Are points guards needed to win NBA titles?

Cheers mate, great post.

As a former point guard and rugby union scrum half I loved that comparison. This was a really intriguing article and discussion, and I agree with what a lot of people have said above. I’d also offer in consideration the idea of playmakers vs. point guards and how possessions are used. The point guard is the archetypal playmaker, but very often in the deciding moments of a game the team’s best ball handling player will direct play, whether that’s the point guard or some other player. The playoffs and finals are kind of like test rugby, everything gets tightened up. Benches get shortened and coaches try to limit possessions to their absolute best players in order to get an advantage, like mushi says. Many times this can be a point guard (like Tony Parker in ’07) but what we’ve often seen over the last 30 years is larger playmakers taking over (like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Kobe, LeBron). A point guard is more likely to get bullied out of a game than a larger, stronger player. Take for instance Tony Parker this year, LeBron was wearing him like a shirt and completely wore him out by the last 2 games. It’s not impossible to win with a point guard as your best player, but it’s more difficult I have to think (let’s be fair, unless you have LeBron on your team it’s going to be pretty difficult regardless). It pains me to admit as the typical short and snappy point guard/scrum half but basketball really is more often a larger man’s game. I wrote a lot, I probably could've just emphasized your paragraph saying, "In modern times, we see players becoming more multi-skilled, they are bigger, faster and stronger, so it makes sense, if you have a good enough big man who can pass, to run the offense through them (like LeBron)." 6"7 guys made of brick who can pass, shoot, and drive are the ultimate offensive weapon in this game.

True, but then Phil Jax, Tex and Johhny came along and used a point forward to initiate the halfcourt triangle offence.

For those that don't know Micheal Jordan played a bit of season of point-guard in the 80's in 1989. And the coach wanted to leave him there, but Air Jordan, didn't want to. He wanted to be a ball hog and big scoring numbers, all about the endorsement deals and Marketing, was MJ. For the record In that eleven game run, Jordan averaged 33.6 points, 10.8 rebounds, and 11.4 assists. But he didn't like it lol. Some of us can be picky and switch and have the bargaining power to look in the mirror in the morning, and say it's all about the marketing. That's MJ for you, marketing.$.

No probs, if was more a commentary on how the old school pg has changed, not underwhelming players. Who wouldnt want a scoring "combo" guard like Parker etc on their team.

I think I get where your driving but it reads like you are saying that teams are winning despite (in your words) underwhelming play from the point. I think what has actually happened is the game has changed so what you regard as underwhelming is in fact excellent Pg play in today's environment. I think if you play a PG like John Stockton today your team, absent a mega star, is at a major disavantage to one that plays a Westbrook on offence. But then if you played PG like Russell Westbrook in the late 80s your offence would be a train wreck of turnovers.

True Mushi, again, it was just a discussion point about how the old school, traditional "pass first" pont guards are perhaps not as integral when it comes to success.

Last time I checked, Parker has played his entire career at PG...how does that make him a combo guard exactly?

the other problem is the "traditional" PG narrow line of thinking. The game evolves good PG's are now penetrators. If your PG can't get into the paint and collapse the defense then he flat out isn't that good point guard. It's like asking how many wars are won with traditional knights on horse back these days.

Tony Parker and Chauncey aren't pure point guards they are combo guards

Toney Parker 2005/07 Rajon Rondo 2008 Jason Kidd 2011 Chauncey Billups 2004

Agree mate, pretty narrow constraints, but you are correct, its a superstar driven league. Great response and points made.

This article was written to provoke discussion about how traditional point guards have not been as successful in the last 30 years. Its not a matter of me being right, its fact. What other facts would you like me to find? What other research would you like? Ive merely presented some facts in the hope of discussion. If you want to be petulent then so be it. Ill throw some stuff at you. The Big O (one of the most versitile players ever) won his title in the early 70s, ditto Frazier and Cousey even earlier. I did miss Tiny Archibald though in 81 for the Celtics, so apologies for that. Please note, I admit I did have narrow contraints ie traditional, pass first PG,the last 30 years and winning a championship. All the players you have named are great players however.

DJ was a great player, but not a top class PG. He was smart and tough and above all a winner, but not a "traditional" 1.

APologies Jake, I was more talking about the Bulls guards, and the rest (like Parker) are not "traditional" PGs, though they are good players in their own right.

Traditionally championships were determined by dominant big men. A key reason for this is, I believe, that a great centre can have a far greater effect on the defensive end - far more than even the best perimeter defenders. Until Jordan came along there were not too many examples of teams winning a championship with a leading centre or power forward. This trend has changed somewhat with defensive rules adjusted to make perimeter scoring more palpable. Not to mention the greater reliance on the three-point shot. Nevertheless, since 2000 Shaq and Duncan won eight championships between them and Kobe didn't look likely to win numbers four or five until Pau Gasol came to town. The last time a team won a title with a PG as their best player was with Magic Johnson, although some might argue that LeBron effective plays the PG role (in addition to most other positions as well). The main thing to note is that the NBA is a superstar driven league. Magic / Bird won eight between them, Jordan won six, Shaq / Duncan won eight and now LeBron has two. That is 24 titles since 1980. If you don't have the best player (or the next best player) you are highly unlikely to win a title and PGs are rarely the best player in the league. But I think it should be said that 'championships' are too narrow a definition of success. Only one team per season achieves that. And yet there is countless examples of fantastic PGs having a material impact on their teams success. An injury to Westbrook completely derailed the Thunders season, the Clippers would not have made the playoffs without Chris Paul. Steve Nash at the Suns had an incredible effect on his teams performance, as did Jason Kidd at the Nets. It isn't that they are not important it is simply that they haven't quite been good enough.

Karl Malone wouldn't have been as dominant as he was with out John Stockton.... Magic Johnson was a PG and arguably the greatest player of all time..... I'm not sure what this article was supposed to provoke other then why waste time posing a question that raises eyebrows more then a thought process of wow maybe he's right..... Looking back on PG's Walt Frazier won titles with the Knicks Bob Cousy with the Celtics Isaiah Thomas, Oscar Robertson Nate Archibald, With the change in style and athleticism in the NBA we see different styles, but Steve Nash, Jason Kidd Gary Payton and tony Parker are all hall of famers, I know they haven't all won titles but they are definitely large factors in their teams respective success....... Fact finding mission for next time do some research.....

Dennis Johnson from the Boston Celtics was a wonderful point guard in the 80's. He was a shooting guard at Seattle, and Phoenix, but played all his time at Celtics as a point guard. Larry Bird said he was the best player he played with, and Magic said he was the best back court defender he played against. Awsome player.

So I guess Russell Westbrook, Rajon Rondo, Tony Parker, Chauncey Billups, Isaiah Thomas, and Maurice Cheeks don't count as pure point guards? Do you need one? No. But the same can be said about any position; the Heat won without a dominating big, the Pistons and Spurs won without a dominating forward, and like you said, some teams have won without point guards.

Traditionally, it's been big men who have been the most important factor in winning a championship. In recent times, that's shifted from centres to power forwards. Jordan bucked the trend in being the dominant player from a guard position and Lebron has done the same from small forward, but post-Jordan the league had a fixation on building around shooting guards when it as the centres and the power forwards that won the titles. The point guards you mentioned were no mugs, though. Generally speaking, anybody who plays on a championship team is no mug. It's more of a case that the best point guards in the league haven't been on the strongest teams.