Would you build your team around this player?

Seems like a no-brainer, but the more I think about the NBA and what it takes to win, I don’t think I’d be willing to build any team around a point guard. The game just doesn’t work that way anymore if you want to win titles.

What’s odd is the league is currently set up to benefit point guards. Look around and you see so many floor generals putting up insane statistics and making highlight reels. You literally can’t (hand) check them on the floor because it’s against the rules. Giving small guys with otherworldly quickness and dexterity this kind of freedom allows them to get to the middle of the floor and do what they do best -- make plays for their teammates or themselves.

And yet, the idea of building your franchise around a point guard scares me.

I’m a fan of the Minnesota Timberwolves. (I’ll wait for your laughter to subside.)

The team I love is essentially waiting for Ricky Rubio to be its savior. But is that even a possibility? Regardless of the potential problems involved in fitting his skill set into the Wolves’ current halfcourt system, it’s hard to believe Rubio can truly lead them to the NBA Finals, even if he can maximize his potential. It just doesn’t seem to happen that way. The Wolves would still need consistent, competent big men to rule the paint and really dynamic scorers on the wing.

If some of the most talented point guards to ever play the game (Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Steve Nash) have never really come that close to winning an the NBA title, how is someone like Rubio or Rose or John Wall supposed to finally break through?

Let’s take a look back at the starting point guards on championship-winning teams over the past 20 years:

- Derek Fisher (fiver times)
- Rajon Rondo (fourth option on the team)
- Tony Parker (three times)
- Jason Williams
- Chauncey Billups
- Avery Johnson
- Ron Harper (three times)
- Kenny Smith (two times)
- B.J. Armstrong
- John Paxson (two times)

While there are some very good players on this list, it’s not exactly a Murderer’s Row of all-time point guards. Other than Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas, you can’t really find many point guards in the past few generations of NBA players that were able to lead their team to the title.

Fisher had Kobe, Pau and Shaq. Rondo had three Hall of Fame players taking the brunt of the workload. Parker had Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili. Jason Williams had … well … a lot of guys on that team ahead of him.

The one possible outlier is Billups, who was named Finals MVP in 2004 and helped the Pistons regain some glory. But was that Pistons team really built around him? Wasn’t it essentially built around Ben Wallace, defensive prowess and buoyed by the midseason acquisition of Rasheed Wallace? Billups ended up being their best player for a few season, but it’s hard to confidently say he was the focal point of those teams.

Ultimately, size still matters most in this league. The Lakers and Celtics had huge frontcourts with a lot of versatility in their recent title seasons. Duncan is probably the best power forward of all time (unless he’s a center, a power center, or a center-forward) and had David Robinson alongside him for a pair of titles. Shaq was still Shaq for his four rings.

You can have a point guard, and even the best point guard, but as Jazz and Hornets fans can see, it doesn’t always get you where you want to go. It seems to me building around the best point guards can be a fun thing to give your fans, but I don’t know it will ever be what they truly want.

I hope this new generation of NBA point guards bucks the trend.

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

This is on espn.com right now and it's a very interesting concept. When you think about the top contending teams in the league right now, the only one that has an all-star PG is Boston. It would definitely be a bonus to have Paul or Parker in the future, but this theory definitely makes you think less of that need. It seems like having a dominant big man and wing takes you to that level of contention more-so than having the right PG. We have the big man in Amare who can continue to lead more and maybe even improve more. If we can add Melo, you would have to be encouraged that we have the right recipe for contention. If Gallo develops into a great 3rd option and borderline all-star, similar to Peja, Hedo, and Lewis, you have to think this is a contender. Felton's not ideal, but as a hard nosed defender and tempo-setter he might be solid. Not sure how true this is, but i am definitely encouraged by our direction of building this team after reading this.

loweyecue wrote:So um, Billups got no ring? Didn't he forget Stockton played in two NBA finals against a loaded Bulls team at its best? That's not coming close to winning the NBA?

JohnWallace44 wrote:The point guard in the triangle offense isn't really a point guard. Kobe and Jordan are really the "lead guard" which is what you should be getting at.

When you look at it in those terms, then you have a group that includes, Kobe, Jordan, Parker, Cassell, Rondo, Wade, Billups...

That's the more accurate way to look at it and this would tell you that building around the lead guard is very much the way to go.

Cassell played point He shared PG when he won rings early in his career. Sam was a combo guard ;) He could play the one or the two.

For every other team, getting a quality point guard is probably the most important position to fill.

The ESPN article also neglects to mention all the teams lead by PG's that made it to repeated conference finals or finals like Stockton, Kidd, and Nash.

