SG most important position in NBA?

This is an NBA/Utah Jazz topic but thought it might create some good discussion and wanted it to be seen.



I'm convinced that in today's NBA (looking back at the last 10 years) the 2 spot is the most important as far as winning an NBA title. Right behind that is a low post presence (i say low post presence because some 4's play like 5's and vice versa). If you look at the NBA champions from the last 20 years you have the: Spurs, Lakers, Heat, Celtics, Bulls, Rockets, & Pistons.



Almost every NBA Champ the last 20 years had an all-star at the 2 spot and if they didn't they had a top 5 guy in the post (Spurs are the only team that fits this category). The Pistons are the only ones that don't fit either criteria (I was on my mission, but how did they win the title? Unbelievable!). The NBA is a SG-dominated league.



If the Jazz want to get back to the NBA Finals and win they need to have an All-Star SG, which the Jazz haven't had in the last 20 years. Will Heyward start at the 2 or 3? If he starts at the 2, can he be an all-star at that postion? I say no. Who out there that's a legitimate All-Star SG could the Jazz trade for? Not only is Raja Bell not an all-star but he was probably the worst starter in the NBA at the 2 spot last year. We need to find a way to seriously upgrade at that position. Here's to hoping. Please share any thoughts you may have.

A few more thoughts. This theory of mine is why I believe the Bulls won't win a title this year, maybe this could be why they're struggling against the Pacers, I don't know. The only all-stars at SG that I think the Jazz have even a remote possibility of getting are Ginobili and Joe Johnson. We may be resigned to getting one in the draft. I hope we go after at least 2 guards in this draft.

Spurs won because of Duncan in the post. It's the reason they won't win this year, because he's not as good as he used to be.



Laker's won because of Shaq and Gasol. Kobe has never won a ring without a low post all-star presence.



Heat had Shaq when they won, even though Wade was the MVP.



Celtics had Garnett and played great defense.



Rockets won because of Hakeem. They didn't have Drexler until year two.



The Pistons and Bulls are the exeptions to needing a big man.



The Bulls won because they had the best player ever to play the game, and Scottie Pippen, who spent most of his career being overrated, was a top 5 player for stretch of about 4 or 5 years (the 2nd set of the 3-peat).



The Pistons won the first 2 titles because they had Isaiah Thomas and played hard defense. The more recent title by Detroit was because they played in the terrible East, and then the Lakers were injured and imploding because of Kobe's selfishness. If Malone is healthy for that whole series or if Kobe plays smart ball, Laker's win easily.

During Mj's prime years, I had access to all of Chicago's games through cable TV's WGN which braodcast them all. I would say I watched several hundred of his games. I have also watched several hundred of Kobe's games through cable TV's NBA League pass.



My personal opinion is that Kobe is by far the better player. By far.



I doubt that you (speaking to Stuck in Big 10) have seen as many of either Kobe's or MJ's games. So - if you want to make an objective comparison, check out the Michael Jordan Ultimate Collection available at video rental outlets. Compare with Kobe's top ten on Utube for only 2 or 3 years and you will see more great plays by Kobe in any 3 year period than in MJ's entire career. Compare any 3 year span to MJ's career.



Sorry for the rant. I am a Kobe fan. And also a Lebron fan. I think Lebron has more inate talent than either of the other 2, but hasn't yet developed the will to win that they have.

But then again he hasn't played for Phil Jackson either. Did either MJ or Kobe ever win a title without That Coach?



A final note. To even compare Kobe's and Gasol's importance to that team is laughable. Gasol himself would laugh. Go have a discussion with any NBA fan about Phil Jackson being the greatest coach of all time, and the only real argument you will hear in the negative is "yes, but he had the advantage of having coached two of the best players of all time" They will not be talking about MJ and Gasol.

Jordan never had the low post guy that Kobe has always had to win. Based on that, Jordan is by far better. Kobe does not win without Shaq or Gasol. Jordan won without a post player remotely close in ability to those 2 guys. Jordan carried his team more than Kobe. Pretty simple.



Don't even try comparing Bill Cartwright and Luc Longley and Bill Wennington, etc or Horace Grant to the likes of Shaq, or Pau Gasol. Not even close.

stuckinbig10country wrote:
Spurs won because of Duncan in the post. It's the reason they won't win this year, because he's not as good as he used to be.



Laker's won because of Shaq and Gasol. Kobe has never won a ring without a low post all-star presence.



Heat had Shaq when they won, even though Wade was the MVP.



Celtics had Garnett and played great defense.



Rockets won because of Hakeem. They didn't have Drexler until year two.



The Pistons and Bulls are the exeptions to needing a big man.



The Bulls won because they had the best player ever to play the game, and Scottie Pippen, who spent most of his career being overrated, was a top 5 player for stretch of about 4 or 5 years (the 2nd set of the 3-peat).



The Pistons won the first 2 titles because they had Isaiah Thomas and played hard defense. The more recent title by Detroit was because they played in the terrible East, and then the Lakers were injured and imploding because of Kobe's selfishness. If Malone is healthy for that whole series or if Kobe plays smart ball, Laker's win easily.

