Reply With Quote
Are you trying to say Fisher has never been anything more than a role player on any of the 5 le teams he's been on?
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 in re ed 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.
Are you trying to say Fisher has never been anything more than a role player on any of the 5 le teams he's been on?
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.
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.
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.
[quote=mavs>spurs;4522667]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.
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.
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.
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.
And it ain't like he's capable of playing like Magic Johnson.
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.
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.
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..
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.
Kidd, Kevin Johnson, etc. There have been so many more AS caliber PG's in the last 20 years than AS caliber centers.
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 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.
Never said it does.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Last edited by Goran Dragic; 07-19-2010 at 03:48 PM.
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.
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 va .
My guess is when Lebron wins a le 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.
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.
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.
This is a good article about stat-padding: http://deadspin.com/5345287/the-conf...ba-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 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.
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 uva 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
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 donīt have enough talent the team will end sucking regardless of how good the main guy plays.
Thatīs why I donīt 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 itīs harder to win with a point guard oriented team but thatīs 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 heīs forced to due to double teams, etc.
I believe that if you put the right cast among this pest point guards they can win tles, 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.
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.
Last edited by cobbler; 07-19-2010 at 08:11 PM.
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.
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.
great post!
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 le. 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.
Last edited by Booharv; 07-20-2010 at 04:53 AM.
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.
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.
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 les 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 les.
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.
Not necessarely true
The Jazz offense was not the same without Stockton
Same thing with Nash in Phoenix
Those are tru impact playmakers
That's my point, volume assist PG = ty overrated team. If a team with CP3 was a championship caliber team CP3 wouldn't sniff 10+ assists per game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions