Reply With Quote
Idk why I'm arguing anymore, because I agree that you can win with a "star PG" who averages 10 points and 5 assists like 2008 Rondo.
In 2008 he was.
PS - Derek Fisher would never get benched in favor of Eddie in House
Idk why I'm arguing anymore, because I agree that you can win with a "star PG" who averages 10 points and 5 assists like 2008 Rondo.
I'm not pimping Rondo as a huge star in 08. At times he carried that team, even as young as he was. You can choose to ignore his impact on that series, which is fine, but he certainly shouldn't be lumped in with Jason Williams and Derek Fisher.
You have this idea that star PGs have to play like Steve Nash. That isn't the case. You also ignore all the successful teams in the past 10 years that have in one way or another relied on star PGs.
I'm surprised the Hornets and Jazz haven't won anything if having a star PG is so good
They didn't build around them properly. You do realize how easy it is to recreate this same argument with other positions right?
You mean have a stud backup like Eddie House who gets minutes in the 4th quarter of important playoff games over Paul and D-Will?
Not one single team has won a championship with a PG as its best player in the last 20 years. There are plenty of teams that have won with a SG as their best player, with a PF as their best player, and of course with a C as their best player. You can't build around PGs, it doesn't work.
Relying solely on a PG for offense is obviously not a good thing. Relying solely on any position for offense is obviously not a good thing.
Your argument is that PGs dominate the ball are the sole catalyst on offense. In which case, having a star PG is a bad thing because it's easy to game plan against.
Star players at either PG, SG, or SF will dominate the ball in the half-court. If that's the lone form of offense then it will be easy to game plan for. Melo, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Rose... all them dominate the ball. When the offense relied solely on those players, they didn't win.
It has nothing to do with what position a star player is at, it has everything to do with how they are built around. Not every team is the Run-n-gun Phoenix suns.
Then why is it plenty of SGs have won as the alpha dog in recent years while NO point guard has won as alpha dog in the last 20 years? Are you saying that's just a coincidence?
Chauncey Billups was the Pistons best player in 2004. Tony Parker was the Spurs best offensive player in 2007.
Ben Wallace > Chauncey
The 2004 Pistons had no best player. Wallace, Wallace, Hamilton and Billups were all equally important. It's also no surprise this team won in spite of a horrible offense. People just say Billups is the best player because they remember him being the guy who picked apart a terrible Lakers defense. The 2004 Lakers happened to be a bad matchup for him.
This is extreme revisionist history. Tim Duncan averaged more points and shot a higher % in both the playoffs and regular season. He was the Spurs best player on either end of the court. You're not the first Spurs fan who disparaged Duncan's importance in 2007 just to try to convince me a team has won with a PG as its best player.
In the 4th quarter of games in 2007, who did you want handling the ball, Parker or Ginobili?
Ben Wallace won that series, not Billups.
Come on now...
I'm not saying I disagree or agree with your point, but this isn't exactly a strong argument....there aren't too many Shaqs, Duncans, and Jordans....3 of the most dominant players (while in their primes) to ever play the game. All of those guys were going to win championships, and they make up a huge chunk of your sample size.
Yeah, none these "most dominant players to ever play the game" were PGs sans Magic Johnson (who woulda been an all star at any position), weird.
_Jag
2004 - that was a total team effort by Detroit
2007 - Nobody could guard Tony Parker, but Duncan provided the all-around performance
2008 - Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen say hi
Billups was their best offensive player in that series.
Parker was the Spurs best offensive player in the Finals.
You're focusing too much on the offensive end. Defense wins championships. Many of the teams that have built around good PGs didn't play adequate defense to win les. Also, many of the teams that have built around PGs have not placed good enough players around them to be successful. They have relied solely on those players for offense.
The Suns didn't win because they couldn't play defense.
The Hornets havent won anything because Chris Paul is being relied on for all the offense.
The Jazz never won anything with Williams because he was being relied on for all the offense.
John Stockton wasn't the problem in Utah. Jordan was the problem for Utah.
Kidd wasn't the problem in NJ. The Spurs and Lakers were the problem.
It's easier to build around a big man for defensive reasons. But having a star PG isn't a detriment to your team if he's built around properly.
Gee, I wonder why
I wan't aware a 4-6 game finals series determines who the best players are. Especially when the real finals in 2007 was the Spurs vs. Suns series.
"But Parker dominated the 2007 Cavs"
That's it? That was your entire retort?
So the Finals don't count and regular season stats obviously don't count...I wan't aware a 4-6 game finals series determines who the best players are. Especially when the real finals in 2007 was the Spurs vs. Suns series.
"But Parker dominated the 2007 Cavs
So what would you like to go by?
When you have a PG constantly trying to force the tempo, constantly making re ed passes, and constantly chucking re ed shots that lead to long rebounds, it's impossible to be a good defensive team. PG oriented teams and bad defense are intertwined.
Still, his point is correct..offensive player or not, those PGs were not the best players on their teams..you can make an argument for Billups, but not for Parker..Duncan has him beat on every metric, regular stats, obviously defense, etc..
Ben Wallace was the best player on that Pistons team, and he's still constantly disrespected IMO..Detroit was +30.9 per 100 possessions with Wallace on the floor, during those playoffs, which is one of the highest numbers in NBA history..
what? Regular season stats do count. Duncan outscored Parker in both the regular season AND playoffs in 2007.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions