I Hate "True Pg" Apologists

[I.R.Beast]

I hate "True PG" apologists. There is no such thing as a 'True PG". Why isn''t their a True SG, True SF, True PF, True C?... Here's why. There is more than 1 way to play every position. Success at a position is not contingent upon fitting a predetermined description, nor is it how that position ranked. A player's job no matter the position they play is to make their strengths an advantage for their team to use to win. Whether that be scoring, rebounding, passing or what have you. If you're the best scoring option on a team then be that! Don't go out of your way to defer the 25 points that you can average more consistently and efficiently to your second option. Don't pass pass pass because someone told you that "A Pg job is to facilitate" when your team can use your scoring more in the current situation to get the team over the hump. PG, SG, SF, PF, C is nothing but listings with basic requirements such as height and a skill minimum requirements. The rest is up to the player in what they bring to the table and how they utilize their skills to give their team to the best chance to win. If said team "doesn't have enough firepower" then why the f*** are you "facilitating the offense" and not trying to carry the offense and make plays for other players when they present themselves? ‪#‎ThinkOnThat‬

[CP343]

People do try to argue "true C," but they'll use other words, like "back to the basket" or "Old school" instead of "true."

[Teanett]

of course there is a "true center" and also a "true" or "prototypical shooting guard".

[Velocirap31]

Well a true center would be a defensive and rebounding center. Not someone like Bargnani.

[GimmeThat]

Kendrick Perkins also sets a true pick much better than Garnett

[MP.Trey]

Agreed with OP. :applause:

[MMM]

how many guards can score effectively/efficiently???

would rather my scoring come from the best players that can create space or score over length.

in the recent era that might be guards more often relatively to other eras but that has more to do with rules implemented. However, give me the ability of scoring over length rather than what the typical scoring PGs provide.

Still feel leadership, decision making, control of pace, getting team into sets and reading opposing defenses is more valuable from PG's than scoring

[I.R.Beast]

how many guards can score effectively/efficiently???

would rather my scoring come from the best players that can create space or score over length.

in the recent era that might be guards more often relatively to other eras but that has more to do with rules implemented. However, give me the ability of scoring over length rather than what the typical scoring PGs provide.

Still feel leadership, decision making, control of pace, getting team into sets and reading opposing defenses is more valuable from PG's than scoring

What you feel has nothing to do with reality though. Scoring PGs run the league and with reason. Reason being is that a scoring PGs carries more of the O load than passing PGs whom are ultimately only as good as the poeple they are facilitating. That's why the clippers will never get past the 2nd round.. Cp3 over facilitates when the clippers would be better off with his offense as opposed to always deferring to others.

[Eric Cartman]

Also "traditional" small forward, like Leonard or Parsons.

[GimmeThat]

Chris Paul and Rondo has been the 1st defensive team selection.

With Rondo, you could still argue that a pass pg helps.

Chris Paul is the reason scoring pg runs the league.


When someone like wall becomes the top defender, teams will miss the true pgs ability to run a team

Westbrook is just a really really great rebounder with elite athleticism to bother others shots

[T_L_P]

Modern-day positions are basically meaningless.

Back in the day, a true PF would have been someone like Karl Malone. Pick-and-Roll man, who can post up and hit the mid-range shot. Not a defensive anchor in any sense.

Duncan came along and brought PF skills on offense but he had the ability to anchor the defense like a C. Dirk came along with his insane shooting skills.

Jordan did what he did playing SG but it wouldn't have surprised anyone if he was listed as an SF (playing the exact same way). Nowadays you can find lineups with guys like Boris Diaw playing Center.

That said, the idea of a true PG has been around forever, and it still exists today. A true PG is someone whose job is to set-up his teammates.

I'm not saying a true PG is better than a scoring PG...but what a Point Guard should be (in the idea situation) has remained the same for decades...unlike other positions.

[CP343]

Modern-day positions are basically meaningless.

Back in the day, a true PF would have been someone like Karl Malone. Pick-and-Roll man, who can post up and hit the mid-range shot. Not a defensive anchor in any sense.

Duncan came along and brought PF skills on offense but he had the ability to anchor the defense like a C. Dirk came along with his insane shooting skills.

Jordan did what he did playing SG but it wouldn't have surprised anyone if he was listed as an SF (playing the exact same way). Nowadays you can find lineups with guys like Boris Diaw playing Center.

That said, the idea of a true PG has been around forever, and it still exists today. A true PG is someone whose job is to set-up his teammates.

I'm not saying a true PG is better than a scoring PG...but what a Point Guard should be (in the idea situation) has remained the same for decades...unlike other positions.

Good post.

