3 pt shooting point guards-championship necessary?

by DCBlazerinPDX on Jul 26, 2009 11:35 AM PDT

Looking back at the the last 20 years or so, it would seem that the vast majority of NBA champions did not base their offense to any large degree upon the ability of their pg to hit a 3 ball.

91-92 Bulls- only starter to even attempt 100 3pt was Jordan- at 27%

92-93 Armstrong did shoot 45%, on 140 att. or 1.7 att per game

93-94 Rockets-"Mad Dog" Vernon Maxwell shot under 30% on over 400 att. Does this explain the demeanor?

94-95 Rockets- Sam Cassell shoots 33% on over 400 att.

95-96 Bulls-Steve Kerr shot 51.5% on 2.9 att per game. That Bulls team shot the lights out from 3pt range that year, with Jordan at 43% on 260 att, Kukoc at 40% on 216 att, and Pippen at .374 on 401 att.

96-97 Bulls Kerr and Harper split time at PG-Kerr at 46%, Harper at 36%.

97-98 Bulls Harper at 19% with under 100 att. Jordan fell to 24%,Pippen to 32%. Hugely different than 2 years prior.

98-99 Spurs Avery Johnson-made 1 of 12 attempts. All year.....

99-00- Lakers-Weird stat-Shaq had more assists than starting PG Harper! Both Harper and Fisher shoot 31% behind arc.

00-01-Lakers-Both Kobe and Shaw shoot 31%

01-02-Lakers-Fisher shoots 41% on 5att pg.

02-03 Spurs-Parker shoots .337 on 3 att pg

03-04-Pistons-Billups shoots .389 on 4.4 att pg

04-05 Spurs-The whole team sizzles the net from behind the arc EXCEPT PARKER, who hits at .276 on 2 att pg.

05-06-Heat-Jason Williams at 37% on 4.9 att pg

06-07 Spurs-Parker hits 40% but attempts only 38 shots all year. No need with Bowen,Barry,Finley and Ginobli taking care of business in that category.

07-08-Celtics-Rondo-26% on 19 attempts

08-09-Lakers-Fisher 40% on 3.7 att pg

Conclusion- Only a few teams seemed to rely on the PG to be an integral part of the offense with the assignment to knock down the 3 ball. Derek Fisher a couple of teams, Billups with the Pistons, Steve Kerr with the 95-96 Bulls. Most of these teams relied on either a SG or SF to carry this load. With the Parker Spurs, it was almost everyone but Parker! Portland in my opinion will be OK without relying on a 3pt threat at PG, as long as spacing is good and Rudy,Martell,Batum,even Roy can stick their shots when needed. The evolving of Gregs inside game will be huge, with this ability to A) make shots, and B) kick out to open 3 pt shooter when doubled. I am excited to see a PG who can run the pick and roll!

Comments?

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 6 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

great fanpost

if a pg is good at driving and getting to the rim they can leave the 3pt shooting to the guys who will be wide open

Woof

by Charles Barkley McLovin on Jul 26, 2009 11:46 AM PDT reply actions

nice

I’ve been wondering the same thing. Thanks for the information. This data seems to also support the idea that your PG probably shouldn’t be your best player.

by degro77 on Jul 26, 2009 12:00 PM PDT reply actions

Has anyone else noticed.

that elite pgs haven’t typically won championships.

by tcwoods on Jul 26, 2009 12:04 PM PDT reply actions

Think John Stockton.

Great player, but no championship.

by tcwoods on Jul 26, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions

yeah, since the 1980’s the exceptions seem to be just Magic and Isiah Thomas. I guess you could argue to include Billups, but I don’t think he is HOF worthy.

by degro77 on Jul 26, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions

I wouldn't argue to include Billups. I would argue to include TP.

Not the best player on his team but IMO clearly an elite PG.

by 52therim on Jul 26, 2009 12:51 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

good call

by degro77 on Jul 26, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions

um, tony parker?

bayless leaves over my dead body

by thomasikehara on Jul 26, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Not exacty true.

Considering there are five positions on the court, there is a disproportionate number of elite point guards who have won rings. Also it should be noted that Phil Jackson doesn’t use a traditional point guard in his offense, so you can pretty much ignore Harper, Fisher, and BJ Armstrong. Unless Phil Jackson is your coach it seems incredibly important to have an elite PG running things.

Elite Point Guards
    Bob Cousy: 6 titles
    Magic Johnson: 5 titles
    Tony Parker: 3 titles
    Walt Frazier: 2 titles
    Isaiah Thomas: 2 titles
    Oscar Robertson: 1 title
    Tiny Archibald: 1 title
    Chauncy Billups: 1 title
    Maurice Cheeks: 1 title
    Lionel Hollins 1 title
Role Point Guards
    Ron Harper 5x
    BJ Armstrong 3x
    Derick Fisher 4x
    Kenny Smith 2x
    Avery Johnson 1x
    Rajon Rondo 1x
    Jason Williams 1x
    Tom Henderson 1x

by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 26, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes but,

your list seems to indicate the importance of elite point guards on a championship team has diminished over time. Of the eilte PGs you have listed 12 of 23 of those titles were acquired prior to 1980. Of those other 11 championships, 7 of the 11 were won prior to 1991. This leaves 4 in the last 17 years and neither Tony Parker or Chauncey Billups was the best player on their teams (maybe Chauncey, but I think Rasheed was the best player on that team).

by degro77 on Jul 26, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Nope.

All my list indicates is that Phil Jackson is a really good coach. 10 of the last 17 were won by a team Jackson coached. Ignoring those teams we see that 4 of 7 were won by a team with an elite level PG. Since the Blazers don’t run the triangle offense, odds are we need an elite 1 to put us over the top.

I never said that it was important to have your PG be the best player on your team, but I would argue that Chauncey Billups and Parker were both top ten point guards in the league at the time they won championships. Heck, even Rajon Rondo was the best defensive PG in the playoffs, a skill that certainly makes him elite

by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 26, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions

or Red Auerbach was unusually dependent on an elite PG

by degro77 on Jul 26, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions

does elite simply mean top 1/3, or top 10? Seems like a very inclusive definition of elite.

by degro77 on Jul 26, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Top ten in the league is obviously elite.

Bob Cousy, Magic Johnson, Walt Frazier, Isaiah Thomas, Oscar Robertson and Tiny Archibald were probably in the top ten of all time.

by Nick Van Excellent on Jul 26, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions

I respectfully disagree... I think

Top ten players in the league are obviously elite players, but the top 10 players at each position aren’t necessarily elite players.

I think elite is term used for special players, such as players who earn all league honors. Simply being in the top ten for your position in the league means you are good, but not necessarily an elite NBA player.

For example, Hollinger has Andrew Bynum, Andris Biedrins, Nene, and Marucs Camby as the 7-10 rated centers, and while all are good players, I don’t believe they are elite centers.

My point is simply that I believe the current Blazer roster is in fine shape without an elite PG when compared with previous Championship caliber teams. We have at least one elite player in Brandon Roy, and a roster stocked with top 15 talent at every other starting position.

by degro77 on Jul 26, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions

Thanks For Compiling this.

Does make you wonder how Miller will affect our offensive game. We have seen over the past year or so a PG who rarely takes it to the hole and sits at the 3pt line for a kick out.

I am excited to see how Miller opens up the court for our other Shooters.

Rip City Baby...People have no idea what is coming.

Follow my twitter www.twitter.com/PDXBlazersFTW, @PDXBlazersFTW. Lots of random Blazer Posts from links I find around the blogosphere.

by lanepete on Jul 26, 2009 12:32 PM PDT reply actions

i agree

as long as you have other s on the floor that are 3 point threats, it doesnt need to fall on the PG shoulders, and remember that we do have another PG who can make 3’s in steve blake. assuming we keep him.

by blazingsince88 on Jul 26, 2009 12:44 PM PDT reply actions

I agree, but...

I think the point about a point guard being able to hit 3s on our team is that is what our very successful offense has been built around.

Now, its possible that our offense can be retooled to fit in another driver, as opposed to a shooter. But I at least understand why people are skittish about changing such a successful offensive formula to accommodate Andre Miller. If our offense regresses I don’t think the defense can pick up much of the slack.

That said, I’m pretty confident about the starting lineup, and I actually think the Blazers were too over-reliant on the 3 point shot last year.

by matthewcc on Jul 26, 2009 1:25 PM PDT reply actions

I would not draw the same conclusions from the data you've presented

If the question is whether or not it’s important for this Blazer team to have a PG that shoots 3FGs well, then the 3point FG% of past nba champions is not very relevant. Those were different teams with different rosters playing in many different eras of basketball.

by PoliSam on Jul 26, 2009 6:03 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Your List Proves Outside Shooting Is Important

You need people that can shoot the outside shots. On teams where point guards were not good outside shooters, like Rondo, there were others that filled the void. With Boston, there were always Allen and Pierce. Posey came off the bench. Parker were not a threat but almost the rest of the team were.

With the Blazers, there is virtually no exceptional deep threat if you start Miller, Roy, Batum, LMA, and Oden. Roy is decent at best and Batum is average. You need shooters like Blake, Rudy or Webster.

by Balian on Jul 26, 2009 6:39 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs

Exceptional Shooters

Exceptional shooters are players that shoots the threes at 40% or better.

by Balian on Jul 26, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions

by your measure

Pierce isn’t an exceptional shooter, (39% during their champ year)
And only Bowen shot over 40% on the Spurs champ teams.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Jul 27, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions

rec

Those other teams had different players at other positions than we have.

Chicago had a superstar who was also a deep threat, so you couldn’t pack it in on him.

LA has a superstar who likes the ball in his hands (like Brandon) and they had a PG who is a reasonable deep threat.

The Spurs didn’t need Parker to be a deep threat because they generally had at least two deep threats on the floor, and plenty of other guys who could shoot to keep the floor spread.

If Brandon becomes a high volume three point shooter who knocks down 40%, and we have a SF on the floor who is going to bomb in a lot of 3 pointers at a high percentage, then we don’t need a PG who can make the long shot. Otherwise, we’ll miss Blake’s shooting. Even if Andre starts, even if we are better because of him, we will still miss that deep threat — we’ll be giving up something important.

It doesn’t mean Andre isn’t good and won’t make us better. But it means he isn’t as good a fit as we would like.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jul 27, 2009 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions

Dre replacing Steve makes it more likely for Martell to replace Batum in Sating Lineup

You’re absolutely right, that potential starting lineup is missing a 3-ball threat… So, we either need:
a) Blake to start instead of Dre (doubtful, given Nate’s earlier comments)
b) Rudy to start instead of Roy (judging from the comments on my post yesterday, this will go over like hot cocoa for lunch today…)
c) Martell to start instead of Batum.

If Martell is healthy, I expect him to push Nic to the bench. (Now, if Andre is truly an iron-man, I would definitely like to see him run the floor with Rudy and Batum on it, so perhaps Nic, Rudy, Travis, Pryz and Dre can become a running second unit…)

by Visionary1 on Jul 27, 2009 8:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Balian is correct

All I can think of when people say we should start Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Oden is how densely the opposing teams are going to pack the areas within 15 feet of the hoop. It only makes sense to put a healthy Webster or Blake or both into the starting line up to give you the true outside threat.

The fun we are having speculating over this though comes from the fact that the Blazers have flexibility to hurt an opponent with many options and potential mixes of players. This isn’t one or the other; it’s pick the poison, NBA.

by Interested on Jul 26, 2009 7:26 PM PDT reply actions

I disagree

Balian came up with a nice round number of 40% shooting from 3 to explain what an “exceptional shooter” is. But we on this team last year Roy shot 37%, Batum shot 37%, Outlaw shot 37%, Fernandez shot 40%, and Blake shot 43%. That is 5 shooters all above 37%, plus if Martell is back he shot 39% last year, making 6 players who shoot the 3 ball very well. Even if one of these guys is traded, that is leaves at least 5 players who all hit that shot well, and at least 2 who specialize in hitting it at a very high percentage.

This team doesn’t need Miller to hit the 3 ball.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Jul 27, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions