too slow. The rest of the team? Lots of role players, no star. (Spare me the Joe Johnson stuff... his window closed when he left Phoenix. He's a really, really good player, but not great. That could change, but I doubt it. Josh Smith may become a star yet, but I doubt that as well. If it took him five-ish years to learn "not to shoot 3's 'cause I suck at them," then that's akin to Roy Williams discovering the weight room right before his senior season at Tejas. IDIOT!

Bos: Rondo is a burgeoning star. Boston has already won one ring with him, and they're competing for another. Plus, he's had a LITTLE help. Now it's 1 to 3, but two years ago, it was 3 to 1.

Char: I LOVE Gerald Wallace, but he's not a star. I think he's a little too ghetto-minded to become one, too. A.I. was too good not to become one. Wallace is too hard TO become one, I think. Oh, and everybody else on that team blows. If Stephen Jackson is your second-best player, you're not winning sh*t that matters ever.

Chi: No stars. Really, none since Jordan left. Rose has potential, but he's not there yet. Lots of role players, but not enough talent to matter.

Cle: One star. Lots of role players. Too many role players. Batman has no Robin. You can try to sell me Mo Williams all you'd like, but he sucks, and even he has to know it. He's an All-Star like Roman Polanski is a baby sitter. With the team they have now, LeBron won't win a ring there. Shaq five years ago? Ring. Shaq now? Backup center starting 'cause of his legacy.

Dal: One star. One "good-enough" complementary role player in Butler, but the rest of the team ain't it. Sorry Dirk.

Den: No stars. (Sorry Carmelo. D up.) One amazing role player in Chauncey.

Det: The best player on this team might be Joe Dumars in the front office. No stars.

GSW: No stars. Randolph and Curry both have potential, but even then, not to be super stars. Just good, solid role players.

Hou: One star, when he's healthy. He never is. No stars. No rings. Lots of great role players for a star to step right into, though, LeBron. :D

Ind: No stars. Danny Granger was almost there, but then he remembered he was playing for Indy and proceeded to sh*t the bed.

LAC: No stars. Baron Davis' apathy finally caught his age, me thinks. Blake has star potential, but he's yet to dunk on something when it mattered. Eric Gordon? Role player. Kaman? Good, not great, center who was a backup, backup All-Star in an already weakened West.

LAL: Two stars. One really good role player. One good role player. One solid, experienced role player. Great coach. Rings!

Mem: Too many potential stars that think that they're already there. Rudy Gay? Never a star. OJ Mayo? Nope. Randolph? Too late. The most potential on that team lies in the younger Gasol who I think has the potential to become a Aryvdas Sabonis kind of player, only without the size and the 50 years of vodka and cigs before he ever got to the league.

Mia: One star. One bust. (Yeah, I've been saying it...) Even the role players in Miami suck. Sorry, D-Wade. If it was Toronto, we know you'd leave.

Mil: One star. Yeah, Bogut. Welcome to it. He was more than just a role player this season, and his injury KILLED The Deer. Jennings also has the potential to become a star-like player. I don't think he'll ever dominate the league, though. Good, not great. Bogut could become like Sabonis was BEFORE he got to the NBA... when the NBA was scared to death of him.

Min: One star (Jefferson). One quality role player, but not good yet. The potential to be great is there, but he's got to learn to defend over his height. (Love, by the way...)

NJN: Two potential stars in Harris and Lopez, but I think Lopez actually has a chance to get there. Harris will always be outside looking in.

NO: One star. His role players suck.

NYK:

OKC: One star. Lots of role players. One more with star potential, though. We just need bigger, taller role players.

Orl: One star. Howard. (And that's debatable...) Vince Carter is so bad, though, that I think he actually takes stars away from players. Like he's the only one that could have checked Jordan; not by guarding him, but by being his teammate.

Philly: No stars. Iggy has a shot still, but he's not going to get there. Especially not in Philly.

Pho: One star, but barely. It would be two stars if Amare played defense... ever... or if Nash did, for that matter... and, when a team's best two players don't play defense, it's hard for the rest of the team to win when it counts.

Por: Almost a star. Let's see how that injury treated you, Mr. Roy. Oden has star potential. I also think that, at this point, we have to start discussing his Sam Bowie potential, though.

Sac: No stars. Evans can get to the rim at will, but so can a lot of people at the Rucker. Guard someone, sir.

