NBA: The obsession with PG's?

[lefty]

Parker won it all in 2007

smh rookies

[ambchang]

Acting like Lebron wasn't the de facto PG for every team he ever played for.

Focusing on PG when the new NBA is all about position less basketball and that multiple players are running the role of a PG.

[Mr Bones]

Acting like Lebron wasn't the de facto PG for every team he ever played for.

Focusing on PG when the new NBA is all about position less basketball and that multiple players are running the role of a PG.

[Clipper Nation]

Acting like Lebron wasn't the de facto PG for every team he ever played for.

LeBron is 6'8". You can win with him facilitating the offense because unlike a six-foot-nothing traditional point guard, opposing defenses can't just put a far bigger defender on him and cause the entire offense to stagnate. It's the same reason why Magic was able to win rings as a first-option PG. Unless you have an absolute freak of nature running point who's way oversized for the position, you're not winning with them as the first option just based on physical anatomy alone without even considering basketball-related reasons.

[Mr Bones]

LeBron is 6'8". You can win with him facilitating the offense because unlike a six-foot-nothing traditional point guard, opposing defenses can't just put a far bigger defender on him and cause the entire offense to stagnate. It's the same reason why Magic was able to win rings as a first-option PG. Unless you have an absolute freak of nature running point who's way oversized for the position, you're not winning with them as the first option just based on physical anatomy alone without even considering basketball-related reasons.

The Spurs just won the finals last year with Parker leading the team in mpg, usage rate, and ppg. He wasn't their best player on the floor and they did have a uniquely wide distribution of scoring, but he still handled the ball more on offense than anyone else.

[ambchang]

LeBron is 6'8". You can win with him facilitating the offense because unlike a six-foot-nothing traditional point guard, opposing defenses can't just put a far bigger defender on him and cause the entire offense to stagnate. It's the same reason why Magic was able to win rings as a first-option PG. Unless you have an absolute freak of nature running point who's way oversized for the position, you're not winning with them as the first option just based on physical anatomy alone without even considering basketball-related reasons.

So Magic was what? A PF?

I know he's a PG, but I don't think that's what you mean by traditional.

[Clipper Nation]

The Spurs just won the finals last year with Parker leading the team in mpg, usage rate, and ppg. He wasn't their best player on the floor and they did have a uniquely wide distribution of scoring, but he still handled the ball more on offense than anyone else.

Finally, you're starting to get it. Also, the Spurs were just fine without Enrique in crucial playoff games against Portland and OKC.

[Clipper Nation]

So Magic was what? A PF?

An extreme outlier.

[ambchang]

An extreme outlier.

He was still a traditional PG though, wasn't he?

And that essentially disproves the OPs assertion, no?

[Clipper Nation]

He was still a traditional PG though, wasn't he?

And that essentially disproves the OPs assertion, no?

A 6'9" forward running point is about as far from "traditional" as it gets, especially at a position where the average height is somewhere between 6'0" and 6'3".

[Mr Bones]

Finally, you're starting to get it. Also, the Spurs were just fine without Enrique in crucial playoff games against Portland and OKC.

I've never made the argument he was their best player, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. I thinking you're just lumping people together who have different takes.

[Clipper Nation]

I've never made the argument he was their best player, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. I thinking you're just lumping people together who have different takes.

The original post stated that PG-led teams don't win championships (which is what made you butthurt in the first place). Nobody in their right mind would suggest that Enrique "led" the Spurs last year, ergo, it's not an example of a PG-led team winning a championship no matter how much you'd like it to be.

[ambchang]

A 6'9" forward running point is about as far from "traditional" as it gets, especially at a position where the average height is somewhere between 6'0" and 6'3".

Why are PGs confined by height? Who came up with this definition?

Magic handled the ball like a PG, ran an offense like PG, ran the break like a PG, and does everything a PG does.

If the point is, teams led by players under 6'3" can no longer win in the NBA because that hasn't been observed since Isiah Thomas leading the Pistons to b2b, then there maybe a point. But then you still would have to show that Billups wasn't the leader in that 04 squad despite leading the team in many advanced stats.

Magic's not a forward, he played PG in college and HS. He just happens to be a tall PG.

[Malik Hairston]

1. Lebron isn't a PG, he's a SF/PF, find me a position listing that has him at PG
2. The OP's thread is about PG hype, which isn't arguable, they receive more hype than any other types of players, despite the constant failures
3. Magic was listed at PG, he's the outlier, it's not the same as Lebron
4. The examples of PGs leading teams to les as the clear best player are scarce
5. You can make the argument that Billups was the most important/best player in 2004, but there's absolutely no argument that he was the "clear" best or most important player

[Mr Bones]

The traditional role of the PG is to handle the ball, to bring it up court, to get the team ready for their offensive set... so whether your PG is your all around best player or not doesn't matter in the discussion. It's just like having a great lockdown defender on the wing, like Bruce Bowen. Bowen was never the best player on his teams, but he was still extremely valuable because he did his job. In the finals last year, Parker did his job. The discussion isn't about who's better, it's about all the components working together to win, and you can't deny that's what happened in the finals-- they won, in historic fashion, and Parker had the highest usage rate on the team.

