The Spurs alone have won 20% of the championships in the last 20 years. I feel no need to look at other teams for my statement to be true.
No other team supports your statement, and your statement relies entirely on an outlier (playing alongside Duncan, the GOAT PF). Also, Parker wasn't a star in 2003 or 2005. Having a star pg is overrated.
But are you really comparing the Rockets to those teams? Those teams had a great system with two way players along with a great coach. Our team has Harden and Howard, Ariza, and a bunch of marginal dudes and D-Leaguers with an incompetent coach
I 100% agree with you on this. I have been making this argument for years now. There is a reason why John Stockton, CP3, Deron Williams, Gary Payton and Steve Nash do not have rings. You could have add Jason Kidd to this list too since he won one so late in his career and most definitely was not the star on the team. Tony Parker is an exception bc the SYSTEM works. My belief that ball-dominant pg's with 10+ assists do not lead to championships. They lead to highlight reel plays. I haven't looked up the stats, but I'm pretty sure that Tony Parker never averaged more than 10 assists a game. If he did, i still believe that its the system and he is one of the few exceptions to the rule bc he is a smart player who happens to be a better scorer than a playmaker. IMHO, you need elite wings and elite bigs to win chips with a smart PG and supporting cast who can keep the TO's low.
The above also does not mean that Beverly is the guy, I am just saying that a ball dominant pg is not the answer. Also, I checked and TP career avg is 6 assists per game with 2.5 TO.
10% is not an outlier even though by 2005 he was a star in my book. He was an all-star in 2006. There are plenty of teams to support the defensive PG part of the statement. Also, winning NBA Finals MVP equals star in my book (Billups). Jason Kidd also was an NBA champion a year after being an all-star. For me to be wrong, there has to be greater than 50% of NBA championship PGs that are neither stars nor are defensive points. I count Fisher and Chalmers as defensive points. Fisher may not have been that great a defensive point, but he sure wasn't a traditional PG. No, it doesn't. My statement also included defensive points like Fisher (granted he isn't the best defensive point) and Chalmers. My statement was aimed at traditional PGs that are neither stars (and never will be) and that are also not defensive points.
The outlier is playing alongside one of the top 10 GOATs. Your book would rather determine a player's caliber based on a single finals series as opposed to an 82-game season? There's something wrong with your book. When Kidd won a ring, he was indisputably a role player.
Hopefully Beverly's jumpsuit becomes less flat he hits it at a fair rate, but I still cringe a little when I see it lol. Lets see what illness-free, with an offseason of training can do.
There is something wrong in my book? The best evidence you have presented against Championship teams tending to have either a star PG or a defensive PG is 2 future HOF PGs (one being a very good defensive PG), and a five-time all-star, NBA Finals MVP, who was snubbed for the all-star game the year he won his ring and also was a two time all defensive selection, second team. Please show me 10 years in the last 20 that the NBA champion did not have a star PG or a defensive PG? Who are these traditional PGs that aren't stars and are not defensive PGs winning all these championships?
i like beverley, and i think he could be a part of a championship roster assuming he is surrounded by players who he compliments well. he is a defensive hustler, that is his primary role. he speeds up the tempo of the game and gets his team mates to work harder. although if we are relying on him to put up points or assists night in and night out, then i dont think he is our man.
When did I ever say we didn't need a defensive pg? I didn't. You originally said: I pointed out that not many championship teams have star point guards, and you've tried to twist that into me saying "not many championship teams have star point guards or defensive point guards". Basically, your "star pg" option is unnecessary.
Beverley is a perfect fit as long as harden is in houston. In regards to wanting/needing an elit pg or not, I don't think there's a single given formula to what you need except for an elite guard and big. I also don't think you can ONLY look at the teams that have won titles, but the teams that have gone to the conference finals and finals as well. Players like stockton, kidd (NJ days), westbrook, nash and probably some others i'm forgetting had high levels of success without winning it all. I would have taken any of those guys (except stockton ) to lead my team any day of the week
1) We lack a playmaking guard/forward outside of Harden 2) We lack a PF that can hit a jumpshot and not get destroyed on the defensive end 3) We lack depth, and not just the kind you need to fill out a two deep. We need crossover depth....guys that can reliably play multiple positions. In an ideal world, you'd have Bev coming off the bench for starter-like minutes. Your starting PG would be a combo guard that can be a plus distributor and scorer. Bev would come in when either Harden or the other guard sit, or when we want to go small. Daniels is your 3 point specialist until he shows he can hold his own on the defensive end. One thing of note regarding our PF spot......i think we are going after a more offensive oriented player. Signing Ariza, Dorsey, and Adrien to go along with Dwight gives you a lot of defensive flexibility, but leaves something to be desired on offense.
Is Beverly the PG of our future? Not of our future, because as Morey stated, we don't pay those players we find them.
My statement included defensive PGs so by saying "No other team supports your statement, and your statement relies entirely on an outlier (playing alongside Duncan, the GOAT PF)", I interpret this as you saying no point guard outside of Parker in two seasons was either a star or defensive. How else am I suppose to interpret that? Star PGs was included in my statement specifically to include Tony Parker and Billups. Even without Billups, Parker has enough rings (even if you negate first or even second ring) to justify inclusion of star PGs, imo.