Knixkik wrote:

scoshin wrote:Yeah the stats are skewed cause over the past two decades, nearly 80% of the 'ships have been won by one of Jordan, Kobe, or Duncan. The only current players on that level are LeBron and Durant. We just whiffed on one of those, and the other isn't a FA for another 5 years. Plus, 11 of those 'ships were in the triangle offense, where the PG's role is significantly diminished. As for the Spurs, Tony Parker may not be the best player on his team, but he's still an all-star PG and a Finals MVP...and Manu ran point off the bench quite a bit as well.

For every other team, getting a quality point guard is probably the most important position to fill.

The ESPN article also neglects to mention all the teams lead by PG's that made it to repeated conference finals or finals like Stockton, Kidd, and Nash.

I agree with these points, and i think we can see that having a star PG makes you a strong playoff team, but having a star wing player or big man makes you a championship team. I think having a dominant big man is the most important thing. Even Kobe can't do it without one. Only Jordan really could. But most teams have won without a star PG. We have a star big so it is a great start.

Jordan had a very underrated big man named Horace Grant. Horace's WP48 was .347 during his best year. I think you need a good big man to win, and Jordan was no exception to this rule.

Whether the facilitator is played by a PG or a SG or a SF is irrelevant really. You could make the argument that over time players are just getting bigger and stronger... Even now PGs who are 6'4" are not out of the question (actually, it's ideal). I think over time (decades) players will just keep getting taller and stronger, so who fits the 'classic' pg mold will become murky.

In summary I don't agree with the article's conclusions, I think it's just a matter of recent history skewing perceptions. Strong Point Guard play can make massive differences in a teams win column. See Detroit without Billups, the 76ers without Andre Miller, the Nets without Jason Kidd, Utah after Stockton (and before Deron).

knickstorrents wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

scoshin wrote:Yeah the stats are skewed cause over the past two decades, nearly 80% of the 'ships have been won by one of Jordan, Kobe, or Duncan. The only current players on that level are LeBron and Durant. We just whiffed on one of those, and the other isn't a FA for another 5 years. Plus, 11 of those 'ships were in the triangle offense, where the PG's role is significantly diminished. As for the Spurs, Tony Parker may not be the best player on his team, but he's still an all-star PG and a Finals MVP...and Manu ran point off the bench quite a bit as well.

For every other team, getting a quality point guard is probably the most important position to fill.

The ESPN article also neglects to mention all the teams lead by PG's that made it to repeated conference finals or finals like Stockton, Kidd, and Nash.

I agree with these points, and i think we can see that having a star PG makes you a strong playoff team, but having a star wing player or big man makes you a championship team. I think having a dominant big man is the most important thing. Even Kobe can't do it without one. Only Jordan really could. But most teams have won without a star PG. We have a star big so it is a great start.

Jordan had a very underrated big man named Horace Grant. Horace's WP48 was .347 during his best year. I think you need a good big man to win, and Jordan was no exception to this rule.

Whether the facilitator is played by a PG or a SG or a SF is irrelevant really. You could make the argument that over time players are just getting bigger and stronger... Even now PGs who are 6'4" are not out of the question (actually, it's ideal). I think over time (decades) players will just keep getting taller and stronger, so who fits the 'classic' pg mold will become murky.

In summary I don't agree with the article's conclusions, I think it's just a matter of recent history skewing perceptions. Strong Point Guard play can make massive differences in a teams win column. See Detroit without Billups, the 76ers without Andre Miller, the Nets without Jason Kidd, Utah after Stockton (and before Deron).

nixluva wrote:What wins in the NBA is that All World PF/C like Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Howard or having a SG/SF unstoppable scorer type like MJ, Kobe, Wade, Lebron, Durant. We at least have a PF that could be part of a title contending tandem, but we don't have that other guy on the outside that is unstoppable on offense. This is why people really want Melo. He's the only guy left on that level that we could get. CP3 is in that Isiah group so that's why he would make a good title contending PG. That's pretty much it. We get one of those 2 and you have the basic ingredients to the title formula. We just have to see what happens.

Now if you get a guy like Rubio you are probably looking to be more of a Piston type team, cuz he alone isn't on that kind of Isiah/CP3 level. But you could build a heck of a good team with him in there, Amare and some other good players.

Don't forget there are a bunch of young guys coming off their rookie contracts in the future. I am NOT saying we should make all moves to set ourselves up for that at all..just that all is not lost if you whiff on Melo and CP3.

Tyreke Evans, Stephen Curry, Darren Collison, Jennings etc. all did pretty well as rooks and may develop.

knickstorrents wrote:

Knixkik wrote:Just because you're a good big man doesn't mean you will have a good team if there isn't anything else around them. The point is all good teams have all-star big men. Not all good teams have all-star PGs.

I think a better way to put it is - all good teams have good rebounders/shot blockers (who are usually big). All good teams also have good ball handlers/distributors (who can be big or small). Basketball is a big mans game, and the league is trying to equalize it somewhat with the new hand check rules to favor speedy players... but overall basketball favors bigger players. They tend to get the bigger and longer contracts, even if their production is questionable.