[GimmeThat]

Modern-day positions are basically meaningless.

Back in the day, a true PF would have been someone like Karl Malone. Pick-and-Roll man, who can post up and hit the mid-range shot. Not a defensive anchor in any sense.

Duncan came along and brought PF skills on offense but he had the ability to anchor the defense like a C. Dirk came along with his insane shooting skills.

Jordan did what he did playing SG but it wouldn't have surprised anyone if he was listed as an SF (playing the exact same way). Nowadays you can find lineups with guys like Boris Diaw playing Center.

That said, the idea of a true PG has been around forever, and it still exists today. A true PG is someone whose job is to set-up his teammates.

I'm not saying a true PG is better than a scoring PG...but what a Point Guard should be (in the idea situation) has remained the same for decades...unlike other positions.

At the professional level, players are simply allowed to do more becausd of their unique abilities.

At the college level, when you run through each play, you might not find the best player, or the best shot maker at the end, but the best position on the floor to take that field goal attempt.

[KungFuJoe]

What about True Jump Ball Old School Experts?

We need Theo to chime in here.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I remember they asked John Stockton about the "true PG" stuff, and he called it all nonsense. He said that PG's are doing whatever they are being asked to do because of fit and whatever the team needs from them to win.

[JohnMax]

FIBA team sucked without a true PG and needed James Harden to run the offense

[AirBourne92]

most of these true pg apologists are either

1) basketball purists

or

2) people who have no idea about basketball


you dont need a true pg to run sequences and plays that dissect defenses and help win games....


example:

derek fisher

[KirbyPls]

Modern-day positions are basically meaningless.

Back in the day, a true PF would have been someone like Karl Malone. Pick-and-Roll man, who can post up and hit the mid-range shot. Not a defensive anchor in any sense.

Duncan came along and brought PF skills on offense but he had the ability to anchor the defense like a C. Dirk came along with his insane shooting skills.

Jordan did what he did playing SG but it wouldn't have surprised anyone if he was listed as an SF (playing the exact same way). Nowadays you can find lineups with guys like Boris Diaw playing Center.

That said, the idea of a true PG has been around forever, and it still exists today. A true PG is someone whose job is to set-up his teammates.

I'm not saying a true PG is better than a scoring PG...but what a Point Guard should be (in the idea situation) has remained the same for decades...unlike other positions.

Nice

[Budadiiii]

What you feel has nothing to do with reality though. Scoring PGs run the league and with reason. Reason being is that a scoring PGs carries more of the O load than passing PGs whom are ultimately only as good as the poeple they are facilitating. That's why the clippers will never get past the 2nd round.. Cp3 over facilitates when the clippers would be better off with his offense as opposed to always deferring to others.
:applause:

[Taller than CP3]

I consider Jason Kidd to be a true PG, although not as true as John Stockton because PG's aren't meant to rebound.

[bizil]

First of all greatness is greatness. A PG like Westbrook is a great player just like a PG like CP3 is a great player. The most premium asset in all of basketball is takeover scoring ability. Among PG's, I think Westbrook is the best in the world in that sense. So I'm fine with those who think Westbrook is the best PG in the world.

I think u have three kinds of PG's who can be great players:

- Pass first PG's with alpha dog level ability (players such as Magic, Isiah, Big O, Frazier, Tiny, Payton, CP3)

- Score first alpha dog PG's (players such as Westbrook, Rose, Arenas, Parker, Lillard. I think Curry is of this style too BUT has the best floor generalship for this style of PG)

- Pass first PG's who aren't alpha dog kind of players (players such as Stockton, Rondo, Kidd, Mark Jackson, Cousy, Mo Cheeks)

So it's not about dissing anybody. It's about the different styles they bring. Personally, I think the IDEAL PG are the ones in my first group. Guys who look to pass first and be a QB BUT can also dominate scoring. But u can STILL be a great player with the other styles I laid out as well. ULTIMATELY, its about the impact u have on the game. And guys get the job done differently. So if anything, it comes down to a matter of taste. Or what is good for a particular team.

[305Baller]

I hate "True PG" apologists. There is no such thing as a 'True PG". Why isn''t their a True SG, True SF, True PF, True C?... Here's why. There is more than 1 way to play every position. Success at a position is not contingent upon fitting a predetermined description, nor is it how that position ranked. A player's job no matter the position they play is to make their strengths an advantage for their team to use to win. Whether that be scoring, rebounding, passing or what have you. If you're the best scoring option on a team then be that! Don't go out of your way to defer the 25 points that you can average more consistently and efficiently to your second option. Don't pass pass pass because someone told you that "A Pg job is to facilitate" when your team can use your scoring more in the current situation to get the team over the hump. PG, SG, SF, PF, C is nothing but listings with basic requirements such as height and a skill minimum requirements. The rest is up to the player in what they bring to the table and how they utilize their skills to give their team to the best chance to win. If said team "doesn't have enough firepower" then why the f*** are you "facilitating the offense" and not trying to carry the offense and make plays for other players when they present themselves? ‪#‎ThinkOnThat‬

Fair enough. Who are you and what do you play or coach?