SAS: No stars. Sorry, Tim. The light's out, the party's over. Sorry, too, to you, Manu and Tony. Injuries are a b*tch, yo. Now, moving forward, they both have the potential to be stars, although I don't think that Parker ever will because if he was going to learn how to shoot, he'd have done it already, and I think Manu's getting too old.

Tor: One star. Bosh. Calderon was the player I was thinking of earlier when I was describing the "non-star" point guard, though. But, without quality role players surrounding the star and the completely necessary complementary player(s), it doesn't matter.

Utah: One star. Williams. Boozer is a no-go. Too much Chris Webber in him. AK47 could have been a star in a system like D'Antoni's. He's a life-bust in Utah, though.

Wash: One star. The one they draft. Sorry Agent Zero, but I think you're on your way out of town, and you may not be a star anymore anyway... We'll see, no?

-----

Now go back and look at all of the teams at the beginning of the year that you thought had a shot to win it. How many of them have at least one star, and one good - if not great - complementary player, along with a lot of solid role players? If they didn't, then which team were they, and which players were you over-valuing?

the_ouskull

Eielson
6/9/2010, 09:30 PM
I don't know if you have to have a star point guard to win, but you better have a damn good one.

How many of these point guards do you think of as "damn good?"

Ron Harper: 5
Tony Parker: 3
Derek Fisher: 2
John Paxson: 2
Kenny Smith: 2
Avery Johnson: 1
BJ Armstrong: 1
Chauncey Billups: 1
Rajon Rondo: 1
Jason Williams: 1

Eielson
6/9/2010, 10:04 PM
First of all, based off of how they are currently playing, it's pretty easy to see what would happen if you were to, I don't know, replace Fisher with one of the players you've mentioned so far.

For example, swapping Fisher for Deron Williams would equal about nine more wins for the Lakers, and a lifetime of ridicule for the Jazz of Salt Lake Cit... nevermind that last part.


It's easy to look at the Lakers and think that they would be better with Deron Williams than they would be with Fisher. I'd really have trouble saying you're wrong, but there is an undeniable trend that championship teams generally aren't led by their point guard. There just seems to be something to having your point guard being one of your worst starters. You showed pretty well that all these teams had a great player that made the team go, but the recurring theme was that it wasn't the point guard.

Anyway, it's easy to see why Williams and Paul haven't won any championships yet; they're still young and while having some talent around them, it's not championship material. What about somebody like Nash, though? I know you're fairly big on him, and he still hasn't won a championship. He's been perceived as a top notch point guard for many years, and he's had a ton of talent around him at Dallas and Phoenix. Dallas actually got much closer to winning a championship without Nash than they did with him. I don't know who you see as the best point guards since Isiah Thomas and Joe Dumars won their championships, and I'm not going to even try to guess, but I'm thinking very few of them won championships. Am I wrong?

the_ouskull
6/10/2010, 10:58 AM
How many of these point guards do you think of as "damn good?"

Ron Harper: 5
Tony Parker: 3
Derek Fisher: 2
John Paxson: 2
Kenny Smith: 2
Avery Johnson: 1
BJ Armstrong: 1
Chauncey Billups: 1
Rajon Rondo: 1
Jason Williams: 1

Depending on the particular season, I think that really only Paxson, Armstrong, and (maybe) Williams were never considered "damn good." Harper used to be a 20ppg guy. Parker has a Finals MVP. Fisher was just barely a good enough defender to push him into "good" as opposed to "serviceable" for a while there. His clutch play made him "damn good," though. Kenny Smith was a vital cog in 2 championships, as well as a threat of a player, especially from downtown. Avery was the General; the absolute limits of "serviceable" right before you get into "really good," and played such smart basketball that it allowed him to be a difference-maker, even with his physical limitations. Armstrong? Ha, good one. Billups? Similar to Avery, only he's bumping the "great" door, not the "really good" one. Rondo? Great now. J-Will? Exciting. Dynamic. Never "great."

the_ouskull

stoops the eternal pimp
6/10/2010, 12:42 PM
My knowledge isn't on par with others but here is my opinion..

4 of those "PG's" played in the same offense...Tex Winter's triangle offense under Phil Jackson..the point guard is the least important part of that O IMO...This from Tex Winter


I rejected the idea of relying solely on a point guard to bring the ball up the court and make all the ball-handling decisions. Ultimately, a good defensive opponent will pressure and destroy a team with a single point-guard orientation. A two-guard offense allows players to share the ball handling and passing duties and prevents a defense from ganging up against one player out front

Ron Harper scored over 20 ppg his last season with the Clippers..The next season with the Bulls? 6.9..Also throw in the mix of Lamar Odom and Scottie Pippen bringing the ball up the court, or other players...

I don't think its fair to say those guys weren't good because they played their role the way that it was drawn up to be played...

the_ouskull
6/10/2010, 01:06 PM
Great post.

It's not fair to say that as a blanket statement, no. However, it IS fair to look at those players on an individual basis and ask, "Well, what did they do when they weren't playing in the triangle?" The fact that all of those triangle teams had superstar players; the kinds of players that were going to get you deep in the playoffs anyway, and one of, if not the, best coaches of all time at the helm - with hyper-talented and knowledgeable assistants around him...

It's not just one thing. It's the combination of those things. A superstar alone won't win you a ring. (Right, LeBron, and Jordan before 1991?) Two superstars won't win you a ring without a team around them. (Right, VInce Carter and Jason Kidd in the early 00's? - Although I'll allow that Vince was never actually a superstar; nor was Kidd... let's hear that argument.) Three superstars? Usually a ring. Too much talent to be compensated for defensively. Something has to give.

Superstar, plus really good complementary player; the kind of player that has to be accounted for offensively - a playmaker, plus solid role players - vet or rookie, as long as they play within themselves, don't turn the ball over, and play solid defense, and a good coach - one who won't get embarrassed (sorry, Mike Brown) by a(nother) good coach. That's the formula.

The trick is to be honest about it. It's easy to say that there are lots of championship-caliber teams in the NBA, but are there really? The Celtics won in spite of Doc Rivers, not because of him. Is he really a championship coach? (He got a LOT better as that season went on, and has gotten a lot better since then, too... but he wasn't very good for a while there, to say the least.) I mean, when you're naming championship coaches in the NBA right now, the list isn't very long. Phil. Pop. aaaaaand crickets.

Coaches matter... just like players matter... just like stars matter... just like role players matter... just like, sometimes, things outside of your control matter (sorry, Suns in 2006, when Robert Horry outsmarted your whole - at least the ones that mattered - by hip-checking Nash in front of the bench) too.

It's like I said way back when... It's about putting stars with playmakers. NO star can do it all on their own for an entire season and the playoffs. Teams are too good, the deeper you get; too specialized. Playmakers make the difference. Put LeBron on Chicago? Championship potential. In Houston? Championship potential. There are playmakers in those towns. Not other stars... (sorry, Rose - not yet... good luck with that jumper) ...but other playmakers.

By the way, Ron Harper sucked! (kidding, I loved him with the Clips... maybe their last playoff appearance...)

the_ouskull

stoops the eternal pimp
6/10/2010, 01:48 PM
Do you remember Ron Harper interviews? Those should have never happened

yankee
6/10/2010, 02:02 PM
two words: triangle offense.

the_ouskull
6/10/2010, 03:10 PM
The Spurs don't run the triangle, nor did Rudy T's rockets. They were offenses predicated off of a dominant post player, spot up shooting, slashing wings, and solid perimeter defense and rebounding. They've got six rings in the last 15 years too, sir. The Pistons? Same deal, only they were more about pick and roll offense leading to mismatch situations leading to easy baskets. (The Spurs did a lot of this too, but Duncan was still their focus...) That's seven rings. Celtics last season? That's eight rings. Teams that don't run the triangle win too. It's about the players that were in those triangle offenses. Jordan? Best in the league at the time, and ever. Shaq? Arguably the best in the league during his era, and certainly the most dominant - both big man, and player, period. Kobe? Arguably the best in the league since the Lakers last championship runs. One of the best of all-time.

Only Detroit and Boston, in fact, won with coaches that hadn't been there very long, and both of those teams were so hungry and veteran-loaded that you or I could have guided them to the gold ball. If you want to look at a correlation, look at the correlation between coaching stability and team success. Only in situations where the owners have no incentive to care (GSW, anybody?) do sub-par coaches stick around long enough to matter... That's why so many teams recycle coaches. There aren't that many championship-caliber coaches.

the_ouskull

Scott D
6/10/2010, 05:39 PM
with Detroit it was a right coach for the right mix of players situation the team was veteran enough for Larry Brown to want the job and not try to turn over half the roster.

Scott D
6/10/2010, 05:40 PM
Only in situations where the owners have no incentive to care (GSW, anybody?) do sub-par coaches stick around long enough to matter... That's why so many teams recycle coaches. There aren't that many championship-caliber coaches.

the_ouskull

is this where we start the bring back Doug Moe campaign? ;)