Doesn't take a great PG to win

[bperiod]

Very interesting article...

Competence, not greatness, good enough for PGs on title teams

Derrick Rose was Rookie of the Year. Chauncey Billups was a hero in Denver. Jameer Nelson and Mo Williams were difference makers in the East. Aaron Brooks almost changed history. Point guards also are expected to dominate the first 10 or 12 picks in the draft next week.
And then there's Derek Fisher. He of the season averages of 10 points and three assists. He of the 40 percent shooting in the playoffs.
And he of the four rings.
There's your reality check. At a time when point guards are generating so much attention, a convergence of circumstances from the 2008-09 season into the June 25 draft into free agency next month, the reminder note being distributed after the Lakers-Magic series is that it does not take a great talent at the point to win the title. Big men (Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon), yes. Wing players who leave defenders with singed jerseys (Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Michael Jordan), absolutely. But not point guards.
No knock on Fisher. Few guys are more respected by peers. Smart. Tough. Mature from the day he hit the NBA. The No. 24 choice in 1996 stands as one of the final examples of Jerry West's greatness in pulling players, actual contributors, from the obscurity of late in the first round.
But Fisher has never been in the debate for an All-Star spot, let alone actually made the Sunday game. In his best statistical season, he averaged 13.3 points and 4.3 assists with the Warriors in 2005-06.
Fisher is just part of the story, though: Take a look at the point guards who have won in the Finals the past decade or so, and it's clear teams do not need great point guards to win a championship, and teams where the best player is a point guard do not win.

2009 -- Fisher.
2008 -- Rajon Rondo, Celtics. First-year starter at the time. Certainly has All-Star potential, but not there yet.
2007 -- Tony Parker, Spurs. Three All-Star appearances, one Finals MVP.
2006 -- Jason Williams, Heat. With the asterisk that Wade handled the ball a lot.
2005 -- Parker.
2004 -- Chauncey Billups, Pistons. Four All-Star appearances.
2003 -- Parker.
2002 -- Fisher (35 starts in the regular season and all 19 starts in the playoffs) and Lindsey Hunter (47 starts in the regular season, most at the point). With the asterisk that Bryant handled the ball.
2001 -- Fisher. Started only 20 times in the regular season because a foot injury cost him the other 62 games, then started the entire playoffs. Brian Shaw and Ron Harper played the point a lot in the regular season. Plus: the Kobe asterisk.
2000 -- Harper.
1999 -- Avery Johnson, Spurs.
1998 -- Harper, Bulls. Asterisk: Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen.

To review: Avery Johnson has one ring, Jason Williams has one ring, Steve Nash and Jason Kidd none. Two starting point guards among the last 12 champions have been All-Stars. No Hall of Famer was in the role since Isiah Thomas with the Pistons in 1990.
It is especially relevant with the storylines of '08-09 and into the summer. Rose showed star potential; Williams was an All-Star for the Cavaliers and turned in a regular season that gave LeBron James help on offense; Nelson's progress before a shoulder injury became an important part of the Magic's development; Billups was an emotional leader as the Nuggets matured into playoff threats; and Brooks' speed game was a spark in the Rockets' near-upset of the Lakers in the second round. Now Ricky Rubio, Brandon Jennings, Jrue Holiday, Tyreke Evans, Stephen Curry and Jonny Flynn lead a point-guard parade in the draft. A few days later, Andre Miller, Kidd, Mike Bibby and Ben Gordon, a combo guard who handles the ball a lot, become free agents with the ability and experience to make a difference.

The draft and free agency alone will alter the league for years. It just may not deliver a title.

Because it doesn't take a great point guard to win.

 

[Padrino]

all of those title teams have superstar(s) that don't play the PG position, which is why its only necessary for those teams' PG's to be "competent." when you're playing with someone like kobe bryant, its only necessary for anyone on the whole damn team to be "competent" in order to win a title, PG or not. kobe's just that good. if lebron's team was halfway "competent" in the eastern conference finals, then he might have had a shot at a title this year too. this article seems to highlight the fact that superstars elevate the play of those around them, not the other way around, which seems like a relatively obvious claim...

 

[pdxKingsFan]

It usually takes a super duper star to win it all, there are like 2 or 3 of those at any given time.

Unless your super duper star is a big man, he probably does most of your ball handling even if he plays the 2 or 3 on paper. If you have Kobe or LeBron then you can make do with a serviceable PG like Fish. Who isn't a scrub, just not a grab the headlines kind of guy.

Otherwise to just be competitive year in and out you need a quality ball handler, most frequently at the PG position. The difference between a borderline all star like Bibby and a scrub is ginormous.

Winning a championship is the ultimate goal but realistically 90% of the teams have no shot, failing that you at least want to make the 2nd or 3rd round of the playoffs which is a realistic goal for maybe half the league.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

This could have just as easily been titled "Doesn't take a great SF to win" (Ariza), or "Doesn't take a great C to win" (Bynum). When you have one of the two best players in the league on your team, I ****ing bet you don't need to be great. You basically just need to not be a liability.