[RedBlackAttack]

FIBA team sucked without a true PG and needed James Harden to run the offense
Yeah, Harden didn't run the offense. :oldlol:

And, the FIBA team was completely dominant on a level that no one expected.

[bizil]

Modern-day positions are basically meaningless.

Back in the day, a true PF would have been someone like Karl Malone. Pick-and-Roll man, who can post up and hit the mid-range shot. Not a defensive anchor in any sense.

Duncan came along and brought PF skills on offense but he had the ability to anchor the defense like a C. Dirk came along with his insane shooting skills.

Jordan did what he did playing SG but it wouldn't have surprised anyone if he was listed as an SF (playing the exact same way). Nowadays you can find lineups with guys like Boris Diaw playing Center.

That said, the idea of a true PG has been around forever, and it still exists today. A true PG is someone whose job is to set-up his teammates.

I'm not saying a true PG is better than a scoring PG...but what a Point Guard should be (in the idea situation) has remained the same for decades...unlike other positions.

Well said! The most premium asset for a PG historically is dropping dimes and passing first. However, u can still be a great scorer along with being a pass first PG. Big O was really the first PG to prove that theory.

Other guys due to being undersized SG's find themselves at PG. They can certainly pass well enough and handle the rock well enough to be a great PG. But they do it from a score first mentality. Some of these kind of guys (like Iverson) eventually move to SG and are paired with a bigger PG.

I believe u can win rings with a pass first PG or a score first PG. I think it's a matter of taste or what a team needs. But ideally, give me a Magic, Big O, or Isiah kind of PG over the rest.

[Fire Colangelo]

Why does it have to be extreme...? All the PG has to do is to run an offense and make the right plays. The PG's job is to create the most efficient shot for the team, and you can only achieve that by playing smart. Being a "true PG" doesn't mean your deferring and forcing passes, it just means running the team's offense properly like the PG is supposed to do.

Your PG is usually the smallest guy on the court, in most cases it's just inefficient to have him chuck up most of your shots.

Most NBA wings can make a open jumper, I'll take the open jumper by the average player over a contested shot by the star player 9 times out of 10. That's what being a PG is about... Prime Nash could drop 30 on any given night, but he can find Stoudemire under the basket, he can find Marion in the corner, he can find Raja Bell for a wide open 3 so that he doesn't need to drop 30. That's not deferring, that's just playing smart.

[ImKobe]

positions were created so that a novice could follow the game

[RedBlackAttack]

You hear again and again, over and over, from people involved with the league that the conventional five positions are a thing of the past in the NBA. Centers who can step out and knock down shots on the perimeter. Forwards who are the teams' playmakers. Point guards as the best pure scorers.

Jalen Rose says it all the time... the 1-5 positions were originally just an easy way to explain how the game works to novices. It isn't a be-all, end-all model of how every team should be designed.

More and more, the NBA is becoming positionless. The more versatile a player is, the more positions they can defend/play, the better off the team is going to be. This is said again and again, yet people still expect 8-12 assists per game from their team's "point guard," or they're not doing their jobs.

Pure cognitive dissonance.

[Young X]

Why does it have to be extreme...? All the PG has to do is to run an offense and make the right plays. The PG's job is to create the most efficient shot for the team, and you can only achieve that by playing smart. Being a "true PG" doesn't mean your deferring and forcing passes, it just means running the team's offense properly like the PG is supposed to do.

Your PG is usually the smallest guy on the court, in most cases it's just inefficient to have him chuck up most of your shots.

Most NBA wings can make a open jumper, I'll take the open jumper by the average player over a contested shot by the star player 9 times out of 10. That's what being a PG is about... Prime Nash could drop 30 on any given night, but he can find Stoudemire under the basket, he can find Marion in the corner, he can find Raja Bell for a wide open 3 so that he doesn't need to drop 30. That's not deferring, that's just playing smart.Exactly. Good post.

[Asukal]

Why does it have to be extreme...? All the PG has to do is to run an offense and make the right plays. The PG's job is to create the most efficient shot for the team, and you can only achieve that by playing smart. Being a "true PG" doesn't mean your deferring and forcing passes, it just means running the team's offense properly like the PG is supposed to do.

