What`s The Most Important Position On A Basketball Team?

There is a school of thought that says the point is obsolete. Was Magic a point "guard"? What kind of point did Jordan rely on? Hakeem? Shaq?

IF you have a weapon the other team CAN'T stop, you don't need a talent that can get EVERYONE involved. You need a guy who feeds that Monster, perfectly.

Now, who's going to feed Yao, in a position where he CAN'T be stopped? I think, shooting from the high post, in the triangle, it could be any smart tall guy. No one can stop Yao from shooting over, if he hooks, or fades. He's just not a low post bulldozer. He's a really really good high post finesse guy. Can JVG handle that?

If he learns to get seperation, it's over. Then Yao can really demand the pounding that will free up other options from his passing attack. He'll also get the foul. Right now, he hasn't earned it. Yao needs some school on working the lane.

 

But if your QB has bad rec's then he isnt going to do well isnt he. At least Vick can create plays, if he cannot see anyone open. He can just take off and gain some yards rushing.

 

In this day and age (aka the ZONE), no one single player can dominate the game like Shaq and MJ used to. It's more of a team game now, ask KG and he'll tell ya.
A good point guard wins more for your team. Look at the Serbia Montenegro and Argentina national teams. Also the U.S. team that dominated the Americas tournament with Kidd doing the QB.

 

A dominant post player with an adequate PG beats a dominant PG with an adequate post player.

Red Auerbach was once asked if Bird and Russell were both available in the same draft, which one would he pick. After much deliberation, Auerbach picked Russell. His logic? All things being equal, you take the bigger player.

IMO, there isn't a team in the league that couldn't win with Shaq on their team. I doubt that same thing could be true of adding Kidd or Payton or Nash or whomever you think is the leagues' best PG to every team.

Another case in point. As much talent as DAL has assembled and as good as Nash is (or Van Exel was), barring a freak injury to Duncan or Shaq they will never win the West.

Winning in the NBA is all about matchups. And the better advanage a team has closer to the basket, the better off they will be.

And for those who think the zone has changed this? Zones are notorious for leaving defenders out of position for rebounds. A dominant big man will get his offensive putbacks. And besides few (no?) NBA zone busters are PG's. It's still about matchups from the inside out.

 

As almost everyone in this thread is driving toward, but nobody has said, that the most important position on any team is the one played by the weakest player.

 

Last time a dominant PG took a team to a title in the last twenty five years was Isiah Thomas. Magic had Kareem. Jordan at SG took teams to titles without dominant big men but that was with a SF that was also considered a top five player. I think that's what makes Jordan GOAT because he did it in an era of great big men. But even Jordan had serviceable PGs.

PGs have been serviceable for the other champs as well, the Rockets, Lakers and Spurs. A big man like Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, if you can get one, is by far the most mportant, and your bet chance for a title. Then you build around him. Remains to be seen if Rockets have a title type big man in Yao. Also possible that LeBron may be the next Jordan-type exception to the rule if they can put a few right pieces arund him.

 

statistically speaking and theoretically speaking, the point guard is the most important position because he, in theory, handles the basketball more. He has the ball in his possession 98% of the time on offense. So essentially, he's the initiator of the offense.

BUT....

I think, as we have seen, you really need a good big man AKA the center. Sure he's not as mobile as the PG and he doesn't handle the ball as well as a PG, but he brings the other intangibles. He's the MAIN guy that is supposed to stop the offense from scoring either by blocking their shots or making them change their shots (as seen during Dream's career). Just by making the opposition change his shot can do wonders for the team. It's like with Yao right now. SOME teams change their game plan because they know that there's a 7'5" guy waiting for them at the basket. Thus, they have to learn towards the perimeter game.

And lets not forget the rebounding as well. Where would the Pistons be without Ben Wallace? Or the Spurs without Tim Duncan? A Timberwolve team without KG in the paint would be just another Eastern-esque team. The PG might have the ball in his hands 98% of the time but the center can change the opposition's chances a good deal as well.

