Jon Stockton, Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose. What do they have in common? Great point guards, no rings. It seems more and more that the best point guards are ring-less. Despite some exceptions: Rondo, Billups, Parker (who besides Billups-which is arguable-were not the best players on their title teams), it seems like PG's don't equal ultimate success. My colleague Aon Hussain wrote an article to fluff out this argument:
What’s Your Point (Guard)?
Conventional wisdom states that there is no position more integral to the success of any franchise than that of point guard. The point guard is the quarterback - the floor general that uses his vision to get his teammates involved. Their dynamic abilities invoke a respect for holding on to the ball, spreading the floor out, and incorporating their teammates. And frankly, in the NBA there is a plethora of point guards that leap over hurdles to make their teams successful. Guys like Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Rajon Rondo, Deron Williams, and Derek Rose are counted on to provide not only basketball skills but leadership also. And for a lot of franchises, point guards like these make or break the team.
But thinking about point guards has me perplexed about a particular conclusion that I’ve recently come to. Even though I may sing praises about point guards, I realized that maybe point guards are not as important as many people think they are. Before I get ridiculed about my opinion, let’s just delve into my thought process. I thought about all the champions throughout my entire lifetime (f.y.i. - I was born in 1990). Of course my first thought was about the dynasty that I grew up watching. The images of Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen popping champagne after winning six championships rightfully conjured happy thoughts in my mind. Then I thought about role players on that squad. We had international flavor. There was the best Croation basketball player in NBA history Toni Kukoc and the best Austrailian player in basketball history in Luc Longley (I’m sorry Andrew Bogut, you might be more skilled and will probably end your career as one of the greatest Bucks to ever play, but you never played for the Bulls). Our front-court included the likes of all-star Horace Grant and rebounding machine Dennis Rodman. John Paxon and Steve Kerr were shooters that could light it up any minute. And our point guard happened to be pretty successful too. His name was Ron Harper.
Some will argue that Harper was great before he came to Chicago. He averaged 20 points a game on occasion. Furthermore, people argue that he became an unselfish player and completely changed his game so that he could win a couple championships. He could’ve filled in the stat sheet, but he chose not to out of respect for winning. This is true to an extent. What these believers fail to point out is that Harper was past his prime when he came to the Bulls. He was 31. That might not seem too old considering that Steve Nash is 36 now, but there is no doubt Ron Harper at 23 was far more different of a player than Ron Harper at 31. A clear indication of this is shooting percentage. His shooting percentage dropped substantially as soon as he donned a Bulls uniform. And we shouldn’t forget that he played for the Cleveland Cavaliers and Los Angeles Clippers. While the Cavs made the Eastern Conference finals during his stint there, the Clippers were horrendous during his stay there. This is why numbers are deceiving. Ron Harper put up good numbers on a crappy team for a portion of his career.
All this talk is not meant to take away from Ron Harper’s importance to the Bulls. He ran the triangle offense with ease. He was an efficient player, but his numbers were just alright. With the Bulls, the most points he averaged was 11.2 in 1999 (after Jordan retired and after GM Jerry Krause began to disassemble the franchise) and the most assists he averaged was 3.4 in 2000. He was a solid player, but definitely not crucial to the Bulls’ success. He could have been replaced by a bevy of other players and the Bulls still would have won championships.
The notion that a point guard is the most important position is defied by logic if you look into other champions as well. The most clear cut examples are the two different Los Angeles Lakers dynasties. Both teams were spearheaded by Derek Fisher. Fisher is no doubt one of the most efficient point guards in NBA history. He rarely turns the ball over and understands that there are players better than him at doing certain things. He understood that Kobe Bryant/Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant/Paul Gasol were far more important to the success of his franchise as well. His career averages of 9 points and 3 assists are respectable but they don’t jump out of the page either. Just like Harper, the Lakers could’ve had another player run the show and they still probably would have won the championship. While I understand Fisher hit some important shots, who is to say another player would not have made those same shots had Fisher not been on the same squad?
But what about the San Antonio Spurs? They had Tony Parker win the Finals MVP. Nonetheless, Tim Duncan made that team. And did I mention that the Spurs played the Cavs that year in the finals? The Cavs were a team that had no right to be playing at that stage because they played in the NBA Junior Varsity league that was the Eastern Conference. And of course Parker will put up wonderful numbers if he is being guarded by a combination of Damon Jones and Eric Snow. I will give him the benefit of the doubt in the Nets’ series as he was a formidable force in the success of the Spurs. But he wasn’t there for the initial Spurs championship. At that point Avery Johnson was guiding the team to victory. He was a good point guard, but of course he was bound to put up big numbers with guys like Tim Duncan and David Robinson in the paint. And as I’ve reiterated numerous times, he could’ve been replaced with other players and the Spurs still would have won the championship.
Another name that will come up for debate will be that of Rajon Rondo and the Celtics. Granted, right now Rondo is one of the best point guards in the league but if anybody remembers correctly, he was the biggest liability for the Celtics during the playoffs when the Celts won the championship. He wasn’t as developed of a player as he is now nor did he have a grasp on basketball IQ at that stage in his career. Sure he averaged good numbers, but that team relied on Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen more than anything. While Rondo has grown since then and is arguably the best player the Celtics have in present time, he was not the main ingredient on that team in their recipe for success. His impact, while important for any role player, was not the ultimate reason as to why the Celtics won on the big stage.
For all the disagreement that I’m sure to get on this topic, let me bring up another team that has won in my lifetime without a good point guard. Dwayne Wade carried an aging Shaquille O’Neal and an above average team on his back when the Heat came out of nowhere and shocked the Dallas Mavericks in 2006. That team was led by White Chocolate Jason Williams. While known to be a flashy player who had no inhibitions over his temperament, Williams was aged and years from his prime. He could’ve been replaced by me and the Heat would still have won.
Now that isn’t to say point guard weren’t crucial to some championships. There is no doubt in my mind that without Chauncey Billups, the Pistons probably would have never even reached the Finals let alone win the title. And the Rockets’ duo of Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell were instrumental in them winning it all. But looking over all the NBA champions in my lifetime, the point guard was for the most part the third or fourth option on many championship teams. Many times they could’ve been replaced by other players, and that team still would’ve won. I mean there are clouds that exist among players like Tony Parker and Rajon Rondo, but we shouldn’t let their current success taint our objectivity in determining how important they were to their squads early in their career. Nonetheless, they weren’t the reason their teams won the championships, even though they played important roles for their squads. And while guys like Ron Harper and Derek Fisher were dependable players, they weren’t too important to their teams’ success. And as I’ve said time and time again, my point is that maybe the point isn’t as important as people make it out to be.