Your PG is usually the smallest guy on the court, in most cases it's just inefficient to have him chuck up most of your shots.

Most NBA wings can make a open jumper, I'll take the open jumper by the average player over a contested shot by the star player 9 times out of 10. That's what being a PG is about... Prime Nash could drop 30 on any given night, but he can find Stoudemire under the basket, he can find Marion in the corner, he can find Raja Bell for a wide open 3 so that he doesn't need to drop 30. That's not deferring, that's just playing smart.

^This guy gets it. :cheers:

A true PG is someone who sets up the plays. Clueless fans who don't play basketball thinks a "true" pg is someone who just passes the ball. :oldlol:

Just try playing with a point guard who has zero court vision. They would either force a contested shot , pass to a guarded man, or turn the ball over coz he didn't see a double team coming. :facepalm

[outbreak]

All that matters is if your team wins and you are contributing to your team winning by fitting the system. If your team is better off with you shooting more that's fine, if it's better off with your facilitating more that's fine too. Positions these days are meaningless so long as a team is working well as a unit , some rosters and systems will need a facilitator at the point others will need a scorer either way is fine if it works.

[knicksman]

goes to show that OP doesnt know shit about this game. Anyone who has deep understanding knows that there is no sg, pg, sf, etc. but scorer, passer, defender, rebounder. And when we say true pg, we mean true passer. Passing and scoring are the most incompatible roles so if you want your team to be effective, you must separate those 2. Jordan could average 10 apg or Magic could score 30 but they chose not. Because scorers are much much more effective scoring on the ball and having pgs set them up. Theres a reason why kareem became GOAT when he should be a bench player in his mid 30's because they fit like a glove. Just look at cp3 and rose. Both have been injured yet cp3 is still effective while rose isnt anymore.

Most of the time players in the pg position are the smallest so you dont let them score because they are easy to guard, so the most effective role for them is being a passer. Theres a reason why rose is so inefficient in the playoffs.

[knicksman]

What you feel has nothing to do with reality though. Scoring PGs run the league and with reason. Reason being is that a scoring PGs carries more of the O load than passing PGs whom are ultimately only as good as the poeple they are facilitating. That's why the clippers will never get past the 2nd round.. Cp3 over facilitates when the clippers would be better off with his offense as opposed to always deferring to others.

And put rose in the west and hes not getting past the 2nd round either. Westbrook too couldnt if not for durant. When cp3 had the superstar, they couldve been to the conference finals if not for the refs favoring OKC last season. Besides true pgs have lots of 50+ win teams and rings while score first none. LOL

[bizil]

In my opinion, these are the top 10 GOAT PG's: (no particular order)

Magic
Big O
Isiah
Frazier
Stockton
Kidd
Payton
Nash
Cousy
Tiny

What is one thing all of these PG's have in common? They were pass first kind of PG's. Some were also alpha dogs while some of them weren't. But they all looked to pass first. So when u have a great PG like Westbrook who is different, it stands out more. The game has evolved into having David Thompson style players running the PG. But Russ still gets 8 dimes a night too. 26 PPG and 8 dimes a night is sick production I don't care what your style of play is!

If Durant wasn't on the team, I don't think Russ would catch any heat at all. But when u have the best scorer in the world on your team, a score first PG on the squad makes for interesting debate on the talk shows, basketball forums, barber shop, etc. It's because people still associate the PG position with setting up your teammates first. But the PG position is changing.

[andgar923]

A "true PG" is essential to set up his teammates. They are usually responsible for setting up the offense, they are needed to keep things in order.

What happens when you don't have a traditional PG?

Offense goes awry, more one on one which makes it easier on the defense. Just a big clusterf*ck all around.

A shoot first PG doesn't achieve all of this. They don't get the offense set up because they're looking to shoot first.

Go ahead and have your shoot first PG, I'll beat you with my "True PG"

[navy]

Last point guards to win Titles:

Tony Parker. Score first
Mario Chalmers X 2. Spot up shooter
Jason Kidd, Pass first in his prime, spot up shooter on Mavericks.
Derrick Fisher X 2. Spot up shooter
Rajon Rondo. Pass First
Tony Parker. Score First. FMVP.
Jason Willions. Pass first.
Tony Parker. Score first.
Chauncey Billups. Score first.
Derek Fisher again
Etc.


What does this list tell you? Point guards are pretty damn irrelevant.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

First of all greatness is greatness. A PG like Westbrook is a great player just like a PG like CP3 is a great player. The most premium asset in all of basketball is takeover scoring ability. Among PG's, I think Westbrook is the best in the world in that sense. So I'm fine with those who think Westbrook is the best PG in the world.

I think u have three kinds of PG's who can be great players:

- Pass first PG's with alpha dog level ability (players such as Magic, Isiah, Big O, Frazier, Tiny, Payton, CP3)

- Score first alpha dog PG's (players such as Westbrook, Rose, Arenas, Parker, Lillard. I think Curry is of this style too BUT has the best floor generalship for this style of PG)

- Pass first PG's who aren't alpha dog kind of players (players such as Stockton, Rondo, Kidd, Mark Jackson, Cousy, Mo Cheeks)
.

gary payton and isiah thomas were pass first? :oldlol: gp was taking ~30 shots a game when he was winning poty awards

cousy was pass first? he averages almost 20fga per game in the playoffs for his career

as for tiny and big o, you don't do 30 a game and lead the league in scoring being pass first, that just doesn't happen. they were great passers/playmakers and looked to get their teammates the ball, but that was facilitated by their ability to score from almost anywhere on the floor.

[bizil]

gary payton and isiah thomas were pass first? :oldlol: gp was taking ~30 shots a game when he was winning poty awards

cousy was pass first? he averages almost 20fga per game in the playoffs for his career

as for tiny and big o, you don't do 30 a game and lead the league in scoring being pass first, that just doesn't happen. they were great passers/playmakers and looked to get their teammates the ball, but that was facilitated by their ability to score from almost anywhere on the floor.

Once again, u can STILL be a pass first player while being a great scorer. And at times, those guys will get aggressive and have to score more than they normally would. If u look at those guys career, that's how it was. I've heard Jalen Rose, Broussard, Steven A, and other analysts say the same thing.

Some of those Seattle teams with Payton needed him to take 20 shots at times. During the heyday with Kemp and Detlef (Finals against Bulls), he was taking 15 shots a night.

During the Piston title teams, Isiah scaled back his scoring and shot attempts as well. He averaged 15 and 16 shot attempts on those title teams. But when he had to step up to dominate a game, HE DID!

Big O and Tiny were pass first players too. Big O could have been a great SG or even a great SF. But WHY WAS HE PUT AT PG? It's because he was a setup guy FIRST who could also score great! Dude was the all time assist leader for MANY YEARS until Magic came around.

In Tiny's case, he played on shitty teams where he had to be a lot more aggressive scoring. Once he got with Boston, he adapted his game beautifully and didn't need to be as aggressive scoring.

[Mr Exlax]

There are no specific duties for positions. Positions were made so novices could follow the game. A player does whatever he's good at doing. Look at Pat Bev for the Rockets. He doesn't score or set the table for other players. He's just at the PG slot.

[GimmeThat]

we all hate NOT having a player who can dribble the ball to places, one who can also keep the dribble alive.

[Thorpesaurous]

I would probably qualify as a true PG apologist, but it's a position I played and studied for 25 years or so before really breaking down.

That said, I don't really disagree with the premise, but only at the NBA level. The fact is is that there are certain jobs that need to be done in every game. And facilitating is one of those jobs. The problem for some of the non-traditional PGs, isn't that they can't do it, or even that they shouldn't, it's that you can't do everything, and if you're doing that, it's hard to do other things.

One thing I'll mention is that we do appear to be in a bit of PG renassaince, both of the pure form, and otherwise. And I think there's a reason for that. That being the loosening of the illegal D rules (or zone allowance, if you prefer, although true zones aren't really allowed). This has allowed the defense to cover more ground by hesitating in areas, and that's when the facilitating, or the value in moving the ball quickly and crisply either with the bounce or that pass, gets more value. Combine that with the softening on perimeter contact, and smaller more True PGs have seen an increased value. Europe has always gotten more value out of the truer PGs, part of which is that the free D environment, where pure zone is allowed, means that there is even more value in that skill of getting the ball moved.

Fascillitating can be done from the wings however. Especially in the NBA. Even with the zone allowances, the Defense still has to shift side to side more than in a free D environment. So running side PnR with a wing that has some PG tendencies, like Harden, is still very effective.

We've also seen the Pure PG play a much bigger role in the NCAA, where the free D is allowed. And one other thing the NCAA has going for it, which it may be losing sadly, is the longer shot clock. That means the value on guys who are real "shot makers", is less than it is in the NBA, because there's time to get better shots. There's also the preparation factor, where college teams have more time to prep for opponents, and that can lead to varying styles, which is something that the real ball movement skill lends itself too, because it can be used I've always said that the college game is more about getting easy shots, while the pro game is more about who can make the harder shots. That shifts the value of what skills are important in each game. And the list of incredibly good, title winning, most important guys on their teams, type of true PGs from colleges, who never even got a shot in the NBA, is huge, and a lot of those guys saw their SG's go on to try to be converted into PGs at the pro level, because it's just not the same position.

There's a fair list of them from just UConn, Kansas, North Carolina, and Arizona alone.


Anyway. I have a fondness for the more traditional style. But it doesn't have as much value in the pro game. I understand that and I'm fine with it and still love the pro game too. But I don't believe that the value to the NBA game means absolute value.

[JonatanRey]

Remember I watched this TED lecture talking about this topic. Interesting, IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-gpSQQe3w8

[Kblaze8855]

Its never been the players themselves causing a lack of playoff success....its the teams GMs build to suit playmaking points. As I said some time ago:



The reason teams with points as their best players dont often win is because when you build around a distributing point you load your team with catch and shoot players and off the ball quick finishers and shooters and finishers arent often the best defenders. You dont have multiple ball handlers because the point is supposed ot handle it. You give him 1-2 shooters and guys who have good hands and can finish quickly.

You give him say....

Barbosa, Amare, Marion, Qrich, Eddie House, Raja Bell, Jim Jackson, James Jones, Tim Thomas

And say go win a ring. It produces fine numbers and might win some games but when you get right down to it...

Individuals who can take over win titles. Points who play great team ball and spend all game feeding others....dont often end up Kobe style takeover scorers. Even those like Paul, Deron, and Nash who have the skills. They play team ball and you dont just flip a switch and go from pass first to Kobe.

And who else is gonna do it? The catch and shoot guys? The guys like Marion who score 22 a game with 30 seconds of the ball in their hands?

No.

Add it to the fact that shooters are often shitty defenders and most points themselves cant really lead a good D?

You have limited defenders and guys who dont create for themselves...you dont win titles.

You get a star bigman first thing you want is a steady point, a wing guy to play off him, and some other defensive players to help build a d around him(most of the time superstar bigmen can at least hold down the paint a bit). You get a shooter or two but its not the same.

You start with Nash you build a team to suit him. You start with Duncan you build a team to suit him. Teams built to play off a point dont win generally.

Has nothing to do with the talents of the point or the position itself being overrated. But you arent gonna have Steve Nash as your best player and build a grind it out defensive minded team with plodding back to the basket playing, solid defenders, and ball handling wings the lines of which we watch win rings yearly.

You have Nash/Paul/Deron you build a Nash/Paul/Deron team.

You build guys to finish....around guys who themselves arent dominant defenders...you get a regular season team that folds in the playoffs. Doesnt make the position overrated.....

But maybe teams need to fold in great points into traditional teams and not build the whole franchise around them. you can only stuff so many one skill jump shooters and at the rim finishers into a team and play good grind it out basketball.

Throw a guy like Paul/nash in place of the usual role player points on great teams they dont get worse. But he has to come in last otherwise the team isnt built to win to begin with.



Its the same scenario time and time again.

If teams built around points without a gang of do nothing else shooters and dunking bigmen they just might win.

The Warriors kinda walking the line...lets see how it plays out.

[GimmeThat]

Its never been the players themselves causing a lack of playoff success....its the teams GMs build to suit playmaking points. As I said some time ago:




Its the same scenario time and time again.

If teams built around points without a gang of do nothing else shooters and dunking bigmen they just might win.

The Warriors kinda walking the line...lets see how it plays out.


no matter how good a team passes the ball without any dribble, it does not OPEN the floor. it only seeks for a particular open position on the floor.

I'll even go along to say that this is how/what limited Lebron's performance against the Mavs.

[chocolatethunder]

I hate "True PG" apologists. There is no such thing as a 'True PG". Why isn''t their a True SG, True SF, True PF, True C?... Here's why. There is more than 1 way to play every position. Success at a position is not contingent upon fitting a predetermined description, nor is it how that position ranked. A player's job no matter the position they play is to make their strengths an advantage for their team to use to win. Whether that be scoring, rebounding, passing or what have you. If you're the best scoring option on a team then be that! Don't go out of your way to defer the 25 points that you can average more consistently and efficiently to your second option. Don't pass pass pass because someone told you that "A Pg job is to facilitate" when your team can use your scoring more in the current situation to get the team over the hump. PG, SG, SF, PF, C is nothing but listings with basic requirements such as height and a skill minimum requirements. The rest is up to the player in what they bring to the table and how they utilize their skills to give their team to the best chance to win. If said team "doesn't have enough firepower" then why the f*** are you "facilitating the offense" and not trying to carry the offense and make plays for other players when they present themselves? ‪#‎ThinkOnThat‬

I hear what you're saying and don't really care about anything being a "true" whatever as long as someone is playing good basketball. The thing is, the best scorer doesn't always need to take the shot, the best shot should be taken as often as possible. For example, the Warriors score their highest percentage on shots taken after six passes. All that shows is that by moving the ball, they are getting a high percentage shot. It really doesn't matter who is taking a wide open shot/layup/dunk whether it's Klay or Speights or Bogut or Curry as long as the shot is a good one. "Firepower" becomes less important with ball movement because the quality of the shot increases by moving the ball. Pretty much any player in the NBA can make an open layup and many players can make an open three much better than they can make a pull up one or contested. So while Russell Westbrook (who has been playing out of his mind lately) may be close to unstoppable right now, there were still more than a few occasions last night were he took shots early in the shot clock that weren't the highest % shots that they would have been able to get on that possession. Some went in, some didn't. So for a guy like Curry or Westbrook or any super talented guy, its just about learning to walk that line of being a badass and being disciplined enough to wait and get a good shot. That's how I see it at least.

[bizil]

I would probably qualify as a true PG apologist, but it's a position I played and studied for 25 years or so before really breaking down.

That said, I don't really disagree with the premise, but only at the NBA level. The fact is is that there are certain jobs that need to be done in every game. And facilitating is one of those jobs. The problem for some of the non-traditional PGs, isn't that they can't do it, or even that they shouldn't, it's that you can't do everything, and if you're doing that, it's hard to do other things.

One thing I'll mention is that we do appear to be in a bit of PG renassaince, both of the pure form, and otherwise. And I think there's a reason for that. That being the loosening of the illegal D rules (or zone allowance, if you prefer, although true zones aren't really allowed). This has allowed the defense to cover more ground by hesitating in areas, and that's when the facilitating, or the value in moving the ball quickly and crisply either with the bounce or that pass, gets more value. Combine that with the softening on perimeter contact, and smaller more True PGs have seen an increased value. Europe has always gotten more value out of the truer PGs, part of which is that the free D environment, where pure zone is allowed, means that there is even more value in that skill of getting the ball moved.

Fascillitating can be done from the wings however. Especially in the NBA. Even with the zone allowances, the Defense still has to shift side to side more than in a free D environment. So running side PnR with a wing that has some PG tendencies, like Harden, is still very effective.

We've also seen the Pure PG play a much bigger role in the NCAA, where the free D is allowed. And one other thing the NCAA has going for it, which it may be losing sadly, is the longer shot clock. That means the value on guys who are real "shot makers", is less than it is in the NBA, because there's time to get better shots. There's also the preparation factor, where college teams have more time to prep for opponents, and that can lead to varying styles, which is something that the real ball movement skill lends itself too, because it can be used I've always said that the college game is more about getting easy shots, while the pro game is more about who can make the harder shots. That shifts the value of what skills are important in each game. And the list of incredibly good, title winning, most important guys on their teams, type of true PGs from colleges, who never even got a shot in the NBA, is huge, and a lot of those guys saw their SG's go on to try to be converted into PGs at the pro level, because it's just not the same position.

There's a fair list of them from just UConn, Kansas, North Carolina, and Arizona alone.


Anyway. I have a fondness for the more traditional style. But it doesn't have as much value in the pro game. I understand that and I'm fine with it and still love the pro game too. But I don't believe that the value to the NBA game means absolute value.

Awesome post!! U made an excellent point about PG's in college. Some true PG's like a Mateen Cleaves or Jacques Vaughn don't do well in the L. I think the reason why is because they aren't able to manipulate the game the same passing the rock. U have bigger, stronger, and faster defenders who can make your life a lot tougher running an offense. From there, they couldn't impact a game scoring the rock. So they were stuck.

On the other hand, u have many talented SG's in college who may be undersized to play that position in the L. So they move to PG and can thrive there because they can score the rock well. They may be "score first" kind of PG's, but they pass and handle the rock well enough to thrive as a PG. Westbrook is proving this out in an epic fashion! U have great passers who are also great scorers. U have great scorers who are also great passers. I believe u can be successful with either formula.

[AirBourne92]

I would probably qualify as a true PG apologist, but it's a position I played and studied for 25 years or so before really breaking down.

That said, I don't really disagree with the premise, but only at the NBA level. The fact is is that there are certain jobs that need to be done in every game. And facilitating is one of those jobs. The problem for some of the non-traditional PGs, isn't that they can't do it, or even that they shouldn't, it's that you can't do everything, and if you're doing that, it's hard to do other things.

