What's the point?

by lee3022 on May 26, 2008 12:14 AM PDT

There is so much debate about which point guard we need and so many who passionately believe we need a much better point guard to win a championship. In this light I wanted to look at championship teams in the past and how their starting point guards stack up to Steve Blake for this past year. OK- stop laughing. Even I was unprepared for the results.

From our own championship in 1977 through 2007 there are 31 championship teams. Looking at regular season statistics , I was surprised to discover that only 2 times in those 31 teams does the point guard average per game double digits in assists. Those two times were both by Magic Johnson ( 2 out of his 5 appearances). There were 11 times in those championship teams that the starting point guard had fewer assists per game than Steve Blake last year.

In those same years the average per game starting point guard turnovers for those championship teams was 2.1. Steve Blake’s 1.4 average as good as or better than 25 of those point guard's years with an additional 3 years n/a before turnovers were recorded as a stat. That suggests that Steve took as good as or better care of the ball than in all but 3 of those championship years. Not so shabby.

Now for the big difference – Steve Blake scored fewer points per game than all but 5 of those point guard/years. Even here Steve’s average last year of 8.5 is not that far below average of 14.0. We all remember that if Steve played in the 4th quarter is was as a spot-up shooter (he did shoot 40.6% from 3 compared with the average 25.1% in our study). Where Steve falls short is in shooting inside of the 3 as his overall FG% of 40.8% indicates he is not shooting well close in (especially compared with the championship point guards average of 46.9%). With Greg and LaMarcus scoring down low and with Brandon and Rudy adept at penetration, I would think maybe three point shooting is just fine for our remaining point guard.

We certainly are a long way from having a Chris Paul or Magic Johnson or even Isiah Thomas. But we are better off than with Ron Harper, Vernon Maxwell/Kenny Smith, John Paxson, Derek Fisher, Tiny Archibald or Maurice Cheeks in their championship years. Magic is in a category all his own and even though millions of players have tried to approach his level none have succeeded.

I suspect next year will improve our point guard play no matter who we have as we force teams to double team the bigs and get open shots for the perimeter. At least I am off the suicide watch if that remains Steve Blake.

Poll

Can Steve and Sergio and maybe Jarrett behind Brandon and Rudy be enough to take us to the championship in three years?

Yes, without doubt

9 votes

Yes, but they will have to prove it by getting better each year

35 votes

Maybe, but it is more fun to dream about Rose!

15 votes

Unlikely, and we need to buy now with the right deal

18 votes

No way, no how

5 votes

82 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It's not the assists I'm worried about.

Offensively, I have no problem with Steve Blake at all. I wish he had better ability to get to the basket. However, we can live with that.

What we lack from our current point guards, and what is going to hold this team back until it is addressed, is the ability to keep people from penetrating and breaking our defense down at will. It is hard enough with the hand check rules, but even harder when you simply don’t have the athleticism. I’ve been saying it all year in my posts concerning our point guards, and I was glad to hear KP say we need to improve our athleticism in the backcourt. Steve Blake simply isn’t very good at keeping guys in front of him. Jarrett Jack is no better. Sergio…well, I’ll just refer to him as S-Bo for this diary.

If our perimeter defense does not improve, we will continue to see what we have seen the past two seasons, with or without Greg Oden…..guys getting past our guards, drawing our bigs to stop them, and getting easy assists to guys for lay-ups. If not that, then it will be offensive rebounds and second chance points we will continue to give up, because our bigs had to get out of position to try and stop the penetration on. At the very least, our front court will continue to be hounded by foul trouble until our perimeter defense improves.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on May 26, 2008 1:43 AM PDT reply actions

You said a mouthful

I feel this team’s biggest flaw, at present, is perimeter defense. That’s followed by physicality. The latter will be helped by the arrival of GO and by the continuing maturation of the team. But there will need to be a couple of roster changes as well before this team will be playoff-tough.

As for perimeter D, that will also have to be addressed by bringing in new blood. Having said that, I can envision Blake as a backup point and Jack as a combo guard on a championship team. You can only pay so many stars; both Jack and Blake could make good role players. Sergio? I’m not certain yet, but I have serious doubts that his defense, outside shooting, and ability to finish will ever be adequate.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on May 26, 2008 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions

I feel you

You make excellent points. My perspective has been that the defense has actually been good enough at times to win if only the offense were not so hot/cold in shooting. How many games did we lose shooting under 40%?

Who do you see that is able to play right away that is better than Blake and Jack? I have not heard Calderon supported as a lock-down defender. The only good defender point guard in the draft who can shoot that I see likely to be available to us is Mario Chalmers (2nd round). Mario is both a better defender and a better shooter than any of our guys. But Rose, Westbrook, and others are not going to be ready to start for any good team for at least a couple of years. I am not convinced we need another project. Westbrook could not stop Rose or OJ Mayo and there are better point guards to come in the NBA then those two freshmen. Taureen Green was a pretty good defender in college but was traded away from us maybe because he could not handle the guys we have on defense.

The guards I studied were not great defenders with the exception of Dennis Johnson and maybe Magic Johnson Ron Harper and Mo Cheeks.

The team must have its pieces for the team defense to work. Too often last year the perimeter defense broke down because there was no shot blocker in the game. I am looking forward to seeing how the defense improves next year as a team. Thanks for the thoughts.

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on May 26, 2008 2:26 AM PDT reply actions

out of curiosity

where are the shots going to come from?? there are only so many shots to tbe taken in a game,, now think about it,, we want webster to be a bomber (that takes shots) we need greg to get his money(that takes shots),,we need Lamarcus in the 20 ppg range (that takes shots) and we all know what brandon is going to do…so we may just be doing ourselves a favor and letting sergio and jarret grow along with steve.. we really sont need a high octane scorer at the 1 some one who can guard and is happy to distribute but can knock down the three if left open…we already have that

if it can be conceived it can be achieved

by lyfefindsaway on May 26, 2008 2:28 AM PDT reply actions

I agree that the scoring is not going to be high for most of these players

The one thing I hope for from each is good shot selection and good shooting % (45% or better from 2, 35% or better from 3). I think this is the point I am trying to bring out – that our PG does not have to do much more than good ball handling, getting us into our offense and hitting the open good shots when available.

by lee3022 on May 26, 2008 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions

But we are better off than with Ron Harper, Vernon Maxwell/Kenny Smith, John Paxson, Derek Fisher, Tiny Archibald or Maurice Cheeks in their championship years.

i like blake but harper, smith, fisher, archibald, and cheeks were all better than blake.

"Honor Terry Porter." Email me with your TP stories and memories.

by Ben Golliver on May 26, 2008 12:15 PM PDT reply actions

Maybe but the numbers in their championship years don't show it

These numbers are pedestrian as point guards go. But here is your comparison:

Ron Harper 1999-2000 LA: 39.9%FG; 32.6%3FG; 3.4 assists; 2.0 assist to turnover ratio; 7.0 points = all worse than Steve last year.

Vernon Maxwell 1994-1995 Houston: 39.4%FG; 32.4%3FG; 4.3 assists; 2.0 assist to turnover ratio = all worse than Steve last year (but his scoring at 13.3 was better than Steve) Kenny Smith was worse than Maxwell in most categories.

John Paxson 1991-1992 Chicago: 27.3%3fg; 3.1 assists; 2.8 assist to turnover ratio; 7.0 points = all worse than Steve last year (but John’s FG% was better at 52.8%)

Derek Fisher 2000-2001 LA: 39.7%3FG; 4.4 assists; 2.9 assist to turnover ratio = all worse than Steve last year (but scored 11.5 points and shot 41.2%FG = slightly better than Steve)

Tiny Archibald 1980-1981 Boston: 0% 3FG (yes he shot some); 2.3 assist to turnover ratio = worse than Steve last year (but he shot 49.9%FG scored 13.8 points and 7.7 assists all better than Steve) I will concede this one (I was going by assist to turnover ratio when I included Tiny)

Maurice Cheeks 28.9%3FG; 3.0 assist to turnover ratio – worse than Steve last year (but he shot 54.2%FG. scored 12.5 points and had 6.9 assists all better than Steve) You win this one as well

My point even when considering Tiny and Mo is that Steve is not out of sight bad in comparison with most of these championship point guards. I stand by that assertion. None of these listed point guards had eye-opening statistics. That Mo Cheeks had a poorer assist to turnover ratio than Steve is not a knock on Mo but a credit to Steve. If we don’t need Steve to score much, especially driving to the hole, he can manage the team quite well and acquits himself in history well. There have been many flashy and talented point guards in my life. Bob Cousy, Walt Frazier, Earl Monroe and Oscar Robinson won rings, But John Stockton, Kevin Johnson, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Allen Iverson, Gary Payton, Penny Hardaway, Mark Price, and Lenny WIlkins among others were great point guards without ever winning a NBA Championship. These great point guards in the past were not enough to get their teams their rings. In the team the Blazers staff is building there is sufficient talent and potential to get that championship even without a great point guard.

by lee3022 on May 26, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions

"Point guard, smoint guard"

That’s what I said a few months ago—feeling that Roy, LMA, and GO could win with a medicore point guard. Then I started watching Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Tony Parker carve teams up and I wavered. Seeing Paul paired with Roy in the all-star game was particularly illuminating. Having said that, you certainly don’t HAVE to have a great point guard to win a championship.

