The New NBA

[PraiseJesus]

The Center position has all but vanished from teams and the all star ballot.

PG is the most important position

and the bench is more critical than ever. The key to the Lakers winning twice in a row was the bench mob. Dallas also won because they were deep. Now the Clippers are deep and running teams out of the building.

As fans we get so focused on the starting 5 of teams. In reality, if your starting 5 is +12 pts and your bench is -11 points then you are in bad shape. If your starting 5 is +3 pts and your bench is +3 then you are better off.

This is the new NBA. Smaller, faster, and deeper

[douglas]

If your starting five is +12 and your bench is -11, that is a overall net production of +1. If your starting five is +3 and your bench is +3, that is a overall net production of +6. Being +6 is better than +1, but your team would still win in both cases, and that's all that really matters, right? ^_^

[mdm692]

If your starting five is +12 and your bench is -11, that is a overall net production of +1. If your starting five is +3 and your bench is +3, that is a overall net production of +6. Being +6 is better than +1, but your team would still win in both cases, and that's all that really matters, right? ^_^

[I Rock Shaqs]

I'm 18 is having sex with a 15 year old wrong?

[PraiseJesus]

I'm 18 is having sex with a 15 year old wrong?

That's a -3

[PraiseJesus]

If your starting five is +12 and your bench is -11, that is a overall net production of +1. If your starting five is +3 and your bench is +3, that is a overall net production of +6. Being +6 is better than +1, but your team would still win in both cases, and that's all that really matters, right? ^_^

If you are smart enough to say all of that, then surely u understand what I was trying to convey

[thevcballer]

If your starting five is +12 and your bench is -11, that is a overall net production of +1. If your starting five is +3 and your bench is +3, that is a overall net production of +6. Being +6 is better than +1, but your team would still win in both cases, and that's all that really matters, right? ^_^

dat Douglas

[PraiseJesus]

IT seems like the team that has 6th man of the year wins

[rlundi86]

I'm 18 is having sex with a 15 year old wrong?

You should know the laws of Jamaica better than we do.

[ManRamForPrez24]

Why is PG the most important position?

[--23--]

If your starting five is +12 and your bench is -11, that is a overall net production of +1. If your starting five is +3 and your bench is +3, that is a overall net production of +6. Being +6 is better than +1, but your team would still win in both cases, and that's all that really matters, right? ^_^

[nickdymez]

Why is PG the most important position?

Strange question

[Rylz]

While PG is certainly the deepest position in the league right now, I wouldn't call it the most important. Look at the last 5 championship teams: while none of them have had poor PG production, none of them have had great PG's either (Chalmers, an old Kidd, Derek Fisher, and a not-yet-elite Rondo). The last PG who gave a major contribution to a team was Tony Parker in 2007, almost 6 years ago.

[JasonJohnHorn]

Back in the 60's and 70's, and even into the 80's really, coaches played their best players 36-40 minutes a game. That approach slowly changed during the 90's.

By the time Shaq and Kobe were done winning championships together, the general appraoch was to not go over 36 minutes with your stars, and usually you only have 1 or 2 guys who get that much, the rest don't get more than 30.

There have been excpetions, 'Antoni in Phoenix for exmaple, and Flip in Detroit (and Thibs in Chicago this season, but that is due to injury and losing some depth in free agency). But for the most part, coaches have been taking the Pop approach, where you spread the minutes out, and onyl play your stars heavy minutes in games where you really need them to.

The thing is, the league is deeper now than I think it ever has been. Yes, there aren't as many 'great centers', but there are getting to be as many good centers. But when you have a guy on your bench, that is almost as good as your starter, why not keep fresh legs out on the court all the time?

All-Stars get tired just like anybody else. some guys can handle big minutes and their productivity won't go down (LBJ comes to mind), but most guys are human. Is a tired Joe Johnson better than a fresh Marshon Brooks? Is a tired Paul Milsap better than a fresh Favours?

Some teams aren't deep at certain positions, so they don't have a choice. Other teams have great players whose level of play can be maintain with heavy minutes. With these things to consider there will always be exceptions, but generally coaches like to keep fresh legs on the floor at all times, and now that the league is deeper, they can afford to do that.

Some might argue that the league is not deeper. I will agree that most any All-NBA team from the 80's and 90's would beat an All-NBA team from today, but if you put today's benches against the benches of the late 80's and early 90's, I think you will find that current benches are stronger.

Also, a lot of coaches keep starter quality players on the bench so that their second unit will be more effective (Brooks did this wiht Harden and is doing it now with Martin adn what Jackosn did with Odom and what Dallas has done with Terry in the past). That is not something that was commonly done back in the day. Back in the day you starter your best five players. Period.

I think the shift in approach started with Daly's Pistons, because they were deepe enough to do it, but most coaches had to wait to really employ this because most teams simply were not that deep.

Back in the day, Bill Russell and Chamberlain would play 45+ minutes a game. No player in the league today is ever going to get that many minutes on a consistent basis.

[nycericanguy]

While PG is certainly the deepest position in the league right now, I wouldn't call it the most important. Look at the last 5 championship teams: while none of them have had poor PG production, none of them have had great PG's either (Chalmers, an old Kidd, Derek Fisher, and a not-yet-elite Rondo). The last PG who gave a major contribution to a team was Tony Parker in 2007, almost 6 years ago.

Agreed...

there are a plethora of good PG's in the league now, you can draft a PG late in the 1st and still get a good one... Lawson, Teague, Vasquez, Dragic... heck even Lin went undrafted.

But when was the last time a PG led team won a title?

I was actually thinking about this the other day, can the Clippers win the NBA title without a dominant wing scorer?