Do you really need a Star Point Guard to win a Title?

[Papa Burgundy]

You've gotta say ... A big combination of Jonas Valanciunas and Anthony Davis would have people thinking multiple rings in the future! But it would depend on what was around them ...

[Bendit]

Re the op, I believe a distinction should be made between the stats of the PGs pre and post the no-hand-checking rule. The game has changed for the pg since where he more easily able to be an offensive force if he can. Hence the new crop of high scoring superstar calibre players like Nash, Rose, Westbrook, CP, DW and Lin

The superstar moniker tends to also be given to high scoring and rebounding (defensive) players who tended to be those without the ball (recipients)...typically the bigs. The only true superstar pg of the previous generation from stats and what I have read is Oscar Robertson. I suppose Jerry West and Walt Frazier could be included here. These guys were really great because they scored and dished inspite of the hand check/physical play.

edit...forgot about Magic

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Re the op, I believe a distinction should be made between the stats of the PGs pre and post the no-hand-checking rule. The game has changed for the pg since where he more easily able to be an offensive force if he can. Hence the new crop of high scoring superstar calibre players like Nash, Rose, Westbrook, CP, DW and Lin

The superstar moniker tends to also be given to high scoring and rebounding (defensive) players who tended to be those without the ball (recipients)...typically the bigs. The only true superstar pg of the previous generation from stats and what I have read is Oscar Robertson. I suppose Jerry West and Walt Frazier could be included here. These guys were really great because they scored and dished inspite of the hand check/physical play.

edit...forgot about Magic

Stockton and Payton were star PG on good teams too. They could play great defense and make their teammates better on offense.

An ideal PG is one who can slow down the opposition's point of attack and make their own team's offense greater than the sum of the parts, with their court vision and passing abilities.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

What I've noticed about most championship teams from the past 25 years, is that the most common formula is a star ball-dominating guard and a star big.

Lakers: Magic & Worthy/Kareem
Pistons: Thomas & Laimbeer
Bulls: Jordan*
Rockets: Drexler & Olajuwon
Spurs: Robinson/Duncan*
Lakers: Kobe & Shaq
Spurs: Parker & Duncan
Pistons: Billups*
Heat: Wade & Shaq
Celtics: Pierce & Garnet
Lakers: Kobe & Gasol
Mavs: Kidd & Nowitzki

There were obviously 3 exceptions:
1. Jordan didn't have a true dominant big, at least offensively, but Cartwright/Grant/Pippen and then Longley/Rodman/Pippen were certainly stellar defense/rebounding front courts. Jordan was just Jordan.
2. The first of four Spurs titles featured Robinson and Duncan. Avery Johnsonwas a pretty good PG running the show, even if he wasn't the headliner.
3. Detroit's 03-04 championship team didn't have any truly dominant big and won more as a team, but Billups definitely provided the PG leadership.


I think a team needs the following ingredients to make a championship team:
1. a dominant ball-handler who can penetrate off the dribble and has the vision/passing to make his entire team better (PG/SG)
2. a big defensive anchor to protect the paint/rim and block/alter shots (C/PF)
3. a dominant defensive rebounder (C/PF)
4. a lockdown perimeter defender, to cover the opposing team's primary ball handler (PG/SG/SF)
5. a low-post player who can finish at the rim, reak havoc on the offensive glass and pass out of double-teams (C/PF)
6. a consistent spot-up 3pt shooter (PG/SG/SF)

[knickz]

there is no recipe for winning it all in the nba, why do you think such few teams have won the title?

anybody with a brain should know the nba is rigged

[knickz]

Jason Kidd- 9 ppg 7 ast 4 rpg

Derek Fisher- '10 10 ppg 3 ast 2.5 rpg

Derek Fisher- '09 8 ppg 2 ast 2 rpg

Rajon Rondo- 10 pgg 6.5 ast 4 rpg

Tony Parker- 21 ppg 6 ast 3.5 rpg

Jason Williams- 30 mintues 9 ppg 4 rpg 2 rpg Gary Payton 24 minutes 6 ppg 1.5 ast 1.5 rpg

Parker- 17 pgg 4 ast 3 rpg

Billups- 16 ppg 6 ast 3 rpg

Parker 15 ppg 3 ast 3 rpg

Fisher- 10 3 3

Fisher- 13 4 3

Ron harper- 8 3 4

Avery Johnson- 12 7 2.5

Ron Harper- 28 minutes 7 2 4 Steve Kerr 20 minutes 5 2 .8

Ron Harper- 27 minutes 7.5 3 4 Steve Kerr 18 minutes 5 1 1

Ron Harper 27 minutes 9 2.5 4 Steve Kerr 20 minutes 7 2 1

Kenny Smith 29 minutes 11 4.5 2 Sam Cassell 22 minutes 11 4 2

These are the playoff stats for the Championship point guards of the last 17 years, and as you can see, we don't see a single superstar point guard. We see All-Stars in Parker and Billups, we see a future all star in Rondo and former all star in Kidd, but at the time of the finals they were not the all star players they were or would become. The concensus is that you need a superstar point guard to compete for a point guard, and while there are many great point guards in the game today, history proves that championship teams don't neccesarily need top flight point guards to compete for a tittle.

I could have kept going back and we wouldn't have had another star point until Isaiah Thomas, right before the first Bulls three peat. Now this doesn't mean that having a star point hinders you, but it shows that there is more to it than having a guy that can get by anyone and break the defense on his own. If you look at these guys one by one, you will see that it's a mix of savvy vets, shooters, and guys that can find the open man.

Kenny Smith was not old by any means, didn't have th quickness he had years earlier, but the Rockets used a combo of his veteran experience, and Cassell's youth and quickness. Then for three straight years, the Bulls used Steve Kerr and Ron Harper, with Harper being the primary point guard getting slightly more minutes than Kerr. harper had been a prolific scorere for several years with the Clips, injuries slowed him down, but he was brought to Chicago to defend and serve as a guy that would get the ball to MJ in his spots. he brought toughness and experience, although I think that Bulls team had all the leadership they needed with Michael. Steve Kerr got his fair share of minutes for one reason, and that was to shoot. He was considered a liability on defense, but the rest of the Bulls D was so stout that they could affford to take a hit in that catagory, and his shooting was sorely needed, Ron Harper and MJ weren't the greatest shooters, and Kerr's ability to spread the floor for the likes of MJ and Pip was invaluable.

Then you have Avery Johnson, he was quick enough to take his guy off the dribble and score, he was undersized, but his main task was to get the ball to the bigs, and that is exactly was he did. In the Lakers first go around Derek Fisher did't get huch run, and it was Ron Harper reuniting with Jackson, he brought the same leadership he brought to the Bulls, and with a young Kobe in the backcourt, he was needed to manage and control the tempo of the game and sort of keep the touches equal between Kobe and Shaq.

Then you have Fisher breaking out of his shell, in his prime he was an above average starter, he made the right decisions, had a high Bball IQ, and hit the shots he needed to hit, and was a bit more spry then he is nowdays, lol.

Then there is Parker 3 of the next 5 years. His first Finals there was immense pressure on his to do well and not get schooled by J-Kidd. There were rumblings that the Spurs would sign and trade Kidd that off-season and would ship off Parker, then a promising 20 year old with the ability to penetrate the middle and get to the basket. He was very solid the first year, and was teh second/third option behind Timmy the next two chamionship runs, he would be able to get to the rim, score at an efficient rate, and set up their big man inside. And in 2007(with Eva looking along) he had the series of his life, toyed with poor Boogie Gibson, and won the finals MVP, probably the best chamionship PG since Isaiah, and the only to take MVP honors in the last 20 years.

And Big Shot Billups was clutch that year, leading a 4 headed monster past the Lakers. In his prime he would get to the foul line almost at will, and would set up his other teamates, and brought terrific suffocating D on Payton and Fish.

In 2006 Jason Wiliams and Gary Payton shared the load. To be honest Payton was washed up, Williams had some left in the tank, pretty much a spot up shooter, showed some flashes of White Chocolate. They basically brought the ball up the floor, than they gave it to D Wade in his isolation sets of Shaq in the post, and would spot up the rest of the time. Payton was there basically to be a floor leader with a young D-Wade there.

Then we have young Rondo, and when the big three was formed, many of us severely doubted the ability of Rondo to adequetly run the point, some thought it would be '96 Houston all over again, where you have three Star vets just at the end of their primes, but a lackluster young point that couldn't hold his own. Rondo didn't break out, but was very solid and showed us flashes of the great distributor he would become.

Now you D-Fish and J-Kidd. Fisher was basically a leader and experience guy that was there for shooting, remember he made some big shots to clinch the tittle against the Magic. Kidd was there for shooting as well, he was still(and still is, to a lesser extent) a very good distributor that sitll hits the boards hard, and you can't leave him alone beyond the arc otherwise he'll make you pay.

As you can see, most of these guys are older veterans that have experience with handling big moments and the situation. Otehr than Parker and Billups, none of these guys at that point in their careers could say"I'm gonna take my guy off the dribble, get in the paint, and then make a decision from there". I'm not trying to say a superstar point guard can't win a tittle, but this shows it can certainly be done as long as the system uses each player correctly, and each team with the exception of the 04 Pistons(They had enough All-Stars to make up for it) had one superstar transcendent player, whether it was a bigman or a wing, and by riding that player, the team was able to win a chamionship without a superstar caliber point guard. And as you could see from the stats above, most of those guys didn't have very gaudy assist numbers either. Most of those guys for the most part would give it up to the star player, whether it be Kobe, Dirk, Shaq, and then they would go out to the perimeter and wait for their opportunity for the open three.

And in defense of guys like CP3, and even D-Will and AI, they didn't have the right pieces arond them to do so. And there may be plenty of great Points right now, but in the mid 90s there weren't that many other than Payton and Kidd. Hopefully we'll see a guy like Nash win it soon, but it goes to show that more than an explosive do-it-all athelte, you can do it with a smart and controlled veteran.

I want to thank you for making this thread...this is something I've been saying for years...you need a dominant big man and a hof coach to win tittles

[planetmars]

I think a team needs the following ingredients to make a championship team:
1. a dominant ball-handler who can penetrate off the dribble and has the vision/passing to make his entire team better (PG/SG)
2. a big defensive anchor to protect the paint/rim and block/alter shots (C/PF)
3. a dominant defensive rebounder (C/PF)
4. a lockdown perimeter defender, to cover the opposing team's primary ball handler (PG/SG/SF)
5. a low-post player who can finish at the rim, reak havoc on the offensive glass and pass out of double-teams (C/PF)
6. a consistent spot-up 3pt shooter (PG/SG/SF)

I agree as well - these seem to be the fundamental components of a championship team.

I hope JV can give you 2+3 and possibly 5. A draft of either MKG (4) or Beals (1) would get us another long term component. Davis would be able to do 2, 3 and 5 as well.. so having two guys that can do that will definitely set us a part from other teams.

Bargnani unfortunately hurts our chances since he's not very good at 2, 3, 4 or 5, and I think should be moved for someone that we need - like a primary ball handler if we got MKG, or a lock down defender if we got Beals. Derozan is also missing those intangibles. He's on a rookie deal so moving him would be harder, IMO.

There is one intangible you need as well and that's a good leader. The Raps haven't had a guy like that since Oakley probably.. a guy that people feed off of when the going gets tough. MKG I think has that from this draft. Robinson might have it as well.

[Nilanka]

I want to thank you for making this thread...this is something I've been saying for years...you need a dominant big man and a hof coach to win tittles

I don't think Luc Longley was ever considered "dominant".

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I agree as well - these seem to be the fundamental components of a championship team.

I hope JV can give you 2+3 and possibly 5. A draft of either MKG (4) or Beals (1) would get us another long term component. Davis would be able to do 2, 3 and 5 as well.. so having two guys that can do that will definitely set us a part from other teams.

Bargnani unfortunately hurts our chances since he's not very good at 2, 3, 4 or 5, and I think should be moved for someone that we need - like a primary ball handler if we got MKG, or a lock down defender if we got Beals. Derozan is also missing those intangibles. He's on a rookie deal so moving him would be harder, IMO.

There is one intangible you need as well and that's a good leader. The Raps haven't had a guy like that since Oakley probably.. a guy that people feed off of when the going gets tough. MKG I think has that from this draft. Robinson might have it as well.

I have always been a Bargnani fan, but it was funny that as I was writing those 6 points, all I could think of was that Bargnani doesn't currently fit one of them. However, Dirk doesn't really fit one of them fully either. Both Bargnani and Dirk can provide both #5 and #6, at various times. Dirk had Chandler (#2, #3 and #5), Kidd (#1), Terry (#1), Marion (#4), and several players who all could pitch in for #6 (himself included). The biggest difference is the rest of the team surrounding the PF in question - Dirk had many very good players who each provided at least one of those 6 key elements.

It got me thinking that maybe a player like Dirk/Bargnani shouldn't be looked at in a negative light for not fitting exactly into one of those key elements. Perhaps their biggest advantage comes when they are part of a good team and able to exploit their advantage, whether it's posting up, on the perimeter or driving. It would be in line with what many people on RR have been saying for years (both pro and anti Bargnani folks), that Bargnani would be most effective as a 2nd or 3rd weapon on offense, on a team where the other 4 players on the court check off those 6 key elements.

I am also hopeful that JV can provide #2 and #3. Calderon does a good job at #1, but doesn't bring it up to par on the defensive end. A player like MKG could certainly become #4. The team needs a consistent 3pt threat to fill #6. If Bargnani were allowed to operate as the offensive option 1b or 2, exploiting mismatches while mixing between #5 and #6, he would be at his best. I think it's that kind of thinking that has his supporters arguing about how good he could be on an improved Raptors team, as opposed to dumping him for a more traditional PF.

[planetmars]

I have always been a Bargnani fan, but it was funny that as I was writing those 6 points, all I could think of was that Bargnani doesn't currently fit one of them. However, Dirk doesn't really fit one of them fully either. Both Bargnani and Dirk can provide both #5 and #6, at various times. Dirk had Chandler (#2, #3 and #5), Kidd (#1), Terry (#1), Marion (#4), and several players who all could pitch in for #6 (himself included). The biggest difference is the rest of the team surrounding the PF in question - Dirk had many very good players who each provided at least one of those 6 key elements.

It got me thinking that maybe a player like Dirk/Bargnani shouldn't be looked at in a negative light for not fitting exactly into one of those key elements. Perhaps their biggest advantage comes when they are part of a good team and able to exploit their advantage, whether it's posting up, on the perimeter or driving. It would be in line with what many people on RR have been saying for years (both pro and anti Bargnani folks), that Bargnani would be most effective as a 2nd or 3rd weapon on offense, on a team where the other 4 players on the court check off those 6 key elements.

I am also hopeful that JV can provide #2 and #3. Calderon does a good job at #1, but doesn't bring it up to par on the defensive end. A player like MKG could certainly become #4. The team needs a consistent 3pt threat to fill #6. If Bargnani were allowed to operate as the offensive option 1b or 2, exploiting mismatches while mixing between #5 and #6, he would be at his best. I think it's that kind of thinking that has his supporters arguing about how good he could be on an improved Raptors team, as opposed to dumping him for a more traditional PF.