But my hope is that the Blazers can at least come up with a Steve Blake-level guy who can create some havoc on D. Because when you allow opposing guards to continually break down your defense, you play the whole game on your heels.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on May 26, 2008 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions

A factor you missed

...is that the rules have changed since Cheeks, Harper, Paxon, et al roamed the NBA. Namely, you can’t handcheck anymore, so fast, elusive point guards can really create havoc. Back in the day, all you really needed was for your point to distribute. But now you need a guy who can penetrate and break down the opposing defense—while hopefully impeding the opposing team’s point from doing the same.

"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla

by hurryup09 on May 26, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Good point as well

Or you can be persuaded by Mike D’Antoni and outscore the opposition! The other factor is that the 3-point shot has become a primary weapon. Early in my study nobody was shooting the 3 well. In recent years it is mandatory. It is one of Steve Nash’s best weapons and we all know Steve is not a defender. This is why Steve is valuable. He takes good care of the ball and hits the open 3.

I might hasten to add that I am a proponent of defense first and not offense first. Yet we lose games by 5 when we score 79 points. That suggests it is our good defense and our bad offense.

by lee3022 on May 26, 2008 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Good point about the 3

The 3-point line wasn’t added until the 1979-1980 season. Even after the 3-point line was added, the 80’s teams rarely tried to make use of it and usually missed when they did. The number and accuracy of 3-point shots increased a lot during the 1990’s, and is still showing small but steady increases every year today. Given that the game continues to evolve, it is questionable how useful historical data is in predicting what will be necessary to win in the future.

by trk on May 27, 2008 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions

always look past the stats

to determine a point guard’s true worth.

steve is definitely closer to paxson and fisher than archibald and cheeks but steve hasn’t proven he can hit big shots the way those guys did.

paxson, fisher and harper all played in the triangle offense with a great 2 guard too, giving them a much more limited role on offense. in nate’s offense, we are regularly looking for our PG to make plays that they are not currently capable of making.

i was thinking of harper as a bull rather than as a laker, but even as a laker he is a great example of looking past the stats, he created matchup problems… was able to improve team defense considerably… gave jordan extra rest… took care of the hassle of getting the ball up the floor….

to answer your original question: if rudy turns out to be a superstar, i can see steve being sufficient because blake’s minutes will shrink. otherwise: we need mroe help.

"Honor Terry Porter." Email me with your TP stories and memories.

by Ben Golliver on May 26, 2008 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Good explanation, thanks

There is a big part of me counting on what I heard was KP’s assertion that Rudy will be a starter. Since Brandon is not going to the bench either one of them plays SF or they are our starting PGs. That is the essence of my belief – that other teams including Houston have used two bigger guards in tandem and won the title and that we can too. Steve makes a very good bench PG then allowing one of the starters to rest and the other remain. Hurryup is worried about defense Ben – do you agree that this is our biggest need?

by lee3022 on May 26, 2008 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Also

Two of the three point guards you listed are out of the playoffs, the one who is still in the playoffs has Tim Ducan.

Four

by tominhawaii on May 27, 2008 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree....that is the argument that makes sense to me

Granted their have been rule changes but that hasn’t allowed any of these super star points go any further into the playoffs than before. Maybe it will down the road but up to now…no way. I say stand pat unless something great comes along

"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss" Robert A. Heinlein

by 92wastheyear on May 27, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions

Bingo

by lee3022 on May 27, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions

i usually don't "campaign" over some point

im pushing, especially if ive mentioned it once before. but what’s wrong with bringing in chris duhon, just for defense off the bench? no rookie is likely to have as much impact here.

i might be totally mistaken, but if youre not looking at duhon to score much (and would we want westbrook to score? and can westbrook shoot the 3 any better? he can dunk, but dunkers are a dime a dozen), if you see him as primarily a perimeter defender, then… i think he starts looking pretty good.

ignacio

by ignacio on May 26, 2008 9:17 PM PDT reply actions

Is Duhon better than Blake or Jack?

and does he have more potential than Sergio? Scott Skiles valued defense most and Chris got significant time his first two years under Skiles. Chris does have a good assist to turnover ratio (3.7 ranking 6th) but about the same as Steve (3.66 ranking 7th). If Chris comes who leaves? Steve? Is Chris better on defense than Steve and how do you measure that comparison?

I like Duhon. He has stuck against long odds in Chicago. I think he is an unrestricted free agent so part of the mid-level would be available to try to sign him. If Chicago drafts Beasley I assume he will stay there. If they draft Rose I would think Duhon would look for more playing time unless Kirk is traded. Thanks for the point.

by lee3022 on May 27, 2008 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions