The great point guard/center theory is just that

[NJHAWK]

I know some of you were saying Billy King knows how to build a team with a center and a point guard. I know alot of you say thats how titles are won. Well I think its pretty well established that is BULLSHYYT. Take Kings 76ers to start. Yes they made the playoffs this season with their best player being their pg Andre Miller and Dalembert is an ok center but they arent close to a title contender. When the 76ers made the finals their best player was an undersized 2 guard and they didnt really even have a center till we traded them Deke after the all star break. At that point Deke was at best all star reserve quality. Anyway they lost to a team that won 3 titles with a great center and 2 guard and pg's who I really cant even remember, Lue and Fischer maybe? far from great. Look at the Spurs they never have had anything close to a great point guard or center. Their best player is a pf and he has been the only mainstay to win all those titles beside the coach. Parker came of age last year but they won alot of titles before that and I still would not say Parker is great. How about the Bulls they had a All time 2 guard who was complimented well by a role playing sf. That team won 6 titles with nothing even close to a good point guard or center. The last team that won titles with a great point and great center was the old Lakers with Magic and Kareem. I think that proves you can win with one or the other or even neither.

[Hawk88]

I can agree with you about the Center position but not the PG. Look at the championship teams and they only win because the PG plays great and makes others better. San Antonio has Tony Parker and he has been great more often than not. The Pistons had Billups.

If the Lakers can win it this year, they will be doing it with the worst PG I can remember.

Hawk88

[NJHAWK]

I think Parker was all star/superstar quality last year in their title run but in all their titles before that San Antonios point guard play was nothing special and certainly not a determing factor in their titles. It was their pf TIMMY. The Pistons I believe won only 1 title and Billiups was Mr. Big shot indeed but I dont know if he was great. Their team defense was great. What about those Bulls teams that had no point or center? How about the Rockets two titles with Hakkem and no good point guard. I think they won two titles with Kenny Smith, lol. Miami won with Shaq/Wade and Jason Williams of all people at point. Look at the 3 teams left in the east this year. Detroit has Billips who is an all star but Boston and Clevland { who went to the finals last year} can actually say point guard is a weakness for them both.

[dre1218us]

There are many ways to a title. This big man-point guard format is so heralded because the heart of most championship teams have been at either of those positions.

If you have a good GM, coach and system you should be able to win with a superstar at any position.

[NJHAWK]

Quote:

---

There are many ways to a title. This big man-point guard format is so heralded because the heart of most championship teams have been at either of those positions.

Im not sure about this. I think you can find just as many title teams or even finals teams where the heart of their team was a 2guard, sf or pf.

If you have a good GM, coach and system you should be able to win with a superstar at any position.

100% correct. Detroit is the only team in recent memory who won a title without a real superstar.

[Admin]

I would say it's most important to have a PG and a post presence. That guy could be a PF or a C but you have to have someone who can consistently score inside and someone alongside him that can defend/rebound.

Sure you can win with average PG play but then you will need at least 2 good/great players at other positions to compensate. It's a hell of a lot easier to win when you have a quality PG running your team.

I also disagree about Parker not really breaking out until last year. He probably had his best post-season but he had some excellent playoff performances in the past as well. He has been averaging at least 16 points and 5 assists per game since his 2nd season and that is well above average PG play.

[frosgrim]

I disagree to a point with your hypothesis.

SA- Duncan is called a PF, but his game screams C. Truth is he can dominate in the paint and get easy offense. Parker runs that team extremely well. He gets easy points for Duncan. And even if he came into his own last year, guess what, SA won the title!

LA- won titles with a dominant Shaq and an up and coming Kobe. Shaq in his prime was as dominant player ever to play. There was no one who could stop him.

Miami- won with an aging Shaq who could still dominate 2 out of 3 games. Wade also was a terrific guard at the time. Note that they went up against a Dallas team that lacked both a point and a center.

The best evidence that supports your theory comes from Detroit and possibly the Jordon Bulls.

Detroit won a title with a great team effort. However, it could be strongly argued that Billups, a pg, was the best player on the team. Furthermore, they went up against an LA team that was imploding. Wallace played well against Shaq, but if Shaq and Kobe aren't fighting that series doesn't go 5 games.

Jordon's Bulls- Jordon was the best basketball player ever. He did everything on the court. Jordon was surrounded by guys who could play defense and hit the open shot- which Jordon created for them. Pippen was that needed 2nd scorer to help when Jordon got triple teamed. Ron Harper was also a guy that would hit the open 3 and could play great defense.