And tack on the fact that if a center is an offensive threat, it's game over. I'm not talking about Shaq either. I'm talking about the centers that come at you with various moves like Dream, David Robinson, Tim Duncan (he's a center man. end of story), etc. They not only defend well but they also can kill you at the other end of the court. Yea some might say "well how does he get the ball in the first place?". Well it doesn't have to BE the PG that gives him the ball. Players like Robert Horry feed their big men with the best of them. It only takes a decent passer to get the big man the ball.

Now y'all will argue about Jordan, who didn't play with a dominating center. That's true. BUT when you have 4 guys on the court that can basically shut down the other team (Ron Harper, Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman) you can basically make up for having only an avg center. Does this counterargue with my points about having a dominant center? Maybe but lets not forget the fact that Jordan NEVER had to face an Olajuwon or an O'neal in his prime or even a Duncan. Ewing? Please, he can't even be compared to the likes of Dream, O'neal or Duncan. Would it have mattered if Jordan had faced any of these centers with their respective championship team? I think it would but then again...Jordan IS Jordan.

 

Depends on what league you're talking about. In the college game, I would say it is a point guard since the experience of the majority of the players is still at the learning level. Most teams that have success in the NCAA Tournament have hisotrically been built around a top point guard.

In the NBA I would say it is the power forward/center (these two positions have merged into one the last decade in my opinion) as is evidenced by the kind of teams that historically contend and win it all. Even in today's NBA where the fans relate most to the penetrating guard, it is the power/forward center that anchors the Lakers and the Spurs. There are exceptions, but I'm using majority rule in my analysis.

 

I dont like the football analogy too much (QB=PG). Reason being is that in basketball, you play both offense AND defense. That being said, a Center is crucial to a basketball teams defense.

Thus, I can see the rational of the PG being more important on offense, but when you include the defensive element to the game, then I vote for Centers hands down.

 

I'll tell you why point guard is the most important spot on the floor. When I was in h/s, as one of our pair of 6-5/ 6-6 post players, I played with one of the best point guards ever to play at my school. We won a state championship thanks to his ability to be unselfish, get us in our h/c offense and make players better with his deft passing. He could score points in bunches as well. The next year, he graduates and my average sinks five points and we bow out early in the playoffs. That was proof positive you have to build a team around a great point, otherwise, the team will not be as good as it could be.

 

Hikanoo has a good point about having to include offense AND defense. Guys like Duncan and Shaq can change the game on both ends of the floor. Guys like Kidd, Kobe and Tracy simply can't alter the game as significantly.

 

There is a major difference if you are comparing playground, high school or maybe even college to the NBA. In playground ball, the game is generally more fast breaks so PGs have an edge since they control the game.

ALso, in High School and College, the game is more structured (dont shoot until 45 seconds into the play). And most importantly, the disparity between PGs is HUGE. Meaning that many of these PGs can not even dribble up court with pressure.

But in the NBA, almost all starting PGs have good dribbling skills (no Francis jokes please) so there are many PGs that are servicible.

 

Discussing the topic like this won't get you anywhere if you don't make a concrete analysis of concrete conditions.

I acknowledge Basketball is a big man's game. I agree what's GATER talked above.

By the way,I don't deny the value of a good point guard. But I'd rather emphasize on 'team' for Basketball is a collective game.
A team with a player like TD or Shaq (a dominant big guy)really stand a good chance of win but NOT ensure to a title. Nowadays a team that's over-depending on a sigle star-player but ignore exerting the potential of other four teammates on the court will be defeated easily. A good case in point is Germany NT with Dirk Nowiski and France NT with Tony Parker both failed to qualify for 2004 Olympic Games. But Lithuania NT even WITHOUT a superstar win the European champion in 2003.In some sense it's well proved that "no position is more important than the other".

Do our Rockets short of talent players?
Surely not!
But why we are always frustrated in last four years stretch?
The main reason is that we can't play an unselfish game, a team game!

I believe Our Rox guys who dare to claim he is a team player are not more than two.
Look at Sacramento kings.Those guys are all team players. Fluent offensive, tacit understanding, splendid cooperation... all of these base on their unselfish style.
only by comprehending that'Without your teammate supporting you, you are nobody and you go nowhere' can we Rockets be part of something big indeed.