I think Bargnani *can* be the "5" like Dirk can but has been very inconsistent at it (where as Dirk is a very solid rebounder and passer and outside of this year has been very consistent at it). Bargnani can be the "6" but is not super efficient at it unfortunately. There tends to be a lot of guys in the league that can play the "6" - and I think that kind of guy can be picked up at a trade deadline or as a free agent relatively easily and cheaply (think Reddick, Dunleavy, Rush, Korver, etc).

If the Bargnani we had in the first 13 games of his season showed up then I think he could definitely work.. but I think there is a better chance of finding someone else out there that can do what Bargnani can't do, and then work within the team to make up the 20pts that he gets in a game.

Regardless.. I don't want this thread to be about Bargnani (and is why I mentioned Demar in my post too)... I don't think DeMar has it in him long term to be good at those other things (like being a lockdown defender, or a 3pt thread, or a dominant ball-handler).

I think there is a good chance that after next season we'll have some very solid pieces added to our core that one day might get us that championship. Hopefully we'll have 3 of those pieces at the start of next year. JV and our pick can be the first 2 and our free agent (or trade) can be the third. Hopefully Bryan has looked through NBA history and realized that this is the model he should be emulating since it should give them the best chance of netting a winner.

And going back to the original post - I agree in that you don't need a star point guard to win a title - but it won't hurt if they had one.

[DirtyMikeSeaver]

This is a bit of a 'red herring' topic, because, quite frankly, there was a bad PG drought for a long while in the NBA. Starting in 91 (when Jordan hit) to 2005 (when Steve Nash emerged), here were your 'PGs' that made All NBA First Team:

Mark Price
Penny Hardaway
Tim Hardaway
Gary Payton
Jason Kidd
Allen Iverson

Not exactly a murderer's row and that's not even taking into account the Rod Stricklands and Sam Cassells of the world that occupied the 2nd and 3rd teams. (although considering 4 of those guys played in NBA finals (and one has a ring) and Hardaway has his number retired, it's not like it's filled with the Sebastian Telfairs of the world). I think having a great point guard makes you competitive and gives you a chance, but more than anything, you need a transcendent player to win. During the time that was talked about at the beginning of this threat, the winning teams probably had either one of the greatest 10 players to ever live or one of the 3 greatest players of their era on their team (aside from the Pistons, and their starting 5 appeared in 16 All Star Games combined, so it's not like they 'sucked'). If Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan or Kobe Bryant never existed, I'm guessing we look at the likes of Gary Payton and John Stockton a little different. I'm not going to say that you can't win with Chris Paul and Derrick Rose because really great players couldn't beat Michael Jordan. Remember, before that era, you had a great run of Magic Johnson, Isaiah Thomas and Dennis Johnson. I think now that the PG position is stacked, that you're going to see another great run.

[NoPropsneeded]

anybody with a brain should know the nba is rigged

Why do you watch it then? and why don't you show me some proof

[NoPropsneeded]

We already have a dominant big man coming over

[bounty]

I want to thank you for making this thread...this is something I've been saying for years...you need a dominant big man and a hof coach to win tittles

Thanks bro

[Thornbury]

I want to thank you for making this thread...this is something I've been saying for years...you need a dominant big man and a hof coach to win tittles

Just so happens those "HOF " coaches had he greatest players of their time. I would argue that Pop is a better coach then Phil due to the fact that Phil never coached a team that didn't have the greatest players of their respective generation. My point is that you don't need a "HOF" coach to win a title if you have the most dominant player in the league with a great supporting cast. Do you really think Jerry Sloan couldn't have coached any of those teams to a title. In crunch time Jordan, Magic,, Kobe, Shaquille, Duncan do what THEY think they need to do to win. You want coaching, watch the NCAA, the NBA Championship ultimately has never been decided by coaching. Why don't the Celtics coaches of the eighties ever get recognized in the vein as Phil or Riley? cuz it didn't matter who was coaching them