I think the ultimate message is that to win consistantly in the NBA you have to have the era's dominant player, plus a complementary player that does those things your dominant player can't do. It just so happens that it is hard to find a dominant center. Wings tend to cancel each other out. Unless you are Jordon-esque, it is relatively easier to find a guy that can give 25 pts a night from the wing and many teams have these guys. On the ohter hand, getting a consitant 25 from the 5 position is really tough to find. When you do have a guy that can give you 25 a night and play center, then your whole team gets a hell of a lot better.

It is, however, hard to argue that a dominant 1 gets you a championship, so I agree with you there. 1's need others to make them really good. NJ is a great example of how a great 1 plus 2 good wing players really do nothing for you. NJ would have been better off with finding that post player instead of having both VC and RJ as the compliments to Kidd. It looks good on paper, but the reality is that wings can't take over games enough to compensate for the lack of a post game- esp in regards to high percentage scoring, rebounding, and defense.

[hussamga]

You need a damn good PG unless your running the triangle offense with Phil Jackson. But even Jacksons teams use SG's with great handles that dominate the ball like KOBE/Jordan (wade same way)...

I think the case in point is the Celtics...their backcourt is holding them back IMO. Philly doesnt even have an all star, tough to use them as your theory debunker.

[NJHAWK]

I think Duncun is more of a pf especially size wise. That Miami team that won was more Wade than Shaq. Now could they have won without Shaqs presence, prolly not. However Wade was clearly the man on that team and then some. He dominated. As far as the Dallas team they played thats just another example of not needing a great point and center to win.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

I know some of you were saying Billy King knows how to build a team with a center and a point guard. I know alot of you say thats how titles are won. Well I think its pretty well established that is BULLSHYYT. Take Kings 76ers to start. Yes they made the playoffs this season with their best player being their pg Andre Miller and Dalembert is an ok center but they arent close to a title contender. When the 76ers made the finals their best player was an undersized 2 guard and they didnt really even have a center till we traded them Deke after the all star break. At that point Deke was at best all star reserve quality. Anyway they lost to a team that won 3 titles with a great center and 2 guard and pg's who I really cant even remember, Lue and Fischer maybe? far from great. Look at the Spurs they never have had anything close to a great point guard or center. Their best player is a pf and he has been the only mainstay to win all those titles beside the coach. Parker came of age last year but they won alot of titles before that and I still would not say Parker is great. How about the Bulls they had a All time 2 guard who was complimented well by a role playing sf. That team won 6 titles with nothing even close to a good point guard or center. The last team that won titles with a great point and great center was the old Lakers with Magic and Kareem. I think that proves you can win with one or the other or even neither.

This just goes to show that you need either a super strong ensemble type team with top point guard play (Pistons w/ Billups and before that with Isiah Thomas) or you have have one of the top two or three players in the league on your team (i.e., Spurs w/ Duncan; Miami w/ Wade and Shaq; Lakers w/ Kobe and Shaq; Houston w/ Hakeem; Chicago w/ Jordan; Lakers w/ Magic; and Boston w/ Bird).

No team except for the pistons have one a title in the past 20+ years without one of the most dominant players in the game on their team. Too bad the Hawks don't have one of those.

Oh, and those Piston teams had hall-of-fame coaching.

[NJHAWK]

Quote:

---

I would say it's most important to have a PG and a post presence. That guy could be a PF or a C but you have to have someone who can consistently score inside and someone alongside him that can defend/rebound.

Sure you can win with average PG play but then you will need at least 2 good/great players at other positions to compensate. It's a hell of a lot easier to win when you have a quality PG running your team.

I also disagree about Parker not really breaking out until last year. He probably had his best post-season but he had some excellent playoff performances in the past as well. He has been averaging at least 16 points and 5 assists per game since his 2nd season and that is well above average PG play.

I dont think that 16 and 5 is above average. Even if it is its not differance making. I think TLue put up 12 and 6 a few seasons for us off the bench. Last year Parker exploded there is no doubt about that. Before that he was maybe their 3rd or 4th option. Even when the Spurs won with Avery Johnson he played good D and brought leadership but wasnt close to the most important player or option on the team.