Early on the Spurs won because of Duncan (top 5 big man) and then Duncan AND Ginobili (SG).

Lakers won because of Kobe AND Shaq/Gasol (top 5 big men)

Celtics had the best shooter in the NBA in Ray Allen & Garnett (maybe top 5 big man that year)

Rockets had Kenny Smith and Drexler to go with Hakeem (top 5 big man)

The early Pistons had Joe Dumars (sg) & Thomas (at least one of those years Dumars was the the Finals MVP) and didn't have a top 5 big man.

The Heat had D-Wade and Shaq (not a top 5 big man that year)



Having a top 5 big man is a big bonus and many NBA champs had one, but you can't win it without an all-star SG although you can win it without a great big man. If all these big men didn't have great SG's to keep the defense honest it would have been a different game.



The Heat will rattle off a few championships because they have an all-star SG and the Magic won't even though they have the best big man around.

Totally agree with Mars. If you've got a big guy that dominates, you've got a shot at the championship.

Problem is that the rule changes over the last 10 years have made it extremely difficult for a 5 to dominate.

Response to Lawboy above.



Yes, I'll grant you Shaq/Gasol > Cartwright/Longley. But then Pippen> Artest, Kerr > Fisher at least offensively(highest 3 point % in NBA history) & the Worm was better than any rebounder around today. MJ had those.



I had the same opinion of both MJ and Kobe when they first came into the league. I thought they were overhyped and had a "show me" attitude. As I said above, Jordan never did show me in 2 or 3 hundred games. Seriously, not very many "WOW" moments in those hundreds of games. Kobe has shown me and made me change my mind on him.



In my opinion, Kobe is the owner of the greatest offensive performance in NBA history - the 81 point game. I watched it live and the way those 81 points came within the flow of the game is even more incredible than the point total itself. Unless you have seen the game in real time, you would not believe it, but he was in no way whatsoever being a ballhog in that game.

Alphaleonis wrote:
During Mj's prime years, I had access to all of Chicago's games through cable TV's WGN which braodcast them all. I would say I watched several hundred of his games. I have also watched several hundred of Kobe's games through cable TV's NBA League pass.



My personal opinion is that Kobe is by far the better player. By far.



I doubt that you (speaking to Stuck in Big 10) have seen as many of either Kobe's or MJ's games. So - if you want to make an objective comparison, check out the Michael Jordan Ultimate Collection available at video rental outlets. Compare with Kobe's top ten on Utube for only 2 or 3 years and you will see more great plays by Kobe in any 3 year period than in MJ's entire career. Compare any 3 year span to MJ's career.



Sorry for the rant. I am a Kobe fan. And also a Lebron fan. I think Lebron has more inate talent than either of the other 2, but hasn't yet developed the will to win that they have.

But then again he hasn't played for Phil Jackson either. Did either MJ or Kobe ever win a title without That Coach?



A final note. To even compare Kobe's and Gasol's importance to that team is laughable. Gasol himself would laugh. Go have a discussion with any NBA fan about Phil Jackson being the greatest coach of all time, and the only real argument you will hear in the negative is "yes, but he had the advantage of having coached two of the best players of all time" They will not be talking about MJ and Gasol.

This is laughable and I have no doubt that you are younger than 24 years old. Kobe's game is modeled exactly after Jordan's. In other words, w/o Jordan, Kobe is just another player. Jordan never had a big man, EVER to play on his teams! Kobe has never been able to win the championship w/o a not just a good, but he always needed a DOMINANT big man.



I actually like Kobe and I believe that both he and Lebron are more gifted athletes than MJ, but he is clearly the best to ever play. I don't care about highlights you may think are better. And for that matter, videos of MJ predating 91 are hard to come by whereas Kobe videos are available on Youtube for every year of his career pretty much.



Sorry but this one doesn't fly.

Alphaleonis wrote:
Response to Lawboy above.



Yes, I'll grant you Shaq/Gasol > Cartwright/Longley. But then Pippen> Artest, Kerr > Fisher at least offensively(highest 3 point % in NBA history) & the Worm was better than any rebounder around today. MJ had those.



I had the same opinion of both MJ and Kobe when they first came into the league. I thought they were overhyped and had a "show me" attitude. As I said above, Jordan never did show me in 2 or 3 hundred games. Seriously, not very many "WOW" moments in those hundreds of games. Kobe has shown me and made me change my mind on him.



In my opinion, Kobe is the owner of the greatest offensive performance in NBA history - the 81 point game. I watched it live and the way those 81 points came within the flow of the game is even more incredible than the point total itself. Unless you have seen the game in real time, you would not believe it, but he was in no way whatsoever being a ballhog in that game.

Are you judging them by the number of "wow" moments? Ugh. MJ did more with much much much less than Kobe, bottom line. It's become a cliche now but I don't think the old "he makes everyone better" label applies to anyone better than MJ. How did Pippen, Longely, Kerr, Kukoc, etc do without MJ? They sucked. Take Kobe away from the Laker's championship teams and those teams still win 50 games. MJ completely DOMINATED the league in a way that Kobe never has. You can't judge the two by highlight reels alone.

