http://www.sportingnews.com/voices/sean_deveney/20030319.html Two point guards are better than one March 19, 2003 Sean Deveney Sporting News The Bucks, Sam Cassell says, are different. In the pantheon of point guard pairings, according to Sam, you have to go beyond modern basketball and into the history books to find an equal to the tandem Cassell forms with his recently acquired backcourt mate, Gary Payton. Mention that some of the point guard duos going today are pretty good, and he rolls his eyes. "They don't bring it like we bring it, man," Cassell says. "We bring it like Joe Dumars and Isiah. I mean, we bring it like Walt and Earl." Whoa, fella. That's Walt Frazier and Earl Monroe you're talking about. Certainly, the Bucks are a unique bunch in the way they employ both Payton and Cassell, but this happens to be a heyday when it comes to playing a pair of aces at the same time. Payton and Cassell are headliners, but an increasing number of teams -- New Orleans, Houston, Golden State and Memphis, for example -- are finding ways to get two point men on the floor at the same time, and they are reaping the benefits. Even before the current incarnation of the Bucks, two teams were pushing the envelope when it comes to using two point guards at the same time. Dallas, after acquiring Nick Van Exel from the Nuggets last February, moved Van Exel to a sixth man role, teaming him at times with starting point guard Steve Nash. This gave the Mavericks two All-Star point guards still in the primes of their careers, another setup truly worthy of a Walt-and-Earl comparison. No team did more for the legitimacy of a two-point attack, though, than the Kings, who basically stumbled into the new look in last season's playoffs. An ankle injury to All-Star forward Peja Stojakovic forced Sacramento to use a lineup of starting point guard Mike Bibby and supersub Bobby Jackson in the playoffs, two players barely 6 feet tall. The pair diced Dallas' defense in the second round and did the same to the mighty Lakers in the West finals, running rings around Lakers epicenter Shaquille O'Neal. Sacramento nearly won the series, taking the Lakers to a seventh-game overtime (in fact, coach Rick Adelman's failure to have Bibby and Jackson on the floor together down the stretch of Game 7 is one of Kings fans' great playoff laments). The series proved that the idea of exposing superior size with quickness was more than a gimmick. As Lakers forward Robert Horry put it: "They sneak through little holes and crevices. They're hard to find." Coming down the stretch of the season and heading into the playoffs, fine-tuning the dual-point guard system is paramount for the Finals hopes of Dallas, Sacramento and Milwaukee, teams that eschew the accepted notion of plopping Goliaths in the paint. Little wonder the three teams rank among the top four in scoring. There are several, deep-seated reasons why using two point guards is successful, and those reasons won't change soon, which probably will lead to more teams using the strategy in the future. Reason 1: Point guards aren't point guards anymore. If you check the league leaderboard, under assists you'll see that 8.0 has become a benchmark. Only three players (Jason Kidd, Payton and Stephon Marbury) are averaging at least 8.0 assists. If that holds for the rest of the season, there will be fewer players who average at least 8.0 assists than in any season since 1980-81. No one is averaging as many as 9.0 assists, which has not happened since 1976-77. That's not because players have become ballhogs. It's because defenses are much tighter now and do a better job in passing lanes. Thus, it's not acceptable to have a point guard who simply handles the ball and passes. The point guard must be able to break inside of defenses with penetration, make his passes from inside the paint and be a scoring weapon -- even the three guys who average at least 8.0 assists are scoring more than 19.0 points per game. Big men have to do their part to keep the ball moving and chip in with assists to support the point guards. If there is an advantage in having one point guard who can break down a defense, naturally, there is a bigger advantage in having two. The Kings, for instance, like to have Bibby and Jackson set up on opposite wings, allowing them to penetrate the defense from either side. "Defenses are so good that you need scoring from every position you can get it," Marbury says. "If I'm a general manager, I want a point guard who can score and pass. You need two guards who can break people down and get to the basket." Reason 2: Organized mayhem favors those who make the mayhem. Plugging two point guards into a lineup can create matchup nightmares, as the Lakers found against the Kings last year. With two quick ballhandlers driving the tempo, the Kings, Mavericks and Bucks are able to play havoc with defenses and score in bunches, meaning double-digit leads are not necessarily safe. Says Warriors coach Eric Musselman, whose team surrendered a 17-point fourth-quarter lead to the Bucks two weeks ago, "They create confusion, but they do it enough that they're not the ones who are confused." The benefits of having two point guards are obvious when a team is running a fast break -- having two quick ballhandlers ensures that the ball will beat lagging defenders up the floor. But two point guards can create problems for the