 

[Smills91]

The thing is, the article is RIGHT. You don't need a star at the 1 to win, you need a star at the 2, 4 or 5 and MOST specifically the 4 and the 5 traditionally. Finding the most dominant BIG MAN is of the ut-most importance to winning a title. THat's how the Magic even got to the Finals with their crew.

 

[Superman]

What's needed is a super duper star, not a dominant big man. A dominant big man helps, of course, and no one is going to turn one down. But more importantly, as we saw this year, the super duper star, regardless of position, outweighs the big man.

It's a rare occasion that a team wins a title without a big man, but it's happened before. What's most important, though, even once you get your big man, is the complementary pieces around him, regardless of position. Which is what the Spurs have done so well for the past decade.

By the way, is the point of this article to sing Derek Fisher's praises? I certainly hope not.

 

[SkinnerBox]

You don't need a great point guard if you have a superstar who is willing to elbow people in the face at critical moments in championship-deciding games. Or a great big man...

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

Im sorry, but there isnt a 'formula' for winning a championship. Teams just have to find pieces that fit together and of course get a little lucky. You have to have good players, but it doesnt really matter where they play.

 

[kennadog]

This could have just as easily been titled "Doesn't take a great SF to win" (Ariza), or "Doesn't take a great C to win" (Bynum). When you have one of the two best players in the league on your team, I ****ing bet you don't need to be great. You basically just need to not be a liability.

Exactly how I felt when I read this.

 

[Bricklayer]

No, this article was more or less correct -- I have noted before that there is little correlation between great PGs and titles. Now of course the need for a super duper star is indeed the missing link there -- get one of those and you can have Micky Mouse running the point. But the thing is that even a super duper star still needs guys around him who dominate the middle and win the war in the paint --Kobe needed Bynum and Pau and Odom and Shaq before them, Jordan neded Grant and Rodman, Wade needed Shaq, meanwhile LeBron went down despite his awesomeness when he was stuck with Varejao and an aging Big Z.

You could probably formulate it more or less like this -- winning the war inside is absolutely 100% necessary at all times, super duper star or no. Having an elite unstoppable force who makes easy shots for himself and his teammates is necessary too, but whether that is a PG or a super duper star has not proven terribly relevant. If I listed the best PGs of the last 20 years (Hardaway, KJ, Price, Stockton, Kidd, Nash, Payton, Paul) almost all of them have helped teams reach elite status, but the only one who has won a ring was an ancient Gary Payton coming off the bench to piggyback on Wade's title.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Zeke?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If a PG happens to be a legit super duper star then they'll lead their team to the promised land. The problem is in the post-MJ era those guys on the cusp eventually demand to be moved to the 2 spot where they can score full time without the fans screaming for more assists.

Brick's list has some great players on it but only 2 of them could probably lay claim to be one of the top 2-3 players in the league in any given season.

 

[captain bill]

while i agree with the basic premise of the article, i think it would be a mistake to go so far as to say that point guards don't matter. look at that list- 4 out of the last 10 champions leaned on their pgs in no small part (billups and parker). devin harris was a gigantic part of bringing the mavs to the brink of a ring. rondo was also significant for the c's.

so i guess i agree with the article, but just want to point out that without a very good (not just competent) distributor a team isn't going to do much. this is actually a good reason to get a guy like rubio- a good facilitator, not a dominant scorer or franchise player, but one who makes things happen. anyone, really, who knows how to play a team game. without that even an otherwise talented team can wind up flat.

 

[Jerryaki]

This could have just as easily been titled "Doesn't take a great SF to win" (Ariza), or "Doesn't take a great C to win" (Bynum). When you have one of the two best players in the league on your team, I ****ing bet you don't need to be great. You basically just need to not be a liability.

your point is proven correct by this article:

Kobe Bryant Proves He Can Win Championship With Luke Walton On Team

ORLANDO, FL—With the Lakers' 99-86 victory over the Magic in Game 5 of the NBA Finals, Kobe Bryant silenced critics by achieving what most had thought impossible: winning an NBA title with Luke Walton on his team.

"I was so sick of hearing people say how I couldn't do it with Luke out there," said Bryant, acknowledging that his teammate's deficiencies have overshadowed the Lakers since Walton was drafted in 2003. "It gets annoying to hear that question over and over, but you can't argue it. You can't deny it. You have to show that you can prevail alongside one of the worst small forwards in the game."

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/kobe_bryant_proves_he_can_win?utm_source=a-section

 

[Kingster]

your point is proven correct by this article:

Kobe Bryant Proves He Can Win Championship With Luke Walton On Team

ORLANDO, FL—With the Lakers' 99-86 victory over the Magic in Game 5 of the NBA Finals, Kobe Bryant silenced critics by achieving what most had thought impossible: winning an NBA title with Luke Walton on his team.

"I was so sick of hearing people say how I couldn't do it with Luke out there," said Bryant, acknowledging that his teammate's deficiencies have overshadowed the Lakers since Walton was drafted in 2003. "It gets annoying to hear that question over and over, but you can't argue it. You can't deny it. You have to show that you can prevail alongside one of the worst small forwards in the game."

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/kobe_bryant_proves_he_can_win?utm_source=a-section

Did he really say that?

 

[kennadog]

Did he really say that?

No. The Onion is a satire site.