[Mr Bones]

1. Lebron isn't a PG, he's a SF/PF, find me a position listing that has him at PG

LeBron defies a simple and pat description. You can't always argue that mainstream fans are wrong about everything, but then say LeBron's not a PG because no mainstream sources identify him as such. If he's bringing the ball up court and initiating the offense and leading the team in assists, then he's the de facto PG. And the same goes for Ginobili when he's on the court with Mills.

[Clipper Nation]

Why are PGs confined by height? Who came up with this definition?

Magic handled the ball like a PG, ran an offense like PG, ran the break like a PG, and does everything a PG does.

Again, he only got away with it because he was an extreme physical outlier at the position. If Choke Paul, Nash, or Stockton were 6'9" athletic freaks, they'd probably have multiple rings on their fingers too. The reality is, the vast majority of point guards are short by NBA standards and therefore can be easily taken out of the game (with their offenses immediately becoming stagnant) by putting bigger defenders on them. That's why having a point guard be the alpha of your team is not a smart strategy regardless of how good of an individual player they are, unless they're a once-in-a-generation outlier like Magic or LeBron.

If the point is, teams led by players under 6'3" can no longer win in the NBA because that hasn't been observed since Isiah Thomas leading the Pistons to b2b, then there maybe a point. But then you still would have to show that Billups wasn't the leader in that 04 squad despite leading the team in many advanced stats.

Even with the Bad Boy Pistons, I'd argue that they don't ring without Dumars. Isiah was individually great, but he couldn't win until they drafted Dumars.

I'd also argue that Ben Wallace was the most important player on the '04 Pistons because of his dominant defensive impact, followed by Sheed because trading for him was what put that team over the top.

[Malik Hairston]

LeBron defies a simple and pat description. You can't always argue that mainstream fans are wrong about everything, but then say LeBron's not a PG because no mainstream sources identify him as such. If he's bringing the ball up court and initiating the offense and leading the team in assists, then he's the de facto PG. And the same goes for Ginobili when he's on the court with Mills.

He's not a PG, though, he's a SF/PF..

When the PA announcer calls his name, he says he's the SF..

[ambchang]

1. Lebron isn't a PG, he's a SF/PF, find me a position listing that has him at PG

Doesn't know what de facto means.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/12/lebr...vid-blatt-rift

“There’s a growing tension… between the players and coach David Blatt. There’s been a disconnect there that has been increasing. It may be something the organization has to deal with either giving David Blatt a vote of confidence, or maybe looking at the position again… They have completely abandoned his offensive system. LeBron has taken over point guard without even consulting David Blatt.”

2. The OP's thread is about PG hype, which isn't arguable, they receive more hype than any other types of players, despite the constant failures

If I didn't know any better, I would have thought the league has been talking about Lebron, Durant, Harden, Curry and Davis non-stop, with Curry being the o

3. Magic was listed at PG, he's the outlier, it's not the same as Lebron

Now is Isiah Thomas an outlier too? Walt Frazier?

Is Lebron not an outlier at SF? How many SF led teams to championships, historically? Bird, Lebron, who else?

4. The examples of PGs leading teams to les as the clear best player are scarce

Same with SG, so? In fact, it has traditionally been centers doing the best in leading teams to championships. Again, so?

5. You can make the argument that Billups was the most important/best player in 2004, but there's absolutely no argument that he was the "clear" best or most important player

He wasn't?

[ambchang]

Again, he only got away with it because he was an extreme physical outlier at the position. If Choke Paul, Nash, or Stockton were 6'9" athletic freaks, they'd probably have multiple rings on their fingers too. The reality is, the vast majority of point guards are short by NBA standards and therefore can be easily taken out of the game (with their offenses immediately becoming stagnant) by putting bigger defenders on them. That's why having a point guard be the alpha of your team is not a smart strategy regardless of how good of an individual player they are, unless they're a once-in-a-generation outlier like Magic or LeBron.

So the great insight from you, apalisoc_9 and Malik Hairston is that it is tougher for short guys to dominate a league when the objective is to put a ball in a basket 10 feet off the ground more than the other team does it? No kidding. Really profound stuff.

Even with the Bad Boy Pistons, I'd argue that they don't ring without Dumars. Isiah was individually great, but he couldn't win until they drafted Dumars.

And I swear, Magic would have won without Kareem or Worthy, and Lebron would have won without the superfriends. I mean, Isiah isn't really the clear cut best player on the Pistons. Or ... wait, he's an outlier. Anything that doesn't jive with your assertion is an outlier.

Jordan was an outlier too. How many SG led their teams to championships? What about Lebron and Bird? How many SF led their teams to championships? And Duncan is definitely an outlier, how many PF led their teams to championships? Any non-center who led their team to a championship is an outlier.