defense in the halfcourt game, too, mostly by inverting the offense. What that means is getting the point guards into the paint and moving big guys to the perimeter, either for jump shots or for passing. Defenses are not designed to handle big men wandering the perimeter or to stop point guards who can set up near the basket. The Kings are masters when it comes to inverting the offense because they have two gems in the frontcourt -- Vlade Divac and Chris Webber -- who are among the best big men in the game at passing and making midrange jumpers. The Mavericks are able to take advantage of the perimeter shooting skill of Dirk Nowitzki and Raef LaFrentz in this way, with Nash and Van Exel providing kick-outs off of penetration. The Bucks, with the two best post-up point guards in the league in Cassell and Payton, are a matchup nightmare, leaning on big man Anthony Mason to do much of the ball distribution from the top of the key (see diagram). "There are times," says Bucks small forward Desmond Mason, "when we set up and you can tell the defense has no idea what to do. I think that obviously means we have an advantage." Reason 3: Defensive liabilities are overstated. The common argument against using two point guards is that it gives easy shots to opposing shooting guards, who make use of their size advantage against smaller point guards. To an extent, that is true, but the liability does not outweigh the benefits. For one thing, the liability often is a mirage. If a shooting guard is being defended by a smaller point guard, the temptation is to go into the post and expose the size advantage. But most guards are no good in the post, even against a smaller defender, so they wind up forcing themselves into places where they are not comfortable. For another thing, added quickness can be a weapon on defense -- two point guards can put more pressure on ballhandlers, trap quickly and create steals while protecting the ball on the offensive end. It's no coincidence that Dallas, Sacramento and Milwaukee are in the league's top 10 in steals per turnover. When the Bucks joined the Kings and Mavs among the NBA's two-point elite with the Payton trade in February, speculation held that Cassell and Payton would not be able to work together. In fact, Cassell has been playing the best basketball of his career, averaging 22.7 points, 5.3 rebounds and 7.0 assists in the Bucks' first 10 games with Payton. Payton, meanwhile, boosted his numbers, shooting 46.4 percent with 21.1 points and 8.2 assists. The Bucks started 5-7 with Payton and Cassell playing together, but they expect the pairing to pay off when the rest of the team gets used to the new backcourt -- hopefully, come playoff time. Walt and Earl? Maybe. "Anybody who thought we couldn't play together wasn't thinking right," Payton says. "The way things are now, every team ought to have two point guards out there." E-mail staff writer Sean Deveney at sdeveney@sportingnews.com. OKAY. This is me. Now the part I do not understand is..."Payton and Cassell are headliners, but an increasing number of teams -- New Orleans, Houston, Golden State and Memphis, for example -- are finding ways to get two point men on the floor at the same time, and they are reaping the benefits." Is he joking? HOUSTON?!? We are not reaping any benefits. Does he mean Francis and Moochie do well together for about 6 minutes? Or is he talking about Francis and Mobley? Cuz Mobley is not a point guard. Wouldn't it be good with Francis...a point guard, and a true point guard? In another article...about "Identified foreign objects: Underaged arrive from overseas" by Sean Deveney... http://www.sportingnews.com/voices/sean_deveney/20030318-p.html SPELL IT: Zoran Planinic Say it: ZOR-an PLAH-nih-nik Basics: 6-7, 195, 20, PG/SG. Playing for Cibona in his home country of Croatia. Of note: Planinic opened eyes last year when, as a 19-year-old Croatian playing in a Serbian gym (against Partizan), he scored 28 points despite being hit by fans' batteries and coins. He's a solid all-around player with good size for a point guard. Draft speak: Will go in the 20s. Wouldn't it be nice to get him?
He hasn't watched the Rockets much with their heralded slow walk up the floor, dribble into a crowd at the last second and throw a prayer/wild pass into the stand show, while the other four guys watch in slight boredom of history repeating itself.
That's actually a great article. Like the previous poster said, that article basically points out that Mobley needs to go and get a purer-point' in the backcourt with Stevie. Stevie can still handle some ball-handling duties, but it would take A LOT of pressure off of him if we were to get a PG.
See here's the problem. Everyone thinks Steve is a 2, when he's a 1, who needs a PG with him at the 2. If we get a PG, we're not converting Steve into a SG, we're merely playing 2 PG's.
Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying, Sane. I've said before I would like for Steve to remain the 'point' b/c it is my opinion that what will separate him from other PG is his scoring ability. If he just learns to mix that ability with more of a pure-PG's mentality -- like he's starting to do -- he'll be all right. He's getting better and putting another PG with him would only further his development. But having Mobley with him -- like now -- doesn't work. I think most would agree with this.
