We've seen some of the best in this game:
Nash, Kidd, Stockton, Maravich, Cousy, the list can go on...
These guys could shoot, score and most importantly pass. That is what a point guard's job is, to pass the ball.
So all the crazy talk about Tony Parker possibly being traded and George Hill not being a true point guard prompted me to pick the brains of my fellow ST'ers.
What traits or skills does one have to possess in order to be considered a true point guard?
Former basketball coach, Lee Rose wrote a book called The Basketball Handbook. The book describes a point guard as a coach on the floor, who can handle and distribute the ball to teammates.
Yes George Hill does not possess these skills but its debatable that Parker does as well. When a guy grows up idolizing Michael Jordan, its understandable that he wants to play like him as well. Parker is a scorer, and a damn good one. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. That is the kind of point guard that Pop wants in his system. To say however that George Hill is not a true point guard, only suggests that Parker likewise is not a true point guard as neither of them are vocal floor leaders and neither of them overall averages more than 6 assists per game showing that they do not pass enough. Now in their defense, perhaps they would pass more if they knew they had guys who could knock down an open shot instead of missing them [see RJ & RMJ]. Perhaps then their assists would likewise improve. It seems fruitless to me however to say that one is a point guard and one is not. If we are basing this off of playing style, then both of them are undersized shooting guards.
The difference between them and the other point guards listed before is the ability and willingness to pass, the ability to constantly hit the open jumper including three ball, and more important than anything I can think of [especially for this team] is to hit 80% of their free throws minimum.
I’ll let you guys discuss!
A true PG, IMHO, is (almost) the perfect decision maker; he know when to pass, and when to shoot.
He is also the coach on the court.
A perfect example is Stockton; we know Stockton had a fairly high shooting %, but hte reason he shot the ball so well is because of his good shot selections, not because he was a great shooter (like Mark Price)
Leadership is also a key componenent: Magic, Isiah, Stockton, Magic didn't shy away from making big plays when their team needed them
It is interesting you have a career 24 ppg/ 5.4 apg player making your list of true PG
Nope, not saying these guys are "true" point guards. Though some of them may very well be, these are old school guys who were great at their position. What I said was:It is interesting you have a career 24 ppg/ 5.4 apg player making your list of true PG
There are plenty of more on that list. Magic Johnson, Jerry West. The thing was they were old school point guards who were great at their trades.Originally Posted by BadOne
We've seen some of the best in this game:
Nash, Kidd, Stockton, Maravich, Cousy, the list can go on...
These guys could shoot, score and most importantly pass. That is what a point guard's job is, to pass the ball.
The newer players who are considered great are the likes of Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Deron Williams, Rajon Rondo, etc...
I suppose I could've rephrased that opening statement saying "We've seen some of the best point guards to ever play this game." The thread was to get your opinion on what makes a "true" point guard. Tony regardless if "true" or not, is still one of the best point guards in the league today. No question.
One of the things that makes up a true point guard is his ability to get his players into plays and get them open looks. They should be the initiator of the majority of the offense. Tony does some of this with Tim only and the occasional kick out but for the most part he's looking to score. George really doesn't do this at all other than calling the play out as he brings the ball down court.
You look at a guy like Deron Williams. He dominates the ball but at the same time creates tons of opportunities for all the guys on the court. Same with CP3.
I think George could do it because you don't have to be at Deron's level to play point. just initiate the plays and make sure you keep the defense honest when needed. Billups is a good example these days.
You're right. I can't believe I even forgot to mention Chauncey.
Good read man.
+1
A true PG has the ability to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts would otherwise be. Gets people the ball in their comfort zones and can pass the ball with a high degree of accuracy.
Oscar Robertson, Mr Triple Double.
Pretty much how I feel it is. I would also add that he is responsible for making those around him better, knowing where each players best spots are, and putting the ball into the best position for the other player to succeed
The Point Guard is the player that plays at the point... that's it!
The difference is the playmaking!
The PG has historicaly alwys be the one that distibute and gives the ball to the SCORERS...
Nowdays and particularly with the spurs, not only because of Pop, but because of the "personel" of the team, the role of the PG has slighly change...
Tim and Manu have both playmaking skills, that are quite unique...
Tony has an hability to score quite unique for a PG...
With the evolution of BB and players becoming more and more versatile, I can see the playmaking being shared between the players...
+ Concerning Tony, he didn't go to college to learn how to be a PG, he learn "on the field" and had at the same time to earn his place on the team (by scoring)
But if you watch closely the evolution of his game, I think he is getting better and better every year (he average 7ast last year ALONG with 22pts, not bad...)
I won't be surprised if he ends his carreer averaging 9-10 ast/game
But I respect the concervative POV that only apreciate PG such as Kidd, Nash, Stockton...
I love it too!
But I like the players that are "different", that's another reason I love the Spurs,each of the big3 are really "different"/special...
I understand why so many Spurs fans don't apreciate Tony as a PG, but man... if you follow the spurs, admit he can sometimes be amazing and so much underated...
True PGs: Nash, Williams, CP3, Kidd, Rondo
Scoring PGs: Parker, Arenas, Rose, Baron
All of those guys can pass and score, the first tier just happens to have much better court vision and passing abilities than the ones below, who can score at will.
So, to be a true point guard, it looks like you have to be at least 50% white.
So this got me thinking and I was looking to see other half black/white point guards and according to another board: Deron Williams, Mike Bibby, and Kevin Martin make the list of point guards.
