Knicks · Overvaluing Point Guard Play (A Must Read) (page 1)

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/217...

Overvaluing Point Guard Play Hits Apex With Vetoed Trade
By: Jonathan Tjarks
Dec 09, 2011 12:04 PM EST

If you ever wondered whether the group of small-market owners pushing David Stern so hard during the lockout knew what they were doing, that question was answered last night. The Lakers were dismantling a team that had went 12-2 in playoff series over the last four years, and those owners, through Stern, forced them to stop.
Los Angeles, with its dominating trio of skilled, athletic and versatile 6’10+ big men, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum, is the league’s gold standard. The only teams that have beaten them, the 2008 Boston Celtics and 2011 Dallas Mavericks, went on to win the championship. Neither franchise, now that both have lost the starting center from their title teams, looks capable of challenging the Lakers this season.

The Lakers were giving away both Odom and Gasol for a 6’0 175 point guard with a history of serious knee problems. Chris Paul is a great player, but point guards do not win championships.

He played about as well as a point guard could in the Hornets first-round series against the Lakers last year, averaging 22 points, 11.5 assists and 6.7 rebounds on 54.5% shooting. His PER in that series was 28.7; for some perspective, there are only two players with higher career PER’s: Michael Jordan (30.9) and Wilt Chamberlain (30.7).

Did it matter? No. The Hornets never had a realistic chance to win that series. When the Lakers got serious in Games 5 and 6, they won by an average of 17 points. New Orleans started a 6’10, 255 center (Emeka Okafor) and a 6’9 240 power forward (David West); Bynum and Gasol combined to shoot 25-for-48 (52%) from the field in the last two games, and there was nothing Paul could do about it.

A Lakers team built around Paul, Kobe and Bynum is pretty vulnerable. What if Bynum gets hurt again? The only other big man on the Lakers roster is 2010 second-round pick Derrick Caracter. A team like the Memphis Grizzlies, with Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph on the low block, would demolish a Lakers squad built around two ball-dominant guards in that scenario.

Now, with Paul unlikely to be traded, Los Angeles can get back to pursuing the real prize of the off-season: Dwight Howard. They’re still the only team in the NBA who can offer Orlando a young two-way 7’0 like Bynum. A team with Kobe, Gasol and Howard is much better than one with Paul, Kobe and Howard, and a hole at point guard is easier to fill than a hole at power forward.

If the last twenty years have taught us anything, it’s that championship teams do not need great point guard play. Here are the starting point guards for the 20 NBA champions since 1991: John Paxson twice, BJ Armstrong, Kenny Smith twice, Ron Harper three times, Avery Johnson, Derek Fisher three times, Tony Parker, Chauncey Billups, Parker, Jason Williams, Parker, Rajon Rondo, Fisher two more times and a 38-year old Jason Kidd.

The point guard, in many ways, is akin to the wide-receiver in football. No matter how great a wide-out is, without good play from their quarterback and offensive line, there isn’t much they can do to affect a game. Randy Moss could only watch futilely when the New York Giants defensive line prevented Tom Brady from having time in the pocket in Super Bowl 42, just as Paul could only watch helplessly as Gasol and Bynum abused his big men last year.

While a great point guard will make his teammates better on offense, the only way Paul was making West and Okafor better on defense was with a bag of beans from Jack’s magic bean-stalk that would make them taller. In contrast, a great big man makes his teammates better on both sides of the ball, as he can command double teams on offense and contain dribble penetration on defense.

That’s why there was no real need for the New York Knicks to add Paul. Paul value comes from his ability to create easy shots for his teammates, but Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire don’t need anyone creating shots for them. They can do that themselves; that’s why they are both perennial All-Stars.

Amar'e did just fine without Steve Nash in New York City. When Nash was winning two MVP’s in Phoenix, everyone wanted to act like Amar'e was “Nash’s creation”, like Nash was responsible for the fact that Amare was a 6’10 245 forward with a lightning-quick first step and a wet jumper. Without Nash, Amare averaged 25.3 points on 50.2% shooting from the field, more than good enough for the primary offensive option on a championship-team.

In contrast, by making up for their mistakes defensively, in the same way that he did for Dirk Nowitzki, Jason Kidd and Jason Terry in Dallas, Tyson Chandler will make Amare and Carmelo far better players than Paul could. It really doesn’t matter who the Knicks play in the back-court: all their guards need to do is dribble up the court, pass the ball to one of their All-Stars and then stand in a corner and knock down open 3-pointers. Toney Douglas, Bill Walker, Landry Fields and Iman Shumpert can manage that.

By leaving Dallas and going to New York City, Chandler swung the balance of power in the NBA, removing the Mavericks from title contention while giving the Knicks a legitimate chance at one. In contrast, Chris Paul’s Hornets aren’t going anywhere, and unless Deron Williams gets a center, neither are the Nets.

The road to an NBA championship goes through the middle of the paint, which is why the veto of a trade that would exchange two of the best 6’10+ players in the NBA for a 6’0 point guard was the best thing that could have happened to the Lakers. Instead of being angry at David Stern, fans of the Lakers should be sending him flowers.

good read.

Maybe I have a simplistic take on this but the reason the trade was vetoed was to perserve the Lakers dominance? I think Johnathan Tjarks needs to look at the aftermath of this trade veto and realize that the only team losing out is the Hornets and the only player wasting a year is Chris Paul. Deron Williams or Chris Paul will be running the point next year for the Mavs as Cuban planned it and neither will be on a small market team.

CrushAlot wrote:Maybe I have a simplistic take on this but the reason the trade was vetoed was to perserve the Lakers dominance? I think Johnathan Tjarks needs to look at the aftermath of this trade veto and realize that the only team losing out is the Hornets and the only player wasting a year is Chris Paul. Deron Williams or Chris Paul will be running the point next year for the Mavs as Cuban planned it and neither will be on a small market team.

I agree...But I was really looking at this from a Knicks perspective. Theres so much energy on who should run the point, and if we should trade TD for JC.....

All I'm saying is this...It really doesn't matter....The past 20 NBA championship teams....didn't have a high caliber top 10 PG. Getting Chandler was the key....Everything else is just filling holes. No need to argue over JC, TD, Bibby or Barea!

Loved the points in the article. On this forum we discussed the fact that the Celtics and Lakers and then Mavs all had championship size. Tyson was a huge pick up for that very reason. PG may not be as important as a legit 7'er, but I think the Knicks still just want to make sure that they at least have a legit PG and some punch off the bench. Jamal would give the Knicks that kind of players and he has some playoff experience. I would have no problem with going to battle with TD either.

The best thing that ever happened to the Knicks is not getting Paul and gutting the team in the process. As much as it would've been interesting to see how Paul worked with STAT and Melo, building the rest of the roster was gonna be VERY dicey. I LOVE Paul, but for the franchise it was better to get a championship level defensive Center and keep much of the needed role players we had already. Tho to be honest the other offers were so much better and I think the Knicks Brass knew they might have to go in another direction. Grunwald said they had talked about getting a Center like Tyson and thank goodness they actually got Tyson himself.

nixluva wrote:Loved the points in the article. On this forum we discussed the fact that the Celtics and Lakers and then Mavs all had championship size. Tyson was a huge pick up for that very reason. PG may not be as important as a legit 7'er, but I think the Knicks still just want to make sure that they at least have a legit PG and some punch off the bench. Jamal would give the Knicks that kind of players and he has some playoff experience. I would have no problem with going to battle with TD either.

The best thing that ever happened to the Knicks is not getting Paul and gutting the team in the process. As much as it would've been interesting to see how Paul worked with STAT and Melo, building the rest of the roster was gonna be VERY dicey. I LOVE Paul, but for the franchise it was better to get a championship level defensive Center and keep much of the needed role players we had already. Tho to be honest the other offers were so much better and I think the Knicks Brass knew they might have to go in another direction. Grunwald said they had talked about getting a Center like Tyson and thank goodness they actually got Tyson himself.

Both the Celtics and the Mavs had amazing point guards. Kidd is a hof and Rondo envy might be why the Knicks drafted Iman over Chris Singleton.

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:Loved the points in the article. On this forum we discussed the fact that the Celtics and Lakers and then Mavs all had championship size. Tyson was a huge pick up for that very reason. PG may not be as important as a legit 7'er, but I think the Knicks still just want to make sure that they at least have a legit PG and some punch off the bench. Jamal would give the Knicks that kind of players and he has some playoff experience. I would have no problem with going to battle with TD either.

The best thing that ever happened to the Knicks is not getting Paul and gutting the team in the process. As much as it would've been interesting to see how Paul worked with STAT and Melo, building the rest of the roster was gonna be VERY dicey. I LOVE Paul, but for the franchise it was better to get a championship level defensive Center and keep much of the needed role players we had already. Tho to be honest the other offers were so much better and I think the Knicks Brass knew they might have to go in another direction. Grunwald said they had talked about getting a Center like Tyson and thank goodness they actually got Tyson himself.

Both the Celtics and the Mavs had amazing point guards. Kidd is a hof and Rondo envy might be why the Knicks drafted Iman over Chris Singleton.

Half of those teams ran the triangle offense, which doesn't require a point guard. With the exception of Jason Williams, the rest of the point guards on the list range from very good to future hall of famer (kidd).

blkexec wrote:Overvaluing Point Guard Play Hits Apex With Vetoed Trade
By: Jonathan Tjarks
Dec 09, 2011 12:04 PM EST

Amar'e did just fine without Steve Nash in New York City. When Nash was winning two MVP’s in Phoenix, everyone wanted to act like Amar'e was “Nash’s creation”, like Nash was responsible for the fact that Amare was a 6’10 245 forward with a lightning-quick first step and a wet jumper. Without Nash, Amare averaged 25.3 points on 50.2% shooting from the field, more than good enough for the primary offensive option on a championship-team.

I like how this guy skims the facts. Amare's career FG%. Notice what his numbers were while at PHX:

2002-03 PHO 47.2
2003-04 PHO 47.5
2004-05 PHO 55.9
2005-06 PHO 33.3
2006-07 PHO 57.5
2007-08 PHO 59.0
2008-09 PHO 53.9
2009-10 PHO 55.7
2010-11 NY 50.2

There is no doubt a good PG can make a huge difference.

We all know great PG's can make a difference. Let's be honest none of us thought that this team would make a deal for Tyson, so all of the arguments were based on how good CP3 was. We all knew we needed a C and some felt that was the most important move and weren't that high on getting CP3. The level of defensive player that Tyson is changes things. The deal for CP3 wouldn't have improved the defense one iota. The team would've been far more efficient on offense, but arguably it may have still been weak inside. The fear is whether a team built with the great PG and a lower level Center would've been better than getting a top tier Center to anchor the defense and lower level PG. In recent years the Champions have all had great size. While Rondo is a very effective PG, he's not like Nash or Paul, cuz he can't shoot. The C's were ready to ship him out cuz they know he's going to be less effective without all the great shooting around him.

It's really about the structure of the team. A deal for Paul would've required a longer process of finding the rest of the role players and hopefully a solid Center to make it all work, but no guarantee we'd find that Center. Since we didn't have to gut the team in order to land Tyson, it just made things easier in terms of finishing out the roster. The team is closer to contention right now than if they had gotten CP3 at the expense of all the role players pretty much and without the same level of defensive anchor in the middle. The team is set now in the frontcourt. Guards are more plentiful than bigs, so the path to completing the team is much easier now. Things worked out for the best.

knickstorrents wrote:

blkexec wrote:Overvaluing Point Guard Play Hits Apex With Vetoed Trade
By: Jonathan Tjarks
Dec 09, 2011 12:04 PM EST

Amar'e did just fine without Steve Nash in New York City. When Nash was winning two MVP’s in Phoenix, everyone wanted to act like Amar'e was “Nash’s creation”, like Nash was responsible for the fact that Amare was a 6’10 245 forward with a lightning-quick first step and a wet jumper. Without Nash, Amare averaged 25.3 points on 50.2% shooting from the field, more than good enough for the primary offensive option on a championship-team.

I like how this guy skims the facts. Amare's career FG%. Notice what his numbers were while at PHX:

2002-03 PHO 47.2
2003-04 PHO 47.5
2004-05 PHO 55.9
2005-06 PHO 33.3
2006-07 PHO 57.5
2007-08 PHO 59.0
2008-09 PHO 53.9
2009-10 PHO 55.7
2010-11 NY 50.2

There is no doubt a good PG can make a huge difference.

And he tied his career high in turnovers/game.

Maybe I have a simplistic take on this but the reason the trade was vetoed was to perserve the Lakers dominance?

That's how I read it too but it seems like a ridiculous claim

this argument has been made on this board before - the one and probably only thing the NBA champions have in common is having a top five player on their roster- and usually its the top single best player: Kobe, MJ, Shaq, Tim Duncan. And then for both Dallas & Detroit - I think they were close with their players, but they just as a group came together and clicked at the right time, and faced teams that maybe had better talent, but had perhaps some internal issues (Lakers with Kobe vs. Shaq brewing, and Miami=mental weaklings).

The more I digest it the more I see it as an attempt to preserve the Hornets.

The trade for the older players was good short term, but without youth and picks the team would spiral into the abyss over a few years.

What we don't know is how this ends for Paul and the Whore-Nets so we can't really say what is the result is. My instinct is to agree with Stern from a logic stand point. It was a douchey thing to do for sure, but in time the Hornets can fill up a roster of guys like that via free agency that Pauls salary space could provide. Without picks, or a "Derrick Favors" type talent I get why he vetoed it. To me, the standard was Deron trade with the Nets. Paul should have gotten about as much.

Maybe Demps failed to see the big picture besides wanting to succeed on the court this year. His job can only be measured by so many things and wins-losses are a big one. A new owner will be coming in and his job will be up for review. So in a sense him and Monte are looking out for their own ass short term. To me, it was a very good short term trade.

Paul has an opt out and we know he wants to move but all these guys don't move without taking the money with them. I am all for Paul wanting to live and work where he wants to. He can opt out and do this. This is a good guy who did everything by the book but is in a hostile environment and his owners are the league which is bad timing on his part.

I believe a team will step forward with the right deal inside of two years.

I thought the lakes were being stupid and Houstan was overpaying for Gasol, but was to have room to pair Nene with him giving them a very nice tadem. The Lakes getting Dwight Howard would have been over the top. It is to admire a team that knows when to move its aging players for new ones. The star power on that team would be huge!

Regarding Stearns blocking perhaps the best way to describe my take is from Chris Rock: "Im not saying I agree.....>But I understand!"

blkexec wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Maybe I have a simplistic take on this but the reason the trade was vetoed was to perserve the Lakers dominance? I think Johnathan Tjarks needs to look at the aftermath of this trade veto and realize that the only team losing out is the Hornets and the only player wasting a year is Chris Paul. Deron Williams or Chris Paul will be running the point next year for the Mavs as Cuban planned it and neither will be on a small market team.

I agree...But I was really looking at this from a Knicks perspective. Theres so much energy on who should run the point, and if we should trade TD for JC.....

All I'm saying is this...It really doesn't matter....The past 20 NBA championship teams....didn't have a high caliber top 10 PG. Getting Chandler was the key....Everything else is just filling holes. No need to argue over JC, TD, Bibby or Barea!

Argue is what we do hommie. This the sole purpose of a message board/forum.
As long as it doesn't get crass or personal it's all good.

CrushAlot wrote:Maybe I have a simplistic take on this but the reason the trade was vetoed was to perserve the Lakers dominance? I think Johnathan Tjarks needs to look at the aftermath of this trade veto and realize that the only team losing out is the Hornets and the only player wasting a year is Chris Paul. Deron Williams or Chris Paul will be running the point next year for the Mavs as Cuban planned it and neither will be on a small market team.

I think what he said was the Lakers should be thankful this haven't and helped keep their trio of bigs intact.

This might mess up the perserve the Hornets theory.

Chris_Broussard Chris Broussard
As reported Fri, union told Stern it will pursue litigation if no suitable CP trade made by Monday. Claim could be collusion, sources say

A pg with a high IQ is needed in a MDA system, i dont care what that article says. We all know it, we have seen the difference..This offense is to free and willy, it's base on perfect PnR, spread offense, and high tempo...

If you don't have the right guy running this offense, it will turn into guys jacking up shots, melo and amare iso's and 40 3 pt attemps ppg.

Does Barea or Jamal play the pick and roll better?

While I agree in general that you don't need a dominant (scoring) PG to win a title, Billups won a finals MVP at PG, as did Tony Parker. (Parker was a big contributor several other times). Of the list, 11 times I would rate say the starters were below average starting PGs in the NBA. They were chosen to hit 3's or play D... and make the routine plays.

I think the Knicks have the makings of 2 dominant defenders at PG in Douglas & Shumpert; Douglas has proven himself a respectable 3pt shooter; Iman seems to have good form, but we haven't seen him shoot in the NBA yet - we know he forced a lot of 3's in college, but perhaps that's not indicative of his potential.

The Knicks in general could use better basketball IQ on both sides of the ball - and I think we're getting there.