The article is certainly valid. I have seen those tandems, (Cassell, Payton), (Nash, Van Exel), and (Bibby, Jackson) creating mayhem and problem for the opposite team. On the Rockets, either (Francis, Mobley) or (Francis, Norris) or (Mobley, Norris) only create problems for themselves. Those other guys run a continuous, fluid play that does not give the defense a chance to rest or set up. When our guys do the same, the result is also good. More often than not, each of our guy pauses for 3,5 secs every time he receives the ball and allows the defense to reset and double, triple team the dribbler. We end up with a far more unfavorable result.
IMO, the article is a little biased. For perspectives sake it should be noted that Nash plays 32.8 mpg and NVE 27.5 mpg. It's not like they play the whole game with two PG's. In the Payton/Cassell example, Sam plays 34.5 mpg and Payton 39.4. Considering that Redd, Desmond Mason and Kukoc all get signifcant minutes, it's obvious (at least to me) that the Bucks don't use two fulltime PG's either.
Perhaps folks are getting too hung on the phrase "point guard". What Franchise is better described ast the team's "lead" guard. despite the belief he is not a "traditional", "pure", "ideal type" or whatever other adjective you sih to put in front of the word "guard", Francis is an extremely effective one (which ever way you look at it). And who is to say you need a "Stockton-like" PG? i don't remember one of the Bulls. heck, was Thomas one for the Pistons?. Or the Lakers. Sure, each of those teams had supremely talented players that could move the ball and overhwhelm their opponents with their talent, but teams can and do win without a "ball distributor" at the "PG" position... just means you need to have another player that can distribute the ball. And equally importantly, you need to be able to counter the defensive situation. Take PHI for example... I-i-iverson is their "lead" guard. And they can balance but he really is there SG. They have a big "PG" in Eric Snow. Snow is big enough and physical enough to defend the SG. I have a hunch that's what the Rockets hope for in Tito Maddox... that he will be a "Snow-like" guard. In the mean time Mobely and Francis are our guards... and most times they are better than the other team's guards. No need to get too worried about the backcourt (though I would like to get a shooter with some ability to defend as a backup... Jon Barry or Eric Piatkowski types...)
I think Redd would be perfect for the Rockets, you could even keep Mobley and bring him off the bench.
On the flip side, there were a number of articles a few years back that argued the pg position was obsolete. The Bulls never had a true pg, and the Lakers don't either. Some even argued Magic and Isiah were scoring pgs, not Stockton/Kidd pgs.
Trade Mobley for a great shooter, and the Rockets are made for the next 5-6 years. If Mobley would just play for the team and not for him self, then the Rockets would be in the playoffs for sure. Sadly we are on the brink of missing them because of our selfish play of Cat. I was a big Cat supporter untill I had a chance to actually goto one of the games. I was suprised how offten Mobley just WOULD NOT pass the ball when he didn't have a shot. JUST PASS THE DAMN BALL!!
The difference is that those guys were smart ballers - while Francis, though more athletically gifted, is simply DUMB. Mobley is dumber. That is our problem.
http://www.sportingnews.com/voices/sean_deveney/20030318-p.html Well I was reading this article about all these foreigners that are going to be drafted in the first round. Is Bostjan Nachbar as good as any of them? What a wasted pick...Kareem Rush or Manu Ginobili would have been nice. I think Micheal Redd would be wonderful. Certainly, he would love to come here and get more playing time...he would be great. Because we need a shooter. Brent Barry would be nice. Marko Jaric would be nice. Lamar Odom wuld be nice. SPELL IT: Slavko Vranes Say it: SLAHV-ko VRAH-nish Basics: 7-6, 300 pounds, 20, C. A reserve for -- you guessed it -- Buducnost in his home country. Of note: He's very raw. A contractual issue forced him to sit out last year, impeding his development. He's huge, though, and his lack of development means he is a 7-6 blank slate for a patient team to mold. Draft speak: A late first-round pick. SLAVKO VRANES would be nice. I just hope Bostjan Nachbar can be a pleasant surprise next year somehow...
The one thing that they don't mention in the artical... DEFENSE!!! Since Payton has come aboard, the Bucks are even worse than they were before tradeing Allen. Yes, Payton is one of the greatest defenders of all time, but at his age, he has no chance at guarding any SG, not to mention that the East is chawk full of great SG's. If we move Steve to the two, I doubt we will ever have a defense worth talking about.
Payton would be a brilliant addition. He's just perfect for this team. He'd take the leadership immediately, DEMAND defense, and teach Francis a few things about being a leader/PG. He's also a great defensive player himself. Payton had Seattle at 9th while he was in Seattle, so imagine where we could be if Payton replaced Mobley?
I'm beginning to think more and more that's the case... We just need a good 2 as Mobley is ok, but for Yao and the team to flourish, some new faces are needed...
