Smaller Players Do Not Win Championships

[crownsy]

And for the record the Bulls won 6 titles with two wings being the dominant players, so it is possible to win multiple titles without a dominant big man (the Cavs certainly have a chance to join the Bulls in that regard).

But they have an All-Star point guard...

/nods

one of two complementary (z and mo) to go with their dominate player.

[BballTim]

Of course you need multiple great players, my point is PG is rarely one of them.  It is an essentially useless position when determining championships, unless you PG is 6'9" (Magic) or on a team that has a number of very high level, though no elite players (Zeke/Chauncey).

And for the record the Bulls won 6 titles with two wings being the dominant players, so it is possible to win multiple titles without a dominant big man (the Cavs certainly have a chance to join the Bulls in that regard).

  Magic (5 times), DJ, Isaiah and Parker (2 each) and Chauncey. That's far from rare. And yes you can win without a dominant big, as long as you have MJ or possibly LeBron on your roster. It's true that a great big is much more necessary than a great pg when you're trying to win a title, you can't really present much of an argument that having a great wing is more important than having a great pg.

[yoursweatersux]

You're forgetting a key issue here. Great point guards make the players surrounding them much, much better. Which means that if it's apparent your point guard is the best player on your team, your team is actually crap. Would David West have been an all-star without Chris Paul? hahah yeah right

If you have a great point guard on your team, he should in fact APPEAR to be the second or third best player on the team, since his purpose after all is to elevate the other players around him.

Chris Paul has a crappy team. Jason Kidd had a terrible team on the Nets and he still took them far. The Suns can't play defense to save their lives, so of course they won't win anything (and Steve Nash was overrated as a point guard even in his prime). So it's not fair to judge these incomplete teams.

To see a better comparison, look at what happened when Mo Willliams went to the Cavaliers. Or look at what happened when Chauncey went to the Nuggets! Mo Williams, who was barely an all-star point guard, was still enough to turn the Cavs into a lock for the NBA finals. Chauncey, who for some strange reason isn't touted as the top 5 point guard he definitely is, turned the Nuggets around completely and now they have a chance to win a title.

How is Chauncey to Denver any less impactful than, say, Gasol to the Lakers? By your argument (that great point guards are less important), the Denver-Pistons trade shouldn't have done much of anything. Not only was it an upgrade at the point guard position, but it was a direct swap for another all-star point guard in Allen Iverson, thereby making it only a "slight" upgrade. Yet it transformed the team. If what you were saying was true, that superstar point guards don't really help your team, then try to explain Chauncey Billups.

[ManUp]

I agree, points usually haven't won when they were the clear cut best player on the team. All this means to me is that we have to find a player of equal or greater talent then Rondo at the PF/C. Either way History is History it doesn't mean much regarding the future.

[yoursweatersux]

I agree, points usually haven't won when they were the clear cut best player on the team. All this means to me is that we have to find a player of equal or greater talent then Rondo at the PF/C. Either way History is History it doesn't mean much regarding the future.

Agreed, which means we can't afford to overpay Rondo.

[Moranis]

You're forgetting a key issue here. Great point guards make the players surrounding them much, much better. Which means that if it's apparent your point guard is the best player on your team, your team is actually crap. Would David West have been an all-star without Chris Paul? hahah yeah right

If you have a great point guard on your team, he should in fact APPEAR to be the second or third best player on the team, since his purpose after all is to elevate the other players around him.

Chris Paul has a crappy team. Jason Kidd had a terrible team on the Nets and he still took them far. The Suns can't play defense to save their lives, so of course they won't win anything (and Steve Nash was overrated as a point guard even in his prime). So it's not fair to judge these incomplete teams.

To see a better comparison, look at what happened when Mo Willliams went to the Cavaliers. Or look at what happened when Chauncey went to the Nuggets! Mo Williams, who was barely an all-star point guard, was still enough to turn the Cavs into a lock for the NBA finals. Chauncey, who for some strange reason isn't touted as the top 5 point guard he definitely is, turned the Nuggets around completely and now they have a chance to win a title.

How is Chauncey to Denver any less impactful than, say, Gasol to the Lakers? By your argument (that great point guards are less important), the Denver-Pistons trade shouldn't have done much of anything. Not only was it an upgrade at the point guard position, but it was a direct swap for another all-star point guard in Allen Iverson, thereby making it only a "slight" upgrade. Yet it transformed the team. If what you were saying was true, that superstar point guards don't really help your team, then try to explain Chauncey Billups.

PG's do not lead to championships is what I said and somehow that means PG's don't improve teams.  Gotta love the logic.

And since you mentioned it.  Denver won exactly 4 more games this year than they did last year.  Sure they made it farther in the playoffs, but they didn't exactly have a difficult road with the Hornets and Mavericks.  Whereas they had the Lakers in the first round last year.

[crownsy]

You're forgetting a key issue here. Great point guards make the players surrounding them much, much better. Which means that if it's apparent your point guard is the best player on your team, your team is actually crap. Would David West have been an all-star without Chris Paul? hahah yeah right

If you have a great point guard on your team, he should in fact APPEAR to be the second or third best player on the team, since his purpose after all is to elevate the other players around him.

Chris Paul has a crappy team. Jason Kidd had a terrible team on the Nets and he still took them far. The Suns can't play defense to save their lives, so of course they won't win anything (and Steve Nash was overrated as a point guard even in his prime). So it's not fair to judge these incomplete teams.

To see a better comparison, look at what happened when Mo Willliams went to the Cavaliers. Or look at what happened when Chauncey went to the Nuggets! Mo Williams, who was barely an all-star point guard, was still enough to turn the Cavs into a lock for the NBA finals. Chauncey, who for some strange reason isn't touted as the top 5 point guard he definitely is, turned the Nuggets around completely and now they have a chance to win a title.

How is Chauncey to Denver any less impactful than, say, Gasol to the Lakers? By your argument (that great point guards are less important), the Denver-Pistons trade shouldn't have done much of anything. Not only was it an upgrade at the point guard position, but it was a direct swap for another all-star point guard in Allen Iverson, thereby making it only a "slight" upgrade. Yet it transformed the team. If what you were saying was true, that superstar point guards don't really help your team, then try to explain Chauncey Billups.

PG's do not lead to championships is what I said and somehow that means PG's don't improve teams.  Gotta love the logic.

And since you mentioned it.  Denver won exactly 4 more games this year than they did last year.  Sure they made it farther in the playoffs, but they didn't exactly have a difficult road with the Hornets and Mavericks.  Whereas they had the Lakers in the first round last year.

you said that PG is the most overrated position in basketball, i don't see how people could have taken that to mean you think they don't substantially improve a team...

are you going to address the fact that a bunch of PG's have been brought up here who are all stars and helped (or are helping) in mo's case make teams contenders?

[Moranis]

You're forgetting a key issue here. Great point guards make the players surrounding them much, much better. Which means that if it's apparent your point guard is the best player on your team, your team is actually crap. Would David West have been an all-star without Chris Paul? hahah yeah right

If you have a great point guard on your team, he should in fact APPEAR to be the second or third best player on the team, since his purpose after all is to elevate the other players around him.

Chris Paul has a crappy team. Jason Kidd had a terrible team on the Nets and he still took them far. The Suns can't play defense to save their lives, so of course they won't win anything (and Steve Nash was overrated as a point guard even in his prime). So it's not fair to judge these incomplete teams.

To see a better comparison, look at what happened when Mo Willliams went to the Cavaliers. Or look at what happened when Chauncey went to the Nuggets! Mo Williams, who was barely an all-star point guard, was still enough to turn the Cavs into a lock for the NBA finals. Chauncey, who for some strange reason isn't touted as the top 5 point guard he definitely is, turned the Nuggets around completely and now they have a chance to win a title.

How is Chauncey to Denver any less impactful than, say, Gasol to the Lakers? By your argument (that great point guards are less important), the Denver-Pistons trade shouldn't have done much of anything. Not only was it an upgrade at the point guard position, but it was a direct swap for another all-star point guard in Allen Iverson, thereby making it only a "slight" upgrade. Yet it transformed the team. If what you were saying was true, that superstar point guards don't really help your team, then try to explain Chauncey Billups.

PG's do not lead to championships is what I said and somehow that means PG's don't improve teams.  Gotta love the logic.

And since you mentioned it.  Denver won exactly 4 more games this year than they did last year.  Sure they made it farther in the playoffs, but they didn't exactly have a difficult road with the Hornets and Mavericks.  Whereas they had the Lakers in the first round last year.

you said that PG is the most overrated position in basketball, i don't see how people could have taken that to mean you think they don't substantially improve a team...

are you going to address the fact that a bunch of PG's have been brought up here who are all stars and helped (or are helping) in mo's case make teams contenders?

The Cavs were contenders without Mo Williams.  Afterall this is a team that lost in the NBA Finals 2 years ago and lost in 7 to the eventual champions last year all without Maurice.  Williams is a good player and a nice piece to their puzzle, but the Cavs were going to be one of the favorites to win the title this year with or without him.

[youcanthandlethetruth113]

Time and time again I see PG's overrated on this board and in the media.  Since the merger with the ABA, there has been just one team in which its best player (without much argument) was under 6'5" and that was the Isiah led Pistons.  One could argue about the recent Pistons title team, the Sonics in 79, or the Heat a few years back were led by a player under 6'5", though in each case you could easily argue the other way. 

If you look at the ten best PG's in NBA history, only two, Isiah and Magic won a title as their teams best player (Oscar was the #2 man for the Bucks for his one and only title, Cousy was the #2 man in 57 behind Sharman and just ahead of Tommy).  Of the great PG's of the recent generation (payton, kidd, nash, stockton, k. johnson, m. jackson, etc.) only Payton has a title and he had to piggyback on Shaq and Wade to get it.

That is not to say title teams have crap at the PG position, but the reality is if your PG is your best player, you aren't going to win a title and frankly most title teams the PG is the fourth or fifth best player on the team.

I bring this up mostly because I see a vast number of people that believe Rondo is the second coming and should essentially be off limits in trades.  Don't get me wrong, I like Rondo, and I don't think there is any realistic trade out there for Rondo, but I wouldn't second guess Ainge at all if he moved Rondo for a skilled player with size.

Dude, Rondo is UNTOUCHABLE.

[winsomme]

that didn't address my question though, I realize wade isn't a PG (though he plays the Pg role on that team a ton, and the guy listed as the "1" goes of screens and spots up)

but again, name me one team that won without at least 2 good players. The theory that Pg is overrated compared to other positions on championship teams seems false to me when you can name many a team that had a PG as one of its key players and won.

off the top of my head- SA with parker, DET with billups, Lakers with magic, Bos teams with cous and hondo.

I agree that a superstar PG isn't the key to a championship, a dominate big man is, but a dominate big man alone wont do it. It seems to me that most teams, not all, follow a simple formula

1. dominate big man
2. 1 complementary star player if he's a all time big man(wade to shaq, Kobe to shaq) but more likely 2 complementary guys
3. play defense.

Thats not a case for PG being the most overrated position, thats a case of the formula being dominate big man (far and away the most needed and rare thing in the NBA) and 1 to 2 complementary all star- solid starter guys of any position mix.

and if the above is true, then you keep rondo unless the trade is something completely bonkers. what people object to is when people post "trade rondo while his value is high" and then don't put up high level players, or don't name players at all.

For instance, someone suggested rondo for wade straight up in another thread. putting aside that maimi would hang up laughing, if that was offered, of course you do it.

But when trades (and this includes ray to, but more so rondo) come up that are like crawford and maggette for rondo + TA, then no, thats a terrible trade of a good solid piece that's already in place for two marginal players.

Rondo's not untouchable by any means, but you need to get a championship level guy back in return to give up a young PG with the ability rondo has.

Of course you need multiple great players, my point is PG is rarely one of them.  It is an essentially useless position when determining championships, unless you PG is 6'9" (Magic) or on a team that has a number of very high level, though no elite players (Zeke/Chauncey).

And for the record the Bulls won 6 titles with two wings being the dominant players, so it is possible to win multiple titles without a dominant big man (the Cavs certainly have a chance to join the Bulls in that regard).

well, you have two recent Finals MVPs in TP and CB, you have a team going from solid to best in the league with the addition of a PG (MW in CLE), you have playoff doormat going to Title contender with the addition of a PG (CB in DEN), and most importantly for the Cs, we know that even with GPA healthy, the team does not function properly without Rondo.

as for Nash not winning Titles...kinda bogus because if not for Amare getting suspended in 07 in game 5 of the SAS series, they would have torched CLE in the Finals. Plus, TP also busts the over 6'9"/no elite players angle...clearly under 6'9" with one of the best players ever in TD.

i don't know. personally, i think PG is a hugely important position...

[winsomme]

plus, let's wait on CP3 and DWill because both those guys key teammates are heavily affected by injuires.

CP3 with West, Peja and TC. DWill with Booz, Okhur and Kirilenko. I'm not sure it's fair to look at those guys as examples of super star PGs not being able to win Titles.

like you agreed, every Title winning team needs multiple star players.

[yoursweatersux]

You're forgetting a key issue here. Great point guards make the players surrounding them much, much better. Which means that if it's apparent your point guard is the best player on your team, your team is actually crap. Would David West have been an all-star without Chris Paul? hahah yeah right

If you have a great point guard on your team, he should in fact APPEAR to be the second or third best player on the team, since his purpose after all is to elevate the other players around him.

Chris Paul has a crappy team. Jason Kidd had a terrible team on the Nets and he still took them far. The Suns can't play defense to save their lives, so of course they won't win anything (and Steve Nash was overrated as a point guard even in his prime). So it's not fair to judge these incomplete teams.

To see a better comparison, look at what happened when Mo Willliams went to the Cavaliers. Or look at what happened when Chauncey went to the Nuggets! Mo Williams, who was barely an all-star point guard, was still enough to turn the Cavs into a lock for the NBA finals. Chauncey, who for some strange reason isn't touted as the top 5 point guard he definitely is, turned the Nuggets around completely and now they have a chance to win a title.

How is Chauncey to Denver any less impactful than, say, Gasol to the Lakers? By your argument (that great point guards are less important), the Denver-Pistons trade shouldn't have done much of anything. Not only was it an upgrade at the point guard position, but it was a direct swap for another all-star point guard in Allen Iverson, thereby making it only a "slight" upgrade. Yet it transformed the team. If what you were saying was true, that superstar point guards don't really help your team, then try to explain Chauncey Billups.

PG's do not lead to championships is what I said and somehow that means PG's don't improve teams.  Gotta love the logic.

And since you mentioned it.  Denver won exactly 4 more games this year than they did last year.  Sure they made it farther in the playoffs, but they didn't exactly have a difficult road with the Hornets and Mavericks.  Whereas they had the Lakers in the first round last year.

You obviously don't get it. Point guards have turned these teams into contenders for the title. Whether or not they actually lead their teams to a title A: remains to be seen B: is immaterial, unless you want to argue that anybody who doesn't actually win a title sucks (aka Karl Malone, Charles Barkeley, etc. etc.).

[Moranis]

History wins out again.  Derek Fisher and Rafer Alston are your starting PG's in the NBA finals.

Hopefully we don't make a mistake and vastly overpay Rondo.

[crownsy]

History wins out again.  Derek Fisher and Rafer Alston are your starting PG's in the NBA finals.

Hopefully we don't make a mistake and vastly overpay Rondo.

A fan of the dominate big man + complementary player theory that I follow would agree, Gasol and Howard anchor their respective clubs with 2 commentary players around them each.

both teams that got beat lack such a big man.

[Fafnir]

History wins out again.  Derek Fisher and Rafer Alston are your starting PG's in the NBA finals.

Hopefully we don't make a mistake and vastly overpay Rondo.

A fan of the dominate big man + complementary player theory that I follow would agree, Gasol and Howard anchor their respective clubs with 2 commentary players around them each.

both teams that got beat lack such a big man.

LeBron is tall enough to count as a big man, and he'll win a title eventually.

Working on his post game is the next step he can take to improve his game.