PDA

View Full Version : who thought of this stupid "PG's should only pass" ********?



el hidalgo
07-18-2012, 10:38 PM
please, tell me. people use this excuse so much when hating on players like westbrook and rose, yet you dont see pass first PG's leading their team to championships often... aside from magic of course, but he was a freak and you can make an equal argument by saying he wasnt the right size to be a PG, therefor he wasnt a true PG.

Toastyy
07-18-2012, 10:44 PM
Agreed, rondo will never lead his team to a championship, you need an offensive game to go with it

So Co Jo
07-18-2012, 10:45 PM
maybe it's because pg's bring the ball up and start the facilitation of the offense and are responsible for keeping the other guys on the floor in a rhythm.

seikou8
07-18-2012, 10:47 PM
sorry if you have a pg as your best player you wont win a chip , look up the last 20 years

king4day
07-18-2012, 10:49 PM
The title of this thread is hurting my head.

el hidalgo
07-18-2012, 10:54 PM
sorry if you have a pg as your best player you wont win a chip , look up the last 20 years

Chauncey Billups says hi

el hidalgo
07-18-2012, 10:55 PM
The title of this thread is hurting my head.

change it to something better then, im too stoned to make a good title

elledaddy
07-18-2012, 10:56 PM
Just to play Devil's Advocate........... When was the last time a team won a ring with their PG as their leading scorer?

seikou8
07-18-2012, 10:58 PM
Chauncey Billups says hi

doesn't change the fact you need a wing player or big man 90 percent of time to lead you to a chip .

el hidalgo
07-18-2012, 11:03 PM
doesn't change the fact you need a wing player or big man 90 percent of time to lead you to a chip .

Since nobody can win alone, and considering the only other positions aside from the PG are wings and big men, I would have to agree than you need a wing player or a big man to win too...

elledaddy
07-18-2012, 11:04 PM
Chauncey Billups says hi




Actually Rip was the best player on that team, billups just hit some big shots

seikou8
07-18-2012, 11:05 PM
Just to play Devil's Advocate........... When was the last time a team won a ring with their PG as their leading scorer?

Isaiah Thomas 1990

PrettyBoyJ
07-18-2012, 11:07 PM
Chauncey Billups says hi

He may have won finals mvp but its debateable that he was rhe best player on that team

fulleffect06
07-18-2012, 11:07 PM
Actually Rip was the best player on that team, billups just hit some big shots

you mean the guy that has to come off screens to shoot?

seikou8
07-18-2012, 11:08 PM
Since nobody can win alone, and considering the only other positions aside from the PG are wings and big men, I would have to agree than you need a wing player or a big man to win too...

90 percent of the time your big men and wing player is the best player on championship team. not the pg

EDUTEXANS
07-18-2012, 11:09 PM
I don't hate Westbrook or Rose's game, but I do enjoy more watching guys like Paul, Nash or Rondo playing.

Hellcrooner
07-18-2012, 11:10 PM
How many rings won with a shoot first pg?

:rolleyes:

el hidalgo
07-18-2012, 11:11 PM
you mean the guy that has to come off screens to shoot?

for real.
Chauncey beats Rip in win shares, WS/48, PER, and TS% (by 28%) in the 03-04 regular season. Beats him in win shares, WS/48, and TS% in the playoffs.

seikou8
07-18-2012, 11:13 PM
for real.
Chauncey beats Rip in win shares, WS/48, PER, and TS% (by 28%) in the 03-04 regular season. Beats him in win shares, WS/48, and TS% in the playoffs.

one example show one more in the last 20 years

el hidalgo
07-18-2012, 11:13 PM
How many rings won with a shoot first pg?

:rolleyes:

This argument is ill thought out, yet I see it so often. When have we seen point guards with the athletic ability that Rose and Westbrook have? These guys will be capable of it in the future as they continue to improve.

fulleffect06
07-18-2012, 11:13 PM
for real.
Chauncey beats Rip in win shares, WS/48, PER, and TS% (by 28%) in the 03-04 regular season. Beats him in win shares, WS/48, and TS% in the playoffs.

I don't get into all those stats but one thing I do know is Rip had a hard time creating his own shot and wasn't a very good defender.

JasonJohnHorn
07-18-2012, 11:19 PM
Pass-first PGs are generally more effective than score-first PGs.

It is not often that a score-first PG wins a title.

That said, this is speaking strictly in terms of the traditional roles for players. Jordan, essentially, was a score-first PG. He brought the ball up (shared duties with Pippen), and he looked to score first. But he also knew when to pass the ball, and that is the trick. You get a score-first PG who knows when to pass the ball, you are fine. Isiah Thomas for example, and Chris Paul as well. Kevin Johnson is another great example. Mark Price, if you guys can remember him. The problem is that 90% of the time when you have a score-first PG, the DON'T know when to pass the ball (Iverson, Starbury, Francis), and the team on a whole does not do as well as they would if John Stockton were running the point.

As a rule, score-first PGs are not a good idea. But they do occasionally win.

Now, what you should be going for is a defensive/rebounding stud that can work the paint and hit a 15 foot jump shot, then you set to start building a champion.

Don't build around a PG. It is TOO hard. Just ask Philly, they wasted a decade trying to do it around Iverson.

DaLyingofJungl3
07-18-2012, 11:19 PM
Isaiah Thomas & Magic

FOBolous
07-18-2012, 11:21 PM
because a PG's main duty is to be the facilitator of the offense in traditional basketball. it's as simple as that. players of each position have roles they are suppose to fill for that position. having positions would be pointless if each player just do whatever they want regardless of the roles they play on the team.

DaLyingofJungl3
07-18-2012, 11:21 PM
Pass-first PGs are generally more effective than score-first PGs.

It is not often that a score-first PG wins a title.

That said, this is speaking strictly in terms of the traditional roles for players. Jordan, essentially, was a score-first PG. He brought the ball up (shared duties with Pippen), and he looked to score first. But he also knew when to pass the ball, and that is the trick. You get a score-first PG who knows when to pass the ball, you are fine. Isiah Thomas for example, and Chris Paul as well. Kevin Johnson is another great example. Mark Price, if you guys can remember him. The problem is that 90% of the time when you have a score-first PG, the DON'T know when to pass the ball (Iverson, Starbury, Francis), and the team on a whole does not do as well as they would if John Stockton were running the point.

As a rule, score-first PGs are not a good idea. But they do occasionally win.

Now, what you should be going for is a defensive/rebounding stud that can work the paint and hit a 15 foot jump shot, then you set to start building a champion.

Don't build around a PG. It is TOO hard. Just ask Philly, they wasted a decade trying to do it around Iverson.

well said

EDUTEXANS
07-18-2012, 11:22 PM
How many rings won with a shoot first pg?

:rolleyes:

Derek Fisher, Chauncey Billups and Tony Parker come to mind

el hidalgo
07-18-2012, 11:23 PM
Pass-first PGs are generally more effective than score-first PGs.

It is not often that a score-first PG wins a title.

That said, this is speaking strictly in terms of the traditional roles for players. Jordan, essentially, was a score-first PG. He brought the ball up (shared duties with Pippen), and he looked to score first. But he also knew when to pass the ball, and that is the trick. You get a score-first PG who knows when to pass the ball, you are fine. Isiah Thomas for example, and Chris Paul as well. Kevin Johnson is another great example. Mark Price, if you guys can remember him. The problem is that 90% of the time when you have a score-first PG, the DON'T know when to pass the ball (Iverson, Starbury, Francis), and the team on a whole does not do as well as they would if John Stockton were running the point.

As a rule, score-first PGs are not a good idea. But they do occasionally win.

Now, what you should be going for is a defensive/rebounding stud that can work the paint and hit a 15 foot jump shot, then you set to start building a champion.

Don't build around a PG. It is TOO hard. Just ask Philly, they wasted a decade trying to do it around Iverson.

When do score first PG's win titles? Again, you can't compare Rose and Westbrook to Iverson. Iverson was an inefficient chucker. Rose and Westbrook are more efficient passers and scorers. They are as dynamic as any other player. They can score as good or better than any point guards, and they still rank pretty damn good in passing among point guards.

mdm692
07-18-2012, 11:23 PM
sorry if you have a pg as your best player you wont win a chip , look up the last 20 years

Lebron James is an over sized PG
Chauncey Billups
Tony Parker in the more recent Spurs finals.

seikou8
07-18-2012, 11:23 PM
Pass-first PGs are generally more effective than score-first PGs.

It is not often that a score-first PG wins a title.

That said, this is speaking strictly in terms of the traditional roles for players. Jordan, essentially, was a score-first PG. He brought the ball up (shared duties with Pippen), and he looked to score first. But he also knew when to pass the ball, and that is the trick. You get a score-first PG who knows when to pass the ball, you are fine. Isiah Thomas for example, and Chris Paul as well. Kevin Johnson is another great example. Mark Price, if you guys can remember him. The problem is that 90% of the time when you have a score-first PG, the DON'T know when to pass the ball (Iverson, Starbury, Francis), and the team on a whole does not do as well as they would if John Stockton were running the point.

As a rule, score-first PGs are not a good idea. But they do occasionally win.

Now, what you should be going for is a defensive/rebounding stud that can work the paint and hit a 15 foot jump shot, then you set to start building a champion.

Don't build around a PG. It is TOO hard. Just ask Philly, they wasted a decade trying to do it around Iverson.
bulls,nets,cavs,,wiz,maybe the celtics ,clippers all built around a pg

Bruno
07-18-2012, 11:24 PM
god, iverson ruined the NBA. :laugh2:

PG's don't win titles as top dogs, it almost never happens. Magic is the only exception to the rule, and that's because he himself, was an exception to the rule as a 6'9 PG with the ability to play any position. it's the PGs role to distribute to the other guys the vast majority of the time. there are some exceptions, based of team personal, or offense (triangle) but generally, that's the most important part of their job.

bottom line, the only PG to ever rack titles as the undisputable top dog was as pass first as they come.

FOBolous
07-18-2012, 11:24 PM
just because a team has a good scoring PG doesn't mean it's build around them.

seikou8
07-18-2012, 11:25 PM
Lebron James is an over sized PG
Chauncey Billups
Tony Parker in the more recent Spurs finals.

no he is sf
billups i give you that
Tim duncan was on that team you right?

DaLyingofJungl3
07-18-2012, 11:26 PM
Derek Fisher

yea right
-not even the leading scorer for the Lakers

fulleffect06
07-18-2012, 11:29 PM
god, iverson ruined the NBA


As a big AI fan the other day I said "Iverson changed the NBA for the worse"

smood999
07-18-2012, 11:31 PM
I agree...the PG position has evolved through the years...there was one coach in particular that didn't like this and couldn't adapt...Larry Brown

he moved Iverson to SG when he coached him and then when he coached Marbury the terms "true PG" and "combo guard" were created and ever since then there has been this crazy emphasis on true PG vs combo guard...

I personally think it depends on the makeup of the team what style of PG you need, but not being a "true PG" shouldn't be a negative...

EDUTEXANS
07-18-2012, 11:31 PM
yea right
-not even the leading scorer for the Lakers

yeah but he is a shot-first PG

smood999
07-18-2012, 11:34 PM
other than Magic and Isiah...a team built around a PG as their best player does not win championships, whether pass first or shoot first...

seikou8
07-18-2012, 11:37 PM
other than Magic and Isiah...a team built around a PG as their best player does not win championships, whether pass first or shoot first...

this

Gritz
07-18-2012, 11:51 PM
change it to something better then, im too stoned to make a good title

Stop lyin

jimm120
07-18-2012, 11:51 PM
please, tell me. people use this excuse so much when hating on players like westbrook and rose, yet you dont see pass first PG's leading their team to championships often... aside from magic of course, but he was a freak and you can make an equal argument by saying he wasnt the right size to be a PG, therefor he wasnt a true PG.

i've never heard anyone ever say that PG's should only pass.

The PG's role is to make the offense go. Best way to do that is passing. But Him scoring or shooting can also be part of the offense and making the system work

elledaddy
07-18-2012, 11:51 PM
I don't get into all those stats but one thing I do know is Rip had a hard time creating his own shot and wasn't a very good defender.

Rip had a hard time? Billups shot 39% from the field that yr so it look like he had a hard time creating his own shot. Plus Billups only avg 5.5 ast compared to Rip's 4 so Rip did more than just "run off screens to shoot".

Hawkeye15
07-19-2012, 01:44 AM
A "true" PG is such a stupid term. Fact is, they run their team and get the offense going. If they ARE the offense, great. If they can't score, but are very good distributors, great, but you also have to put scorers/shooters around a PG like that.

Neither is better per say, but at least the scoring one can gets point on the board in different ways. His teammates, and himself.

I also think it's partly because fans of teams that have a PG who isn't a scorer, but instead a facilitator, tend to like their guy, hence that style.

b@llhog24
07-19-2012, 04:32 AM
Pass-first PGs are generally more effective than score-first PGs.

You can't prove that.


Don't build around a PG. It is TOO hard. Just ask Philly, they wasted a decade trying to do it around Iverson.

That's because AI was an undersized shooting guard.


Rip had a hard time? Billups shot 39% from the field that yr so it look like he had a hard time creating his own shot. Plus Billups only avg 5.5 ast compared to Rip's 4 so Rip did more than just "run off screens to shoot".

Billups was a better defender and offensive player than rip during their title run.

rocket
07-19-2012, 05:04 AM
Actually Rip was the best player on that team, billups just hit some big shots

No he actually wasn't Billups was the better player.

Monta is beast
07-19-2012, 05:15 AM
Rip was not better than Billups.

NFLNBA
07-19-2012, 05:30 AM
Derek Fisher!!!!! He was the starting PG on all the Lakers recent Chips

GoferKing_
07-19-2012, 05:32 AM
Overall you need to have a preaty good team to win a ship.;)

Evolution23
07-19-2012, 07:37 AM
Agreed, rondo will never lead his team to a championship, you need an offensive game to go with it

agreed if he ever wins one again, its because he will be lucky again.

mike_noodles
07-19-2012, 08:14 AM
To the op, if you don't understand the concept behind a pass first PG then you should stop watching basketball.

Joker55
07-19-2012, 08:26 AM
90 percent of the time your big men and wing player is the best player on championship team. not the pg

I think most people are aware of this.

Joker55
07-19-2012, 08:26 AM
Derek Fisher!!!!! He was the starting PG on all the Lakers recent Chips

Is this a joke?

aztr0
07-19-2012, 08:52 AM
Jason Kidd in is Nets days brought a team of average players and got to the Finals. Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson was never the same after they parted.

mlisica19
07-19-2012, 08:57 AM
please, tell me. people use this excuse so much when hating on players like westbrook and rose, yet you dont see pass first PG's leading their team to championships often... aside from magic of course, but he was a freak and you can make an equal argument by saying he wasnt the right size to be a PG, therefor he wasnt a true PG.

"Yet you dont see pass first PGs leading their team to a championship"?

When do you ever see a hig scoring PG or having your best player be a PG win a championship?
Miami did not have a true PG but won with a 2 of the top 5 players.
Dallas won with Jason Kidd who you could say is more of a playmaker than a scorer but it was rele Dirk Nowitzki who led the team
Lakers won with Fischer whose just another experienced smart PG, more of the passing time than take it on his own.
Celtics won with Rondo...More of a pass first PG
Heat won with out a stud of a PG
San Antonio won with Tony parker and crew.. but Tony is more of a passing type, playmaking guy then a take it on his own...

I dont know where your going with this really I guess...

mlisica19
07-19-2012, 09:03 AM
Rondo was the main reason the celtics won the championship in the first place. he was the sole difference maker that came out of no where and created a buzz.

You need scoring to go along with his style to be truly effective? Not necessarily, as long as your a smart basketball player than anything can be done and Rondo does have a high Bball IQ.

On top of all that, I am pretty sure the Celtics came close to winning ANOTHER championship. Pretty dam close too until a certain player got hurt during the series.

Anyway, Rondo is a awesome PG but yes he does need assistance. I wouldnt say never, or unless he gets luckly

Diz349
07-19-2012, 09:08 AM
Agreed, rondo will never lead his team to a championship, you need an offensive game to go with it

Were you not around in 2008 when rondo led the celtics to a championship?

King41
07-19-2012, 09:27 AM
Chauncey Billups says hi

yeah but he is called " mr big shot" so he don't pass only

Mr.ATLHawks
07-19-2012, 10:05 AM
So judging by alot of the posts the following list of players will never win championships:

Chris Paul
Deron Williams
Steve Nash
Ricky Rubio
Kyle Lowry

Seems kind of foolish. You dont need a great PG to win just a great facilitator(Lebron, Jordan, Kobe at 1 time in his life, Ginobli, etc.)

I dont have a problem with PG's scoring. It becomes a problem when they solely look to score instead of looking to get their teamates involved. I think that is why Westbrook gets alot of criticism because he has the scoring champ and Harden and he is shooting 30 shots a game. Nobody says this about Rose, he shoots probably about as much, because he doesnt have adequate talent around him offensively to justify taking the ball out of his hands for scoring.

In my opinion a PG's job is to manage the game like a QB, if your team is hot and knocking down shots their isnt a need for you to score big or shoot alot, but if the team is struggling then the PG should take over. I think this is what seprates Chris Paul and Rondo from the pack as they are deadly as scorers and a passers. Will they win multiple championships who knows...? The true PG has been watered down bc you have guys like Lebron who can dribble and pass like PG's.

When its all said and done you need guys that are oing to make the right basketball plays at he right moments. Are yo going to drive on 4 guys and try a tough shot or are you going to draw people in and kick it out to a role player for a game winning shot. Its a delicate balance which, quite frankly, the majority of players dont get. More emphasis is placed on individual success these days then success as a team. This is what makes the San Antonio Spurs unique. No I dont like them but you have to respect the way they play the game with pure unselfishness.

Iceman_9
07-19-2012, 10:24 AM
PG's role is to facilitate the offense.

trini_knickfan
07-19-2012, 10:29 AM
Chauncey Billups says hi

Tell Chauncey hi back lol

Rentzias
07-19-2012, 10:33 AM
I dont know where your going with this really I guess...
Glad someone else came to this conclusion.

thenaj17
07-19-2012, 10:39 AM
yeah but he is a shot-first PG

Fisher was never a shoot first PG. Standing in the corner waiting for shots doesn't make him shoot first PG. That was his job, a spot up shooter. He was neither facilitator or scorer.

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 10:39 AM
Haven't people heard of the names Gus Williams, Walt Frazier, Isiah Thomas and Jerry West? There were all the best players on their championship teams when they won the titles. There were all score first PGs (Gus shared the PG duties with Dennis Johnson in 79 with the Sonics but for the greater part of his career that was the position he played almost exclusively). I swear some of you guys are ridiculous with your arguments. It has happened in the past and it will happen again.

Hell Dwyane Wade played the PG exclusively on offense when the Heat won in 06 but because of his size and defensive ability he wasn't seen as one but he carried out all the duties of a PG for them.

The notion that this hasn't happened and will never happen again is about as foolish as it comes.

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 10:42 AM
When do score first PG's win titles? Again, you can't compare Rose and Westbrook to Iverson. Iverson was an inefficient chucker. Rose and Westbrook are more efficient passers and scorers. They are as dynamic as any other player. They can score as good or better than any point guards, and they still rank pretty damn good in passing among point guards.

You place Westbrook on A.I.'s teams and they too would become inefficienct chuckers.

Beside the point. A.I. was the teams SHOOTING GUARD not point guard so that has no merit in their arguement. When A.I. was placed in a position where he could have been more reliant on his teammates he was every bit as good a passer as Rose and Westbrook and just as efficient despite playing as an undersized SG.

DitchDat
07-19-2012, 10:48 AM
Pure PG's should always look to pass first.

However, there are hardly any "pure" players out there. Positions have become semantics. People care way too much about this: "he is a pg", "no he is an sg"... Who cares?

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 10:49 AM
god, iverson ruined the NBA. :laugh2:

PG's don't win titles as top dogs, it almost never happens. Magic is the only exception to the rule, and that's because he himself, was an exception to the rule as a 6'9 PG with the ability to play any position. it's the PGs role to distribute to the other guys the vast majority of the time. there are some exceptions, based of team personal, or offense (triangle) but generally, that's the most important part of their job.

bottom line, the only PG to ever rack titles as the undisputable top dog was as pass first as they come.

Who were the top dogs in 70, 73, 79, 89 and 90?

Now tell me how many times has top dog SFs won the title? LeBron once, Bird 3 times and Ricky Barry once (the most impressive of them all considering his cast).

Top calibre SFs win titles just as irregularly as top calibre PGs.

Iverson ruined the NBA? :rolleyes:

AnthonyTyrael
07-19-2012, 10:59 AM
He rather ruined himself and his NBA heritage.

Fun to read about all those old times. Thanks. You've been either around for a while or you are deeply interested in this sports history. Or maybe both?

CELTICS4LYFE
07-19-2012, 11:03 AM
They shouldn't ONLY pass but that's their job to control the offense. Would you want a C that doesn't rebound or play D in the paint?

NYkillaPriest
07-19-2012, 11:04 AM
please, tell me. people use this excuse so much when hating on players like westbrook and rose, yet you dont see pass first PG's leading their team to championships often... aside from magic of course, but he was a freak and you can make an equal argument by saying he wasnt the right size to be a PG, therefor he wasnt a true PG.

how often do you see any PG lead their team to a championship? It is the PG's job to get the team involved. Nobody is saying he can't score but for your PG to lead your team in shot attempts is not their preferred role.

shyfly24
07-19-2012, 11:06 AM
sorry if you have a pg as your best player you wont win a chip , look up the last 20 years

Tony parker, Billups :rolleyes:


Actually Rip was the best player on that team, billups just hit some big shots

Chauncy was our best player, hence why he won the finals MVP

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 11:10 AM
Rondo was the main reason the celtics won the championship in the first place. he was the sole difference maker that came out of no where and created a buzz.

You need scoring to go along with his style to be truly effective? Not necessarily, as long as your a smart basketball player than anything can be done and Rondo does have a high Bball IQ.

On top of all that, I am pretty sure the Celtics came close to winning ANOTHER championship. Pretty dam close too until a certain player got hurt during the series.

Anyway, Rondo is a awesome PG but yes he does need assistance. I wouldnt say never, or unless he gets luckly


Stopped reading after this.

Rentzias
07-19-2012, 11:17 AM
Well, the league's evolving strategically and skill-wise, comparable to how the NFL's playbooks have grown in size, and how you have centerpiece TEs. Strategically, you have many more defensive and offensive plays you can employ, and you start having specialized players on your team as well. It isn't just brute force or anymore. That said, the importance of someone who can facilitate that offense, regardless of what position, and use the pieces correctly, has increased. I'm sure there are other factors, but three out of the past five #1 picks as PGs is a historical anomaly.
In application, it's really tough to say, is the production toward a win from a pass-first PG really that much more valuable than from a score-first PG? For example, in Rose's MVP season of 25 ppg, 7.7 apg, he was getting an assist about every three points, whereas in CP3's phantom MVP '08-'09 season, he was getting an assist every 2 pts (22.8 to 11). I don't know what a good value system is to have a very basic production estimator is if we looked only at points, assists and turnovers, PG to PG, but the production between those two seasons (also 3 TOpg CP3 v 3.4 TOpg Rose) isn't enormous, and each player's team rated at 11th and 12th offensively, obviously with Rose's team having significantly more wins.
I don't think it's that "PG should only pass" but that has to be a pretty heavy part of their game--I don't know what the base should be, 7 apg? The balance is WHEN does a PG switch his game up to become a scorer, and the polarizing players for this would be CP3 and Westbrook, where one is much less selective about when to do this.
OP is a bit extreme, but would if your primary ballhandler is averaging 28 ppg and 3 apg, would you still label him your point?

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 11:28 AM
How often do you see a SF lead their team to a championship?

How many different SGs have lead their team to a championship?

You guys really seriously can't be arguing about PGs when its the VERY SAME for other positions.

This is a big man league so it only makes the most basic common simple logical sense that the player who is usually the smallest on the floor would not have the kind of impact that the biggest player on the floor would.

Its really THAT simple. Why are you people trying to complicate it. Whether or not the PG is a shoot first, pass first, never shoot at all or a superhuman once doesn't have the advantage of height his chances of leading a team to the title as the best player is smaller than that of a bigger player. Unless that player is Chuck Norris he's less likely to lead a team to a title than Shaquille O'Neal would be to his.

There is a reason why there has only been one dynasty in the history of the NBA that was lead mainly by a perimeter players with no real big man threat in the middle.

Lucky Junior
07-19-2012, 11:32 AM
Pass-first PGs are generally more effective than score-first PGs.

It is not often that a score-first PG wins a title.

That said, this is speaking strictly in terms of the traditional roles for players. Jordan, essentially, was a score-first PG. He brought the ball up (shared duties with Pippen), and he looked to score first. But he also knew when to pass the ball, and that is the trick. You get a score-first PG who knows when to pass the ball, you are fine. Isiah Thomas for example, and Chris Paul as well. Kevin Johnson is another great example. Mark Price, if you guys can remember him. The problem is that 90% of the time when you have a score-first PG, the DON'T know when to pass the ball (Iverson, Starbury, Francis), and the team on a whole does not do as well as they would if John Stockton were running the point.

As a rule, score-first PGs are not a good idea. But they do occasionally win.

Now, what you should be going for is a defensive/rebounding stud that can work the paint and hit a 15 foot jump shot, then you set to start building a champion.

Don't build around a PG. It is TOO hard. Just ask Philly, they wasted a decade trying to do it around Iverson.

People always say this about Iverson, and it's simply untrue. Iverson was a much better passer than Jordan ever was!

As far as the thread topic. I think people underestimate how hard it is to play without the ball. Creating your own shot is hard enough, but playing off of a scoring point guard if you're anything but a spot up shooter is misery. So, it's just a lot easier to have a distributor on the floor who's job it is to get everyone else good looks. One of the mistakes people make is thinking that this automatically makes someone a PG, or that they have to be a PG to distribute. Grant Hill has been the distributor on his team before, Lebron James is now.

psperry34116
07-19-2012, 11:43 AM
People always say this about Iverson, and it's simply untrue. Iverson was a much better passer than Jordan ever was!


Iverson may have been the more talented passer, but he averaged only 6.2 assists with 3.6 turnovers for his career despite being the primary distributor on pretty much all of his teams. Jordan was the second ball handler to Pippen and averaged 5.3 assists with 2.7 turnovers for his career. Also, Jordan shot about 8 percent higher than A.I. for his career and had a season averaging 8 assists, something A.I. never did. Disregarding scoring, (where Jordan also wins), Jordan was the much more efficient player in running an offense.

And about the thread, I don't think scoring PGs are a serious issue, but people aren't used to seeing players like Rose and Westbrook lead contending teams. Scoring PGs used to be guys like Tiny Archibald, World B. Free, Pete Maravich, guys who spent their years toiling away on subpar teams. While West, Thomas and Frazier were great scorers, they also were incredible at running an offense.

I think people are fair in criticizing guys like Westbrook, because his offense often seems counteractive to the team. Bottom line is, the Thunder have the best scorer in the league and their point guard took 24 more shots than him in the postseason. Unless your point guards Michael Jordan, that should just never happen. As for guys like Rose, he shoots a lot but it never seems forced. The Bulls do not have a Kevin Durant, a Carmelo Anthony or even a Paul Pierce to get his own shot. Rose needs to score for the Bulls to be an effective offensive team.

KingPosey
07-19-2012, 11:49 AM
doesn't change the fact you need a wing player or big man 90 percent of time to lead you to a chip .

Ya but it changes the fact that what you said was correct.

KingPosey
07-19-2012, 11:52 AM
Who were the top dogs in 70, 73, 79, 89 and 90?

Now tell me how many times has top dog SFs won the title? LeBron once, Bird 3 times and Ricky Barry once (the most impressive of them all considering his cast).

Top calibre SFs win titles just as irregularly as top calibre SFs.

Iverson ruined the NBA? :rolleyes:

Never a truer statement has been made.

EDUTEXANS
07-19-2012, 12:00 PM
Fisher was never a shoot first PG. Standing in the corner waiting for shots doesn't make him shoot first PG. That was his job, a spot up shooter. He was neither facilitator or scorer.

exactly, he was a scoring PG, doesn't matter how much he used to score, he wasn't a passing PG, his job was shooting the ball, which makes him a shoot-first PG

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 12:03 PM
Never a truer statement has been made.

I made a mistake and forgot about Hondo in 74 (by the time 76 he was no longer "The Man") but even so its more or less equal.

KingPosey
07-19-2012, 12:19 PM
I made a mistake and forgot about Hondo in 74 (by the time 76 he was no longer "The Man") but even so its more or less equal.

The joke was that you said top sfs have won championships as much as top sfs.

dh144498
07-19-2012, 12:24 PM
doesn't change the fact you need a wing player or big man 90 percent of time to lead you to a chip .

that's such an arbitrary statement. The same can be said about Shaq not being to win without a top SG in Kobe and Wade. Or Jordan not being able to win without a player like Pippen. etc.
Truth is a PG CAN lead a team to victory while being the best player on a team aka Magic, Isai Thomas. Don't gimme that "last 20 years" crap, that's another arbitrary time limit.

dh144498
07-19-2012, 12:26 PM
PGs are pass first players. They are supposed to pass more than they score.
Definition of PG: playmaker, ball handler.

Boston-Born
07-19-2012, 12:30 PM
Is there a rule in the NBA forum that makes it illegal to use correct grammar, punctuation, or proper use of capitalization?

Stinkyoutsider
07-19-2012, 12:44 PM
To me, it doesn't matter if you've got a pass first point guard or not. I think pass first point guards can be the best player on their team, especially if we're talking the best overall player.

It's a team game so if you've got good players who can score and play D around your pass first point guard, they'll be able to compete and win a championship. It all depends on how good your point guard is compared to his teammates.

tp13baby
07-19-2012, 12:46 PM
Outside of Lebron, Rondo was maybe the most important player to his team in the playoffs. I mean just saying.

Alayla
07-19-2012, 01:29 PM
sorry if you have a pg as your best player you wont win a chip , look up the last 20 years

Billups in 2004 and arugeably parker in 07

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 01:35 PM
The joke was that you said top sfs have won championships as much as top sfs.

