Can we make a playoff run with Kemba at starting point?

[Bogg]

Isiah attempted the most shots per game for those Bad Boy Pistons championship teams.

Isiah was averaging 18 and change for a Pistons squad that was a compilation cast on offense, and came within shouting distance of double-digit assists the first year and nearly got there the second. He also had several seasons of averaging double-digit assists in his early twenties, capping out at 14 a game (way better than Rondo's current league-leading average) in '85 for a playoff team that made it into the second round. Anybody who can beat Magics' single-season best and come within less than an assist of the best year that Stockton ever had is an elite distributor, regardless of whether he could also score when needed.

Tony Parker won Finals MVP for the latest Spurs championship. Therefore, you can say Parker was 1b at worst for 2 of the 3 they won together

You can only say that if you don't understand what actually happened in 2007. The Cavaliers came into the 2007 Finals with an underwhelming but defensively competent front-court rotation of Illgauskas, still usefull Gooden, and Varejao; all while trotting out what very well may be the worst starting point guard set in Finals history (washed up Larry Hughes for two games and rookie Daniel Gibson for two games) with Damon Jones as their primary backup. Any half-competent high school coach would have let Tony Parker run roughshod over a comically overmatched Cavaliers backcourt.

Duncan was still the best player on the Spurs both in the regular season and over the course of the whole post-season. Parker is and was a very good player, but he was never any better than #2 that year.

[Bogg]

I think a lot of us agree that we still need a star...so if Kemba gets one I suspect it will also be directly attributable to another player. No one in here insinuated that Kemba could do it all himself.

Fair enough. All I was saying is that you can do it with either type of player, depending on how your team is built.

[fan_of_a_fan]

Isiah was averaging 18 and change for a Pistons squad that was a compilation cast on offense, and came within shouting distance of double-digit assists the first year and nearly got there the second. He also had several seasons of averaging double-digit assists in his early twenties, capping out at 14 a game (way better than Rondo's current league-leading average) in '85 for a playoff team that made it into the second round. Anybody who can beat Magics' single-season best and come within less than an assist of the best year that Stockton ever had is an elite distributor, regardless of whether he could also score when needed.

I was never saying that Isiah wasn't a legit passing PG, but he was more of a shoot-first PG that got his assist due to teams trying to stop him from scoring if anybody wanted to put him into a category.

You can only say that if you don't understand what actually happened in 2007. The Cavaliers came into the 2007 Finals with an underwhelming but defensively competent front-court rotation of Illgauskas, still usefull Gooden, and Varejao; all while trotting out what very well may be the worst starting point guard set in Finals history (washed up Larry Hughes for two games and rookie Daniel Gibson for two games) with Damon Jones as their primary backup. Any half-competent high school coach would have let Tony Parker run roughshod over a comically overmatched Cavaliers backcourt.

Duncan was still the best player on the Spurs both in the regular season and over the course of the whole post-season. Parker is and was a very good player, but he was never any better than #2 that year.

Using the Cavs weak backcourt depth as a reason why Parker exceled is totally unfair. We can use an example to find some kind of way to flip it for almost every Finals MVP. Parker did what his team needed him to do to win, which was score more. That's a part of basketball, to exploit the opponents weaknesses.

[fan_of_a_fan]

Personally, I'm not into putting players into categories when it comes to winning. As long as a player, in this case a PG, doesn't hinder his team's chances to progress, then I don't have a issue with that said player. I've seen various types of PGs win titles over the past 20 years I've been an avid watcher of NBA basketball, therefore I could care less. The case of Kemba Walker not being a capable PG to lead a team through the playoffs is a question that will remain unanswered until there is better quality scorers on the team & we are actually in the playoffs.

[Bogg]

I was never saying that Isiah wasn't a legit passing PG, but he was more of a shoot-first PG that got his assist due to teams trying to stop him from scoring if anybody wanted to put him into a category.

No, he wasn't. You don't stumble your way into 14 assists a night over a full season (on a good team, no less) by accident. Eight or nine a night if you constantly dominate the ball? Sure, Iverson and Marbury both did that. Isaiah was a shoot-first point guard in the same way that young Chris Paul was on the Hornets.