[frosgrim]

Quote:

---

I think Duncun is more of a pf especially size wise. That Miami team that won was more Wade than Shaq. Now could they have won without Shaqs presence, prolly not. However Wade was clearly the man on that team and then some. He dominated. As far as the Dallas team they played thats just another example of not needing a great point and center to win.

You take Shaq out of that Miami line-up and they win 45 games and take an early exit to the Pistons. You would have Doleac playing C. Who can score on that team other than Wade? Walker? Williams? Come-on.

Dallas hasn't won a championship, therefore you prove the point that you need either a dominant C. Not sure what your point is there.

Duncan is a center. His size is equal to the average of other centers in the NBA. Is he as big as Shaq? No way, but then again no one was. Again, the hypothesis is partially supported, in that you don't have to have a dominant center to win; however, when you do have one, you win. Therefore, when there is a dominant center in the NBA he tends to win multiple championships.

Jordon is exception, but Jordon was so much better than everyone else the argument shows that the criteria is dominance. But it is hard to be domninant at the wings because there are so many good wings. Thus, centers tend to win championships.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think Duncun is more of a pf especially size wise. That Miami team that won was more Wade than Shaq. Now could they have won without Shaqs presence, prolly not. However Wade was clearly the man on that team and then some. He dominated. As far as the Dallas team they played thats just another example of not needing a great point and center to win.

You take Shaq out of that Miami line-up and they win 45 games and take an early exit to the Pistons. You would have Doleac playing C. Who can score on that team other than Wade? Walker? Williams? Come-on.

Dallas hasn't won a championship, therefore you prove the point that you need either a dominant C. Not sure what your point is there.

Duncan is a center. His size is equal to the average of other centers in the NBA. Is he as big as Shaq? No way, but then again no one was. Again, the hypothesis is partially supported, in that you don't have to have a dominant center to win; however, when you do have one, you win. Therefore, when there is a dominant center in the NBA he tends to win multiple championships.

Jordon is exception, but Jordon was so much better than everyone else the argument shows that the criteria is dominance. But it is hard to be domninant at the wings because there are so many good wings. Thus, centers tend to win championships.

I agree with this. Duncan is basically a center - he is bigger than a lot of HOF centers. Most championship teams have great post players.

Look at the great centers and see how many have won championships where they were the best player on the team:

Bill Russell - championships

Kareem - championships

Shaq - championships

Duncan - championships

Moses - championship

Wilt - championship

Hakeem - championships

etc.

With PGs, you have numerous top 10 ever PGs without a ring:

Magic - championships

Stockton - none

Isiah - championships

Oscar - none (Kareem was the best by far in '71)

Kidd - none

Cousy - championship (probably not the best player on those teams but won enough that I give him a pass)

Payton - none

Frazier - championship

Nash - none

The big man makes a lot bigger difference in terms of championship aspirations than the PG, IMO.

[Zone034life]

Quote:

---

I know some of you were saying Billy King knows how to build a team with a center and a point guard. I know alot of you say thats how titles are won. Well I think its pretty well established that is BULLSHYYT. Take Kings 76ers to start. Yes they made the playoffs this season with their best player being their pg Andre Miller and Dalembert is an ok center but they arent close to a title contender. When the 76ers made the finals their best player was an undersized 2 guard and they didnt really even have a center till we traded them Deke after the all star break. At that point Deke was at best all star reserve quality. Anyway they lost to a team that won 3 titles with a great center and 2 guard and pg's who I really cant even remember, Lue and Fischer maybe? far from great. Look at the Spurs they never have had anything close to a great point guard or center. Their best player is a pf and he has been the only mainstay to win all those titles beside the coach. Parker came of age last year but they won alot of titles before that and I still would not say Parker is great. How about the Bulls they had a All time 2 guard who was complimented well by a role playing sf. That team won 6 titles with nothing even close to a good point guard or center. The last team that won titles with a great point and great center was the old Lakers with Magic and Kareem. I think that proves you can win with one or the other or even neither.

Great players surrounded by good role players or great teams win champoinships. The position of the player isn't as important as: Can that player dominate a game at will? Do they demand a double leaving a role player(Kerr, paxson, etc.) open? Are they smart enough to realize when it is time to take over and when to pass? Do they have ice in their veins to win on an oppenents floor? Can they perform in the clutch? All these qualities embody players such as Jordan, Magic, Kobe and Bird. Having your best player have great basketball I.Q and having willing and able role players is key. Duncan has this as well.

As for great teams. They may not have that superstar but thier team is made up of unselfish players who if called upon can score for a certain period of time in a game(Billups,Rip,Rasheed,etc.). They also mustplay good team defense but be able to solid man 2 man defense.

The point guard center arguement is more focused on the Hawks team more than others. It has been such a bad spot on this team for so long it may be a little overblown. It just shows how Billy Knight didn't believe in having a great PG or dominate center. He focused more on long athletic players. Since the Hawks don't have a superstar there route to the promise land will be building a good team. Every position must be a player that has a purpose on the floor and serves a role. If not then this team will never be more than a middle or lower of the road eastern conference team.

[thefloydian]

Something you can't argue about is that the 3 is the least important position on the floor. That's why we have 4 of them.

Also, the center and point guard are the most important. Obviously, you can name teams that didn't have great players at both, but that's irrelevant.

[NJHAWK]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think Duncun is more of a pf especially size wise. That Miami team that won was more Wade than Shaq. Now could they have won without Shaqs presence, prolly not. However Wade was clearly the man on that team and then some. He dominated. As far as the Dallas team they played thats just another example of not needing a great point and center to win.

You take Shaq out of that Miami line-up and they win 45 games and take an early exit to the Pistons. You would have Doleac playing C. Who can score on that team other than Wade? Walker? Williams? Come-on.

Dallas hasn't won a championship, therefore you prove the point that you need either a dominant C. Not sure what your point is there.

Duncan is a center. His size is equal to the average of other centers in the NBA. Is he as big as Shaq? No way, but then again no one was. Again, the hypothesis is partially supported, in that you don't have to have a dominant center to win; however, when you do have one, you win. Therefore, when there is a dominant center in the NBA he tends to win multiple championships.

Jordon is exception, but Jordon was so much better than everyone else the argument shows that the criteria is dominance. But it is hard to be domninant at the wings because there are so many good wings. Thus, centers tend to win championships. You could not have watched those finals and think Miami would have had any chance in hell without Wade. Wade dominated those playoffs. Shaq was good but Wade was flat out incredible. My point about Dallas is that they made it to the finals and even had a 2-0 lead in those finals without a center or point. Then they pretty much choked. Last but not least dammit TIMMY IS A PF. He is a great post player but most great pf's are ala Barkley and the Mailman.

[NJHAWK]

I think Wade is a 3. Jordan was a 2 for the Bulls first run but when he came back after baseball he was more of a guard/ forward and relied on fade away jumpers. Their 2 was Paxon and Pippen was a point forward. Lebron took his team to the finals and he is a 3. I guess it just depends on who the 3 is. When the 3 is Marv THEN YES he isnt the most important.

[thefloydian]

Quote:

---

I think Wade is a 3. Jordan was a 2 for the Bulls first run but when he came back after baseball he was more of a guard/ forward and relied on fade away jumpers. Their 2 was Paxon and Pippen was a point forward. Lebron took his team to the finals and he is a 3. I guess it just depends on who the 3 is. When the 3 is Marv THEN YES he isnt the most important.

Neither Wade nor Jordan are or were 3s.

Lebron didn't really take his team anywhere. That wasn't a title contender, and he's also a freak of nature.

The small forward position should always be the last thing you're concerned with when building a team.

[Cwell]

yep and that's the only position Billy Knight drafted.He drafted 3 in one draft once,along with 2 more already here and he used the #2 pick the following year on another.

[Diesel]

NJ is the place for complainers. You guys are stuck between NY and Philly... why not complain.

Let's end this quickly shall we....

Here's a few questions I have that will clear it up.

1. How did Orlando make it to the finals? What about the Heat?

2. How did the Lakers 3 peat?

3. Do you really think Duncan is a "normal" PF?

4. How did Houston win 2 championships?

5. You talked about that Philly year and you said Deke came on late in the year but before that they had no C? Did you forget that that was Theo Ratliff's Allstar year? Did You know he wasn't just voted by the coaches as an also ran... He was the starter for the East team OVER Deke??

Now on to PGs..

1. What does Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson, Gary Payton, John Stockton, & Chauncey Billups have in common?

2. How many forward led teams have made it to the finals...?

3. Did you know that unless your name is Michael Jordan that over the last 30 years you are not going to win the finals without either an allstar PG or an allstar C? I'm willing to bet that that would probably cover the history of basketball.

I think that ends this diatribe.

QED.