Rushing to type at the office. Facepalm myself :laugh2:

Kashmir13579
07-19-2012, 01:35 PM
because Russel Westbrick

seikou8
07-19-2012, 01:39 PM
Tony parker, Billups :rolleyes:



Chauncy was our best player, hence why he won the finals MVP

so i guess parker >duncan in 2007 because he won the final mvp :facepalm:
one series dont change a season of a body of work.

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 01:44 PM
Lets set the record straight Tony Parker at no time during any of the Spurs Championships runs was ever the best player on the Spurs. He played alongside the greatest PF of all time the fact that he won the FMVP didn't make him his team's best player that's not even arguable IMO.

Jojo White, Cedric Maxwell, Joe Dumars, Paul Pierce and James Worthy weren't their teams' best player when they won their FMVPs.

Chauncey Billups however that's a different story. He was his team's best player IMO.

knickfan33
07-19-2012, 01:49 PM
please, tell me. people use this excuse so much when hating on players like westbrook and rose, yet you dont see pass first PG's leading their team to championships often... aside from magic of course, but he was a freak and you can make an equal argument by saying he wasnt the right size to be a PG, therefor he wasnt a true PG.

noone said they should only pass, but running the offence is supposed to be part of there job... most scoring PG's dont do that well (rose/westbrook)

bulls should start heinrich and move rose to the 2

JayAllDay
07-19-2012, 01:49 PM
Tony Parker and Rajon Rondo?

This thread is stupid

seikou8
07-19-2012, 01:53 PM
Lets set the record straight Tony Parker at no time during any of the Spurs Championships runs was ever the best player on the Spurs. He played alongside the greatest PF of all time the fact that he won the FMVP didn't make him his team's best player that's not even arguable IMO.

Jojo White, Cedric Maxwell, Joe Dumars, Paul Pierce and James Worthy weren't their teams' best player when they won their FMVPs.

Chauncey Billups however that's a different story. He was his team's best player IMO.

thank you:clap:

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 01:58 PM
noone said they should only pass, but running the offence is supposed to be part of there job... most scoring PG's dont do that well (rose/westbrook)

bulls should start heinrich and move rose to the 2

That's a bunch of BULL. For the greater part of the last season the Thunder had the best offense in the NBA and the Bulls was top 5 when Rose was healthy. Just because they don't average 10 assists per game doesn't mean they aren't running an offense well it just means that it is being ran differently.

Rose averaged a career high in assists last season and the man still can't get his props. Russell Westbrook averaged 8 apg in consecutive seasons before last and he still can't get his props.

But then we call guys who never even got near 8 in any season in their career better put PGs than these guys.

Really? :pity:

C-Wick925
07-19-2012, 02:03 PM
He may have won finals mvp but its debateable that he was rhe best player on that team

This.

On any night the best player on that team was one of 5 different guys.

NY_Heartbreak
07-19-2012, 02:19 PM
Point Guards are supposed to pass the ball because that is what the position calls for. They are floor generals. They begin plays, and sometimes they end them. But most of the time they are the ones who need to run the offense.

At any given time there are 5 men on the floor for your team. Why not use one of those 5 guys to set the other 4 up to score? Makes perfect sense to me.

Kefman2110
07-19-2012, 02:40 PM
well I do agree that if your pg is your top scorer you may have a problem there with your team. But I think its good that your best overall player is at the pg position. I mean they are the coach on the floor. They run the offense. They get everyone going. Obviously there are freaks exceptions like Lebron or Kobe, but other than that most of the pgs are the best players on the team. So I think it is important to get some scoring from the pg, but i think they shouldnt be your teams top scorer.

ItsTheLastAce
07-19-2012, 02:56 PM
I would rather have a pass first pg honestly.

b@llhog24
07-19-2012, 03:08 PM
Only advantage pass first point guards have is that its generally easier to have players next to them as long as they have a decent jump-shot.

Whomewhome
07-19-2012, 03:13 PM
change it to something better then, im too stoned to make a good title
Amen to PSD and pot! Go get a life. Go get laid. Don't smoke pot and post on PSD...Smoke pot and either eat, do nothing or get laid.

knickfan33
07-19-2012, 03:39 PM
That's a bunch of BULL. For the greater part of the last season the Thunder had the best offense in the NBA and the Bulls was top 5 when Rose was healthy. Just because they don't average 10 assists per game doesn't mean they aren't running an offense well it just means that it is being ran differently.

Rose averaged a career high in assists last season and the man still can't get his props. Russell Westbrook averaged 8 apg in consecutive seasons before last and he still can't get his props.

But then we call guys who never even got near 8 in any season in their career better put PGs than these guys.

Really? :pity:

it's different for some teams... like the thunder, cause the ball is not gonna go through your pointguard most of the time, its gonna go through durant.

im not saying there bad pg's... but alot of teams are better with wha yuou call a "true PG"

Toastyy
07-19-2012, 06:42 PM
So you you guys are all saying is that in last years draft if you were the cavs FO you would take Derrick Williams over kyrie Irving?

Bruno
07-19-2012, 06:47 PM
Who were the top dogs in 70, 73, 79, 89 and 90?

1970 Regular Season:
Frazier: PER- 21.1, WS- 15.0, WS/48- .236.
Reed: PER- 20.3, WS- 14.6, WS/48- .227.
1970 Post Season:
Frazier- PER- 16.5, WS- 2.8, WS/48- .163
Reed: PER- 20.1, WS- 2.6, WS/48- .168

I'd tell you that they were co-captains and co-batmans, based off looking at those statistics (although I don't enjoy pandering to such a useless labeling system, I'll do it for the sake of the argument you've thrown my way). If you know anything about the 1970 NBA Finals, you'd know that this moment helped to give the Knicks the adrenaline and fire necessary to pull out such a game seven:

Willis Reed comes out of the tunnel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mz4WcaknVc

Willis Reed was the 1970 NBA MVP, and the 1970 NBA Finals MVP. You tell me who the "top dog" of the 1970 Championship Knicks was. Fraziers a legend, but he was far from the indisputable top dog in 1970, or 1973.

1973:
Frazier has the statistical argument for 'top-dog'. Unfortunately, Willis Reed and Earl Monroe also got a lot of credit for the title, especially when Reed walked away with his second Finals MVP in four years. Although, I'd entertain the notion that Frazier was better. Either way, clear-cut 'top-dog'? Not so much, debatable at best.

1979 Regular Season:
D. Johnson: PER- 15.0, WS- 6.6, WS/48- .116.
G. Williams: PER- 21.1, WS- 8.3, WS/48- .175

1979 Post-Season
D. Johnson: PER- 18.1, WS- 2.2, WS/48- .153
G. Williams: PER: 23.8, WS- 2.7, WS/48- .211

As you already know, these guys split time at the PG. It's irrelevant as to what Gus played for the bulk of his career; who played what during the '79 championship run? It's a (s)wash and it can't be used in favor of your argument, or mine.

1989 Detroit Pistons:

I'm surprised you actually included this (while leaving off 2004), considering how these back to back champs were known for their well-rounded squad, and dominant defense.

Thomas was 3rd in Detroit Pistons regular season PER (only 2.1 points above league average). Thomas was tied for third in total team regular season win-shares (behind Rodman and Lambier, tied with Dumars).Thomas was eleventh in regular season WS/48 for the 1989 Champion Detroit Pistons

For the 1989 Playoffs, Thomas was second in PER, had a TS% below .500, he was second in playoff win-shares (behind Dumars) and he was ninth in post-season WS/48 for the championship Pistons. Dumars walked away with finals MVP.

1990 Detroit Pistons:

He at least has an argument here (unlike 1989). For 1990, Thomas actually finished first on his team in regular season PER (.1 points ahead of Dumars, and still only 2.3 above the league average). However, he was still a surprisingly dismal eighth on his team in regular season WS/48 (and only 4th in total regular season win-shares). Think we could find another finals MVP who was 8th on his team in regular season win-shares per 48?

For the 1990 Playoffs, Thomas affirms your argument (however, he still averaged 8.2 assists per game for the playoffs). Out of the five examples you threw my way, 1990 and Isiah Thomas is the only example that serves your argument. And I'd still tell you that their 2nd overall team defensive ranking, skews the debate (kind of like in 2004). But yea, Isiah dominated the 1990 playoffs.



Now tell me how many times has top dog SFs won the title?
Again, you're going to have to look that up yourself.

Iverson ruined the NBA? :rolleyes:

sarcasm?

My point remains unchanged. It is a pretty rare thing for PGs to lead teams to championships as 'top-dogs', and it's even more rare for them to do so as 'shoot-first' point-guards. Out of all the examples you threw my way, only Thomas in 1990 and Billups in 2004 even qualify (and even then, most people would tell you it was those teams dominant defenses that pushed them over the top, not the explosively dominant play of their PG's).

Toastyy
07-19-2012, 06:51 PM
It's a new age, point guard is easily the best position in the NBA these days, almost every team has a solid starting point guard, in the next 15-20 years you will see more teams with there PG there best player winning, it's almost impossible not to

Bruno
07-19-2012, 06:55 PM
It's a new age,
It is. the historical norms in the NBA might not help us predict future dominance of PGs, in a league with rules designed to facilitate the PG position.


point guard is easily the best position in the NBA these days, almost every team has a solid starting point guard, in the next 15-20 years you will see more teams with there PG there best player winning, it's almost impossible not to

In the future, I might agree. But right now, I'd still take SF for my money. Two of the top three players are SFs (LeBron and Durant), and that still doesn't account for Carmelo Anthony, Paul Pierce, Andre Igudola, Gerald Wallace, ect. PG is deeper 1-15, but SF takes 1-5, imo.

THE MTL
07-19-2012, 07:43 PM
sorry if you have a pg as your best player you wont win a chip , look up the last 20 years

Tony parker was the best player on the spurs the last time they won the championship. He has a finals MVP to prove it

jayjay33
07-19-2012, 07:55 PM
Actually Rip was the best player on that team, billups just hit some big shots

1. No.......

2. Just hit some big shot? He was finals MVP.

jayjay33
07-19-2012, 07:57 PM
How many rings won with a shoot first pg?

:rolleyes:

Toney parker......

Swashcuff
07-19-2012, 08:13 PM
1970 Regular Season:
Frazier: PER- 21.1, WS- 15.0, WS/48- .236.
Reed: PER- 20.3, WS- 14.6, WS/48- .227.
1970 Post Season:
Frazier- PER- 16.5, WS- 2.8, WS/48- .163
Reed: PER- 20.1, WS- 2.6, WS/48- .168

I'd tell you that they were co-captains and co-batmans, based off looking at those statistics (although I don't enjoy pandering to such a useless labeling system, I'll do it for the sake of the argument you've thrown my way). If you know anything about the 1970 NBA Finals, you'd know that this moment helped to give the Knicks the adrenaline and fire necessary to pull out such a game seven:

Willis Reed comes out of the tunnel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mz4WcaknVc

Willis Reed was the 1970 NBA MVP, and the 1970 NBA Finals MVP. You tell me who the "top dog" of the 1970 Championship Knicks was. Fraziers a legend, but he was far from the indisputable top dog in 1970, or 1973.

1973:
Frazier has the statistical argument for 'top-dog'. Unfortunately, Willis Reed and Earl Monroe also got a lot of credit for the title, especially when Reed walked away with his second Finals MVP in four years. Although, I'd entertain the notion that Frazier was better. Either way, clear-cut 'top-dog'? Not so much, debatable at best.

Did you seriously take the time to type all of this?

EARL MONROE more valuable than arguably the best two way PG of all time who MADE Earl Monroe a better player than he was and made up for his deficiencies? You're kidding me right?

Bruno anyone and their mother who knows anything about the history of basketball knows who was the best and most valuable player on those teams.


1979 Regular Season:
D. Johnson: PER- 15.0, WS- 6.6, WS/48- .116.
G. Williams: PER- 21.1, WS- 8.3, WS/48- .175

1979 Post-Season
D. Johnson: PER- 18.1, WS- 2.2, WS/48- .153
G. Williams: PER: 23.8, WS- 2.7, WS/48- .211

As you already know, these guys split time at the PG. It's irrelevant as to what Gus played for the bulk of his career; who played what during the '79 championship run? It's a (s)wash and it can't be used in favor of your argument, or mine.

Gus was the one bringing the ball up the floor was a natural point guard who played the position for the majority of his career and defended the opposing teams PG.

This argument is about how many times a PG lead their team well guess what Gus Williams was a PG who shared time at the position. That's a fact that you admitted so essentially if he played the PG then OBVIOUSLY it can be used in my favour.


1989 Detroit Pistons:

I'm surprised you actually included this (while leaving off 2004), considering how these back to back champs were known for their well-rounded squad, and dominant defense.

Thomas was 3rd in Detroit Pistons regular season PER (only 2.1 points above league average). Thomas was tied for third in total team regular season win-shares (behind Rodman and Lambier, tied with Dumars).Thomas was eleventh in regular season WS/48 for the 1989 Champion Detroit Pistons

For the 1989 Playoffs, Thomas was second in PER, had a TS% below .500, he was second in playoff win-shares (behind Dumars) and he was ninth in post-season WS/48 for the championship Pistons. Dumars walked away with finals MVP.

1990 Detroit Pistons:

He at least has an argument here (unlike 1989). For 1990, Thomas actually finished first on his team in regular season PER (.1 points ahead of Dumars, and still only 2.3 above the league average). However, he was still a surprisingly dismal eighth on his team in regular season WS/48 (and only 4th in total regular season win-shares). Think we could find another finals MVP who was 8th on his team in regular season win-shares per 48?

For the 1990 Playoffs, Thomas affirms your argument (however, he still averaged 8.2 assists per game for the playoffs). Out of the five examples you threw my way, 1990 and Isiah Thomas is the only example that serves your argument. And I'd still tell you that their 2nd overall team defensive ranking, skews the debate (kind of like in 2004). But yea, Isiah dominated the 1990 playoffs.

Do I really need to respond to this? On both his team Isiah Thomas was clearly his team's best player and was the driving force behind their titles. It matters not how they were built because this argument can be used against Magic and Bird just prior to Isiah as well as a host of other players.

Isiah was his team's best player.


Again, you're going to have to look that up yourself.

See the difference is I know my facts I don't have to go look them up. Maybe you should consider using your own advice and do the digging on your own before you attempt to make a baseless argument.


sarcasm?

Tell us how did Allen Iverson ruin the NBA. Let's here.


My point remains unchanged. It is a pretty rare thing for PGs to lead teams to championships as 'top-dogs', and it's even more rare for them to do so as 'shoot-first' point-guards. Out of all the examples you threw my way, only Thomas in 1990 and Billups in 2004 even qualify (and even then, most people would tell you it was those teams dominant defenses that pushed them over the top, not the explosively dominant play of their PG's).

I really don't think it makes sense.

Jerry West was clearly his team's best player and he played the PG exclusively for virtually his entire career and especially in his championship season. Walt Frazier was his team's best player you can ask any knowledgeable history he was hands down the man. Gus Williams and Dennis Johnson shared the duties at the PG both players having different styles of play they shared the duties and Gus Williams was his team's best player.

Normally I would break down arguments like this seriously but when you said that Earl Monroe was more valuable than Walt Frazier I really don't see it making any sense to take any of your arguments seriously. I mean seriously. :laugh2:

ee
07-19-2012, 08:23 PM
Marbury can do both :D

Bruno
07-21-2012, 04:30 PM
Did you seriously take the time to type all of this?
no.


EARL MONROE more valuable than arguably the best two way PG of all time who MADE Earl Monroe a better player than he was and made up for his deficiencies? You're kidding me right?

don't be an conjurer of cheap tricks. i never wrote that, take the time to read the post. or read it twice, if it helps you understand it better.


Bruno anyone and their mother who knows anything about the history of basketball knows who was the best and most valuable player on those teams. i'd hate to bring your mother into this.



This argument is about how many times a PG lead their team well guess what Gus Williams was a PG who shared time at the position. That's a fact that you admitted so essentially if he played the PG then OBVIOUSLY it can be used in my favour.
no it can't kid. go back to my OP. I said PG's don't RACK championships as top dogs. As in they don't win multiple championships as top dogs (that's what I said, go read it). This 1979 example is a bad one (as I explained last post) because of the two PG dynamic, and even after examining that point- they were still a one and done. stop trying to pigenhole me into what you want this debate to be about, opposed to what it actually is about; PGs racking titles as top dogs.



Do I really need to respond to this? On both his team Isiah Thomas was clearly his team's best player and was the driving force behind their titles. It matters not how they were built because this argument can be used against Magic and Bird just prior to Isiah as well as a host of other players.
your inability to understand context and details goes as far as the deepest reaches of unexplored space. while things may be a lot easier to understand in black and white, and in absolutes, the statistics tell us a broader more detail orientated story; i suggest you look at them.



See the difference is I know my facts I don't have to go look them up. Maybe you should consider using your own advice and do the digging on your own before you attempt to make a baseless argument.
your arrogance never ceases to amaze me.



Tell us how did Allen Iverson ruin the NBA. Let's here.
you're thick as a brick. sarcasm, don't take yourself so seriously.



I really don't think it makes sense.
no surprise.


Jerry West was clearly his team's best player and he played the PG exclusively for virtually his entire career and especially in his championship season. Walt Frazier was his team's best player you can ask any knowledgeable history he was hands down the man. Gus Williams and Dennis Johnson shared the duties at the PG both players having different styles of play they shared the duties and Gus Williams was his team's best player.
:horse:


Normally I would break down arguments like this seriously but when you said that Earl Monroe was more valuable than Walt Frazier I really don't see it making any sense to take any of your arguments seriously. I mean seriously. :laugh2:
I never said that, but I'll hold your hand through this one too. I said he received some credit for the championship (are you going to tell me he didn't?) More importantly, you're focusing on Earl Monroe, I was talking about Willis Reed (go back and read). The guy with the better stats (1970), the guy who walked away with the 1970 regular season and finals MVP, and the 1973 Finals MVP. If you're looking to revise history you're going to have to at least do it in a debate with a guy less ignorant than yourself.



bottom line, the only PG to ever rack titles as the undisputable top dog was as pass first as they come.
there it is. I had to post it because you've misquoted me on so many difference occasions. Next time some one jokingly jabs Iverson, do yourself a favor and count to fifty before you go off on some detail-free, stat-free, ego driven tangent. Calling me out never works out as well for you as you hope, you know this. Thanks, try again.

Lake_Show2416
07-21-2012, 04:34 PM
the PG position is completely overrated, a team just needs to put together a group of players that compliment each others game

last PG champs

Mario Chalmers
old J Kidd
Fisher
young Rondo

bearadonisdna
07-21-2012, 05:26 PM
Its because they want put players in a box.

Outshining the older generations makes them say, oh ur not supposed to play that way.

raiderposting
07-21-2012, 06:54 PM
how the hell was tony parker the best player on his team win they won a championship? that is the stupid **** i've ever heard.

raiderposting
07-21-2012, 06:55 PM
eye test>advanced stats

Swashcuff
07-21-2012, 10:39 PM
no.



don't be an conjurer of cheap tricks. i never wrote that, take the time to read the post. or read it twice, if it helps you understand it better.

i'd hate to bring your mother into this.



no it can't kid. go back to my OP. I said PG's don't RACK championships as top dogs. As in they don't win multiple championships as top dogs (that's what I said, go read it). This 1979 example is a bad one (as I explained last post) because of the two PG dynamic, and even after examining that point- they were still a one and done. stop trying to pigenhole me into what you want this debate to be about, opposed to what it actually is about; PGs racking titles as top dogs.


your inability to understand context and details goes as far as the deepest reaches of unexplored space. while things may be a lot easier to understand in black and white, and in absolutes, the statistics tell us a broader more detail orientated story; i suggest you look at them.



your arrogance never ceases to amaze me.



you're thick as a brick. sarcasm, don't take yourself so seriously.



no surprise.


:horse:


I never said that, but I'll hold your hand through this one too. I said he received some credit for the championship (are you going to tell me he didn't?) More importantly, you're focusing on Earl Monroe, I was talking about Willis Reed (go back and read). The guy with the better stats (1970), the guy who walked away with the 1970 regular season and finals MVP, and the 1973 Finals MVP. If you're looking to revise history you're going to have to at least do it in a debate with a guy less ignorant than yourself.


there it is. I had to post it because you've misquoted me on so many difference occasions. Next time some one jokingly jabs Iverson, do yourself a favor and count to fifty before you go off on some detail-free, stat-free, ego driven tangent. Calling me out never works out as well for you as you hope, you know this. Thanks, try again.

You're telling me about context and telling me to look at the stats?

:laugh2:

And entire post makes no sense.

Calling you out doesn't what? Dude I don't know but ever since you retired as a Mod your posts have gotten catastrophically awful and you've been proven wrong in damn near every argument I've seen you been a part of.

If you really want to talk history, stats, CONTEXT and understanding I dare you come at me in any argument I'll show teach you a thing or two.

Yeah that's me "calling you out".

Swashcuff
07-21-2012, 10:48 PM
eye test>advanced stats

Mark Cuban recently said that his Elton Brand signing as well as most of his acquisitions in the past had a lot to do with advanced statistical analysis of the player. The Mavs are one of the winning-est franchises in the last 15 years. I'd say the Mav's method beat the eye test.

The eye test tells me Scarlett Johansson is hotter than Jessica Alba does that make it a fact?

The eye test once told me that Luis Scola was really good defensive player, until I saw him play on more occasions to which I then thought he wasn't really that good but he tried a lot on that end which made you believe that he was good at it.

No two persons POVs are exactly the same you're always going to view the game or a player differently from someone else thus meaning that no definite unbiased conclusion can be brought by just the use of our eyes. The facts however (in this case advanced stats) are indeed unbiased and if you use along with the basic stats, the eye test, coaching, etc you'd really learn to appreciate the game a whole lot more than you currently do.

metsfan4ever
07-21-2012, 11:37 PM
Williams, Paul ,Parker, Rondo, Rose and Westbrook all get buckets! **** that only pass ****

LakersIn5
07-22-2012, 12:41 AM
How many rings won with a shoot first pg?

:rolleyes:

last 2 decades. kerr, fisher, billups, parker, chalmers. just to answep your question.

BuddhaMONK
07-22-2012, 01:03 AM
please, tell me. people use this excuse so much when hating on players like westbrook and rose, yet you dont see pass first PG's leading their team to championships often... aside from magic of course, but he was a freak and you can make an equal argument by saying he wasnt the right size to be a PG, therefor he wasnt a true PG.

Lebron james is a pass first point guard.....the guy averaged 8.6 assists a couple years ago, I don't get why he's not considered a point guard when Magic was.

justjames
07-22-2012, 04:35 AM
Mark Cuban recently said that his Elton Brand signing as well as most of his acquisitions in the past had a lot to do with advanced statistical analysis of the player. The Mavs are one of the winning-est franchises in the last 15 years. I'd say the Mav's method beat the eye test.

The eye test tells me Scarlett Johansson is hotter than Jessica Alba does that make it a fact?

The eye test once told me that Luis Scola was really good defensive player, until I saw him play on more occasions to which I then thought he wasn't really that good but he tried a lot on that end which made you believe that he was good at it.

No two persons POVs are exactly the same you're always going to view the game or a player differently from someone else thus meaning that no definite unbiased conclusion can be brought by just the use of our eyes. The facts however (in this case advanced stats) are indeed unbiased and if you use along with the basic stats, the eye test, coaching, etc you'd really learn to appreciate the game a whole lot more than you currently do.

Both girls have the taint of Derek Jeter.

seikou8
07-22-2012, 10:03 AM
Tony parker was the best player on the spurs the last time they won the championship. He has a finals MVP to prove it

:facepalm:

dh144498
07-24-2012, 12:52 PM
Mark Cuban recently said that his Elton Brand signing as well as most of his acquisitions in the past had a lot to do with advanced statistical analysis of the player. The Mavs are one of the winning-est franchises in the last 15 years. I'd say the Mav's method beat the eye test.

The eye test tells me Scarlett Johansson is hotter than Jessica Alba does that make it a fact?

The eye test once told me that Luis Scola was really good defensive player, until I saw him play on more occasions to which I then thought he wasn't really that good but he tried a lot on that end which made you believe that he was good at it.

No two persons POVs are exactly the same you're always going to view the game or a player differently from someone else thus meaning that no definite unbiased conclusion can be brought by just the use of our eyes. The facts however (in this case advanced stats) are indeed unbiased and if you use along with the basic stats, the eye test, coaching, etc you'd really learn to appreciate the game a whole lot more than you currently do.

you're seriously using this terrible analogy as an argument? :facepalm:
opinions vs facts. LOL

MrFastBreak
07-24-2012, 06:40 PM
Point Guards are supposed to pass the ball because that is what the position calls for. They are floor generals. They begin plays, and sometimes they end them. But most of the time they are the ones who need to run the offense.

At any given time there are 5 men on the floor for your team. Why not use one of those 5 guys to set the other 4 up to score? Makes perfect sense to me.

But that doesnt take away from a player who is an all-out offensive threat, who can beat you with a potential pass or shot. You know, like Rose and WB.

Those other four guys may not be up to par either and when a PG is in that scenario, he has no choice but to pick up the slack with his scoring abilities. CP3 on the Hornets is a perfect example of this and he fared pretty well despite lack of team success.


That goes back to the original argument. It doesnt matter if youre pass-first or score-first and saying a point guard has never been Alpha Male on his team is not a smart generalization to make. Even if it were true, your supporting cast and your goodness is what really matters. Does your team benefit from your presence with your unselfish persona or ball hogging tendencies?

So the tragedy does not lie in the point guard, but teammates who surround him, I think.

Like Chris Paul has the ability to win as 'the Man'. He just hasnt had the opportunity yet.


i've never heard anyone ever say that PG's should only pass.

The PG's role is to make the offense go. Best way to do that is passing. But Him scoring or shooting can also be part of the offense and making the system work

Actually, the best ways to make the offense go are interchangeable. Its just based on the squad's style of play.


I still dont see the relevance in labeling the PG as he can have many roles. A point guard's fit in a team varies depending on the club's style of play and its caliber of players. If all PG's in the league were pass-first and unselfish, wouldnt it take away from the fun of evaluating players if they were all the same? Isnt it fun to dissect what sets Derrick Rose apart from the likes of Jose Calderon? or how about a more post-savvy point guard or defensive-minded one? I like the unique variety of players. It breaks out the fun.

MrFastBreak
07-24-2012, 06:49 PM
maybe it's because pg's bring the ball up and start the facilitation of the offense and are responsible for keeping the other guys on the floor in a rhythm.

Yea but thats just a league average point guard. Youve gotta be good at other things and also better than mediocre when facilitating an offense. You have to be like the best at something. Not just good at everything. I prefer a PG who can do one thing at an ELITE LEVEL than just a PG who can do everything fairly well. For me, you have to have that WOW factor. Just because its true to definition doesnt mean its the right way to go. No reason to knock scorefirst PG's because they add something extra to the game. There are many score first PG's who make plays.

-Just sayin'.

bagwell368
07-24-2012, 07:04 PM
Rondo was the main reason the celtics won the championship in the first place. he was the sole difference maker that came out of no where and created a buzz.

Utter hogwash.

KG > PP >> RA > RR

Who gives a crap about "buzz"? KG was the difference along with his defensive Coach and all the Posey, Perkins, Powes and other guys that signed on and made huge efforts on the D.


You need scoring to go along with his style to be truly effective? Not necessarily, as long as your a smart basketball player than anything can be done and Rondo does have a high Bball IQ.

Stripped of his HOF buddies you'll find out how threadbare his game really is.


On top of all that, I am pretty sure the Celtics came close to winning ANOTHER championship. Pretty dam close too until a certain player got hurt during the series.

You mean Perkins? because you couldn't possibly be talking about Rondo himself, the Celts were too depleted to win two years ago w/ or w/o Rondo - in large part because Rondo had a 17 game pout over the Perkins deal which caused in large part the slip from #1 seed in the East. Some gamer that Rondo is - big crybaby more like.

bagwell368
07-24-2012, 07:07 PM
Point Guards are supposed to pass the ball because that is what the position calls for. They are floor generals. They begin plays, and sometimes they end them. But most of the time they are the ones who need to run the offense.

At any given time there are 5 men on the floor for your team. Why not use one of those 5 guys to set the other 4 up to score? Makes perfect sense to me.

Try watching the Celts of the mid 80's, 70's and 60's - there is no requirement for the O to go through a PG to have superb passing.

bagwell368
07-24-2012, 07:16 PM
1970 Regular Season:
Frazier: PER- 21.1, WS- 15.0, WS/48- .236.
Reed: PER- 20.3, WS- 14.6, WS/48- .227.
1970 Post Season:
Frazier- PER- 16.5, WS- 2.8, WS/48- .163
Reed: PER- 20.1, WS- 2.6, WS/48- .168

I'd tell you that they were co-captains and co-batmans, based off looking at those statistics (although I don't enjoy pandering to such a useless labeling system, I'll do it for the sake of the argument you've thrown my way). If you know anything about the 1970 NBA Finals, you'd know that this moment helped to give the Knicks the adrenaline and fire necessary to pull out such a game seven:

Willis Reed comes out of the tunnel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Mz4WcaknVc

Willis Reed was the 1970 NBA MVP, and the 1970 NBA Finals MVP. You tell me who the "top dog" of the 1970 Championship Knicks was. Fraziers a legend, but he was far from the indisputable top dog in 1970, or 1973.

1973:
Frazier has the statistical argument for 'top-dog'. Unfortunately, Willis Reed and Earl Monroe also got a lot of credit for the title, especially when Reed walked away with his second Finals MVP in four years. Although, I'd entertain the notion that Frazier was better. Either way, clear-cut 'top-dog'? Not so much, debatable at best.

I saw these teams - so to clear this up:

The '70 and '71 team was Frazier and Reed
The '72 and '73 team was totally led by Frazier.
'74 was still Frazier but others were closer then in the prior two years.

Barnett, Dave D, Monroe, Lucas and others were key pieces, but this 5 year period and each year in it were dominated by Frazier, Monroe was always a secondary figure. Reed when healthy was a co-leader.