Short_Change wrote:
This is an NBA/Utah Jazz topic but thought it might create some good discussion and wanted it to be seen.



I'm convinced that in today's NBA (looking back at the last 10 years) the 2 spot is the most important as far as winning an NBA title. Right behind that is a low post presence (i say low post presence because some 4's play like 5's and vice versa). If you look at the NBA champions from the last 20 years you have the: Spurs, Lakers, Heat, Celtics, Bulls, Rockets, & Pistons.



Almost every NBA Champ the last 20 years had an all-star at the 2 spot and if they didn't they had a top 5 guy in the post (Spurs are the only team that fits this category). The Pistons are the only ones that don't fit either criteria (I was on my mission, but how did they win the title? Unbelievable!). The NBA is a SG-dominated league.



If the Jazz want to get back to the NBA Finals and win they need to have an All-Star SG, which the Jazz haven't had in the last 20 years. Will Heyward start at the 2 or 3? If he starts at the 2, can he be an all-star at that postion? I say no. Who out there that's a legitimate All-Star SG could the Jazz trade for? Not only is Raja Bell not an all-star but he was probably the worst starter in the NBA at the 2 spot last year. We need to find a way to seriously upgrade at that position. Here's to hoping. Please share any thoughts you may have.

I disagree.. Spurs, Lakers, Heat, and Rockets won because of dominant big men. The classic example is the Rockets. They won by tossing the ball to Hakeem and he'd either score or kick the ball out to Cassel etc to hit a 3. That was their offense plain and simple. Drexler was overrated. Spurs have never had an all-pro 2. The Heat and Lakers fed off Shaq.

Mars wrote:


How tall is Jordan?

6'6"

You are all forgetting that a healthy Tony Parker is one of the best point guards in the game, especially back in the Spurs' every other year Dynasty.



Ginobili is much less of a factor than Parker (though still a great player).



Yes, you can argue that if SG is weak, you might not have a serious contender, but the reality is if ANY POSTITION is weak, you probably don't have a serious contender.

Oh yeah, and anyone thinking that Kobe is a better player than Jordan, is just basketball ignorant. Although, MJ is slightly overrated, as one of the only players in the league to get the now, oh so common "Star Treatment."



Back in the Bulls dynasty years, you couldn't even pee in the same 12 block radius as Jordan without getting a foul called on you.

NCPUMA wrote:

This is an NBA/Utah Jazz topic but thought it might create some good discussion and wanted it to be seen.



I'm convinced that in today's NBA (looking back at the last 10 years) the 2 spot is the most important as far as winning an NBA title. Right behind that is a low post presence (i say low post presence because some 4's play like 5's and vice versa). If you look at the NBA champions from the last 20 years you have the: Spurs, Lakers, Heat, Celtics, Bulls, Rockets, & Pistons.



Almost every NBA Champ the last 20 years had an all-star at the 2 spot and if they didn't they had a top 5 guy in the post (Spurs are the only team that fits this category). The Pistons are the only ones that don't fit either criteria (I was on my mission, but how did they win the title? Unbelievable!). The NBA is a SG-dominated league.



If the Jazz want to get back to the NBA Finals and win they need to have an All-Star SG, which the Jazz haven't had in the last 20 years. Will Heyward start at the 2 or 3? If he starts at the 2, can he be an all-star at that postion? I say no. Who out there that's a legitimate All-Star SG could the Jazz trade for? Not only is Raja Bell not an all-star but he was probably the worst starter in the NBA at the 2 spot last year. We need to find a way to seriously upgrade at that position. Here's to hoping. Please share any thoughts you may have.

I disagree.. Spurs, Lakers, Heat, and Rockets won because of dominant big men. The classic example is the Rockets. They won by tossing the ball to Hakeem and he'd either score or kick the ball out to Cassel etc to hit a 3. That was their offense plain and simple. Drexler was overrated. Spurs have never had an all-pro 2. The Heat and Lakers fed off Shaq.

Can you say Ginobili? I hate the guy, but he's been their best player for a while now, IMO. He has been an all-star 2 for a while now.

Let me clear up my point. I'm not saying a low post presence isn't valuable, I'm saying it's not as valuable as having an all-star 2 guard. It is a close 2nd though and I believe history has proved that. I get that a lot of NBA Champs have had great big men but they almost always have an all-star 2 guard to go with them and quite a few NBA champs didn't need great big men. A great big man without great guards won't go as far as great guards without a great big man.

Short_Change wrote:
Let me clear up my point. I'm not saying a low post presence isn't valuable, I'm saying it's not as valuable as having an all-star 2 guard. It is a close 2nd though and I believe history has proved that. I get that a lot of NBA Champs have had great big men but they almost always have an all-star 2 guard to go with them and quite a few NBA champs didn't need great big men. A great big man without great guards won't go as far as great guards without a great big man.

I think your point is pretty clear, and it is wrong. Sorry, but find me one team besides the Bulls in the Jordan era that won more than one championship (or even one...) without a dominant big man.



You can find a lot of teams that have won with an elite big and just "some dude" at SG.