I'd also argue that Ben Wallace was the most important player on the '04 Pistons because of his dominant defensive impact, followed by Sheed because trading for him was what put that team over the top.

You can argue that, but Billups was the engine that drove the Pistons. The entire offense runs around BIllups.

[Malik Hairston]

1. That's weak, but anyways, you're bringing up an article from 2014 about Lebron being the PG in Blatt's system..The Cavs haven't won anything this year..do you have any actual player files that have Lebron listed as PG? What about anything from the official NBA directory? Preferably from when Lebron was winning championships

2. The "pg league" narrative has been generating massive hype for a long time now, you would have to have never watched any ESPN show or any Draft to not agree with that..it has been widely discussed here, too, for years

3. This thread is about PGs, not SFs..I have said SF is a very difficult position to build around, too, I wouldn't build my team around a SF..regardless, PGs haven't led teams to les since the 80s..it's ancient history..the SF position in today's era has led teams to a le 3 times in the past 6 years, and if you include Kawhi in 2014, that's 4..if you include Pierce in 2010 and Durant in 2012, along with Lebron in 2011/2014, that's 8 Finals appearances from a team led by a SF in the past 6 NBA seasons..ridiculous dominance from the SF position, tbh..

4. SGs have led teams to 9 NBA les and 11 Finals appearances in just the past 20 years..not to mention Ginobili and Kobe being 1a/1b in 2001/2002/2005..it was a very dominant position in more recent NBA basketball in the 90s/2000s..

5. Hamilton and especially Wallace are in the same ballpark as Billups(better or worse) in most of the numbers..definitely wasn't the clear best/most important player

[Mr Bones]

LeBron defies a simple and pat description. You can't always argue that mainstream fans are wrong about everything, but then say LeBron's not a PG because no mainstream sources identify him as such. If he's bringing the ball up court and initiating the offense and leading the team in assists, then he's the de facto PG. And the same goes for Ginobili when he's on the court with Mills.

He's not a PG, though, he's a SF/PF..

When the PA announcer calls his name, he says he's the SF..

Doesn't know what de facto means.

[ambchang]

1. That's weak, but anyways, you're bringing up an article from 2014 about Lebron being the PG in Blatt's system..The Cavs haven't won anything this year

The season's not over, so no, it's not possible.

But feel free to ignore the obvious.

the game has advanced, but a PG is a PG who does PG things PGs traditionally do.

2. The "pg league" narrative has been generating massive hype for a long time now, you would have to have never watched any ESPN show or any Draft to not agree with that

I don't agree with that. Who has been hyped more than Lebron and Durant? Oh wait, Lebron IS a de facto point guard.

3. This thread is about PGs, not SFs..I have said SF is a very difficult position to build around, too

Well, duh, every position is very difficult to build around. In fact, you know what? There are 400+ players in the league every year, and only one of those players can have a championship built around him in a given year.

4. SGs have led teams to 9 NBA les and 11 Finals appearances in just the past 20 years

And Jordan accounted for 6 of those (but you'd have to go back 23 years. It's just that Jordan was the greatest to play the game, nothing to do with him being a SG. Those repeat Laker teams were really co-led by MVPau and Kobe. Metrics backed it up.

There are 5 centre led championship teams, 6 PF led championship teams, 2 SF led championship teams and 1 PG led championship team.

5. Hamilton and especially Wallace are in the same ballpark as Billups(better or worse) in most of the numbers..definitely wasn't the clear best/most important player

What numbers?

[Clipper Nation]

So the great insight from you, apalisoc_9 and Malik Hairston is that it is tougher for short guys to dominate a league when the objective is to put a ball in a basket 10 feet off the ground more than the other team does it? No kidding. Really profound stuff.

If it's just a given, then why do you and other point guard apologists get so butthurt whenever anyone brings it up?

Billups was the engine that drove the Pistons. The entire offense runs around BIllups.

Really? Because Rip Hamilton led the team in usage rate in both the regular season and playoffs that year (not counting Darko in his extremely limited sample size). Seems kind of odd that the "engine" that the entire offense supposedly ran around didn't even lead his own team in usage rate.

[ambchang]

If it's just a given, then why do you and other point guard apologists get so butthurt whenever anyone brings it up?

Because it's been incorrectly stated when what you meant was short players, not PG.

And no, I don't care whether PG, SG, SF, PF or C leads a team to a championship, as long as the Spurs win, I don't care if it's Parker, Mills, Kawhi, Duncan, Ginobili, Green, Bonner, or the Coyote leading the team.

Really? Because Rip Hamilton led the team in usage rate in both the regular season and playoffs that year (not counting Darko in his extremely limited sample size). Seems kind of odd that the "engine" that the entire offense supposedly ran around didn't even lead his own team in usage rate.

Kobe led the league in usage rates multiple times, would you say he led the Lakers?

Do you actually know what usage rate is? It is a horrible estimation of a player's usage on a team, and is highly skewed by the FINISHER of the team, not the creator. Read up.