PDA

View Full Version : Toughest Position to Build A Championship Contender Around?



JordansBulls
03-24-2007, 12:38 PM
What is Toughest Position to Build A Championship Contender Around?


I personally have come to realize that it has to be SG.
It just seems like the toughest position in which players around you will get better.

Just think of all the other positions, most of them have had a point guard or big man and the team has more success.

PG is for sure easier to build around. Look at what Jason Kidd did for the Nets in the early 2000's. Or what Nash is doing for the Suns now.

As far as PF, think of Tim Duncan? The guy has Tony Parker and Ginoboli both of which were 2nd Round Picks. The guy makes the game easy for them.

As for Center, well no explanation needed.

SG is notably the worst to build around because you never know if the players will improve, only 2 cases have others gotten better and won titles and those are the exceptions (exceptions MJ, HONDO - 1974)

SF probably is 2nd worst to build around (exceptions Bird, Rick Barry)

Every other position (PG, PF, C) has had mulitple players in which it is easier to build players around.

GregOden#1
03-24-2007, 12:45 PM
I think it's a tie between SF/SG, their almost the same position.

superkegger
03-24-2007, 02:55 PM
sg for sure. mj was basically the exception. sf is basically the same.

c and pf can be similar in style

pg and c are easiest to build around.

Sixerlover
03-24-2007, 03:04 PM
yeah the whole swingman position takes the cake. They come a dime a dozen, so there are not a lot of standouts.

JordansBulls
03-25-2007, 11:40 AM
Ok, going back 50 years, here are the NBA champions, with the position of the player (if any) around whom they were built. The premise of this thread asks for a sole foundational star, so if that is in question, I will leave it blank, or if arguably either of 2, list both):


(Also, as Duncan plays more center than anywhere else, irrespective of where he likes to be listed, I am qualifying him as a center)



2005-06 Miami Heat-C or SG
2004-05 San Antonio Spurs-C
2003-04 Detroit Pistons-N/A
2002-03 San Antonio Spurs-C
2001-02 Los Angeles Lakers-C
2000-01 Los Angeles Lakers-C
1999-00 Los Angeles Lakers-C
1998-99 San Antonio Spurs-C
1997-98 Chicago Bulls-SG
1996-97 Chicago Bulls-SG
1995-96 Chicago Bulls-SG
1994-95 Houston Rockets-C
1993-94 Houston Rockets-C
1992-93 Chicago Bulls-SG
1991-92 Chicago Bulls-SG
1990-91 Chicago Bulls-SG
1989-90 Detroit Pistons-PG
1988-89 Detroit Pistons-PG
1987-88 Los Angeles Lakers-PG
1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers-PG
1985-86 Boston Celtics-SF
1984-85 Los Angeles Lakers-PG
1983-84 Boston Celtics-SF
1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers-C
1981-82 Los Angeles Lakers-C or PG
1980-81 Boston Celtics-SF
1979-80 Los Angeles Lakers-C
1978-79 Seattle SuperSonics-PG or SG
1977-78 Washington Bullets-PF
1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers-C
1975-76 Boston Celtics-C
1974-75 Golden State Warriors-SF
1973-74 Boston Celtics-SG/SF
1972-73 New York Knicks-PG
1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers-SG/SF
1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks-C
1969-70 New York Knicks-C
1968-69 Boston Celtics-C
1967-68 Boston Celtics-C
1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers-C
1965-66 Boston Celtics-C
1964-65 Boston Celtics-C
1963-64 Boston Celtics-C
1962-63 Boston Celtics-C
1961-62 Boston Celtics-C
1960-61 Boston Celtics-C
1959-60 Boston Celtics-C
1958-59 Boston Celtics-C
1957-58 St. Louis Hawks-PF
1956-57 Boston Celtics-C


So in 50 years, here are the positional breakdowns:

C: 27
PF: 2
SF: 5
SG: 8
PG: 6

It seems to me that the power forward spot is pretty clearly the lowest. Add to that the fact that the years for the 4 spot were 1957-58 and 1977-78. and neither repeated, and it seems like a slam dunk.

JordansBulls
03-25-2007, 11:44 AM
Here is a graphic.

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o165/JordansBulls/nbachampionshipstatspf4.jpg

Joshtd1
03-25-2007, 01:38 PM
Ok, going back 50 years, here are the NBA champions, with the position of the player (if any) around whom they were built. The premise of this thread asks for a sole foundational star, so if that is in question, I will leave it blank, or if arguably either of 2, list both):


(Also, as Duncan plays more center than anywhere else, irrespective of where he likes to be listed, I am qualifying him as a center)



2005-06 Miami Heat-C or SG
2004-05 San Antonio Spurs-C
2003-04 Detroit Pistons-N/A
2002-03 San Antonio Spurs-C
2001-02 Los Angeles Lakers-C
2000-01 Los Angeles Lakers-C
1999-00 Los Angeles Lakers-C
1998-99 San Antonio Spurs-C
1997-98 Chicago Bulls-SG
1996-97 Chicago Bulls-SG
1995-96 Chicago Bulls-SG
1994-95 Houston Rockets-C
1993-94 Houston Rockets-C
1992-93 Chicago Bulls-SG
1991-92 Chicago Bulls-SG
1990-91 Chicago Bulls-SG
1989-90 Detroit Pistons-PG
1988-89 Detroit Pistons-PG
1987-88 Los Angeles Lakers-PG
1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers-PG
1985-86 Boston Celtics-SF
1984-85 Los Angeles Lakers-PG
1983-84 Boston Celtics-SF
1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers-C
1981-82 Los Angeles Lakers-C or PG
1980-81 Boston Celtics-SF
1979-80 Los Angeles Lakers-C
1978-79 Seattle SuperSonics-PG or SG
1977-78 Washington Bullets-PF
1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers-C
1975-76 Boston Celtics-C
1974-75 Golden State Warriors-SF
1973-74 Boston Celtics-SG/SF
1972-73 New York Knicks-PG
1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers-SG/SF
1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks-C
1969-70 New York Knicks-C
1968-69 Boston Celtics-C
1967-68 Boston Celtics-C
1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers-C
1965-66 Boston Celtics-C
1964-65 Boston Celtics-C
1963-64 Boston Celtics-C
1962-63 Boston Celtics-C
1961-62 Boston Celtics-C
1960-61 Boston Celtics-C
1959-60 Boston Celtics-C
1958-59 Boston Celtics-C
1957-58 St. Louis Hawks-PF
1956-57 Boston Celtics-C


So in 50 years, here are the positional breakdowns:

C: 27
PF: 2
SF: 5
SG: 8
PG: 6

It seems to me that the power forward spot is pretty clearly the lowest. Add to that the fact that the years for the 4 spot were 1957-58 and 1977-78. and neither repeated, and it seems like a slam dunk.

Just wondering..but are you considering Tim Duncan a C?..because he is a PF

Joshtd1
03-25-2007, 01:40 PM
As far as PF, think of Tim Duncan? The guy has Tony Parker and Ginoboli both of which were 2nd Round Picks. The guy makes the game easy for them.

Sorry..dont wanna sound like a jack@$$ but Tony Parker was a very late 1st round pick:cool:

BlondeBomber41
03-25-2007, 01:43 PM
A guard, doesnt matter whether it is SG or PG. Its hard to build around those types of players. PHX wasnt built around Nash, he had Marion and Amare from the beginning.

Sixerlover
03-25-2007, 01:43 PM
Sorry..dont wanna sound like a jack@$$ but Tony Parker was a very late 1st round pick:cool:

lol

Joshtd1
03-25-2007, 02:36 PM
Gilbert Arenas was the first second round pick in that same draft with Parker I believe..Im perfectly fine with TP being the Spurs PG, but Ive wondered what the Spurs would be if they would have drafted Arenas.

AK-47
03-25-2007, 03:36 PM
A lot of you use Duncan for 2 positions. One day you will argue that he is the best PF to ever play the game, and they you will talk about how good of a center he is the next. Which is he!!??

Joshtd1
03-25-2007, 03:45 PM
A lot of you use Duncan for 2 positions. One day you will argue that he is the best PF to ever play the game, and they you will talk about how good of a center he is the next. Which is he!!??

He guards Centers, and they guard him most of the time..but having watch TD for a while now, Id say he is PF

beau_boy04
03-25-2007, 05:09 PM
I think SG, look at the hard time LA is having to surround Kobe with the right arsenal.

kgceltics
09-26-2007, 10:47 AM
SG and then SF

stawka
09-26-2007, 10:56 AM
I think Point Guard. When a good big-man (Center, Power Forward) comes along, it usually means Playoff's/maybe Finals - also, attracting a lot of double teams which means even the worst of NBA players gets open looks outside and hits.

A Small Forward like T-Mac/LeBron/Melo comes around and it's easy because they play inside-outside basketball. They play Forward and guard positions.

So for me, it's either Shooting Guard or Point Guard. There have been great point guards who just cant get it done because they're solely outside players. Just a few that come to mind... Bibby, Nash, Kidd, even J-Will before he had Shaq/Wade to carry him to the Championship. I think PG is the toughest

HouRealCoach
09-26-2007, 10:57 AM
It has to be SG & SF. but more SF because there really hasnt been a SF Dynasty

kgceltics
09-26-2007, 11:00 AM
Here is a graphic.

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2586/nbachampionshipstatspf4.jpg

Wow nice graphic. Looks like it must be the SG since only 2 players have won titles built around them.
Of course, I am not sure the team was built around Wade in '05-06.

Tom81
09-26-2007, 11:02 AM
I think it's a tie between SF/SG, their almost the same position.

I agree

LayZbone
09-26-2007, 11:24 AM
All star PGs and Cs are the hardest to find, but the easiest to build around. To answer the thread, SFs.

Fool
09-26-2007, 02:22 PM
Just wondering..but are you considering Tim Duncan a C?..because he is a PF

PF/C

ImmortalD24
09-26-2007, 02:27 PM
Here is a graphic.

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2586/nbachampionshipstatspf4.jpgThats pretty horrible because the Lakers had both a dominant SG and C in their run in 00's, you can't neglect such a player like Kobe Bryant, he was arguably the best player in the league even at that time.

Lakergirl24
09-26-2007, 02:38 PM
Sf

kgceltics
09-26-2007, 02:50 PM
Thats pretty horrible because the Lakers had both a dominant SG and C in their run in 00's, you can't neglect such a player like Kobe Bryant, he was arguably the best player in the league even at that time.

:laugh:

Kobe wasn't anywhere near the best player in the league at the time. Iverson was the best guard at the time followed by Kidd and Tmac, Vince and Kobe were on the same plataeu.

thesparky33
09-26-2007, 02:56 PM
:laugh:

Kobe wasn't anywhere near the best player in the league at the time. Iverson was the best guard at the time followed by Kidd and Tmac, Vince and Kobe were on the same plataeu.

Well, he said that Kobe was arguably the best player in the league, which I can see an argument to why he was. I dont think he was, but he definitely was one of the best, no doubt.

kgceltics
09-26-2007, 04:10 PM
Well, he said that Kobe was arguably the best player in the league, which I can see an argument to why he was. I dont think he was, but he definitely was one of the best, no doubt.

Their is no arguably. He wasn't even the best player on his own team. Iverson was the MVP in 2001 even beating out Shaq. Kidd was runner up MVP in 2002. Tmac had a 30 PER in 2003. Vince and Kobe's numbers were identical from 1999-2002.

Stats for Guards '99-02 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/stats_search.cgi?req=1&sum=1&type=per_g&min=48&from_year=1999&to_year=2002&lg1=NBA&lg2=BAA&lg3=ABA&franch=&from_season=1&to_season=-1&from_draft=1947&to_draft=2006&draft_round=&draft_pick=&draft_franch=&from_age=0&to_age=99&min_height=0&max_height=99&active=Y&hof=&pos=G&c1stat=PTS&c1comp=gt&c1val=20&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=0&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=0&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=PTS&layout=full)

Stats for Guards '99-02 Efficiency (http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/stats_search.cgi?req=1&sum=1&type=per_g&min=48&from_year=1999&to_year=2002&lg1=NBA&lg2=BAA&lg3=ABA&franch=&from_season=1&to_season=-1&from_draft=1947&to_draft=2006&draft_round=&draft_pick=&draft_franch=&from_age=0&to_age=99&min_height=0&max_height=99&active=Y&hof=&pos=G&c1stat=PTS&c1comp=gt&c1val=20&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=0&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=0&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=PER&layout=full)

JordansBulls
09-26-2007, 08:17 PM
Their is no arguably. He wasn't even the best player on his own team. Iverson was the MVP in 2001 even beating out Shaq. Kidd was runner up MVP in 2002. Tmac had a 30 PER in 2003. Vince and Kobe's numbers were identical from 1999-2002.

Stats for Guards '99-02 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/stats_search.cgi?req=1&sum=1&type=per_g&min=48&from_year=1999&to_year=2002&lg1=NBA&lg2=BAA&lg3=ABA&franch=&from_season=1&to_season=-1&from_draft=1947&to_draft=2006&draft_round=&draft_pick=&draft_franch=&from_age=0&to_age=99&min_height=0&max_height=99&active=Y&hof=&pos=G&c1stat=PTS&c1comp=gt&c1val=20&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=0&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=0&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=PTS&layout=full)

Stats for Guards '99-02 Efficiency (http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/stats_search.cgi?req=1&sum=1&type=per_g&min=48&from_year=1999&to_year=2002&lg1=NBA&lg2=BAA&lg3=ABA&franch=&from_season=1&to_season=-1&from_draft=1947&to_draft=2006&draft_round=&draft_pick=&draft_franch=&from_age=0&to_age=99&min_height=0&max_height=99&active=Y&hof=&pos=G&c1stat=PTS&c1comp=gt&c1val=20&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=0&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=0&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=0&sortby=PER&layout=full)

Pretty tough to say who was the best during that time period just looking at that.

ee
09-26-2007, 08:44 PM
SG, many teams have tried, but a big man will always be needed, when the big man reach that potential, he'll take over as the main guy on that team......As good as Tmac is, Yao should be more important than he is in that Houston.....

marvILLous
09-26-2007, 08:47 PM
So in 50 years, here are the positional breakdowns:

C: 27
PF: 2
SF: 5
SG: 8
PG: 6

It seems to me that the power forward spot is pretty clearly the lowest. Add to that the fact that the years for the 4 spot were 1957-58 and 1977-78. and neither repeated, and it seems like a slam dunk.

Jordan doesn't count :p

so its 2 for SG and 2 for PF lol

ahua
09-26-2007, 09:04 PM
Jordan doesn't count :p

so its 2 for SG and 2 for PF lol

well actually Jordan counts for six, but only one time as a SG. in other words if you are saying that only 2 SG's were the primary player built around for a title i tend to agree with you. i think if we are counting titles Jordan is worth 6, but if we are counting the number of SG's or position players that were built around then he only counts for one.

i also think it's presumptuous to flatly say that duncan is a center. he was clearly the PF for two of his 4 titles. so he could concievably be counted as a PF for 2 titles and a C for 2, but that's still debatable.

Redbull
09-26-2007, 09:23 PM
SG but SF is not to far behind.

Chronz
09-27-2007, 03:37 AM
A lot of you use Duncan for 2 positions. One day you will argue that he is the best PF to ever play the game, and they you will talk about how good of a center he is the next. Which is he!!??

Hes a center, hes always gaurded by them and he plays like a prototypical center but he has the range to play the 4. I meen hes more of a center than Oberto or Elson are. He just wants to stay listed as a F for some reason.

kgceltics
11-08-2007, 01:50 PM
Hes a center, hes always gaurded by them and he plays like a prototypical center but he has the range to play the 4. I meen hes more of a center than Oberto or Elson are. He just wants to stay listed as a F for some reason.

That's more or less because he will for sure finish top 2 PF all time. At Center he would be at best 5th.

Joshtd1
11-08-2007, 01:53 PM
That's more or less because he will for sure finish top 2 PF all time. At Center he would be at best 5th.

You really think TD cares that much about that..because I sure dont think he does.

thesparky33
11-08-2007, 02:09 PM
You really think TD cares that much about that..because I sure dont think he does.

You are wrong. Tim Duncan is probably the most selfish basketball player ever. All he cares about are his stats, and how he finishes in regards to being the best player ever.

sp1derm00
11-08-2007, 02:45 PM
What is Toughest Position to Build A Championship Contender Around?


I personally have come to realize that it has to be SG.
It just seems like the toughest position in which players around you will get better.

Just think of all the other positions, most of them have had a point guard or big man and the team has more success.

PG is for sure easier to build around. Look at what Jason Kidd did for the Nets in the early 2000's. Or what Nash is doing for the Suns now.

As far as PF, think of Tim Duncan? The guy has Tony Parker and Ginoboli both of which were 2nd Round Picks. The guy makes the game easy for them.

As for Center, well no explanation needed.

SG is notably the worst to build around because you never know if the players will improve, only 2 cases have others gotten better and won titles and those are the exceptions (exceptions MJ, HONDO - 1974)

SF probably is 2nd worst to build around (exceptions Bird, Rick Barry)

Every other position (PG, PF, C) has had mulitple players in which it is easier to build players around.

I agree with you 100%.

MJ got lucky as hell with the development Pippen which led to the development of the others on the team. I firmly believe that Pippen was the leader of that team, MJ just being the best player on it.

Pippen made the Bulls Champions, made the Bulls w/o MJ contenders (made it to the ECF), and made the Blazers contenders.

MJ without Pippen wasn't nearly as successful as he was with... and MJ was lucky as hell to have gotten a player as good as Pippen.

Boozerguy47
11-08-2007, 07:14 PM
First - SG, second - SF, third - PF, fourth - PG

Joshtd1
11-08-2007, 07:19 PM
You are wrong. Tim Duncan is probably the most selfish basketball player ever. All he cares about are his stats, and how he finishes in regards to being the best player ever.

Your right..I must have gotten him confused with someone else. Damn that Tim Duncan for being so selfish and signing that 40 million dollar extension, when he could have had 50:mad:

SteveNash
11-08-2007, 07:30 PM
Your right..I must have gotten him confused with someone else. Damn that Tim Duncan for being so selfish and signing that 40 million dollar extension, when he could have had 50:mad:

Your sarcasm meter must be failing.

Hardest position is probably a center. Sure it's easy to build around one if you have a great one the problem is that there's only 1 great center in the NBA right now, and even he's iffy.

Joshtd1
11-08-2007, 07:31 PM
Your sarcasm meter must be failing.

Hardest position is probably a center. Sure it's easy to build around one if you have a great one the problem is that there's only 1 great center in the NBA right now, and even he's iffy.

;)

T-mac(#1)
11-09-2007, 12:49 AM
definately is the guard position.

agobbi17
11-09-2007, 05:24 AM
i like how detroit says n/a. they're team was deep and equal in ever position, they played great team basketball.

BigDaddy
02-29-2008, 05:05 PM
Sg

mweb08
02-29-2008, 08:33 PM
What is Toughest Position to Build A Championship Contender Around?


I personally have come to realize that it has to be SG.
It just seems like the toughest position in which players around you will get better.

Just think of all the other positions, most of them have had a point guard or big man and the team has more success.

PG is for sure easier to build around. Look at what Jason Kidd did for the Nets in the early 2000's. Or what Nash is doing for the Suns now.

As far as PF, think of Tim Duncan? The guy has Tony Parker and Ginoboli both of which were 2nd Round Picks. The guy makes the game easy for them.

As for Center, well no explanation needed.

SG is notably the worst to build around because you never know if the players will improve, only 2 cases have others gotten better and won titles and those are the exceptions (exceptions MJ, HONDO - 1974)

SF probably is 2nd worst to build around (exceptions Bird, Rick Barry)

Every other position (PG, PF, C) has had mulitple players in which it is easier to build players around.

I would if he hadn't played center more often than not in his career post David Robinson. I now see you've since said that, so that's good, I'll still leave this here to try to bring attention to that fact.

There hasn't been one championship team in recent NBA history that was built around a true PF. Malone, Barkley, and Dirk are examples of PF's who got their teams close, but considering the lack of results, that's my pick. KG has a chance now to buck that trend.

Wade would be another exception at SG.

mweb08
02-29-2008, 09:03 PM
2005-06 Miami Heat-C or SG
1980-81 Boston Celtics-SF
1977-78 Washington Bullets-PF
1973-74 Boston Celtics-SG/SF
1969-70 New York Knicks-C
1968-69 Boston Celtics-C
1967-68 Boston Celtics-C
1965-66 Boston Celtics-C
1964-65 Boston Celtics-C
1963-64 Boston Celtics-C
1962-63 Boston Celtics-C
1961-62 Boston Celtics-C
1960-61 Boston Celtics-C
1959-60 Boston Celtics-C
1958-59 Boston Celtics-C
1956-57 Boston Celtics-C


I think you have to say Wade with the Heat, he was better in the regular season and the playoffs.

80-81 Celtics were not really led by Bird, Parrish had the better numbers.

That Bullets team didn't really have a superstar, similiar to the recent Pistons title. Same for the Celtics of '74.

The '70 Knicks were led by Frazier just as much as Reed.

The Celtics dynasy was more of a total team thing than led by one superstar imo.

mweb08
02-29-2008, 09:09 PM
Your sarcasm meter must be failing.

Hardest position is probably a center. Sure it's easy to build around one if you have a great one the problem is that there's only 1 great center in the NBA right now, and even he's iffy.

Quite a shot at Duncan there, iffy, ouch.

JordansBulls
07-07-2008, 04:28 PM
Bump!!!


I think it remains to be seen again if an elite back court player can win a title as the best player on the team without a big man that can score in the paint and get you easy buckets.

Pierce won the finals mvp with Boston but let's not forget that KG is considered a dominant big man that can score, rebound and defend.

dre1990
07-07-2008, 05:10 PM
SF u need alot of help

_Sn1P3r_
07-07-2008, 05:15 PM
I think SG but there are some exceptions such as MJ, Wade, Kobe, etc.