Define "building around". Why do they keep saying we can't build around Rondo?

[BballTim]

I laugh at that the notion that you can't build around a top 5 NBA point guard. Regardless of whether or not that pg's got a jumpshot. It's just silly. And

How many times has a team won a championship when their best player was their PG?

Isiah, Magic and....

  Probably Chauncy. But don't forget, Isiah and Magic count for 7 titles. So 8 or so in the last 30 or so years.

I got Sheed over Billups, but they're awfully close so I'd concede that.

When the Pistons won the title Billups was the 4th best player on that team behind Sheed, Ben, and Rip.

  Opinions vary, of course.

[Roy H.]

But I don't think it's neccesarily fair to just lump guards the same way we'd do for defensive bigs.

It's not a bigs vs. guards argument, it's an argument on how valuable a pass-first point guard can be.

I think stuff like "pass first PG" can get fuzzy.  I think, for the majority of the league, there's starting to be as much overlap between PG/SG as there is PF/C. 

The conventional wisdom is "big men win championships", and to some extent that's true.  However, perhaps a truer statement is "great players win championships"; almost every championship team is has all-star caliber players both inside and out.  There's no reason why a PG can't be one of those players.

[BballTim]

I laugh at that the notion that you can't build around a top 5 NBA point guard. Regardless of whether or not that pg's got a jumpshot. It's just silly. And

How many times has a team won a championship when their best player was their PG?

Isiah, Magic and....

  Probably Chauncy. But don't forget, Isiah and Magic count for 7 titles. So 8 or so in the last 30 or so years.

I got Sheed over Billups, but they're awfully close so I'd concede that.

And in all three of those cases they played with All NBA calibre frontcourt players, which a top 5 pg can't win without. On the other hand, a all NBA calibre big can win without a top 5 pg.

  This debate goes round and round. You need a talent to win titles, no matter what the position. There are five spots on the court. Which of the five has to be a superstar for you to win a title? Which of the five kills your shot of winning a title if the player at that spot isn't elite?

Not a position, but 'big men'. If you don't have an elite defensive presence in the post, you don't win.

Mavs: Chandler
Lakers: Bynum
Lakers: Bynum
Celtics: Perkins
Spurs: Duncan
Heat: Shaq
Spurs: Duncan
Pistons: Wallace
Lakers: Shaq
Again
Again
Spurs: Robinson
Bulls: Rodman
Bulls: Rodman
Bulls: Rodman
Rockets: Hakeem
ROckets: Hakeem

I don't know how much farther I need to go back.

  Should I comment on the fact that you circumvented the question by combining two positions, or possibly the coincidence that you "happened" to stop your list with Hakeem?

You should read all the posts, and all of IP's post not just the list.

  Not only did I read the line in red, I commented on it.

This debate does not go round and round. Unless you have Michael Jordan on your team, it is impossible to win the NBA title without all NBA calibre bigs. This is just fact, and even Jordan needed a hall of fame PF to win his second 3 peat.

  I saw this too. It basically says that the statement is true except for when it's not. If a left handed point guard had never led the league in scoring I could claim it's a fact that lefty pgs are unable to win the scoring title. If it happened I could say that it's impossible for a lefty pg to win the scoring title unless his starting center is exactly 6'11.

[BballTim]

This debate does not go round and round. Unless you have Michael Jordan on your team, it is impossible to win the NBA title without all NBA calibre bigs. This is just fact, and even Jordan needed a hall of fame PF to win his second 3 peat.

  You also don't win titles without more than just an all nba caliber big. People get excited because you don't need a great pg. You also don't need a great center or pf or sf or sg. You need multiple pieces to win a title. The best player can be at any spot, so can the 2nd best and so on.

  Haha. I suppose if the best player in the game temporarily retires in his prime then all bets are off.

[ms.ball]

This debate does not go round and round. Unless you have Michael Jordan on your team, it is impossible to win the NBA title without all NBA calibre bigs. This is just fact, and even Jordan needed a hall of fame PF to win his second 3 peat.

  You also don't win titles without more than just an all nba caliber big. People get excited because you don't need a great pg. You also don't need a great center or pf or sf or sg. You need multiple pieces to win a title. The best player can be at any spot, so can the 2nd best and so on.

  Haha. I suppose if the best player in the game temporarily retires in his prime then all bets are off.

WOW!!!!

[indeedproceed]

I think Roy pegged it pretty well. You need bigs who can control the paint, and/or you need Michael Jordan.

But since Hakeem, you've needed bigs who can control the paint. They're a must. Elite-level point guards are not. But, they help too.

[ballin]

This conversation about how you can't build around point guards is totally ridiculous.

Of course you can build around point guards; the caveat is that they actually have to be as good as you think they are, and you have to surround them with good enough pieces.

All "building around" somebody means is that you don't intend on getting a player that's better than them (because then, ipso facto, you would technically be building around the other player). So if you're building around point guards who aren't a top 10 talent in the NBA, you're pretty screwed unless you get lucky like the 2004 Pistons, since virtually all championship teams require a top 10, if not a top 5, player.

The problem is that most point guards aren't as awesome as people think they are (Derrick Rose, I'm looking at you). But you're freaking nuts if you don't think you can't win a championship with Chris Paul as the best player on your team, considering he's probably a top 5 player in the NBA.

In fact, there's actually a pretty huge dropoff after Chris Paul. Derrick Rose might be considered the 2nd best point guard after Paul, but ironically he's maybe the 20th best player in the NBA.