Of note, if any of you think the discussions on this board are inane, you should check out this stimulating conversation
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76156
Nope. But then that was just a random list of some of the "greats". I didn't label them as "true" point guards, just old school great ones. Based off of what some of the posters here have said, there are plenty that are non-white, old school or new school.
I couldn't say anything bout their race or nationality.
Wow those guys made a serious thread about that. Don't matter the color of the skin. Only matters if you could win IMO.
I hear ya. It's a great debate and my comments about white/black were all tongue in cheek.
When I found how seriously those other guys were debating Grant Hill's mom's color and even going to the extent to post her pic, I had to laugh.
Where does Russell Westbrook rate scorer or passer?
He had some massive assist games.
He's got a big future I think, if he stays with KD massive 1-2 punch.
A true point guard is like a team's quarterback. He is a facilitator first and gets his team involved. His concern is more that his team's offense is running smoothly and places less importance on his own offence or putting up big scoring numbers. - Eg. Avery Johnson, Jason Kidd, John Stockton, Steve Nash
Last edited by G-Dawgg; 05-13-2010 at 12:36 PM.
A "true point guard" it's actually a PG that the spurs don't need.
If a "true point guard" is a playmaker, Manu is a playmaker, Tim can play as a point forward... A playmaker is a player who can do the right thing at the right moment, make the right choices, follow a strategy and involve every players in a system. It's like to be a coach on the court, yes, but it's more simple than that: it's all about IQ BB. There is two things that Pop likes: players who know how to defend and smart players. Some prefer athletism, Pop likes smart players. Because, why to be satisfied with only one playmaker with one "true point guard" whereas you have five players on the floor. You have to ask to your players to be smart when they have the ball, following a strategy, improvising when it's necessary and making the best decision. If you have only one playmaker with the "true point guard" all the defense can focus on him. When all the players are involved in the playmaking system, it's harder for the defense to envisage what you will do.
So it's easy to define a true point guard, a playmaker, but the real issue is if the Spurs need one. The answer is no.
Why the Spurs played so well with Hill on PG? because it was actually Manu most of time who initiate the offense, or Timmy with an iso.
It's true to say that Hill is a pure scorer, not a "true point guard" a la Stockton or Nash or Kidd. Did the Spurs miss one? No. All are involve in the playmaking process, because the are the Spurs, and the Spurs... are smart. Because Pop never let stupid players run the floor. He had doubts about Ian - He didn't play him...
In a team, what is important, it's not to put your players on stereotypal roles as a "true point guard" (check). What is important is to built a general strategy and play your players with their own skills. Nash can found everyone on the floor any time; that's great, if you have shooters or finishers on the paint. Is Timmy a finisher? is Manu a "pure" catch and shooter? They can found the way to the basket by themselves. That's why TP will never have 10assists/. Do they need to be assisted?! - And if Hill doesn't have even one assist per game, it's because with Manu, he plays like a SG (in a scorer role or in a shooter role: drive or catch; shot in the corner - because Manu is smarter and he have more experience). The "true - playmakers" are just not only at the PG position but everywhere where the smart players are.
Last thing about Parker. When he returned from injury he was so slow that during two or three games he played like a distributor, an assistator, a facilitator. And whe saw that he is not so bad to found other players. In a D'Antoni's system he could have 10ast... So a true point guard is a point guard who plays as the coach wants, who plays with his best skills, who doesn't force to be another player like Nash or Stockton. Every players are different and a coach needs to make a coherent team with all skills and ap udes he has - not with stereotypes.
Last edited by Limguogolo; 05-13-2010 at 06:04 PM.
I disagree with Limguogolo's above post totally.
A true point guard can only make the team better.
Did you even watch how the spurs played with Tony out, the team was playing as a team and it was amazing to watch.
Manu was running the show because he is a creator, which sadly is mostly lost when TP is on the floor with him.
Insert TP back into the side and 35 minutes per game we generally play as one man scorers do it yourself type stuff unless Manu gets the ball and time left to go to work.
TPs game: penetrate pass out for 3, pass into TD 1 on 1 for the finish, pass to Manu see if he can create something himself, Don’t pass to RJ when he cuts.
Don’t get me wrong TP is a great player but not someone who should be running things as his game is too 1 dimensional.
+1
Nice post.
A true PG is able to read the floor.
Dirk had a good sentence about Kidd this year. Something like "Other PG see that you are free and pass but in the moment you catch the ball the defense is allready there. Kidd is able to see where the ball should be in a few seconds for the open shot.
And of course when to pass, when to shoot, when to push the ball and when to slow down...
It's odd to me that whenever the discussion arises about what a true point guard is, the emphasis is almost always on offense-- does he get assists, does he score, etc., and people rarely mention defense. A great point guard is just like a great player at any other position-- he should be as effective as possible on both sides of the court. Every other "requirement" is really just a preference, and the idea that a team cannot win without a pure point guard is just completely untrue. The winningest team ever, the 72-10 Bulls, started 2 shooting guards and had their small forward bring the ball upcourt a great deal of the time... I think it's very interesting that the 3 names most associated with pure point guard play in this era are Nash, Stockton, and Kidd, and between them they have a total of zero championships...
i think its a pretty re ed term if you ask me. you're either a point guard or you're not.
of course then there are pass first point guards and scoring point guards. people seem to think being able to have a bunch of assists every night makes you a "true point guard". that's not the case.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
