I Hate "True Pg" Apologists

[AirBourne92]

I would probably qualify as a true PG apologist, but it's a position I played and studied for 25 years or so before really breaking down.

That said, I don't really disagree with the premise, but only at the NBA level. The fact is is that there are certain jobs that need to be done in every game. And facilitating is one of those jobs. The problem for some of the non-traditional PGs, isn't that they can't do it, or even that they shouldn't, it's that you can't do everything, and if you're doing that, it's hard to do other things.

One thing I'll mention is that we do appear to be in a bit of PG renassaince, both of the pure form, and otherwise. And I think there's a reason for that. That being the loosening of the illegal D rules (or zone allowance, if you prefer, although true zones aren't really allowed). This has allowed the defense to cover more ground by hesitating in areas, and that's when the facilitating, or the value in moving the ball quickly and crisply either with the bounce or that pass, gets more value. Combine that with the softening on perimeter contact, and smaller more True PGs have seen an increased value. Europe has always gotten more value out of the truer PGs, part of which is that the free D environment, where pure zone is allowed, means that there is even more value in that skill of getting the ball moved.

Fascillitating can be done from the wings however. Especially in the NBA. Even with the zone allowances, the Defense still has to shift side to side more than in a free D environment. So running side PnR with a wing that has some PG tendencies, like Harden, is still very effective.

We've also seen the Pure PG play a much bigger role in the NCAA, where the free D is allowed. And one other thing the NCAA has going for it, which it may be losing sadly, is the longer shot clock. That means the value on guys who are real "shot makers", is less than it is in the NBA, because there's time to get better shots. There's also the preparation factor, where college teams have more time to prep for opponents, and that can lead to varying styles, which is something that the real ball movement skill lends itself too, because it can be used I've always said that the college game is more about getting easy shots, while the pro game is more about who can make the harder shots. That shifts the value of what skills are important in each game. And the list of incredibly good, title winning, most important guys on their teams, type of true PGs from colleges, who never even got a shot in the NBA, is huge, and a lot of those guys saw their SG's go on to try to be converted into PGs at the pro level, because it's just not the same position.

There's a fair list of them from just UConn, Kansas, North Carolina, and Arizona alone.


Anyway. I have a fondness for the more traditional style. But it doesn't have as much value in the pro game. I understand that and I'm fine with it and still love the pro game too. But I don't believe that the value to the NBA game means absolute value.

great post right here.

a lot of people will miss this gem

[Thorpesaurous]

Awesome post!! U made an excellent point about PG's in college. Some true PG's like a Mateen Cleaves or Jacques Vaughn don't do well in the L. I think the reason why is because they aren't able to manipulate the game the same passing the rock. U have bigger, stronger, and faster defenders who can make your life a lot tougher running an offense. From there, they couldn't impact a game scoring the rock. So they were stuck.

On the other hand, u have many talented SG's in college who may be undersized to play that position in the L. So they move to PG and can thrive there because they can score the rock well. They may be "score first" kind of PG's, but they pass and handle the rock well enough to thrive as a PG. Westbrook is proving this out in an epic fashion! U have great passers who are also great scorers. U have great scorers who are also great passers. I believe u can be successful with either formula.

Thanks.

I'll use this though to sort of reinforce my point about the different meanings of the game. You're definitely right about the bigger defenders being a problem. But I truly believe that shot clock is a big deal. The quality of a shot is determined by a lot of factors, and clock is one of them. In the NBA, the 24 seconds means you really need to take the first even good shot you see, because you may not get anything better. The 35 seconds in college however allows you to pass up that shot in search of a better one, because you have the time to get another decent look at least. So the guy's who excel at making tough shots are often suppressed in value at the college level (I don't like anecdotal evidence, but Jordan would probably be the best example, even with an NCAA PoY award on his shelf).

That same thinking also means a guy who's going to whip the ball around a look for better shots will all of a sudden seem more valuable.


I think there's something to the Playground PG myth too. A lot of real playground legends are true PGs who if they make it to the league disappoint. And I'm not sure they're not just as good as advertised, but that their particular skill set just isn't worth as much in that game. In a league where tons of guys can get their own shot, and there's not time to hunt for great shots, then the skill of getting guys better shots becomes less important.

On a playground, where all manner of defensive pressure is allowed, right down to smashing people, and the overall skill level of the players around them doesn't always allow people to create for themselves, or make step backs, or whatever. All of a sudden someone like Kenny Anderson makes more sense as an iconic figure, because his skill is making those guys better.

I also think part of the current NBA PG renassaince has to do with a decrease in general skill. It seems more and more guys are coming in as specialists. Shooters. Athletic defenders. Interior rim protectors. And more of those guys need help getting shots. There's almost certainly a relationship between the quality and effectiveness of wing players and PGs. If one's going to have the ball, then the other is going to have to be better at off ball skills.
But it's a chicken and the egg scenario. Are the PGs better because the wings are worse? Or Vice Versa?

I'd guess the zones have emphasized the value of the PG a little more than it used to, while the softer perimeter contact has reduced their biggest defensive liability, while at the same time making what they do offensively more effective. It's a perfect storm. And an iso type guy, not a great one like Kobe, but say someone like Waiters, will lose value to a wing guy who's more of a real spacer, like a JJ Redick, even if in a vacuum you believe Waiters to be a better player.