So what does that mean? It means that if you want to build around Derrick Rose you're probably screwed, but not simply because you're building around a point guard... rather because you're building around a player who's not a top 10 talent.

It's freakin simple logic, people.


So moving on to the facts of OUR case...

Rondo is a top 30 talent if you're lucky, therefore, the idea of building around him is flat-out insane. Unless we were somehow able to pull a Detroit Pistons and get the 31st, 32nd, 33rd, and 34th best players in the NBA as our other starters. And that never happens for a variety of salary reasons. The Pistons pulled it off by pure serendipity, and it just can't be replicated on purpose the way salaries work under the current CBA.

[ballin]

I think Roy pegged it pretty well. You need bigs who can control the paint, and/or you need Michael Jordan.

But since Hakeem, you've needed bigs who can control the paint. They're a must. Elite-level point guards are not. But, they help too.

There's a very obvious reason for this.

Bad guards and small forwards can simply be ignored on offense (don't pass to them), and on defense their impact is relatively minimal.

Big men can also be ignored on the offensive end. However, the massively important difference is that they are under the gun on literally every defensive possession to deter penetration AND SECURE A REBOUND. You can't hide them from those responsibilities, no matter what you do.

Hence, bad big men get exposed, while bad guards do not.

As a consequence, you can get along with bad guards (think Mario Chalmers) while bad big men will be your undoing.

[BballTim]

This conversation about how you can't build around point guards is totally ridiculous.

Of course you can build around point guards; the caveat is that they actually have to be as good as you think they are, and you have to surround them with good enough pieces.

All "building around" somebody means is that you don't intend on getting a player that's better than them (because then, ipso facto, you would technically be building around the other player). So if you're building around point guards who aren't a top 10 talent in the NBA, you're pretty screwed unless you get lucky like the 2004 Pistons, since virtually all championship teams require a top 10, if not a top 5, player.

The problem is that most point guards aren't as awesome as people think they are (Derrick Rose, I'm looking at you). But you're freaking nuts if you don't think you can't win a championship with Chris Paul as the best player on your team, considering he's probably a top 5 player in the NBA.

In fact, there's actually a pretty huge dropoff after Chris Paul. Derrick Rose might be considered the 2nd best point guard after Paul, but ironically he's maybe the 20th best player in the NBA.

So what does that mean? It means that if you want to build around Derrick Rose you're probably screwed, but not simply because you're building around a point guard... rather because you're building around a player who's not a top 10 talent.

It's freakin simple logic, people.


So moving on to the facts of OUR case...

Rondo is a top 30 talent if you're lucky, therefore, the idea of building around him is flat-out insane. Unless we were somehow able to pull a Detroit Pistons and get the 31st, 32nd, 33rd, and 34th best players in the NBA as our other starters. And that never happens for a variety of salary reasons. The Pistons pulled it off by pure serendipity, and it just can't be replicated on purpose the way salaries work under the current CBA.

  Your evaluations of Rondo and Paul are a few years outdated.

[BASS_THUMPER]

we need to rebuild around paul kev and ray...

rondo is a solid role  player

nada mas

[KCattheStripe]

This debate does not go round and round. Unless you have Michael Jordan on your team, it is impossible to win the NBA title without all NBA calibre bigs. This is just fact, and even Jordan needed a hall of fame PF to win his second 3 peat.

  You also don't win titles without more than just an all nba caliber big. People get excited because you don't need a great pg. You also don't need a great center or pf or sf or sg. You need multiple pieces to win a title. The best player can be at any spot, so can the 2nd best and so on.

Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan think you're silly.

[KCattheStripe]

Roy, I would argue that the the positions of 2 guard and small forward are interchangeable in the modern NBA and that 2 guard and PG are pretty distinct.

[KCattheStripe]

In the past 20 years one team has won the NBA championship with arguably a point guard as it's best player (2004 Pistons.. and they break almost every rule) meanwhile the Rockets, Spurs, 3 peat Lakers, Celtics and Mavs won because their best player was a C/PF. The repeat Lakers second best player was Pau Gasol, 06 Heat had Shaq and the later three Peat Bulls had hall of famer Dennis Rodman at the 4.  Bigs are your building blocks, and everything else should be on the table to move for All NBA  calibre bigs.

[KCattheStripe]

This debate does not go round and round. Unless you have Michael Jordan on your team, it is impossible to win the NBA title without all NBA calibre bigs. This is just fact, and even Jordan needed a hall of fame PF to win his second 3 peat.

  You also don't win titles without more than just an all nba caliber big. People get excited because you don't need a great pg. You also don't need a great center or pf or sf or sg. You need multiple pieces to win a title. The best player can be at any spot, so can the 2nd best and so on.

  Haha. I suppose if the best player in the game temporarily retires in his prime then all bets are off.

WOW!!!!

Yes, when a player who bucks historical trends left and right retires, those trends reassert themselves.

[Kane3387]

Because if building a team around Jason Kidd or Gary Payton didn't yield a championship, it definitely won't happen with a team whose best player is Rondo.




You mention having "a couple great scorers," but a truly 'great scorer' is likely to be better than Rondo, and thus the centerpiece of the team.

As others have said, Rondo is very good as a #2 or #3.  Not a player you build around.

Kidd lead his team to two finals appearances when he was not that great of a scorer, but he was a great playmaker defense minded pg who could rebound alah Rondo

We will likely not see the East as weak as it was then as long as Rondo is a premier PG. Keep in mind NJ was at best the fifth best team in the NBA those years but the best in the east. The second best team in the east might have been the 7th or 8th best team overall.