One thing I'll mention is that we do appear to be in a bit of PG renassaince, both of the pure form, and otherwise. And I think there's a reason for that. That being the loosening of the illegal D rules (or zone allowance, if you prefer, although true zones aren't really allowed). This has allowed the defense to cover more ground by hesitating in areas, and that's when the facilitating, or the value in moving the ball quickly and crisply either with the bounce or that pass, gets more value. Combine that with the softening on perimeter contact, and smaller more True PGs have seen an increased value. Europe has always gotten more value out of the truer PGs, part of which is that the free D environment, where pure zone is allowed, means that there is even more value in that skill of getting the ball moved.

Fascillitating can be done from the wings however. Especially in the NBA. Even with the zone allowances, the Defense still has to shift side to side more than in a free D environment. So running side PnR with a wing that has some PG tendencies, like Harden, is still very effective.

We've also seen the Pure PG play a much bigger role in the NCAA, where the free D is allowed. And one other thing the NCAA has going for it, which it may be losing sadly, is the longer shot clock. That means the value on guys who are real "shot makers", is less than it is in the NBA, because there's time to get better shots. There's also the preparation factor, where college teams have more time to prep for opponents, and that can lead to varying styles, which is something that the real ball movement skill lends itself too, because it can be used I've always said that the college game is more about getting easy shots, while the pro game is more about who can make the harder shots. That shifts the value of what skills are important in each game. And the list of incredibly good, title winning, most important guys on their teams, type of true PGs from colleges, who never even got a shot in the NBA, is huge, and a lot of those guys saw their SG's go on to try to be converted into PGs at the pro level, because it's just not the same position.

There's a fair list of them from just UConn, Kansas, North Carolina, and Arizona alone.


Anyway. I have a fondness for the more traditional style. But it doesn't have as much value in the pro game. I understand that and I'm fine with it and still love the pro game too. But I don't believe that the value to the NBA game means absolute value.


great post right here.

a lot of people will miss this gem

:applause:

[Thorpesaurous]

Awesome post!! U made an excellent point about PG's in college. Some true PG's like a Mateen Cleaves or Jacques Vaughn don't do well in the L. I think the reason why is because they aren't able to manipulate the game the same passing the rock. U have bigger, stronger, and faster defenders who can make your life a lot tougher running an offense. From there, they couldn't impact a game scoring the rock. So they were stuck.

On the other hand, u have many talented SG's in college who may be undersized to play that position in the L. So they move to PG and can thrive there because they can score the rock well. They may be "score first" kind of PG's, but they pass and handle the rock well enough to thrive as a PG. Westbrook is proving this out in an epic fashion! U have great passers who are also great scorers. U have great scorers who are also great passers. I believe u can be successful with either formula.

Thanks.

I'll use this though to sort of reinforce my point about the different meanings of the game. You're definitely right about the bigger defenders being a problem. But I truly believe that shot clock is a big deal. The quality of a shot is determined by a lot of factors, and clock is one of them. In the NBA, the 24 seconds means you really need to take the first even good shot you see, because you may not get anything better. The 35 seconds in college however allows you to pass up that shot in search of a better one, because you have the time to get another decent look at least. So the guy's who excel at making tough shots are often suppressed in value at the college level (I don't like anecdotal evidence, but Jordan would probably be the best example, even with an NCAA PoY award on his shelf).

That same thinking also means a guy who's going to whip the ball around a look for better shots will all of a sudden seem more valuable.


I think there's something to the Playground PG myth too. A lot of real playground legends are true PGs who if they make it to the league disappoint. And I'm not sure they're not just as good as advertised, but that their particular skill set just isn't worth as much in that game. In a league where tons of guys can get their own shot, and there's not time to hunt for great shots, then the skill of getting guys better shots becomes less important.

On a playground, where all manner of defensive pressure is allowed, right down to smashing people, and the overall skill level of the players around them doesn't always allow people to create for themselves, or make step backs, or whatever. All of a sudden someone like Kenny Anderson makes more sense as an iconic figure, because his skill is making those guys better.

I also think part of the current NBA PG renassaince has to do with a decrease in general skill. It seems more and more guys are coming in as specialists. Shooters. Athletic defenders. Interior rim protectors. And more of those guys need help getting shots. There's almost certainly a relationship between the quality and effectiveness of wing players and PGs. If one's going to have the ball, then the other is going to have to be better at off ball skills.
But it's a chicken and the egg scenario. Are the PGs better because the wings are worse? Or Vice Versa?

I'd guess the zones have emphasized the value of the PG a little more than it used to, while the softer perimeter contact has reduced their biggest defensive liability, while at the same time making what they do offensively more effective. It's a perfect storm. And an iso type guy, not a great one like Kobe, but say someone like Waiters, will lose value to a wing guy who's more of a real spacer, like a JJ Redick, even if in a vacuum you believe Waiters to be a better player.