Could Pippen have played PG and averaged 11 apg?

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon]What's so overrated about it if you don't mind?[/QUOTE]

Cause it usually means one guy is dominating the ball so much and there's not as much ball movement. Its not always the case, especially over a shorter timeframe like a playoff series, but usually it is. I'd rather have a team where on any given night any 2-3 players at a time can get 4-5 assists as opposed to only 1 player can usually get 10 assists. There's a reason why you rarely see teams win titles with someone who averages that many assists. Pretty sure Magic is the only one that has done it with double digit assists.

[QUOTE=guy]Cause it usually means one guy is dominating the ball so much and there's not as much ball movement. Its not always the case, especially over a shorter timeframe like a playoff series, but usually it is. I'd rather have a team where on any given night any 2-3 players at a time can get 4-5 assists as opposed to only 1 player can usually get 10 assists. There's a reason why you rarely see teams win titles with someone who averages that many assists. Pretty sure Magic is the only one that has done it with double digit assists.[/QUOTE]

Good point. Just because a guy has a lot of assists doesn't necessarily mean he's optimizing the team's offensive capabilities. Magic is probably the only one who made it work. For instance, no one will argue that CP3 is an all time great PG when it comes to maximizing a team's offense on every possession but some will argue that the mere fact that he's dominating the ball that much is not good for a team in the long run. They will argue that you need more ball movement. And history kind of backs up this theory.

History proves you win with either a dominant big or dominant wing as your lead dog. Lead PGs seldom win rings.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Scottie at age 38 was made point of the struggling Blazers and the team suddenly went 30-8 with him doing it. Being a point guard is not just stacking assists. Scottie was a great leader....a great teammate...he knew the best position to put his guys...he knew how to keep everyone happy...he could set any tempo...he knew when to score. Pat Riley was talking about him dominating games that year when hed have like 12/7. I remember because we had topics on if Pippen was the best point in the West....at 38.

He straight up became an every night point guard at 38 and made his team better overnight.

Who gives a shit how many assists he averaged doing it? Are you playing to win or accumulate stats? Even all time great scorers known previously as ballhogs like Mike and Wilt proved they could just decide to pass up shots and make teammates shoot to stack assists. Wilt led the NBA. Doesn't mean hes a better point guard than Lenny Wilkens.

It means he averaged a bunch of assists for a while.

They aren't the same thing.

Scottie wouldn't average 11 assists because he wouldn't give a shit. He would just try to put people in the best position to have success.

Its been shown time and time again in the NBA that you can bullshit your way to assists that don't help your team.

That isn't what Pippen would attempt to do. But he would be a better team leader and runner of an offense than a lot of people getting more assists.

Marbury can average 9-10 assists. Id take Pippen as my point 100% of the time.[/QUOTE]

Great post! For starters, some people confuse PG with point forward. For most of his career, Pippen was a point forward. But on Portland, he was ACTUALLY a PG. The backcourt was Pip at PG and Steve Smith at SG. From there, they had Detlef or Bonzi Wells start at the SF. And Pip did a great job, especially considering his age.

If a peak Pippen played as a big PG at his peak, I'm convinced he would be capable of getting 21-22 points, 8-9 dimes, and 7-8 boards a night. U have your point forward kind of players like Bird, Odom, Kukoc, etc. who can't really play the PG spot. Then u have the guys like Bron, Pip, and G Hill who could EASILY play the PG spot straight up! That's means both offensively and even defensively. Would that be their ideal position? Maybe not. Because all three guys were freakish athletes in the open court and great finishers.

So them playing as a point forward allows them more flexibility. BUT if they had to play as PG's straight up the majority of their careers, I'm CONVINCED all three would have been great HOF PG's. All three looked to pass first and make their teammates better.

[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Good point. Just because a guy has a lot of assists doesn't necessarily mean he's optimizing the team's offensive capabilities. Magic is probably the only one who made it work. For instance, no one will argue that CP3 is an all time great PG when it comes to maximizing a team's offense on every possession but some will argue that the mere fact that he's dominating the ball that much is not good for a team in the long run. They will argue that you need more ball movement. And history kind of backs up this theory.

History proves you win with either a dominant big or dominant wing as your lead dog. Lead PGs seldom win rings.[/QUOTE]Clippers were the #1 offense in the league while being 3rd in assists in both '14 and '15.

CP3 also had the most hockey assists in the league for the past 2 seasons. They move the ball fine.

[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Good point. Just because a guy has a lot of assists doesn't necessarily mean he's optimizing the team's offensive capabilities. Magic is probably the only one who made it work. For instance, no one will argue that CP3 is an all time great PG when it comes to maximizing a team's offense on every possession but some will argue that the mere fact that he's dominating the ball that much is not good for a team in the long run. They will argue that you need more ball movement. And history kind of backs up this theory.

History proves you win with either a dominant big or dominant wing as your lead dog. Lead PGs seldom win rings.[/QUOTE]

I agree! The reason why a dominant big or dominant wing is typically the lead dog IS BECAUSE alpha dog scoring is the most premium asset in basketball. So that means guys like MJ, Kobe, Bron, Bird, Barry, Wilt, Kareem, Duncan, Dream, etc. But I think pass first PG's who can ALSO dominate scoring are just as devastating or close. Those are guys like Magic and Isiah. The Big O was capable of that too, but he didn't really have the teams to do that.

I think CP3 is capable as well, but as u stated dominating the ball can be detrimental to winning a ring. When Isiah won rings, his dime numbers were a lot lower than his days of getting 12-13 assists a night. The ball movement was better AND he had a guy like Dumars who could be the playmaker as well. Which allowed Isiah to focus on scoring.

[QUOTE=Young X]Clippers were the #1 offense in the league while being 3rd in assists in both '14 and '15.

CP3 also had the most hockey assists in the league for the past 2 seasons. They move the ball fine.[/QUOTE]

True. But the Clips offense is also a better regular season offense than playoff offense because they are based on an up tempo style and athleticism. Things slow down in the playoffs and they aren't as potent. Guys like Crawford, who have a lot of space to work with in the regular season, get bodied up and he loses his effectiveness. I'm a huge CP3 fan also. He might be THE most efficient PG ever in terms of maximizing each possession on a possession by possession basis.

But my post was based more on a general theory about the history of the game. Ball dominant PG's who lead a team seldom win rings. And part of that is because you don't want one guy dominating the ball too much. It can make the offense stagnant at times, even if your PG is great. However, I do think CP3 is great enough to win one as lead dog but his window is closing.

[QUOTE=bizil]I agree! The reason why a dominant big or dominant wing is typically the lead dog IS BECAUSE alpha dog scoring is the most premium asset in basketball. So that means guys like MJ, Kobe, Bron, Bird, Barry, Wilt, Kareem, Duncan, Dream, etc. But I think pass first PG's who can ALSO dominate scoring are just as devastating or close. Those are guys like Magic and Isiah. The Big O was capable of that too, but he didn't really have the teams to do that.

I think CP3 is capable as well, but as u stated dominating the ball can be detrimental to winning a ring. When Isiah won rings, his dime numbers were a lot lower than his days of getting 12-13 assists a night. The ball movement was better AND he had a guy like Dumars who could be the playmaker as well. Which allowed Isiah to focus on scoring.[/QUOTE]

Another reason why wings or bigs win rings is because they can impact the game more. They are taller and most all time greats can play on both ends. They are just more impactful. As a small PG, there is only so much you can do when going up against 7 footers and 6'6" wings.

[QUOTE=kshutts1]Overrated because it's entirely dependent upon someone else finishing a play.

Dunno how to track it, but would be better to see how many "assist opportunities" a player generated, rather than how many of those shots his teammates made.

Edit: Would also be nice to see "points generated", that includes FTs, 2p and 3p shots that were the result of a pass, plus the actual points said player scored.[/QUOTE]
Offensive Win shares is literally the calculation of those things.

[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]True. But the Clips offense is also a better regular season offense than playoff offense because they are based on an up tempo style and athleticism. Things slow down in the playoffs and they aren't as potent.[/QUOTE]With Paul on the court, their playoff offense has been just as good as it is in the regular season. They just collapse when he isn't in the game. That along with their average defense is why they haven't taken the next step. You have to be a 2 way team to win a title which the Clippers haven't been.

[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Another reason why wings or bigs win rings is because they can impact the game more. They are taller and most all time greats can play on both ends. They are just more impactful. As a small PG, there is only so much you can do when going up against 7 footers and 6'6" wings.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Small PG's don't have the versatility at 6'6 perimeter player does. For example, MJ could play PG, SG, and SF on both sides of the ball. Smaller PG's simply cant match that blend of size, versatility, and skill. That's why smaller guards are kind of like pound for pound smaller boxers.

Skill for skill, guys like Curry, AI, Iverson, and Paul are as good as anybody. But when u have guys 6'6 and up with the same kind of skill level, the bigger players have the edge.

[QUOTE=guy]Cause it usually means one guy is dominating the ball so much and there's not as much ball movement. Its not always the case, especially over a shorter timeframe like a playoff series, but usually it is. I'd rather have a team where on any given night any 2-3 players at a time can get 4-5 assists as opposed to only 1 player can usually get 10 assists. There's a reason why you rarely see teams win titles with someone who averages that many assists. Pretty sure Magic is the only one that has done it with double digit assists.[/QUOTE]
I see where you're coming from but I don't agree that it makes it overrated. I'd add the overrated aspect of it is its not detailed enough. Needs hockey assists, maybe possible assists where guys blow the opportunity. All assists definitely aren't equal, you have some guys actively looking to setup teammates and run the offense. Then you have guys who are actively looking to shoot and improvise into assists as a last resort.

It's true though that dominant pg struggle in the postseason, probably just because the book has been out on it for decades now. Turn them into a scorer while not giving many passing lanes. Works like a charm. The worst thing is most teams with dominant playmakers lack the talent to compete without being spoonfed.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]
And yes, he is a better passer than Wade. Jordan has thrown fullcourt baseball passes right on the money, halfcourt look-away alley-oops, and other passes Wade hasn't. At the very least, there is ZERO evidence for suggesting Wade is a better passer aside from his apg numbers, which, again, are skewed by how much he dominated the ball from '06-'10.

[/QUOTE]

No, he isn't. I watch the games. I have eyes. Jordan isn't the passer Wade is. In fact, I'd put him a tier lower. Wade is able to find guys on the court better, hit them in stride better, etc.

As far as SG's go, Oscar, Wade, and Ginobili are able to pull off passes Jordan couldn't. Jordan's passing isn't directly what made him a guy who could rack up assists. He was simply a great/the best playmaker, and his passing was a secondary product of that. Jordan never wowed me with passes like the guys above. His playmaking did, not his passes.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Jordan is indeed a better passer than Wade. And Jordan "only" averaged 8 apg that season because he was only playing a ball dominant PG role for the final 24 games of the season (not the entire season), during which time he averaged 11 apg.

You're deluding yourself if you think that '89-'93 Jordan, handling the ball as much as '06-'13 Wade/Bron, does not average 8+ apg annually.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, only an idiot would call Wade a better passer.

Some of Mike's best passes have come from trying to score, but there are those where dude is just setting people up with the proverbial spoon feed.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiTOXUmsdoM[/url]

Wade might have 2 maybe 3 quarters of that ability. If that.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Yeah, only an idiot would call Wade a better passer.

Some of Mike's best passes have come from trying to score, but there are those where dude is just setting people up with the proverbial spoon feed.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiTOXUmsdoM[/url]

Wade might have 2 maybe 3 quarters of that ability. If that.[/QUOTE]

Terrible post as usual.

Wade>Jordan as a passer.
Ginobili>Jordan as a passer.
Oscar>Jordan as a passer.

[QUOTE=plowking]Terrible post as usual.

Wade>Jordan as a passer.
Ginobili>Jordan as a passer.
Oscar>Jordan as a passer.[/QUOTE]

Repeating yourself like some drooling retard isn't an argument.

I mean, there's limited footage of Oscar, yet you're convinced he's a better passer. :oldlol: