PDA

View Full Version : The New NBA



PraiseJesus
01-02-2013, 07:09 PM
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
01-02-2013, 07:22 PM
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
01-02-2013, 07:25 PM
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? ^_^

:worthy:

I Rock Shaqs
01-02-2013, 07:26 PM
I'm 18 is having sex with a 15 year old wrong?

PraiseJesus
01-02-2013, 07:31 PM
I'm 18 is having sex with a 15 year old wrong?

That's a -3

PraiseJesus
01-02-2013, 07:32 PM
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 ;)

Alayla
01-02-2013, 07:38 PM
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
01-02-2013, 07:41 PM
IT seems like the team that has 6th man of the year wins

RLundi
01-02-2013, 07:41 PM
I'm 18 is having sex with a 15 year old wrong?

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

ManRam
01-02-2013, 07:42 PM
Why is PG the most important position?

--23--
01-02-2013, 07:51 PM
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? ^_^

:laugh2:

nickdymez
01-02-2013, 07:52 PM
Why is PG the most important position?

Strange question

Rylz
01-02-2013, 08:26 PM
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
01-03-2013, 10:21 AM
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
01-03-2013, 10:26 AM
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?

yanksrock
01-03-2013, 10:38 AM
I'm 18 is having sex with a 15 year old wrong?

Go for it and never look back. You're gonna have to dye your hair, change your dress style and move in with grandma but totally worth it.

JasonJohnHorn
01-03-2013, 10:54 AM
I'm 18 is having sex with a 15 year old wrong?

As long as it is consentual and there is no manipulation/drugs/alcohol invovled, it is fine. Just make sure to use protection. Also, you must be willing to marry her.

NYCkid12
01-03-2013, 11:00 AM
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.

This is exactly what I was going to say

It is more important to have a dominant wing player than it is a dominant point guard

ManRam
01-03-2013, 12:17 PM
Strange question

Why?

Everyone always talks about the importance of PGs, but look at the teams that have been winning championships over the past few decades....

Give me a scoring wing over a great PG all day, every day.

NYCkid12
01-03-2013, 02:05 PM
You can go back to the early 90s and there hasn't been a team with a dominant point guard who led a team to the finals....even tony parker wasn't dominating the ball with timmy and manu there

nickdymez
01-03-2013, 02:48 PM
You can go back to the early 90s and there hasn't been a team with a dominant point guard who led a team to the finals....even tony parker wasn't dominating the ball with timmy and manu there

Jason Kidd? :facepalm:
John Stockton? :facepalm:

joeym
01-03-2013, 02:53 PM
I'm 18 is having sex with a 15 year old wrong?

in certain states I believe so, yes....

ManRam
01-03-2013, 02:55 PM
Jason Kidd? :facepalm:
John Stockton? :facepalm:

OK. Well that's just 2, and it's debatable whether or not they "led". Malone was the MVP the first year they made it, and led the league in win shares the second year.

You do have a point with Kidd in NJ. But he never won a title.

Still, at best you have 4 teams out of 40 to make the Finals the last 2 decades "led" by a PG. That's not convincing me that PG is the most important position in the NBA.

nickdymez
01-03-2013, 03:27 PM
OK. Well that's just 2, and it's debatable whether or not they "led". Malone was the MVP the first year they made it, and led the league in win shares the second year.

You do have a point with Kidd in NJ. But he never won a title.

Still, at best you have 4 teams out of 40 to make the Finals the last 2 decades "led" by a PG. That's not convincing me that PG is the most important position in the NBA.

I think the op meant that the tides were changing. You certainly need a smart, savy PG capable of just LEADING the team. I think that mold is being created as we speak. Thats why im not a fan of Westbrook and think OKC will not win a tittle with him running point. I think Drose needs to slide to the 2 in order for him to win. Your pg has to control the pace of the game. The reason we didnt see it with the Lakers these last few years is because they ran the triangle. Tony Parker was finals MVP, so thats a strength for my argument. Chauncy Billups is a hof to me. I think PG is the most important position in the league.

NYCkid12
01-03-2013, 04:00 PM
Jason Kidd? :facepalm:
John Stockton? :facepalm:

John Stockton never won a title :facepalm:

Jason Kidd won a title but was definitely not dominant at that time and was not the best player on that team...Dirk was dominant and that is why they won

NYCkid12
01-03-2013, 04:02 PM
Reading my orginal post, what I meant to say in my original post was leading a team to winning an NBA championship....

ManRam
01-03-2013, 04:09 PM
I think the op meant that the tides were changing. You certainly need a smart, savy PG capable of just LEADING the team. I think that mold is being created as we speak. Thats why im not a fan of Westbrook and think OKC will not win a tittle with him running point. I think Drose needs to slide to the 2 in order for him to win. Your pg has to control the pace of the game. The reason we didnt see it with the Lakers these last few years is because they ran the triangle. Tony Parker was finals MVP, so thats a strength for my argument. Chauncy Billups is a hof to me. I think PG is the most important position in the league.

Who cares what position "leads" the team? Who says it has to be the PG?

Who led Kobe's later Laker teams? Who's led LeBron's great teams? Who's led Wade's championship team? Who led Jordan's teams? Hint: not point guards...you probably can't even name most of those team's starting PGs. You mentioned TP's Finals MVPs, but look at how those offenses were ran the first 3 times they won. Hint: it wasn't by PG-dominant play. Boston's championship came when Rondo wasn't being relied on so heavily. You ever watch those championship Rockets team? And so on...

In most offenses today, the PG basically just brings the ball up, makes the first pass and the the offense is in motion. A few teams still rely heavily on their PGs to do everything, but those teams are becoming fewer and far between . Team offenses are becoming more fluid and less positionally-defined...and if ANYTHING, offenses are becoming less dependent on the traditional pass-first PG that has to create for everyone.

Hell, I think a team that HAS to rely on the PG to create for everyone is at a disadvantage as compared to a team like Miami or OKC that has multiple guys they run the offense through and multiple playmakers.

The top 3 offenses in the NBA today do not have "pass-first" point guards (OKC-RWB, NYK-Felton, Heat-Chalmers).

The top 6 PGs in assists per game and AST% and their respective team's offensive rankings (O-Rating): Rondo (25th), Paul (5), Vazquez (19), Holiday (21), Calderon (13), OKC (1st). There's no correlation there. Two of the top 10 offenses have elite passing PGs...one of them is Westbrook whom you don't even consider a winning PG (even though OKC has been a top 2 offense the last two seasons) and the other is Point God.


I don't know. I just don't see the importance. Give me a team of guys who have multiple guys who can pass the ball, who can create their own shot and who can score big baskets over a team that is reliant on a PG to do that for everyone else.

nickdymez
01-03-2013, 04:14 PM
John Stockton never won a title :facepalm:

Jason Kidd won a title but was definitely not dominant at that time and was not the best player on that team...Dirk was dominant and that is why they won

Was talking about leading their teams to the finals, which you stated in your post i belive


You can go back to the early 90s and there hasn't been a team with a dominant point guard who led a team to the finals....even tony parker wasn't dominating the ball with timmy and manu there

NYCkid12
01-04-2013, 12:31 PM
Was talking about leading their teams to the finals, which you stated in your post i belive

I did, but corrected myself to say WIN the finals...Rafer Alston "lead" the Magic to the finals in 09' and he is no where near elite

PG you just need stablity, wing players who are dominant are way more important IMO and even a dominant big man (not many anymore) is more important than PG

I just look at recent history teams with elite PGs who have regular season success but not playoff...D Rose with Bulls, CP3 with Clips, AI (I know listed as SG but really a PG) with the Sixers