Using the Cavs weak backcourt depth as a reason why Parker exceled is totally unfair. We can use an example to find some kind of way to flip it for almost every Finals MVP. Parker did what his team needed him to do to win, which was score more. That's a part of basketball, to exploit the opponents weaknesses.

It's not unfair at all. Duncan averaged 22 and 11.5 with 3 assists and 3 steals a night while being an all-time great defensive anchor over the course of the 2007 playoffs. Parker averaged a bit under 21 and 6 (20.8 and 5.8 ) on slightly worse percentages while not having near the defensive impact on the game Duncan did. Duncan was clearly the best player on the Spurs that spring, but Parker was able to exploit a favorable matchup in the Finals. It's why he scored an additional 5 points a night and his shooting percentage went up a full 10% when you compare the Finals against the first three rounds of the playoffs. Extrapolating "what he did against one team must be what he did against every team" makes no sense.

[spectre]

Fair enough. All I was saying is that you can do it with either type of player, depending on how your team is built.

Sure you can, but in the last decade or so it's been the scoring PG that has been winning the rings. I'm not going to say that that era is over...but you yourself had to go back to Isiah/Magic and that was awhile ago.

To be that team we'll have to get extremely lucky AND pair him with other stars...as they can't do it by themselves either.

[fan_of_a_fan]

@ 'Bogg', I'm done. You will flip perceptions & stats for an eternity to try to prove your point. Isiah had a biased reputation around the league as a ball hog during his heyday. You can't use Tony Parker dominating a weak Cavs backcourt as an excuse to why he won Finals MVP when most big men like Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, & Kareem Abdul-Jabbar made HOF careers out of dominating less superior talent to theirs. It's unfair

[Bogg]

Sure you can, but in the last decade or so it's been the scoring PG that has been winning the rings. I'm not going to say that that era is over...but you yourself had to go back to Isiah/Magic and that was awhile ago.

To be that team we'll have to get extremely lucky AND pair him with other stars...as they can't do it by themselves either.

The last decade or so it's been three guys in the top-ten all time (Kobe, Shaq, Duncan) and two top-five power forwards (KG, Dirk) that have been winning the rings. Everyone else is ancillary.

Billups has a Finals MVP because his squad did it with team defense and shared the offensive load (Rip Hamilton edged him out in ppg in the Finals that year), but he was the one that took the majority of the big shots (and, to his credit, made them more often than not). No doubt he's a scoring point guard, but he didn't lead the Pistons to a title, it was a collective effort more than any other title of the last twenty years.

[fan_of_a_fan]

The last decade or so it's been three guys in the top-ten all time (Kobe, Shaq, Duncan) and two top-five power forwards (KG, Dirk) that have been winning the rings. Everyone else is ancillary.

So...what you are saying is that it doesn't matter who our PG is. We just have to find the next Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, KG, or Dirk. In other words, let's close this thread & start talking about how good can Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, and/or Julius Randle become, because Kemba will be ancillary anyway. I say that with slight sarcasm, putting your way with words into the forefront.

[Bogg]

@ 'Bogg', I'm done. You will flip perceptions & stats for an eternity to try to prove your point. Isiah had a biased reputation around the league as a ball hog during his heyday. You can't use Tony Parker dominating a weak Cavs backcourt as an excuse to why he won Finals MVP when most big men like Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, & Kareem Abdul-Jabbar made HOF careers out of dominating less superior talent to theirs. It's unfair

Duncan and Shaq won their rings having to go through the likes of each other, Garnett, Dirk, Webber, Rasheed Wallace's highly-talented frontcourts in Portland and Detroit, and Amare Stoudemire. It's not like there were only two good big men in the last fifteen years. Abdul-Jabbar had Sampson and Olajuwon playing together out West, Moses Malone in Philly, and several of the greatest frontcourts ever assembled in Boston over the years. Hell, the one he won in Milwaukee had him matched up against another hall of fame center in Wes Unseld in the Finals.

It's not manipulating stats when I point out that Parker's numbers were way better in the Finals than they were in either the regular season or the rest of the playoffs, and explaining that washed-up Larry Hughes and Daniel Gibson are two of the worst starting point guards in Finals history isn't flipping perceptions, it's a fact.