basketball talk - The assist - overblown and overrated?

[Goran Dragic]

Since everyone is whining about basketball talk, I'm making a legitimate thread that will bring about discussion. Please, no trolling in this thread, it is meant to discuss a topic.

Countless players in the past and in recent years have gotten tons of credit for being able to take over games with their passing and "creating" ability. Countless players have been trashed for looking to score too much and not creating for their teammates as much as they should. On the flip side, you never see a player get criticized for looking to get assists too much instead of looking to score. The "pass first" PG gets exponentially more praise than the scoring PG as the "true PG".

Below is a list of all the championship teams in the last 20 years, with their regular season and playoff assists leaders (with their assist average).


regular season playoffs
91 Bulls Pippen (6.2) Jordan (8.4)
92 Bulls Pippen (7.0) Pippen (6.7)
93 Bulls Pippen (6.3) Jordan (6.0)
94 Rockets Maxwell (5.1) Olajuwon (4.3)
95 Rockets Cassell (4.9) Drexler (5.0)
96 Bulls Pippen (5.9) Pippen (5.9)
97 Bulls Pippen (5.7) Jordan (4.8)
98 Bulls Pippen (5.8) Pippen (5.2)
99 Spurs Johnson (7.4) Johnson (7.4)
00 Lakers Bryant (4.9) Bryant (4.4)
01 Lakers Bryant (5.0) Bryant (6.1)
02 Lakers Bryant (5.5) Bryant (4.6)
03 Spurs Parker (5.3) Duncan (5.3)
04 Pistons Billups (5.7) Billups (5.9)
05 Spurs Parker (6.1) Parker (4.3) (it should be noted Manu averaged 4.2)
06 Heat Wade (6.7) Wade (5.7)
07 Spurs Parker (5.5) Parker (5.8)
08 Celtics Rondo (5.1) Rondo (6.6)
09 Lakers Bryant (4.9) Bryant (5.5)
10 Lakers Bryant (5.0) Bryant (5.5)


So since 1991, a grant total of 1 player has averaged 7+ assists in the regular season and playoffs on a championship team. Note that this was done in a shortened season on a team that won a title with a slightly above average offense, and it was done by a role player playing with two future HOF big men. Basically, it would be a stretch to say Avery Johnson's ability to create shots for Tim Duncan and David Robinson was key to the Spurs' title run in 1999.

Excluding AJ, only 1 other player has averaged 6+ assists in the regular season and in the playoffs on a championship team ('92 Pippen). In this situation it is actually arguable to say Pippen's passing was important for the Bulls since they were the best offensive team in the NBA, and they had a limited amount of players who could create outside of Jordan and Pippen.

Just looking at this list, Pippen and Billups are the only players on this list who some would say "looked to create" and who were also major pieces on their team. Guys like Rondo and AJ were at best the 4th option on their team, and guys like Bryant, Parker, Wade, and Jordan etc. are considered players who looked to score before they looked to create.

This is supposed to beg the following questions:

Is the "assist" an overrated statistic, and is a player who averages 9+ assists really doing his team and teammates the favor people say he is?

Why do players (in particular point guards) who go after assists instead of points get so much credit for being "unselfish" and "wanting their team to win", when that style of play has had very little success in recent years?

Furthermore, why do players (in particular PG's and SG's) who look to score before they look to create get labeled as selfish teammates who put their personal stats before wanting the team to win, when it's almost always a score first player holding up the trophy in June?

Lastly, are getting tons of assists and being a great passer as intertwined as people think? Is a player who can get assists using his ability to draw defensive attention but can't make a simple entry pass or find teammates iso'ed against a mismatch really a "good" passer? Is someone who isn't good enough to draw defenders away from teammates but can make pinpoint entry passes and set players up for iso's just as good as if not a better passer than volume assist players?

This is my contribution to "better basketball discussion". Take it for what you will.

[thedong]

It's not about assist, it's more about the role of ''dominant point guards'' to ever lead their team to a championship.

Since Isiah and Magic, no PG has able to lead his team into a championship.

[Ashy Larry]

I thought it was always an overrated stat. As much as I loved watching Magic and his passes in the 80s, most of his assists seems like they came from ..........

Magic dribbling the ball up the court, dumps it into Kareem or Worthy, skyhook or baseline spin, basket.

Hell, there were times in the early 80s when Magic and Norm Nixon would average double digits assists while being on the same squad.

[timvp]

Good post. I've posted the same numbers in the past when Spurs fans were whining about Tony Parker not being a "true point guard". There's nothing as overrated as a "true point guard". In the last 20 years, how many true point guards won a championship? Maybe one if you count AJ. Billups and Rondo evolved into true point guards but they won championships when they were still learning the position.

Why don't true point guards win championships more often? IMO, it's much easier to shut down a great passer than it is to shut down a great scorer. Over the course of a seven-game series, good defensive teams adjust and start dictating the passing lanes available.

A team with a true point guard has a defined head of the snake. You cut off the head of the snake and the rest of the team dies. On the other hand, teams with multiple players that can create offense for themselves or others are much more difficult to contain.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

lol assists.



Seriously though, nice work. As a stat for an individual player yes, I think that assists are overrated as a metric of their overall value. A person putting up a lot of assists is not too different from someone putting up a lot of points. It's not inherently indicative that they are a great player or make a huge impact on wins and losses, just that that person tends to have the ball in their hand a lot.

However as an indicator of an entire team's overall offensive efficiency I think assists can say a lot.

Really what I think you've zeroed in on is an overarching trend in sports spearheaded by stat geeks like Hollinger. Is someone with a lot of blocks and steals an inherently "good" defender? Maybe, maybe not. There's still too many games and players in the league to be really informed about every facet of the game, but with the magic of the information age it's possible to crunch enough numbers to feel like you are.

[JamStone]

Interesting stats.

I don't think the "assist" itself is an overrated stat. But I do think a ball-dominating player who averages 10+ assists a game can be an overrated asset. What I see when I look at those championship teams and assist leaders is that those teams had multiple players who could facilitate the offense, from Jordan and Pippen to Kobe and Shaq to Duncan and Parker and Ginobili. The only team that had one dominant facilitator might have been the Pistons with Billups and it was more of a product of his teammates not being facilitators than him actually being a great one. I think as NBA basketball has evolved, especially with defenses, it's hard to put the vast majority of offensive responsibility on only one player. Now, it's one thing to have a LeBron or a Kobe or a Wade on your team, but having at least one other above average facilitator goes a long way into team success because defenses can't only focus on shutting down one player.

I think there's still great value in the "assist." But I think the value shows more when there are multiple players on a team that can facilitate and rack up assists, when defenses try to shut down one of those guys.

[gaKNOW!blee]

A lot of the high assist guys are ball dominant players, so they might get a lot of assists but how many passes did it take for them to get it.

The top scorers like Kobe Wade and Lebron also dominate the ball, but they aren't relying on other people to score the points so its much more efficient.

[Cane]

Championships aren't won through assists or any single stat other than winning 4 times before the other team does. Championship teams generally have great passing big men (that can also command double teams on offense and are a force defensively) in addition to having other decent playmakers and passers on the perimeter. It helps to have a balanced roster so teams can't just zero in on a playmaker like the Spurs did to LeBron in 2007.

Assists only tell you some of the story anyway since there are plenty of great passes and looks that are created but aren't converted due to misses, players passing up their open shots, turnovers, etc.

[lefty]

Good thread


This is a tricky one


- Regarding Avery Johnson, I believe he has held, at some point, an NCAA division assist record in a single game, depite not playing with HOF's back then.

- When talking about Pippen, Jordan, Kobe, it's importante to keep in mind that they have played in the triangle offense, a system that allows sharing the ball, involving everyone.
I'm not saying they are not great passers, but heck, even Luc Longley could dish it out in Tex Winter's offense

- The fact that the statical leaders in assists haven't won a lot of titles sunce 1991 has more to do with who they are surrounded with than anything else. Before 1991, Magic played with a great Laker team, and Isiah had plenty of scorers around him.
Stockton had Malone, who has choked in the NBA Finals, Kidd has played on average teams outside of New Jersey, and the Nets were to weak in the paint to stop Shaq, Duncan and Robinson; Nash has been playing on a very poor defensive team

- " Lastly, are getting tons of assists and being a great passer as intertwined as people think? Is a player who can get assists using his ability to draw defensive attention but can't make a simple entry pass or find teammates iso'ed against a mismatch really a "good" passer? Is someone who isn't good enough to draw defenders away from teammates but can make pinpoint entry passes and set players up for iso's just as good as if not a better passer than volume assist players? "

I believe a great passer is a player who has the ability to make plays, like Magic, Nash, Isiah.

Feared scorers like Jordan, Kobe, Ginobili would be in-between (they would get their assists mainly because of their avility to score and draw attention, but they were/are still terrific passers)

Then you have the overrated great passers, like Shaq; I mean, give me a fucking break; Shaq is already a giant to begin with and when he was dominant other coaches would triple team him, all he had to was to raise his arm and pass the ball to an open teammate; " great passrer " my ass

[Phillip]

good team ball-movement >>> high assist #s

perfect example are the spurs. during their championship years, they dont neccesarily have massive assist numbers, but have as good of ball movement as any team ever has. compare that to the Jazz, who on a yearly basis are at the top of the league in assist numbers, but never win shit.

[Goran Dragic]

Good post. I've posted the same numbers in the past when Spurs fans were whining about Tony Parker not being a "true point guard". There's nothing as overrated as a "true point guard". In the last 20 years, how many true point guards won a championship? Maybe one if you count AJ. Billups and Rondo evolved into true point guards but they won championships when they were still learning the position.

Why don't true point guards win championships more often? IMO, it's much easier to shut down a great passer than it is to shut down a great scorer. Over the course of a seven-game series, good defensive teams adjust and start dictating the passing lanes available.

A team with a true point guard has a defined head of the snake. You cut off the head of the snake and the rest of the team dies. On the other hand, teams with multiple players that can create offense for themselves or others are much more difficult to contain.

:tu

"True PG's" give teams a false sense of security that screws them over 99 times out of 100. Take the 2007 Suns for example. Nash obviously didn't purposefully do this, but he gave the team a false sense of security during the regular season by making it look like Shawn Marion and Leandro Barbosa were good offensive players who could be counted on. What happened once they ran into a good defensive team that made it so Nash couldn't dish assists to anyone other than Amare? Marion and Barbosa became as useful as an asshole on your eblow.



I know whoever mentioned Magic Johnson was not trying to use it to discredit my argument, but plenty of people say "Well Magic Johnson was a PG who led a team to multiple championships!" and for them I have this:

The biggest shot of Magic's career was him going through the most congested part of the court and shooting a sky hook over a 7 footer. Do you see Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Deron Williams or Rajon Rondo making a game winning sky hook over a 7 footer anytime soon? Didn't think so.

[ElNono]

That was a sound, well thought out post. Thanks. I'm just left wondering why post it using your troll instead of your real username, DoK... :lol

[gaKNOW!blee]

:tu

"True PG's" give teams a false sense of security that screws them over 99 times out of 100. Take the 2007 Suns for example. Nash obviously didn't purposefully do this, but he gave the team a false sense of security during the regular season by making it look like Shawn Marion and Leandro Barbosa were good offensive players who could be counted on. What happened once they ran into a good defensive team that made it so Nash couldn't dish assists to anyone other than Amare? Marion and Barbosa became as useful as an asshole on your eblow.



I know whoever mentioned Magic Johnson was not trying to use it to discredit my argument, but plenty of people say "Well Magic Johnson was a PG who led a team to multiple championships!" and for them I have this:

The biggest shot of Magic's career was him going through the most congested part of the court and shooting a sky hook over a 7 footer. Do you see Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Deron Williams or Rajon Rondo making a game winning sky hook over a 7 footer anytime soon? Didn't think so.

well to be fair, they aren't 6-9 like Magic so a sky hook might be a little tough :lol

[Goran Dragic]

Interesting stats.

I don't think the "assist" itself is an overrated stat. But I do think a ball-dominating player who averages 10+ assists a game can be an overrated asset. What I see when I look at those championship teams and assist leaders is that those teams had multiple players who could facilitate the offense, from Jordan and Pippen to Kobe and Shaq to Duncan and Parker and Ginobili. The only team that had one dominant facilitator might have been the Pistons with Billups and it was more of a product of his teammates not being facilitators than him actually being a great one. I think as NBA basketball has evolved, especially with defenses, it's hard to put the vast majority of offensive responsibility on only one player. Now, it's one thing to have a LeBron or a Kobe or a Wade on your team, but having at least one other above average facilitator goes a long way into team success because defenses can't only focus on shutting down one player.

I think there's still great value in the "assist." But I think the value shows more when there are multiple players on a team that can facilitate and rack up assists, when defenses try to shut down one of those guys.


I agree with this. The assist itself isn't overrated, but volume assist players are. When you have a good distribution of assist numbers it's a sign of a good team.

Players like Nash, CP3 and Deron Williams get credit for "evenly distributed scoring", but look at the stats on those championship teams. It's pretty obvious evenly distributed assist numbers are a lot more important than evenly distributed scoring.

Assists actually are important in the sense they gauge players getting touches a lot more than scoring does. When a PG dominates the ball and then passes it to someone who makes an open 3, and that happens 4 times with 4 different players, it might look like good ball movement because 4 different players got 3 points, but really the guy with 4 assists is the only one handling the ball consistently.

[Double-Up]

That was a sound, well thought out post. Thanks. I'm just left wondering why post it using your troll instead of your real username, DoK... :lol
http://www.adamsec.coop/images/idea%20bulb.jpg

[Goran Dragic]

That was a sound, well thought out post. Thanks. I'm just left wondering why post it using your troll instead of your real username, DoK... :lol


I figured since Goran Dragic is a PG who doesn't dominate the ball and gets criticized for not having enough assists he deserved this thread.

[lefty]

Good thread


This is a tricky one


- Regarding Avery Johnson, I believe he has held, at some point, an NCAA division assist record in a single game, depite not playing with HOF's back then.

- When talking about Pippen, Jordan, Kobe, it's importante to keep in mind that they have played in the triangle offense, a system that allows sharing the ball, involving everyone.
I'm not saying they are not great passers, but heck, even Luc Longley could dish it out in Tex Winter's offense

- The fact that the statical leaders in assists haven't won a lot of titles sunce 1991 has more to do with who they are surrounded with than anything else. Before 1991, Magic played with a great Laker team, and Isiah had plenty of scorers around him.
Stockton had Malone, who has choked in the NBA Finals, Kidd has played on average teams outside of New Jersey, and the Nets were to weak in the paint to stop Shaq, Duncan and Robinson; Nash has been playing on a very poor defensive team

- " Lastly, are getting tons of assists and being a great passer as intertwined as people think? Is a player who can get assists using his ability to draw defensive attention but can't make a simple entry pass or find teammates iso'ed against a mismatch really a "good" passer? Is someone who isn't good enough to draw defenders away from teammates but can make pinpoint entry passes and set players up for iso's just as good as if not a better passer than volume assist players? "

I believe a great passer is a player who has the ability to make plays, like Magic, Nash, Isiah.

Feared scorers like Jordan, Kobe, Ginobili would be in-between (they would get their assists mainly because of their avility to score and draw attention, but they were/are still terrific passers)

Then you have the overrated great passers, like Shaq; I mean, give me a fucking break; Shaq is already a giant to begin with and when he was dominant other coaches would triple team him, all he had to was to raise his arm and pass the ball to an open teammate; " great passrer " my ass


Since nobody has given a fuck about my analysis, I will have to agree with myself

[JamStone]

This may be an interesting side debate as well:

What is more more important to championship success, assists or rebounding?

I didn't do as much research and planning as DoK, but I looked up the last 10 NBA Finals series.

4 of the last 10 NBA championship teams were out-assisted by their NBA Finals opponent. BUT, every single NBA championship team in the last 10 seasons outrebounded their NBA Finals opponent.

Someone mentioned above how it's more important to have good ball movement than assists. I agree with that. And perhaps DoK's point in his original post carries more punch with the above stats. It would appear at least on paper that rebounding often times has a greater impact on team success than assists, at least as it pertains to winning championships.

[gaKNOW!blee]

Since nobody has given a fuck about my analysis, I will have to agree with myself

i agree about shaq:lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

remove assists as a stat, nash wont get those b2b mvps

[lefty]

i agree about shaq:lol
that's it?

























:depressed

[jag]

I like having a PG who can dish, but like a few others have already said, it can really hurt your team when the entire offense revolves around that player creating for others.

I know this thread was created mostly because of your dislike for Nash. I do think the Suns have made the mistake of trying to build around him and rely on him too much for offense...but looking back, they really did put together a championship caliber team.

[z0sa]

They key is having someone else with a dominant personality and similar talent. Someone who doesn't mind demanding the ball from the PG possession after possession when/if necessary.

When the PG is the dominant personality AND the most talented, that's when teams run into trouble for the "head of the snake" reasoning. Cut his passing angles off, shut down his scoring, and that team is dead in the water.

[z0sa]

They key is having someone else with a dominant personality and similar talent. Someone who doesn't mind demanding the ball from the PG possession after possession when/if necessary.

When the PG is the dominant personality AND the most talented, that's when teams run into trouble for the "head of the snake" reasoning. Cut his passing angles off, shut down his scoring, and that team is dead in the water.

double posts are stupid as fuck

[Goran Dragic]

This may be an interesting side debate as well:

What is more more important to championship success, assists or rebounding?

I didn't do as much research and planning as DoK, but I looked up the last 10 NBA Finals series.

4 of the last 10 NBA championship teams were out-assisted by their NBA Finals opponent. BUT, every single NBA championship team in the last 10 seasons outrebounded their NBA Finals opponent.

Someone mentioned above how it's more important to have good ball movement than assists. I agree with that. And perhaps DoK's point in his original post carries more punch with the above stats. It would appear at least on paper that rebounding often times has a greater impact on team success than assists, at least as it pertains to winning championships.


No question. If you wanna look into specific statistics, my guess is that rebounding (offensive and defensive), opponents FG%, and turnovers committed are the 3 most important to championships. There's probably no direct relation to how well a team rebounds compared to whether or not it has a volume assist PG, but I'm willing to bet when the PG has the ball in his hands 90% of the time it leads to big men losing focus and not rebounding.

Teams that are run around a volume assist PG usually have a very high FG% and they generally force a lot of turnovers on defense because of the frantic style. The problem is, forcing turnovers and being a team that shoots a high % are two of the most unimportant parts to winning a championship. I doubt the Lakers were even in the top half of the league in either category this year. The team that shoots a high % but commits turnovers will almost always lose to the team that doesn't shoot as well but doesn't commit as many turnovers.

[mavs>spurs2]

Interesting stats.

I don't think the "assist" itself is an overrated stat. But I do think a ball-dominating player who averages 10+ assists a game can be an overrated asset. What I see when I look at those championship teams and assist leaders is that those teams had multiple players who could facilitate the offense, from Jordan and Pippen to Kobe and Shaq to Duncan and Parker and Ginobili. The only team that had one dominant facilitator might have been the Pistons with Billups and it was more of a product of his teammates not being facilitators than him actually being a great one. I think as NBA basketball has evolved, especially with defenses, it's hard to put the vast majority of offensive responsibility on only one player. Now, it's one thing to have a LeBron or a Kobe or a Wade on your team, but having at least one other above average facilitator goes a long way into team success because defenses can't only focus on shutting down one player.

I think there's still great value in the "assist." But I think the value shows more when there are multiple players on a team that can facilitate and rack up assists, when defenses try to shut down one of those guys.

you pretty much said exactly what i was about to post. the assist is a great play and good passing and teamwork is crucial to winning, but when the ball is constantly in one guy's hands and he's the only one making the passes, then you have a problem. i think the best teams are the ones with multiple guys averaging 5-9 assists, rather than one guy averaging in double digits, unless that one guy is just THAT DAMN GOOD and can do so without even dominating the ball, like Magic Johnson, the ultimate team player.

[jag]

Assist are not an overrated stat like DoK is trying to claim, it's just that the best assist guys don't play on the best teams.

Because having a great assist guy isn't essential to making a great team.

[mavs>spurs2]

No question. If you wanna look into specific statistics, my guess is that rebounding (offensive and defensive), opponents FG%, and turnovers committed are the 3 most important to championships. There's probably no direct relation to how well a team rebounds compared to whether or not it has a volume assist PG, but I'm willing to bet when the PG has the ball in his hands 90% of the time it leads to big men losing focus and not rebounding.

Teams that are run around a volume assist PG usually have a very high FG% and they generally force a lot of turnovers on defense because of the frantic style. The problem is, forcing turnovers and being a team that shoots a high % are two of the most unimportant parts to winning a championship. I doubt the Lakers were even in the top half of the league in either category this year. The team that shoots a high % but commits turnovers will almost always lose to the team that doesn't shoot as well but doesn't commit as many turnovers.

yep, i can agree with that, rebounding, defense, and not committing turnovers are very important. turnovers are fucking killer. but i think assists can be just as positive, as long as they are spread evenly and it isn't one guy dominating the ball and racking them up. beautiful ball movement is a great thing to watch and always leads to more easy buckets. this also has a deeper affect than just 2 points, it boosts the confidence of the player getting the easy 2, and also good teamwork bolsters the morale of the entire team. also, easy buckets allow you to conserve energy for the defensive end.

[JamStone]

Well rebounding obviously. Boarding can get you buckets alone, create fouls, extra possessions. If a team had 10 assists and 50 boards, you'd assume they won the game just by reading the box score. If a team had 50 assist and 10 boards, you'd think they were in trouble. Assist are not an overrated stat like DoK is trying to claim, it's just that the best assist guys don't play on the best teams.

Don't disagree with your point but disagree with your example trying to support it.

In general, most teams average around 40 rebounds a game and around 15 assists a game. There are almost always more rebounds to be had than assists in a game. Assist numbers and rebounding numbers don't have a 1:1 ratio in games.

