basketball talk - The assist - overblown and overrated?

[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 ing 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 les. It's obvious that the traditional PG's are better players, and the fact that they haven't won any les 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 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 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/

[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 ? 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 ? 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? 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, got".

[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, got".

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.