To the point, building titles around lead guards difficult
In the past decade the NBA has dramatically tilted its rules in favor of quicker, more diminutive floor leaders. But while the NBA became a “quarterbacks” league, its greatest point guards have had surprisingly little say in the ultimate prize.
In discussing the positional revolution, I stated under the current NBA rules defending quality point guards is virtually impossible. Over at TrueHoop, Zach Harper echoed those thoughts last week while still posing the question: Should you build your team with a point?
What’s odd is the league is currently set up to benefit point guards. Look around and you see so many floor generals putting up insane statistics and making highlight reels. You literally can’t (hand) check them on the floor because it’s against the rules. Giving small guys with otherworldly quickness and dexterity this kind of freedom allows them to get to the middle of the floor and do what they do best — make plays for their teammates or themselves.
And yet, the idea of building your franchise around a point guard scares me.
But if the point guard position is virtually indefensible, then naturally finding a franchise-quality point guard is good place to start, right? Historically, no. But the absence of point guard-led champions does not mean the absence of the possibility, if a team can manage to avoid the pitfalls of building around what some consider basketball’s most important position.
The Point Guard Paradox
Perhaps the troubling paradox behind building around franchise point guards is that it is the most difficult position to form a championship team around because it’s the easiest position from which to build a team around.
For the most part, young franchise quality point guards come with skill sets intact, give or take a jump shot or two. Sure, decision making needs to be honed, but with the nature of the game diminished on the perimeter, a point guard’s speed and ball handling can help him make an immediate impact.
Likewise, because established point guards have such command of the game, and the position controls such a large portion of it, bringing one aboard can produce instantaneous results. Below is a list of turnarounds headed by point guards young and old.
|
Team/Point Guard |
Record Before |
Record After |
|
Nets | Jason Kidd |
26-56 |
52-30 |
|
Suns | Steve Nash |
29-53 |
62-20 |
|
Hornets | Chris Paul |
18-64 |
38-44 |
|
Bulls | Derrick Rose |
33-49 |
41-41 |
Obviously it’s a good problem to have, if you can consider these teams having problems. But there’s something inherently difficult about building around these players, as each of the above players has managed to put playoff teams together with nothing but spot up shooters and duct tape.
And therein lies the problem. Because a point guard presents so much smoke and mirrors, masking teammates deficiencies, controlling tempo, and inflating statistics, it’s far too easy to get caught up in his success and prematurely go all in, overvalue your own free agents, and ignore the development of the rest of your team while still having success — just not the kind of success every team should aspire to.
Was Chris Paul too good for the Hornets own good?
As shown above, a team with a quality point guard is not long for the lottery, which is where teams generally find the two or three core members of a team needed to contend for the title. In shedding light on why the Cavaliers could not find a suitable running mate for LeBron James (who for all intents and purposes was the team’s point guard, as well as shooting guard, both forwards, and coach), John Krolik of Cavs: The Blog hit the nail on the head:
One other thing: this is not a “this was all the front office’s fault†thing. Because LeBron made the Cavaliers so good so fast, they only had a few chances to make the move or draft pick that would have given him a true running mate or set of running mates. Due to a series of circumstances both within and beyond management’s control, the moves they made didn’t work out.
With the addition of Chris Paul, the Hornets immediately went from drafting in the top five to drafting in the mid lottery, where they uncovered such gems as Hilton Armstrong (2006), Cedric Simmons (2006), and Julian Wright (2007). All poor draft selections to be sure, but ones that come with the territory of picking so late in the lottery.
Unfortunately, the Hornets brass not only failed to make decent selections in the Hornets brief formative years, they compounded their mistakes by overbidding on veteran players, trying to capitalize on the rapid improvements made possible by their young point guard. In essence, the Chris Paul-era Hornets were born old, peaking before Paul’s prime.
The Jason Kidd conundrum
Because some point guards are more about intangibles than gaudy stats, a great way of evaluating these players is not by the statistics they accumulate but by the careers that they create. And few have made as many careers as Jason Kidd.
Did anyone reasonably believe that Kenyon Martin was worth anywhere near a max contract? Richard Jefferson? Keith Van Horn? Was Mikki Moore really a rotation player on a playoff contending team? A number of players owe their largest contracts to Jason Kidd.
Unfortunately for the New Jersey Nets, there is no easier way to throw your cap space down the drain than by overvaluing your own free agents. Especially when their stats are inflated by a great point guard.
What Steve Nash giveth, Steve Nash taketh away
For Steve Nash to operate at his peak, a coach needs to put the ball in his hands with an open system that provides him the freedom to probe and create as he pleases. While it’s hard to argue with two MVPs and the team’s overall success, such a strategy does have its drawbacks even if implemented by the NBA’s best offensive point guard.
It will be interesting to observe Amare Stoudemire this season minus Steve Nash, if only to see if he makes the same leaps in his game that Dirk Nowitzki made when he was thrust into the role of primary creator.
Each power forward was initially relegated to pick-and-roll (or pop) players in the presence of Nash, putting up gaudy numbers but never truly creating their own opportunities. Each were merely extensions of Steve Nash rather than being individual, dominant players.
Absent Nash, Nowitzki quickly became an annual MVP candidate, taking his game to new heights while also transforming the Mavericks into legitimate title contenders. But here’s the thing, the Mavericks did not become title contenders because they lost Steve Nash. They simply failed to win one because they failed to use (or develop) their personnel properly when they had him.
Because it’s far too easy to just hand the ball to a Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Chris Paul, or Deron Williams and tell him to go to work. After all, they make the right decisions most of the time, minimize the bad ones, and are capable of leading a team to insane offensive stats.
So while Steve Nash brought instant success to the Suns and Amare Stoudemire, he also hindered their development by almost doing everything for them. Something about giving a man a fish vs. teaching him how to fish comes to mind.
Crutch vs. Foundation
The difficult thing about building around a point guard is that you almost have to restrain their talents, putting your team together and developing them independently of your point guard.
Think of it like making a stew. The meat is usually always going to be good, but if you let it overpower the rest of the ingredients, mask each of their individual flavors, then that dish might still be good, but not what it could have been.
As much a fixture as the pick and roll is in the NBA, it cannot be run every time down the floor. As much as point guards mask their team’s weaknesses, those weaknesses still exist and will always be exposed by great defensive teams.
So as difficult as it is for coaches and general managers whose jobs depend on winning now, building around a point guard should be a process, just like any other. Not a shortcut.
As much as any other position, the point guard can be a foundation upon which to build something great. But in the hands of lesser front offices, far too often they are simply used as a crutch.
Pingback: Tweets that mention A thesis on point guards | 48 Minutes of Hell -- Topsy.com()
Pingback: Is having a dominant point guard a bane to team-building? | ProBasketballTalk()
Pingback: Live Chat: Spurs vs. Hornets | 48 Minutes of Hell()