If you were trying to make your point, it would be much more fair to say a team having 50 rebounds and 10 assists versus a team having 30 rebounds and 20 assists. And if you compare those numbers, I wouldn't necessarily assume either team won or think either team was in trouble.

[ElNono]

I figured since Goran Dragic is a PG who doesn't dominate the ball and gets criticized for not having enough assists he deserved this thread.

The problem is that the bar set by Nash is unsurmountable by pretty much all but few PGs. I think Goran just need time.

[Goran Dragic]

You give Nash the weapons that Parker or Fisher has and they win multiple titles. It's obvious that the traditional PG's are better players, and the fact that they haven't won any titles over the last 20 years is because they haven't been on the best teams... period.


You give Nash the weapons Parker or Fisher had and he doesn't sniff 10 assists per game. It's no coincidence volume assist PG's haven't been on the best team in so long, no team has any chance of being the best team if it is so limited that a player needs to average 10+ assists in order for it to win. The 2007 Suns were simply not a very good team, if they were, Nash wouldn't have averaged so many assists.

[Goran Dragic]

The game is just so much easier when you have a great PG.


Tell that to Phil Jackson.

[BUMP]

I think the biggest reason why teams who win championships don't have a guy that racks up assists is because there's usually a superstar on those teams who can often create their own shots 1 on 1.

Bulls had Jordan, Lakers had Kobe and Shaq, San Antonio had Duncan, Detroit is the one exception but they didn't score a lot of points anyway, Heat had Wade, etc.

So to me it's no surprise why the assist # isn't very high for these teams

[mavs>spurs2]

But it damn sure helps. When Magic was asked who would win between his showtime team in their prime and the Bulls in their prime, he laughed and said his team would win, as if that was an insult to even ask him that question. His reasoning was that he had too many weapons for them to stop. The idea that you can shut down the lanes and slow a traditional PG in the playoffs only applies to guys like Nash and CP3 because they simply don't have other guys that can take over a game at will. Obviously, you don't need a PG that averages more than 10 assist, but you replace CP3 with Parker, and Duncan might be holding back2backs or even three-peats. The game is just so much easier when you have a great PG.

who would have ever thought that you of all people knew a thing or two about basketball? yes, a great pg makes the game easier on everyone, and the effect runs a lot deeper than just the stats. i think DoK is discrediting this little part of the equation, although he's right somewhat. ball dominating pg's are bad, but don't confuse that with a good point guard.

[mavs>spurs2]

Tell that to Phil Jackson.

fisher is a pretty good point guard, and his career speaks for it. he's a floor general and clutch shooter, not every good point guard has to dominate the ball and rack up assists.

[Goran Dragic]

fisher is a pretty good point guard, and his career speaks for it. he's a floor general and clutch shooter, not every good point guard has to dominate the ball and rack up assists.


He's what a floor general should be. Fisher is actually a "pass first PG". It's ironic someone like Nash or CP3 is referred to as a "pass first PG". When I think "pass first", I don't think dominate the ball dribbling around and only passing in the event an assist opportunity presents itself.

Jackson has never had a volume assist PG because he knows it's nearly impossible to build a team with multiple threats and good ball movement when you have an assist whore who hogs the ball just as much if not more than "scoring point guards".

[mavs>spurs2]

He's what a floor general should be. Fisher is actually a "pass first PG". It's ironic someone like Nash or CP3 is referred to as a "pass first PG". When I think "pass first", I don't think dominate the ball dribbling around and only passing in the event an assist opportunity presents itself.

Jackson has never had a volume assist PG because he knows it's nearly impossible to build a team with multiple threats and good ball movement when you have an assist whore who hogs the ball just as much if not more than "scoring point guards".

yeah, ball hogging to rack up assists = bad, being a such a great passer and selfless enough that you still get some assists, although maybe not 12 a game = good. unless you're magic johnson, and can put up 15 assists without even hogging the ball and simply just making everyone around you better. i think assist : turnover ratio is a lot more important than simply assist totals. protecting the ball, minimizing turnovers, and putting the ball in the right places (whether you get the assist, or the next guy does) is the point guards job.

[Goran Dragic]

I disagree with that. Nash would continue to put up great assist numbers. His points would go down though.


If Nash still put up 10+ assists on the Lakers, it would mean Kobe did nothing more than play as a spot up shooter, and Gasol did nothing more than run pick and rolls. Over time it would lead to Pau being uncomfortable posting up and Kobe not being as good off the dribble. Having a PG who averages 10+ assists makes it extremely difficult for the other 4 players on the court to use any individual skill they might have. The fact Amare could get any shot he wanted against Gasol was extremely under utilized in the conference finals because all Nash felt like doing was run pick and rolls with him. Isoing Amare against Gasol was by far their most effective play in that series, yet it wasn't run half as much as the pick and roll (a play LA defends well) was.

[Warlord23]

IMO when faced against a high-caliber defense, a great PG has to work much harder to create an open shot for someone else. Case in point: Steve Nash trying to shake Bowen off in the 4th quarter of a big game. In Bowen's prime, Pop wouldn't resort to switching the pick-and-roll or some such gimmick. He would simply trust Bowen to make it tough for Nash one-on-one, and Nash wouldn't have an easy assist as he normally would against an inferior defense. The post-Bowen Spurs couldn't shut down the Nash/Amare pick-and-roll at will like they used to before.

By contrast, a great offensive player like Jordan, Duncan, Kobe have one simple advantage: the opposing coach often has no option but to bring a double team. TD in the post was the focal point of the Spurs offense for a decade because (a) he wasn't going to be stopped by 1 defender and (b) he made good decisions with the ball. You single cover him and he tries to score; you double him and Manu/Horry/Bowen get an open look. Simple basketball, but much more effective and much harder to defend.

Even 2-guards like Kobe, Wade and Manu are dominant for the same reason. When they take a defender off the dribble, you have little option but to collapse and hope he doesn't make a good pass. The defender is even more hamstrung by the rules - in the last decade the NBA has made it easiest for guard-oriented dribble-penetration.

And then there are systems like the triangle and the Princeton (or some variant of it) where ball movement and off-the-ball cuts and moves are the key to finding an easy shot - not a superstar PG. I admit that when facing a team with poor defensive discipline, especially poor transition D, the superstar PG will light them up like a Christmas tree. The isolation star doesn't hurt the bad teams as much. But when pitted against a good defensive team, the isolation play / double-team tactic pays more dividends.

[BUMP]

If Nash still put up 10+ assists on the Lakers, it would mean Kobe did nothing more than play as a spot up shooter, and Gasol did nothing more than run pick and rolls. Over time it would lead to Pau being uncomfortable posting up and Kobe not being as good off the dribble. Having a PG who averages 10+ assists makes it extremely difficult for the other 4 players on the court to use any individual skill they might have. The fact Amare could get any shot he wanted against Gasol was extremely under utilized in the conference finals because all Nash felt like doing was run pick and rolls with him. Isoing Amare against Gasol was by far their most effective play in that series, yet it wasn't run half as much as the pick and roll (a play LA defends well) was.

Good point. That's also why the mix of Shaq and SSOL didn't work at all. Shaq is a guy who needs touches in the block and everyone else get away from him. He's not a guy who will flourish in a pick and roll system by catching a pass from Nash on the run. That's just not his game and its unfair to expect him to adjust.

[Goran Dragic]

protecting the ball, minimizing turnovers, and putting the ball in the right places (whether you get the assist, or the next guy does) is the point guards job.


And as you said, outside transcendent talent like Magic Johnson, it's impossible to do all that and still average 10+ assists. It's no different than Michael Jordan being so good that he could be scoring champ while also having other weapons on his team, while no one else could.

[Goran Dragic]

Great PG's are like great QB's in football.


Nearly every superbowl team in the last 20 years has a great QB, while no NBA championship team had a "great PG". That comparison makes no sense.

[Indazone]

Goran Dragic only averages 2 assists per game. Pretty good for a guard no?

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/goran_dragic/

:lol

[mavs>spurs2]

Nearly every superbowl team in the last 20 years has a great QB, while no NBA championship team had a "great PG". That comparison makes no sense.

that's more to do with the lack of great pg's, rather than it being that pg's aren't important. much like what's going on in today's nba with the lack of good centers. usually, the team's that win DO have a good pg, which is the next best thing. let's go back 20 years, and we have isiah, billups, rondo, fisher, parker, kenny smith, sam cassel, etc. the only team that didn't really have a good point guard was the bulls, but even then paxon, harper, hodges weren't weak links, they were solid players.

[Goran Dragic]

DoK's frustration is the result of the Suns looking at how good Nash is at making his teammates better and not continuing to add better talent.


Nash (along with guys like CP3) doesn't make his teammates better, he makes it so you only get to see their strengths and never have to see their weaknesses. In the short term that's great, but eventually their weaknesses fester and become even worse because playing with Nash/CP3 makes it so they never correct them. Playing with Rondo masks the fact Ray Allen has never been great off the dribble, but what happened in the finals when Ray Allen couldn't hit shit? Back in 2008 before Rondo started to average 9+ assists, Ray Allen could get several easy shots at the rim to get a rhythm going. Now, he can't do anything other than catch and shoot passes from Rondo. When that's not working, he's useless.

[mavs>spurs2]

Nash (along with guys like CP3) doesn't make his teammates better, he makes it so you only get to see their strengths and never have to see their weaknesses. In the short term that's great, but eventually their weaknesses fester and become even worse because playing with Nash/CP3 makes it so they never correct them. Playing with Rondo masks the fact Ray Allen has never been great off the dribble, but what happened in the finals when Ray Allen couldn't hit shit? Back in 2008 before Rondo started to average 9+ assists, Ray Allen could get several easy shots at the rim to get a rhythm going. Now, he can't do anything other than catch and shoot passes from Rondo. When that's not working, he's useless.


dok what you are saying is similar to saying that the center position also isn't important. look at the last 10-15 years in the nba. besides shaq and hakeem, which team had a great center? the bulls had no center, duncan's spurs never had one in their later runs, and before that they only had an old crippled version of robinson, the pistons never had one, the celtics in 08 never had one, etc.

your argument is flawed. and rondo is a top pg in the league, and the celtics would be nothing without him, so i really don't see what you're getting at here..

ray allen got old. that's what happens. it's a moot point

[Goran Dragic]

that's more to do with the lack of great pg's, rather than it being that pg's aren't important. much like what's going on in today's nba with the lack of good centers. usually, the team's that win DO have a good pg, which is the next best thing. let's go back 20 years, and we have isiah, billups, rondo, fisher, parker, kenny smith, sam cassel, etc. the only team that didn't really have a good point guard was the bulls, but even then paxon, harper, hodges weren't weak links, they were solid players.

They were role players or scorers. Parker was a scorer. Billups in 2004 was just as much a scorer as he was a passer. Rondo in 2008 was a role player who wasn't even in during some crucial stretches. Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell were supposed to make the open shots Hakeem created for them. Thank you for helping my argument.

[mavs>spurs2]

They were role players or scorers. Parker was a scorer. Billups in 2004 was just as much a scorer as he was a passer. Rondo in 2008 was a role player who wasn't even in during some crucial stretches. Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell were supposed to make the open shots Hakeem created for them. Thank you for helping my argument.

just because outside of 2007 parker and billups, those guys weren't the best players on their team, doesn't make them role players. they are all excellent point guards on championship teams. stop cherry picking please.


Billups in 2004 was just as much a scorer as he was a passer.

a great passing pg won finals mvp? :wow oh noes!

and if your point is that one dimensional point guards that can ONLY pass and are challenged offensively suck, then yep i'll agree..

rondo is like the only exception. he's just so good at everything else, the day that he develops a solid jumper he will be the best pg in the league.

[Goran Dragic]

dok what you are saying is similar to saying that the center position also isn't important. look at the last 10-15 years in the nba. besides shaq and hakeem, which team had a great center? the bulls had no center, duncan's spurs never had one in their later runs, and before that they only had an old crippled version of robinson, the pistons never had one, the celtics in 08 never had one, etc.

your argument is flawed. and rondo is a top pg in the league, and the celtics would be nothing without him, so i really don't see what you're getting at here..

ray allen got old. that's what happens. it's a moot point


In 2008 Rondo was not a top PG.

Your comparison makes no sense. since 1991, Hakeem won 2 as a dominant center, Shaq won 3 as a dominant center, and in 2005 and 2007 when the Spurs played Duncan at C and Horry at PF in the 4th quarter, Duncan won 2 as a center. That's 7 championship teams that have won since 1991 with a dominant center. I guess you're right, that's only 7 more than the championship teams led by a PG.

And we both know there is a giant drop off in talent at the center position. The best center in the NBA right now can't even create his own shot. Meanwhile, there are several great "traditional PG's" (Nash, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Rajon Rondo, Chauncey Billups), yet Derek Fisher is saying "5 rings, faggot".

[mavs>spurs2]

In 2008 Rondo was not a top PG.

Your comparison makes no sense. since 1991, Hakeem won 2 as a dominant center, Shaq won 3 as a dominant center, and in 2005 and 2007 when the Spurs played Duncan at C and Horry at PF in the 4th quarter, Duncan won 2 as a center. That's 7 championship teams that have won since 1991 with a dominant center. I guess you're right, that's only 7 more than the championship teams led by a PG.

And we both know there is a giant drop off in talent at the center position. The best center in the NBA right now can't even create his own shot. Meanwhile, there are several great "traditional PG's" (Nash, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Rajon Rondo, Chauncey Billups), yet Derek Fisher is saying "5 rings, faggot".

so basically teams have won championships in recent years both with, and without dominant centers? what a surprise. but we all know that having a dominant big makes things so much easier. same goes for point guards. Both Billups and Fisher are both good point guards, and both have their rings. the lack of great pg's and centers in recent years is the only reason that there isn't one on EVERY championship team. but you'll find that as i pointed out, most championship teams at least have the next best thing, a good point guard. Using Fisher as your argument doesn't mean anything, Fisher has had quite the career and is/was a good point guard. The Lakers are just so stacked at every other position that he didn't have to play like Magic Johnson in order to win. There is no sure formula for building a championship team as you are trying to suggest. But certain things do make it easier, like a great pg (not to be confused with a ball dominating pg) and a dominant center.

[Goran Dragic]

just because outside of 2007 parker and billups, those guys weren't the best players on their team, doesn't make them role players. they are all excellent point guards on championship teams. stop cherry picking please.


:lmao saying 2007 Parker was the best player on his team, or for that matter saying anyone was the 2004 Pistons' "best player". Duncan was way more important than Parker (you're fuckin retarded if you think otherwise), and the 2004 Pistons didn't have a best player. It was a true 5 man unit. Billups emerged as their 1st option in the finals because he and Sheed could pick and roll Slava Medvedenko to death.

In 2008, Rondo was a role player. He barely averaged 10 points per game, there were 3 far superior players, and there were times in the playoffs when Cassell and House were playing instead of him during the 4th quarter because Boston needed spacing. When you aren't a sure thing to be playing during the 4th quarter, you're a role player.

[Goran Dragic]

so basically teams have won championships in recent years both with, and without dominant centers? what a surprise. but we all know that having a dominant big makes things so much easier. same goes for point guards. Both Billups and Fisher are both good point guards, and both have their rings. the lack of great pg's and centers in recent years is the only reason that there isn't one on EVERY championship team. but you'll find that as i pointed out, most championship teams at least have the next best thing, a good point guard. Using Fisher as your argument doesn't mean anything, Fisher has had quite the career and is/was a good point guard. The Lakers are just so stacked at every other position that he didn't have to play like Magic Johnson in order to win. There is no sure formula for building a championship team as you are trying to suggest. But certain things do make it easier, like a great pg (not to be confused with a ball dominating pg) and a dominant center.


Are you trying to say Fisher has never been anything more than a role player on any of the 5 title teams he's been on?

[mavs>spurs2]

:lmao saying 2007 Parker was the best player on his team, or for that matter saying anyone was the 2004 Pistons' "best player". Duncan was way more important than Parker (you're fuckin retarded if you think otherwise), and the 2004 Pistons didn't have a best player. It was a true 5 man unit. Billups emerged as their 1st option in the finals because he and Sheed could pick and roll Slava Medvedenko to death.

In 2008, Rondo was a role player. He barely averaged 10 points per game, there were 3 far superior players, and there were times in the playoffs when Cassell and House were playing instead of him during the 4th quarter because Boston needed spacing. When you aren't a sure thing to be playing during the 4th quarter, you're a role player.

and this is why my argument was never that you HAVE TO HAVE A GREAT PG IN ORDER TO WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS! i just said that it helps, and great pg's make life easier on their teammates. yes, parker was the best player in the 2007 playoffs and won mvp for it. same as billups. are you really going to argue with me that they don't have the hardware to back it up? for every team you name that didn't have a great pg, i can name one that still won without a great center. (2004 pistons, 2006 heat/mavs neither one had a great center, 2008 celtics, etc.) stop speaking in absolutes as there are no absolutes in basketball. both great pg's and dominant centers make life easier on their teammates, and while you don't HAVE to always have both to win, it sure doesn't hurt.

[mavs>spurs2]

Are you trying to say Fisher has never been anything more than a role player on any of the 5 title teams he's been on?

fisher was a good point guard with a solid career, and better than you obviously give him credit for. he wasn't a superstar, but he wasn't just your average role player either. he's been a starter in this league for years, and he's a very special type of role player.

[Goran Dragic]

so basically teams have won championships in recent years both with, and without dominant centers? what a surprise. but we all know that having a dominant big makes things so much easier. same goes for point guards.

[quote=mavs>spurs;4522667]Both Billups and Fisher are both good point guards, and both have their rings.
Neither one would be considered a "dominant" PG. Fisher was a role player who's job was to make crisp passes to better players, or to play off those players and hit crucial shots. You're helping my argument by constantly bringing up Fisher. Billups averaged 17 points and 5.7 assists a game in 2004, if he's the best example you can come up with it only helps my point.


the lack of great pg's and centers in recent years is the only reason that there isn't one on EVERY championship team.
What do you mean by "lack of great PG's? The PG position is maybe more rich in talent than any other position right now, while center has by far way less talent than any other position.


but you'll find that as i pointed out, most championship teams at least have the next best thing, a good point guard. Using Fisher as your argument doesn't mean anything, Fisher has had quite the career and is/was a good point guard.
Fisher has career averages of 9.0 points per game and 3.2 assists per game. You really ought to stop mentioning him given what you're trying to argue. The fact someone with his numbers has more rings than any other active PG only helps my argument.


The Lakers are just so stacked at every other position that he didn't have to play like Magic Johnson in order to win.
And it ain't like he's capable of playing like Magic Johnson.


There is no sure formula for building a championship team as you are trying to suggest. But certain things do make it easier, like a great pg (not to be confused with a ball dominating pg) and a dominant center.
If by great PG, you mean someone like Fisher who knows his role and doesn't get in the better players' ways, I agree, having a great PG makes it easier.

[Goran Dragic]

fisher was a good point guard with a solid career, and better than you obviously give him credit for. he wasn't a superstar, but he wasn't just your average role player either. he's been a starter in this league for years, and he's a very special type of role player.

But nevertheless he's a role player who's always had several significantly better players on his championship teams. I give him plenty of credit, he knew his role and he found a way he could contribute to a championship team while other PG's don't change their game even when it's clear they'll never lead a team to a championship.

[mavs>spurs2]

wow, i think we've reached a new low, posting fisher's stats as if that really tells the entire story about what type of player he is. it's funny how a nash hater also dedicates so much time to arguing against the importance of point guards on messageboards..hmm....

how many truly great point guards have their been in the past 20 years? stockton? nash? maybe cp3 or deron will go down as great eventually? name some others that are hall of fame status..there aren't any. just because there is a lack of great point guards doesn't make the pg position obsolete, it just means that teams have to go with the next best thing. Parker, Billups, Cassel, Kenny Smith, etc were all very good point guards who were at least borderline all star status. The exceptions in recent years are paxon, hodges, and fisher who's teams were so stacked that they only had to be solid on order to win. spouting off that none of the championship teams of the past 20 years had great pg's doesn't make the position obsolete or something. i can also name plenty of teams that won without a dominant center like Jordan's bulls, the pistons, the 08 celtics, 2006 heat who had a shaq that basically watched and coattailed his way to his 4th ring, wasn't even the best center on his team. one kidney alonzo was the best center on that team. but at least i'm not dumb enough to say that the center position isn't important, we all know how important that is, especially as a mav fan who's never had the luxury of a quality center. anyone who's ever played basketball at a high level (which you haven't) knows the importance of the point guard position, and how they can make the game easier for teammates, which is a skill that they all possess that doesn't show up in the stats and is obviously unnoticed by you, but is still an important skill none the less...and no i'm not taking a jab at you there but i do know that you've never played team organized basketball and i forgive you for being ignorant as to some of the intangibles that go along with the game..

[Goran Dragic]

wow, i think we've reached a new low, posting fisher's stats as if that really tells the entire story about what type of player he is. it's funny how a nash hater also dedicates so much time to arguing against the importance of point guards on messageboards..hmm....
My point is Fisher is a role player and he's not someone anyone would call a "great PG". He's never sniffed an AS birth in his career. He wasn't even a starter on one of his championship teams, and he only played 20 games in another season. There are many players out there who could have filled his role.


how many truly great point guards have their been in the past 20 years? stockton? nash? maybe cp3 or deron will go down as great eventually? name some others that are hall of fame status..there aren't any.
Kidd, Kevin Johnson, etc. There have been so many more AS caliber PG's in the last 20 years than AS caliber centers.


just because there is a lack of great point guards doesn't make the pg position obsolete, it just means that teams have to go with the next best thing. Parker, Billups, Cassel, Kenny Smith, etc were all very good point guards who were at least borderline all star status.
Calling 1994 or 1995 Cassell or Kenny Smith a borderline all star is just oozing with ignorance. Neither one averaged more than 11.5 points or 5 assists a game those two years, far from a borderline AS. Kenny Smith never appeared in an AS game throughout his career, and the one AS game Cassell ever made was nearly a decade after winning those championships in Houston. Just like Fisher, they were role players.



The exceptions in recent years are paxon, hodges, and fisher who's teams were so stacked that they only had to be solid on order to win.
The MJ Bulls, 2000-2002 Lakers, 1994-1995 Rockets, 1999 Spurs, 2006 Heat, 2008 Celtics, and 2009-2010 all had role players at point. Outside of Parker and Billups, no championship PG in the last 20 years has been any better than the 4th option on his team. Maybe Fisher was the 3rd option in 2001 and 2002 by default but those teams were basically Kobe, Shaq, and role players.


spouting off that none of the championship teams of the past 20 years had great pg's doesn't make the position obsolete or something.
Never said it does.


i can also name plenty of teams that won without a dominant center like Jordan's bulls, the pistons, the 08 celtics
OK so you named 8 teams in the last 20 years that won with a role player at center. Bravo. That's only half the number of teams I just mentioned with role players at point, but whatever.


2006 heat who had a shaq that basically watched and coattailed his way to his 4th ring, wasn't even the best center on his team. one kidney alonzo was the best center on that team.
Shaq averaged 20 PPG and 9 RPG in 2006 and was their 2nd leading scorer, while Mourning averaed 7.8 points and 5.5 rebounds. My response to you saying Mourning was the best center on that team is mono's reaction to Bob Lanier "Now we have the stupid opinion.


but at least i'm not dumb enough to say that the center position isn't important, we all know how important that is, especially as a mav fan who's never had the luxury of a quality center.
As a Sun fan who's had the so called "luxury" of several great point guards lead teams to annual playoff eliminations against teams with less talent at PG but more talent at C, I have no idea what point you're trying to make.


anyone who's ever played basketball at a high level (which you haven't) knows the importance of the point guard position, and how they can make the game easier for teammates, which is a skill that they all possess that doesn't show up in the stats and is obviously unnoticed by you, but is still an important skill none the less...and no i'm not taking a jab at you there but i do know that you've never played team organized basketball and i forgive you for being ignorant as to some of the intangibles that go along with the game..
So since you've run out of legit arguments you've moved onto an ad-hominem attack that states my opinion is ignorant because I didn't play high school basketball. At the same time, since you played HS basketball, you're knowledge of NBA basketball surpasses mine, and the only way I'll ever understand how important PG's are in the NBA is if I played HS basketball. Is this basically it?

[Brazil]

Just another point to add at the discussion even if I haven't stats to back it up but I'm pretty sure for instance that the team assists of let's say NO last year was probably comparable with or without CP3. Assist IMO is more linked to the team playbook than quality of the PG: spurs for example are a non friendly assists team, tim likes to work before taking his shot and the same goes to Manu who basically create his shoot alone other teams are more dependant on assisted points.

What would be interesting is to compare FG% of a team with or without his best PG. A good PG is for me a facilitator that create high FG% opportunities. If you have Tim Duncan in your team your job is to give him the ball in the best conditions possible, it won't translate in assists but it will translate in >50% FG.

[Killakobe81]

Some good stuff in here.

I think Dragic brought this up duringthe playoffs. I am notr a HUGE stat guy so to answer the original question ..I do think it is overrated when viewed in a vacum.
My guess is when Lebron wins a title this year our in the nextcouple at 8 assists a game, we will have another exception to the rule.

But i like the "head of the snake" theory. If you build your offense around one ball dominant PG and the defense limits that player's effectiveness you get the Denver blowout of 2 years ago where they crushed CP3 and the Hornets.

A few mentioned you need at least two high level players that can "create offense" for others
I would take two good facilitators (coach perspective) over one great one.

[SomeCallMeTim]

I think there's something to the premise of the OP.

In today's game, dominant PGs just don't seem to win it all very often. But dominant big men sure do. Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, Gasol... that's 10 of the last 12 championships won by big guys who were the best or in a dead heat for top guy on their team, and all dominant players.

[Darrin]

I think passing is beautiful and shows chemistry and teamwork. I much prefer stats like how many assists were committed on how many field goals.

Passing is the most effective weapon for creating easy looks on the offensive end. It takes time to learn someone's tendencies and get them at the right spot to make their shot, especially if all players continue to move around the court. That encourages learning each other in practice, observing each other's games, and knowing one-another's tendencies. If the distance is the same, the ball moves quicker through the air than it does on the ground. A pass causes reaction times to adjust to a different area of the court. If you have chemistry, you can be faster than the defense can adjust.

As with all things measurable in this sport, the stats do not tell the whole story. Assists may be overblown, but passing is not.

[TIMMYD!]

This is a good article about stat-padding: http://deadspin.com/5345287/the-confessions-of-an-nba-scorekeeper


"I went into the NBA as bright-eyed and bushy-tailed as I could get," Alex says. "I loved the game. I didn't want to taint it." Of course, that was before Alex did all those "bad, bad, bad" things.

Not long ago, we brought you the story of a stat-padding NBA scorekeeper who, one day in 1997, awarded 23 assists to Lakers guard Nick Van Exel, mostly for the hell of it. That was Alex. (He is now an officer in the Navy and asks that I not use his last name.) From 1995 to 1998, he headed up the Vancouver Grizzlies' stat crew. Alex is a numbers guy, and he came at the job from the perspective of someone who spent his childhood, as he says, "recreating baseball games with Dungeons and Dragons dice and baseball cards." So it was particularly galling for him to find that the seemingly cold and objective NBA box score was, on many nights, a self-serving fiction, subject to so much artful embroidery and deliberate manipulation that one might reasonably conclude that the boys from Enron were sitting courtside, counting dimes.

[Biggems]

I hate when a player gives a great pass to set up a wide open shot, especially a layup or dunk.......and clink....nothing but brick. The player who passed the ball made one helluva play, but gets no credit...this happens so many times during a game. The assist is totally dependent on the conversion of the basket....

One thing I wish the NBA would have done, is do like hockey does....give and assist to the last two passes before the points scored. So many times it is the pass before the assist that is the most crucial, but that player gets no credit at all.

I take assist totals with a grain of salt

[ogait]

I agree with the OP to an extent.

I think the main problem with pg oriented teams is that the system used is so that it makes the respective point guards handle the ball way too much, usually to compensate the lack of talent that surrounds him in the team.

What happens is that when it comes to playoff games some players who average some good number in the regular season thanks to one great point guard, end up not performing so good because ... well because they really aren't that good to begin with.

In comparison, when your best player is a guy who looks mainly to create for himself, his team mates know that the few touches they get they have to make the best of it, but if they don´t have enough talent the team will end sucking regardless of how good the main guy plays.

That´s why I don´t agree with players who average 10 + assists being overrated because guys like Nash, Paul or Deron Williams are the reason why their mediocre teams become relevant in the NBA. If you replace any of this guys by the best wing players who look mainly for their own show in the NBA like Kobe or Durant the respective team does not become better and the lack of talent in those teams would be even more clear.

In the end, I agree that it´s harder to win with a point guard oriented team but that´s because its also harder to be an elite point guard who has to score, assist and everything else than to be a player who works mainly for his own shot and pretty much shares the ball when he´s forced to due to double teams, etc.

I believe that if you put the right cast among this pest point guards they can win tittles, yes they won't average as many assists but would eventually have even better individual scoring because they would not have to carry scrubs and thus averaging all those assists.

[cobbler]

Defense and rebounding win championships. Assists, though unselfish and sometimes spectactular look better than their total overall impact. Assist stats can often be deceiving. You can make 10 tremendous passes and end up with 2 assists as well as making 10 supbar passes and get 8. It is not just dependent on the pass or passer but how well the shooter sets himself up for the pass and if he finishes or not.

In the playoffs, defenses get tougher and can limit a good assist man by filling passing lanes, containing dribble penetration, and/or taking the recepient out of contention. That is why guys who can create their own shots are so valuable. Guys who can create their own shots and are good passers are that much more dangerous. Even more so with the bigs.

Magic made the fast break assist look very popular in the 80's. Often what people forget is the defense that those Lakers played that allowed them to get out on the break to begin with. If you look at the old tapes you will also see that Rambis was very adept at taking the ball inbounds very quickly off an opponents made shot. The passing lanes were created early and when properly filled they created easy assists.

Traditional pick & roll assit men like Nash and Stocton require solid finishers like Amare and Malone to make them as effective as they were/are.

I personally think the pre assist is the more important pass in basketball. By that I mean the set up assist. The pass made to the player that gets the assist. That is usually the pass that reversed the ball and makes the defenses shift focus and thus taking them out of position. The passing lanes are created from this original pass and the subsequent shot is much easier. Maybe the NBA should give 2 assists like the NHL.

I have noticed lately that the post entry pass is a dying art. I sure wish Fish was better at it. I cannot count how many times I saw Drew or Pau in perfect low post position only to be looked off because our guards lacked the skills or confidence to get it to them.

edit: Just read your post Biggems. As you see, I completely agree with you on the pre assist. :toast

[LnGrrrR]

This may be an interesting side debate as well:

What is more more important to championship success, assists or rebounding?

I didn't do as much research and planning as DoK, but I looked up the last 10 NBA Finals series.

4 of the last 10 NBA championship teams were out-assisted by their NBA Finals opponent. BUT, every single NBA championship team in the last 10 seasons outrebounded their NBA Finals opponent.

Someone mentioned above how it's more important to have good ball movement than assists. I agree with that. And perhaps DoK's point in his original post carries more punch with the above stats. It would appear at least on paper that rebounding often times has a greater impact on team success than assists, at least as it pertains to winning championships.

I would definitely agree that rebounding is more important than assists. Rebounding leads to second-chance points, which is key to winning the game. Sadly my C's didn't have any great rebounders during the Finals this year, which is the only reason I didn't immediately puke upon hearing we picked up Jermaine O'Neal. At least he can rebound.

[Darrin]

This may be an interesting side debate as well:

What is more more important to championship success, assists or rebounding?

I didn't do as much research and planning as DoK, but I looked up the last 10 NBA Finals series.

4 of the last 10 NBA championship teams were out-assisted by their NBA Finals opponent. BUT, every single NBA championship team in the last 10 seasons outrebounded their NBA Finals opponent.

Someone mentioned above how it's more important to have good ball movement than assists. I agree with that. And perhaps DoK's point in his original post carries more punch with the above stats. It would appear at least on paper that rebounding often times has a greater impact on team success than assists, at least as it pertains to winning championships. .

I think to be great you have to have great ball-movement and control possessions. Rebounding and passing go hand-in-hand. Controlling possessions by playing tough defense and closing out on the defensive boards is crucial because you can control how many looks your opponent gets at the basket versus how effective your offense is. However, poor execution (bad passes) can result in turnovers that can make a good night on the boards look pedestrian.

Rebounding is probably the most honest statistic in basketball. The ball changes possessions. Period. It doesn't matter how it gets there unless there is a tremdenous amount of long-rebounds and lucky pick-ups. That may not indicate a well-executed gameplan, just luck.

If you get that defensive rebound, the quicker the attack, the better. It leads to higher-percentage points and it is deflating mentally (tired) for a team to go from grinding on the offensive end against a great defense to suddenly stopping a fast-break. Those are the great and hungry teams--that can do both.

But the short answer is that rebounding is more important.

[ginobilized]

great post!

[Booharv]

This thread at times is arguing a couple of different things. Are assists an important stat? Are teams better off with one player averaging 10+ assists? And are point guard driven teams better off moving the ball out of the pg's hands? (lol DoK's hatred of Nash)

I wondered if the best teams were also teams who averaged a lot of assists. I took ten minutes to see what the two Finals teams averaged in respect to the league and each other in assists per game for the last twenty years to see for myself.

1991-Bulls 4th LAL 11th
1992-Bulls 3rd Por. 10th (random fact: Portland led the league in 1991)
1993-Bulls 6th Pho. 10th
1994-Hou 8th NYK 11th
1995-Hou 7th Orl 1st
1996-Bulls 5th Sea 7th
1997-Bulls 2nd Jazz 1st
1998-Bulls 7th Jazz 2nd
1999-SAS 6th NYK 24th
2000-LAL 10th Ind 13th
2001-LAL 9th 76ers 21st
2002-LAL 9th NJN 3rd
2003-SAS 22nd NJN 7th
2004-DET 15th LAL 4th
2005-SAS 14th DET 12th
2006-Mia 17th DALL 29th
2007-SAS 11th CLE 15th
2008-Bos 8th LAL 4th
2009-LAL 2nd ORL 29th
2010-LAL 16th Bos 2nd

Tbh this probably would have been more scientific if I used their stats compared to the league average but that would have been way more work.

A couple of things jump out from this for me. 1) Those Bulls teams were annually high up among the league assist leaders. 2) There were only 5 significantly bottom tier assist teams which made the Finals (teams who were in the 20s in rank for the year). And only one, 2003 SA (22) won a title. 2006 Dallas (29) lost in a tough 6 game series, and 1999 NYK (24), 2001 PHI (21), and 2009 ORL (29) lost in five games. And 3) from 1991 to 1998 no team worse than 11th made the Finals, it's gotten a little more hit or miss in the post-Jordan era.

Let me break it down even further, out of the teams to make the Finals in the past twenty years, 14 out of the 20 Champions were top ten assist teams, five were in the 11-17 range and one was in the 20s and 11 out of the 20 runner ups were top ten assist teams, five were in the 11-15 range, and four were in the 20s.

[Homeland Security]

The player who creates the breakdown in the defense which generates a scoring opportunity is not always the player who gets the assist on a team with good ball movement playing against a quality defense.

Prime example: Tim Duncan makes a move on the low block which draws a double-team. He kicks the ball out to player B. A defender starts to rotate over to the shooter so he passes to the guy the defender just left, player C. Another defender starts to rotate over to him, so he passes to a fourth player, D, who takes the open shot and hits it. On that play, player C gets the assist, but Tim Duncan created the opportunity.

There are a great many things players can do which create wins but do not show up as statistics.

[Goran Dragic]

So what we've basically seen in this thread is that the assist itself is a good team stat to judge based on how well they're distributed and how many the team has, but as an individual stat it's extremely overrated and the volume assist player is overrated.

[Chieflion]

I actually think the assist is underrated. When people look at the game, and realize their team is down. They turn to the scoreboard, then they will comment something like, "Oh, the Spurs are getting beat on the boards, that is why we are down" or "We are shooting very poorly" or even "The team is turning the ball over a lot".

Rarely, you will hear someone pointing out, we got lesser assists, that is why we lost.

Although I know what DoK is trying to say about individual assists being "overrated" and it becomes a great PG can't lead teams to titles thing, you have to note the talent level of the team.

Taking the New Orleans Hornets' Chris Paul for example, why does he have so many assists? More often than not, a team which has a high volume assist point guard also has incapable perimeter players who cannot create their own shot like James Posey and a washed-up Peja Stojakovic. The same goes for Deron Williams of the Utah Jazz. His perimeter players included the likes Wesley Matthews and guys who couldn't create.

If the point guards have good perimeter offensive help, they would not need to hog the ball and try to do everything on every possession. You talk about guys like Magic Johnson, he had help like Byron Scott. What about Isiah Thomas, he had Joe Dumars in his backcourt. Guess what? These guys won not just one, but multiple times. It is of no coincidence that a great PG paired with good perimeter threats along with passable inside presence will win titles.

Total assists as a team is more important to me, because it shows ball-movement and a fluid offense and not one or two guys playing iso ball on every play. I am looking at you, Atlanta Hawks. And usually, you see that these teams are good offensive teams. That is just my 2 cents.

[lefty]

So what we've basically seen in this thread is that the assist itself is a good team stat to judge based on how well they're distributed and how many the team has, but as an individual stat it's extremely overrated and the volume assist player is overrated.
Not necessarely true

The Jazz offense was not the same without Stockton
Same thing with Nash in Phoenix

Those are tru impact playmakers

[Goran Dragic]

That's my point, volume assist PG = shitty overrated team. If a team with CP3 was a championship caliber team CP3 wouldn't sniff 10+ assists per game.

[Goran Dragic]

Not necessarely true

The Jazz offense was not the same without Stockton
Same thing with Nash in Phoenix

Those are tru impact playmakers

The Suns would have the same amount of championships without Nash as they do with him, same thing with the Jazz.

[Goran Dragic]

You talk about guys like Magic Johnson, he had help like Byron Scott.
And also the best center of all time who was still a great post scorer, and a HoF forward who could finish all of the passes Magic dished him. But yeah, I'm sure Byron Scott is why Magic won :rolleyes


What about Isiah Thomas, he had Joe Dumars in his backcourt. Guess what? These guys won not just one, but multiple times. It is of no coincidence that a great PG paired with good perimeter threats along with passable inside presence will win titles.
That Pistons team won because it was one of the best defensive teams of all time, they were by no means a great offensive team. I'll chop my nuts off the day any team with Steve Nash is as good defensively as those Pistons.



The NBA is completely different now than it was in the 80's (largely because of Jordan). The fact Isiah and Magic are the most recent examples of a PG leading their team to a title makes it pretty clear that teams led by PG will flame out in the playoffs in the modern NBA.

[lefty]

That's my point, volume assist PG = shitty overrated team. If a team with CP3 was a championship caliber team CP3 wouldn't sniff 10+ assists per game.



The Suns would have the same amount of championships without Nash as they do with him, same thing with the Jazz.

The fact that the statical leaders in assists haven't won a lot of titles sunce 1991 has more to do with who they are surrounded with than anything else. Before 1991, Magic played with a great Laker team, and Isiah had plenty of scorers around him.
Stockton had Malone, who has choked in the NBA Finals, Kidd has played on average teams outside of New Jersey, and the Nets were to weak in the paint to stop Shaq, Duncan and Robinson; Nash has been playing on a very poor defensive team



Also, here is my 0.02 on the thread in general




- When talking about Pippen, Jordan, Kobe, it's important to keep in mind that they have played in the triangle offense, a system that allows sharing the ball, involving everyone.
I'm not saying they are not great passers, but heck, even Luc Longley could dish it out in Tex Winter's offense



- " Lastly, are getting tons of assists and being a great passer as intertwined as people think? Is a player who can get assists using his ability to draw defensive attention but can't make a simple entry pass or find teammates iso'ed against a mismatch really a "good" passer? Is someone who isn't good enough to draw defenders away from teammates but can make pinpoint entry passes and set players up for iso's just as good as if not a better passer than volume assist players? "

I believe a great passer is a player who has the ability to make plays, like Magic, Nash, Isiah.

Feared scorers like Jordan, Kobe, Ginobili would be in-between (they would get their assists mainly because of their avility to score and draw attention, but they were/are still terrific passers)

Then you have the overrated great passers, like Shaq; I mean, give me a fucking break; Shaq is already a giant to begin with and when he was dominant other coaches would triple team him, all he had to was to raise his arm and pass the ball to an open teammate; " great passrer " my ass

[BUMP]

Bottom line is you need somebody who can put the ball in the basket consistently. When the game is on the line you need a superstar to take over, so yes the assist is overrated.

You could have the flashiest player on the court but if you have ezau and his dead wife as teammates it does you no good

[lefty]

Bottom line is you need somebody who can put the ball in the basket consistently. When the game is on the line you need a superstar to take over, so yes the assist is overrated.

You could have the flashiest player on the court but if you have ezau and his dead wife as teammates it does you no good
yep

[Chieflion]

And also the best center of all time who was still a great post scorer, and a HoF forward who could finish all of the passes Magic dished him. But yeah, I'm sure Byron Scott is why Magic won :rolleyes


That Pistons team won because it was one of the best defensive teams of all time, they were by no means a great offensive team. I'll chop my nuts off the day any team with Steve Nash is as good defensively as those Pistons.



The NBA is completely different now than it was in the 80's (largely because of Jordan). The fact Isiah and Magic are the most recent examples of a PG leading their team to a title makes it pretty clear that teams led by PG will flame out in the playoffs in the modern NBA.
So all you are arguing is that teams need talent to win? That is such an astounding statement. Those guys were great assist men, they won because they had help. Plain and simple. If Chris Paul and Deron Williams had that support, they would win championships too.

Again, the PG's impact was so great in winning during the season, you had to wait until the playoffs to realize that the role players suck and could not elevate the level of their game, much like the usual role players. Reading your previous posts that states that their weaknesses are actually enhanced during the playoffs, obviously has to do with the fact that the players suck, not the PG.

[Goran Dragic]

The fact that the statical leaders in assists haven't won a lot of titles sunce 1991 has more to do with who they are surrounded with than anything else. Before 1991, Magic played with a great Laker team, and Isiah had plenty of scorers around him.
Stockton had Malone, who has choked in the NBA Finals, Kidd has played on average teams outside of New Jersey, and the Nets were to weak in the paint to stop Shaq, Duncan and Robinson; Nash has been playing on a very poor defensive team
Having an assist whore like Stockton who played to rack up assists rather than get wins certainly didn't make things easier for Malone. Watch any film of that Utah team, the stuff Stockton did to get assists was retarded. He would pass up open layups and rifle it out to Hornacek for a 20 footer. I'd agree with the Jason Kidd point but Kidd was too lazy to ever develop an individual offensive game, he was content being a player who could control games without scoring (that's actually something he said). Nash has been on bad defensive teams because Nash sucks at defense, he gets the lionshare of the blame for that one.



- When talking about Pippen, Jordan, Kobe, it's important to keep in mind that they have played in the triangle offense, a system that allows sharing the ball, involving everyone.
I'm not saying they are not great passers, but heck, even Luc Longley could dish it out in Tex Winter's offense
:tu you're right, the triangle offense has had better ball movement than any other offense in recent memory, and oddly enough it's an offense predicated on not having a star PG.



I believe a great passer is a player who has the ability to make plays, like Magic, Nash, Isiah.
Magic and Isiah were able to make plays and get assists without dominating the ball. Nash wasn't good enough to do that, he dominated the ball more than he should have and repeatedly whore'd pick and rolls to rack up assists.

[Goran Dragic]

So all you are arguing is that teams need talent to win? That is such an astounding statement. Those guys were great assist men, they won because they had help. Plain and simple. If Chris Paul and Deron Williams had that support, they would win championships too.

Again, the PG's impact was so great in winning during the season, you had to wait until the playoffs to realize that the role players suck and could not elevate the level of their game, much like the usual role players. Reading your previous posts that states that their weaknesses are actually enhanced during the playoffs, obviously has to do with the fact that the players suck, not the PG.


CP3 and Deron Williams will never win a championship as the best player on their team. Write it down, take a picture. It's never going to happen.

[Chieflion]

CP3 and Deron Williams will never win a championship as the best player on their team. Write it down, take a picture. It's never going to happen.

We will see. Right now, they have as much of a chance as anyone else. Obviously, they would need to be surrounded with good enough talent to prove your point, which isn't impossible. It can be done.

[Goran Dragic]

We will see. Right now, they have as much of a chance as anyone else. Obviously, they would need to be surrounded with good enough talent to prove your point, which isn't impossible. It can be done.


Good enough talent would mean they'd have a superior player on their team capable of closing out close playoff games the way neither one of them can. Remember when CP3 had to defer to Jannero fucking Pargo in a game 7 (lol deferring to Jannero Pargo) once San Antonio started to shut down his passing lanes? They ain't winning shit until he has a superior player to defer to in a big playoff game.

[lefty]

Having an assist whore like Stockton who played to rack up assists rather than get wins certainly didn't make things easier for Malone. Watch any film of that Utah team, the stuff Stockton did to get assists was retarded. He would pass up open layups and rifle it out to Hornacek for a 20 footer. I'd agree with the Jason Kidd point but Kidd was too lazy to ever develop an individual offensive game, he was content being a player who could control games without scoring (that's actually something he said). Nash has been on bad defensive teams because Nash sucks at defense, he gets the lionshare of the blame for that one.
True :lol

But I think Stock was more concerned with winning though; he was a tough competitor






Magic and Isiah were able to make plays and get assists without dominating the ball. Nash wasn't good enough to do that, he dominated the ball more than he should have and repeatedly whore'd pick and rolls to rack up assists.

Interesting point; but again, the defenses they faced were not the same; plus, there was no zone D back in the days, which may explain why Nash has to dominate the ball more in order to find an open teammate

But I could b wrong :D

[Goran Dragic]

I think you're 100% right. Teams are allowed to do things now like run zone D's so one player can't kill them. Back then they weren't able to do that.

[Chieflion]

Good enough talent would mean they'd have a superior player on their team capable of closing out close playoff games the way neither one of them can.

Like I said before, only time will tell. Paul and Williams can also score very well. Your biased views against PGs is unreal though. :lol

[Pelicans78]

you can make a case for any stat being overrated by itself. Scoring, blocks, steals, all can be overrated. There's a difference between overrating assists and overrating PGs who accumulate assists.

The reasons why guys like Nash, CP3, and D-Will are considered stars is because they can do other things as well.

CP3 easily made his team much better from 2007-2009. He created for everyone and put them in the right position to succeed. That's why the Hornets succeeded. David West became a two-time All-stat with CP3, Tyson Chandler became relevant, and the team won. Unfortunately, the team didn't have enough scorers who could create shots for themselves, and Chandler's injuries really hurt the team overall, especially defensively.

Deron Williams isn't overrated just because his team hasn't won a championship. He needs more help as well. Kobe was a great scorer from 2005-2007, but his teams didn't win because there wasn't enough talent around him.

[Zelophehad]

This thread at times is arguing a couple of different things. Are assists an important stat? Are teams better off with one player averaging 10+ assists? And are point guard driven teams better off moving the ball out of the pg's hands? (lol DoK's hatred of Nash)

I wondered if the best teams were also teams who averaged a lot of assists. I took ten minutes to see what the two Finals teams averaged in respect to the league and each other in assists per game for the last twenty years to see for myself.

1991-Bulls 4th LAL 11th
1992-Bulls 3rd Por. 10th (random fact: Portland led the league in 1991)
1993-Bulls 6th Pho. 10th
1994-Hou 8th NYK 11th
1995-Hou 7th Orl 1st
1996-Bulls 5th Sea 7th
1997-Bulls 2nd Jazz 1st
1998-Bulls 7th Jazz 2nd
1999-SAS 6th NYK 24th
2000-LAL 10th Ind 13th
2001-LAL 9th 76ers 21st
2002-LAL 9th NJN 3rd
2003-SAS 22nd NJN 7th
2004-DET 15th LAL 4th
2005-SAS 14th DET 12th
2006-Mia 17th DALL 29th
2007-SAS 11th CLE 15th
2008-Bos 8th LAL 4th
2009-LAL 2nd ORL 29th
2010-LAL 16th Bos 2nd

Tbh this probably would have been more scientific if I used their stats compared to the league average but that would have been way more work.

A couple of things jump out from this for me. 1) Those Bulls teams were annually high up among the league assist leaders. 2) There were only 5 significantly bottom tier assist teams which made the Finals (teams who were in the 20s in rank for the year). And only one, 2003 SA (22) won a title. 2006 Dallas (29) lost in a tough 6 game series, and 1999 NYK (24), 2001 PHI (21), and 2009 ORL (29) lost in five games. And 3) from 1991 to 1998 no team worse than 11th made the Finals, it's gotten a little more hit or miss in the post-Jordan era.

Let me break it down even further, out of the teams to make the Finals in the past twenty years, 14 out of the 20 Champions were top ten assist teams, five were in the 11-17 range and one was in the 20s and 11 out of the 20 runner ups were top ten assist teams, five were in the 11-15 range, and four were in the 20s.

If the 06 Mavs hadn't shit the bed with some help from the refs they could have been the worst passing team to ever win a title. Fucking isolation offense. I hope to God Beaubois is a good enough all around player and passer that we're pick and rolling Roddy and Dirk in the clutch and breaking down the defense the next few years instead of just isolating for jumpers.

[Goran Dragic]

I have a question 78, if CP3 didn't get injured this year, would the Hornets have ever discovered what kind of a scorer Marcus Thorton could be? It's hard for anyone to create their own shot or for any young player to develop an ability to create for himself when the PG has the ball in his hands 95% of the time.

[Pelicans78]

I have a question 78, if CP3 didn't get injured this year, would the Hornets have ever discovered what kind of a scorer Marcus Thorton could be? It's hard for anyone to create their own shot or for any young player to develop an ability to create for himself when the PG has the ball in his hands 95% of the time.

They already did discover his scoring before CP3's injury. Thornton was moved into the starting lineup 3 games before CP3 went down. Plus, after Scott was fired, the offense was changed to allow for more ball movement and spacing instead of relying entirely on the pick n roll. Thornton was a 6th man before the Devin Brown trade and moved into the starting lineup and played 3 games with CP3 before the injury. Thornton was already scoring well before in the starting lineup. The player who got the most benefit from CP3's injury was Collison.

[Pelicans78]

In the 3 games Thornton started with CP3 before the injury, he scored 19, 18, and 20 points. In CP3's first game back from the injury, the team inserted Thornton in the lineup with him and moved Collison to the 6th man rule. Thornton scored 28 pts that game. I think those two will complement each other well.

[Pelicans78]

Good enough talent would mean they'd have a superior player on their team capable of closing out close playoff games the way neither one of them can. Remember when CP3 had to defer to Jannero fucking Pargo in a game 7 (lol deferring to Jannero Pargo) once San Antonio started to shut down his passing lanes? They ain't winning shit until he has a superior player to defer to in a big playoff game.

CP3's jumper wasn't as strong as it is now. The CP3 of now would have taken over that game. He just didn't have enough confidence in his jumpshot back then, especially in that game. He's a different player now. He's become a much better scorer than he was two years ago Plus, he can defer to Thornton if needed who can score instantly. Also, West was playing with an injured back and he wasn't effective that game. San Antonio had no one who could stop him before he hurt his back in game 5.

[Goran Dragic]

lol making excuses for deferring to Jannero Pargo

[Goran Dragic]

In the 3 games Thornton started with CP3 before the injury, he scored 19, 18, and 20 points. In CP3's first game back from the injury, the team inserted Thornton in the lineup with him and moved Collison to the 6th man rule. Thornton scored 28 pts that game. I think those two will complement each other well.

I'm talking about his 1st injury. The first game Thornton scored more than 8 points was the game CP3 got injured. If CP3 played 82 games last year would Thornton have ever been discovered?

[Pelicans78]

lol making excuses for deferring to Jannero Pargo

It's not an excuse. It is what it is. He wasn't a great jumpshooter back then. He was decent, but not nearly as good as he is now. He was a pure PG back then who could score, but not good enough to win that game. It was only his 3rd year in the league and he was what 22 or 23 back then? He's a much better scorer now and continues to get better.

[Goran Dragic]

Even at age 22 a true leader would know he's better off taking the shots than Jannero Pargo.

[Pelicans78]

I'm talking about his 1st injury. The first game Thornton scored more than 8 points was the game CP3 got injured. If CP3 played 82 games last year would Thornton have ever been discovered?

That was Byron Scott's fault mostly. He didn't play Thornton or Collison in the first ten games of the season for whatever reason. He got limited minutes in the first few games before the first injury. That was more of a Byron Scott issue than a CP3 issue. Scott was slowly bringing Thornton and Collison into the rotation, but the team struggled badly in the process relying on bums like Devin Brown, So-Feet, and Bobby Brown. It had nothing to do with CP3 running the offense.

[Pelicans78]

Even at age 22 a true leader would know he's better off taking the shots than Jannero Pargo.

Maybe ur right, but Pargo was the best SG that season which is sad to be honest. He was more of a scorer than CP3 who was still mostly a pure PG who scored mostly on dribble penetration or fast breaks. It was unfortunate that he didn't shoot more, but I guess he wasn't confident enough in his shot at that time. It sucks, but it is what is.

[Goran Dragic]

Btw I don't fault CP3 for not closing that game out, it's not something Deron Williams or any other PG would be able to do. Just look at how the other team won, when New Orleans made a 4th quarter comeback and cut the lead down, San Antonio closed it out because they had a player Parker could defer to capable of creating for himself and closing the 4th quarter out by getting to the line.

[Pelicans78]

Btw I don't fault CP3 for not closing that game out, it's not something Deron Williams or any other PG would be able to do. Just look at how the other team won, when New Orleans made a 4th quarter comeback and cut the lead down, San Antonio closed it out because they had a player Parker could defer to capable of creating for himself and closing the 4th quarter out by getting to the line.

That game sucked overall. Offensively and defensively. The team played scared but were also limited with a lack of depth and a lack of a wing scorer who could create shots which is why Pargo was that guy in the 4th. The team had to double Duncan because Chandler was limited with his toe injury, West couldn't score that night, and no one else was doing anything until Pargo came in and the overall defense improved. That's why the Posey signing was such a joke because the team needed a wing scorer and instead signed a role player. The bigger joke now is the team has a head coach before actually having an owner or GM.

[Goran Dragic]

At least you guys aren't starting Hedo Turkoglu at power forward.

[ogait]

Lets say Nash plays different than what he has during his time in Phoenix. He never shot under 50 % since he has been traded by Dallas so obviously he´s an amazing shooter.

His assists go down and his individual scoring goes up, will Phoenix perform better? No because his team mates are still Leandro Barbosa, Shawn Marion, Raja Bell, etc.

Now par him with players that can create for themselves like Duncan had Parker and Ginobili, he can still be the most important player on his team and win a championship as a point guard oriented team.

So yes averaging over 10 assist can be overrated but the players who do it aren't imo.

[Pelicans78]

I think a scoring PG could have closed it out. That wasn't a great Spurs team by any means and Manu was limited himself. I think the CP3 of today could have won that game. D-Will too since he's a great scorer. All the Hornets needed was a wing scorer that night and they could have won.

[Pelicans78]

At least you guys aren't starting Hedo Turkoglu at power forward.

Why isn't Frye starting?

[Pelicans78]

I think Goran's point is that a great PG won't have to average 10 assists per game while playing on a championship team. Maybe he's right. Maybe if CP3 or Nash or Williams played on the Lakers, they wouldn't average 10 assists per game.

[Goran Dragic]

Now par him with players that can create for themselves like Duncan had Parker and Ginobili, he can still be the most important player on his team and win a championship as a point guard oriented team.


Replace Parker with Nash, and Duncan is still the best player on his team in 2005 or 2007. It's not particularly close either.

[Veterinarian]

Why isn't Frye starting?

They need him at center so he can defend the rim with his awesome shotblocking.

[Goran Dragic]

Why isn't Frye starting?


Because he's the backup C and they wanna keep the 2nd unit intact from last year.

lol @ the Suns paying the backup C, backup PF and backup SG a combined $16 million for the next 5 years......:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao.......they chose that over just giving Amare a 5 year max deal.

[Pelicans78]

Because he's the backup C and they wanna keep the 2nd unit intact from last year.

lol @ the Suns paying the backup C, backup PF and backup SG a combined $16 million for the next 5 years......:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao.......they chose that over just giving Amare a 5 year max deal.

So Hedo's really starting at PF? :wow

So who made these signings with Kerr gone? So basically we have this:

C Lopez (who the Hornets would love to have)
PF Hedo
SF Hill
SG Richardson
PG Nash

with Frye, Warrick, Dudley, and Dragic. I don't know its really worse than this:

C Okafor
PF West
SF Peja
SG Thornton
PG CP3

Collison, Posey, Pondexter, Songalia, and Gray. I bet the Suns are still better.

[Goran Dragic]

slightly still better since Gentry is still coach and he'll be able to eek wins outa the team but I really don't care about making the playoffs and losing anymore. Once Amare left it was time to rebuild.

[Pelicans78]

slightly still better since Gentry is still coach and he'll be able to eek wins outa the team but I really don't care about making the playoffs and losing anymore. Once Amare left it was time to rebuild.

Yeah. The problem is Nash. He's still around. What would be the first step? Trade Nash? It's possible. Goran is ready to start.

[ogait]

Replace Parker with Nash, and Duncan is still the best player on his team in 2005 or 2007. It's not particularly close either.

True.

But have Duncan leading a team with the talent Steve Nash had around him those years and he probably can´t get the tittle as well.

[Goran Dragic]

They had two routes to take, either resign Amare and make minor tweaks to improve defensively, or decide he's not worth the risk and begin rebuilding by trading Nash/Hill and stockpiling young players/picks. At this point though no one is getting traded, they're locked in with this team for 4-5 years, and by then they'll have taken on some new shitty contracts that make it impossible to rebuild.

Steve Kerr gave them light at the end of the tunnel with a team that would have cap flexibility to rebuild while still being good. Sarver reversed all the good Kerr did for the team with the moves he's made this summer putting the Suns back in salary cap hell.

[Goran Dragic]

True.

But have Duncan leading a team with the talent Steve Nash had around him those years and he probably can´t get the tittle as well.


Probably not. I'm not saying the Suns woulda won a championship with a scoring PG instead of Nash, I'm saying that building around a PG doesn't work.

[DaDakota]

Good thread, and it does somewhat prove that a PG that dominates the ball is not as important as a well balanced team that shares that responsibility.

DD

[lefty]

Good thread, and it does somewhat prove that a PG that dominates the ball is not as important as a well balanced team that shares that responsibility.

DD
Exactly

[JamStone]

I think if you put CP3 on the Boston Celtics in 2007-08, they still win the title and he averages around 10 apg. He still plays his game and they win. He wouldn't have been the best player on the team, but he'd be a 10 apg type PG and they win.

[Goran Dragic]

The thing about that is teams are only gonna be so talented. It's not realistic to just add Chris Paul to a team that was already one of the best teams this decade. Anyway Chis Paul's game is dominating the ball, Doc Rivers would get him on a leash real quick if he played anything like the way he did in New Orleans. It's a much slower pace and he'd be playing in a half court motion offense with set plays, I don't think he'd average 10 assists.

[JamStone]

I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think Doc would basically hand the keys to a guy like CP3, an established superstar point guard. Doc would bend over and drop his pants for CP3 and let him play his style. CP3 would be fine getting everyone involved. Even back in 2007-08, Pierce, KG, and Ray Allen all gave up the ball to Rondo. Rondo wasn't the same player he is now, but he handled the ball and for the most part facilitated the offense even back then. You can bet all three of those guys would be more than willing to do the same with CP3. Rondo averaged 10 apg this past season, now that he's come into his own as a player. CP3 was already established in 2007-08. He'd do the same if not more in terms of assists.

I think you're really trying to sell the point that a ball dominating PG can't win championships. Sure that's been the case in this past decade. But I'm not convinced that if a great ball dominating PG were on the right team with the right talent around him, he couldn't put up 10 apg as well.

[Goran Dragic]

CP3's style doesn't win championships.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Let's review the basics, of what we already know, to clarify a few points about assists.

Logic says you pass the ball if a teammate has a better chance than you to make a basket. Best example would be where you steal the ball, a teammate runs down court ahead of the pack and you send an outlet pass to him. He gets two points, you get an assist. If you shoot from where you passed the ball, your coach will pull you. If you don't see your open teammate and dribble the ball down court, your coach will pull you.

On a 2 on 1 fastbreak, if you have the ball and you're covered, you pass it. Assist.

Now, take the set offense assist. PG has ball at top of key. C sets a screen. SG runs around screen and gets open. PG passes to SG and he makes an open shot. PG gets the assist but you could argue it belongs to the C, he got the SG open. The SG could ask for an assist as well, he got himself open.

Hockey gives multiple assists, why not the NBA?

SG passes the ball to PF who has posted up. PF makes a few faking moves, dribbles around his guy with a fake or two more, and scores. No assist here. The PF created his shot.

If it hasn't been mentioned, when a playoff series begins with a dominant point guard, the other team studies how that PG gets his assists and adjusts their defense. Passing lanes, rotations, matchups; everything is different than regular season. A team that relies on their PG to get them looks will get frustrated if the passes to them have been thwarted or there is a defender in their face whether they have the ball or not. That could cost them games, and as recent history has shown, it has. Ask Nash, Kidd, Paul, Williams, etc...

[JamStone]

CP3's style doesn't win championships.

I'll compromise. CP3's style would adjust with more talent and with more teammates able to create scoring opportunities. But with more talent, even with an adjusted style, CP3 could average 10 apg and help his team win a championship.

[Brazil]

CP3's style doesn't win championships.

maybe true but TP's style doesn't win championships either, prime duncan does.

[lefty]

Let's review the basics, of what we already know, to clarify a few points about assists.

Logic says you pass the ball if a teammate has a better chance than you to make a basket. Best example would be where you steal the ball, a teammate runs down court ahead of the pack and you send an outlet pass to him. He gets two points, you get an assist. If you shoot from where you passed the ball, your coach will pull you. If you don't see your open teammate and dribble the ball down court, your coach will pull you.

On a 2 on 1 fastbreak, if you have the ball and you're covered, you pass it. Assist.

Now, take the set offense assist. PG has ball at top of key. C sets a screen. SG runs around screen and gets open. PG passes to SG and he makes an open shot. PG gets the assist but you could argue it belongs to the C, he got the SG open. The SG could ask for an assist as well, he got himself open.

Hockey gives multiple assists, why not the NBA?
SG passes the ball to PF who has posted up. PF makes a few faking moves, dribbles around his guy with a fake or two more, and scores. No assist here. The PF created his shot.

If it hasn't been mentioned, when a playoff series begins with a dominant point guard, the other team studies how that PG gets his assists and adjusts their defense. Passing lanes, rotations, matchups; everything is different than regular season. A team that relies on their PG to get them looks will get frustrated if the passes to them have been thwarted or there is a defender in their face whether they have the ball or not. That could cost them games, and as recent history has shown, it has. Ask Nash, Kidd, Paul, Williams, etc...

Interesting......

[bobbyjoe]

The pure passing PG (which is the spirit of this discussion) is certainly not overrated. Next to a dominant bigman, I think most GM's would be in search of a pure passing PG on their wishlist of pieces to build a great team.

A more fair measurement of the value of a pure passing Stockton, Magic or Nash type of PG than # of championships won would be to look at how much more efficient and productive offenses quarterbacked by those types of PG have been than those led by elite wing scorers or elite bigmen.

You'd be hardpressed to find a more efficient offense in the 90's than the Jazz and in the 00's than the Suns and in the 80's than the Lakers and Magic.

As for the stat itself, it has some major limitations. As noted, the enabler of the basket doesn't always get credited with the assist in the NBA. Also of note is that a good pass which results in 2 Free Throws is not scored as an assist. Lastly if a great passer is surrounded by crud (see Chris Paul) his #'s are obviously lower than they would be on a team with better scorers.

[DaDakota]

If there is one guy dominating the ball, it makes it much easier for the defense to focus on......that is why with the legalizing of zone defenses, the one guy dominates the ball offense has failed every year since the 80s.

DD

[Goran Dragic]

The pure passing PG (which is the spirit of this discussion) is certainly not overrated. Next to a dominant bigman, I think most GM's would be in search of a pure passing PG on their wishlist of pieces to build a great team.



Any GM with a brain would want a dominant wing before a dominant PG.

[pauls931]

All I can say is playing pickup, getting an assist is 10x harder than scoring. Probably because we all suck, play man, and rarely have to double leaving anyone wide open.:lol

I do like the head of the snake theory vs a bunch of scorers. With zones and doubles, you can f'up a team. Just as the Spurs used to throw the kitchen sink at Nash and f'up the suns since they are so dependant on him. Hell before Dragic, even putting nash on the bench would turn them into the washington generals.

[xellos88330]

Honestly, passers should be credited with assists like hockey.

True PG to me is someone who can see 2 passes ahead in the same play. Not just his passes, but the rest of the teams passes.

If they added that statistic, it would make this debate a bit clearer, as it pertains to the effectiveness of a passing guard and a scoring guard. I think the numbers of a scoring guard could surprise a few people.