The Myth of the Franchise Point Guard

Following the walkout of long time Utah Jazz coach Jerry Sloan this week, I decided to post an argument I've made with friends for the last few years about franchise point guards. Deron Williams has been reported as the major cause of Sloan's early retirement, and this fact has sparked debate over who is more important to the success of a franchise, a long time, relatively successful and respected taskmaster, or a point guard considered the key to long term success of said franchise. I have always maintained that a team does not need a franchise point guard to be successful. Recent history not only backs up this point, but makes a strong case that when a team calls its point guard its best player, that team has a greater chance of failure than success. This blog will examine the performance of franchise point guards over the last two decades in the NBA, proving my theory correct.

The simple fact of the matter is, no franchise in the last twenty NBA seasons has won a championship with its point guard being considered its best player. I will now go through a list of the starting point guards on championship teams from the last twenty years:

2009-10: Derek Fisher, Los Angeles Lakers
2008-09: Derek Fisher, Los Angeles Lakers
2007-08: Rajon Rondo, Boston Celtics
2006-07: Tony Parker, San Antonio Spurs
2005-06: Jason Williams, Miami Heat
2004-05: Tony Parker, San Antonio Spurs
2003-04: Chauncey Billups, Detroit Pistons
2002-03: Tony Parker, San Antonio Spurs
2001-02: Derek Fisher, Los Angeles Lakers
2000-01: Ron Harper, Los Angeles Lakers
1999-00: Ron Harper, Los Angeles Lakers
1998-99: Avery Johnson, San Antonio Spurs
1997-98: Ron Harper, Chicago Bulls
1996-97: Steve Kerr/Ron Harper, Chicago Bulls
1995-96: Steve Kerr, Chicago Bulls
1994-95: Kenny Smith, Houston Rockets
1993-94: Kenny Smith, Houston Rockets
1992-93: BJ Armstrong, Chicago Bulls
1991-92: John Paxson, Chicago Bulls
1990-91: John Paxson, Chicago Bulls

Now, stats don't mean everything in basketball, however they do tell a significant portion of the story. Over that twenty season span, the total averages for starting point guards were: 10.9 PPG, 2.5 RPG, and 4 APG (information obtained from databaseBasketball.com). The current point guard that comes the closest to those averages? Denver Nuggets backup Ty Lawson, with averages of 10.7, 2.3 and 3.9. The current highest performing statistical point guard in the NBA based soley on points, rebounds and assists, Derrick Rose, more than doubles all of those numbers, averaging (according to Yahoo Sports) 24.7 PPG, 4.4 RPG, and 8.2 APG. Statistically Deron Williams is second with 21.6, 3.7 and 9.6.

So, what does this all mean? Clearly, the best player on the last twenty NBA Championship teams has not been a point guard. Many could make a case for Tony Parker, due to his Finals MVP win in 2007, however sports writers, including Bill Simmons, maintain that Duncan should have won the award as he was more pivotal to the team's success. Chauncey Billups also won a Finals MVP, however that year he shot less than 40% from the field, and was second in PPG behind Rip Hamilton. Ben Wallace won Defensive Player of the Year, and Rasheed Wallace was at least considered as much of an offensive threat as Billups and Hamilton, so it was a clear team effort on the part of those four.

Looking at the teams that lost the finals in those years, names such as Stockton, Payton, Iverson, Magic and Kidd pop up as losing Finalists; transcendant point guards who took their teams to the Finals but fell at the final hurdle to teams with dominant big men, or shooting guards.

Which brings me to my next point: clearly, just as the last twenty years have exposed the myth that a franchise point guard is important, it has also reaffirmed the notion that a dominant big man, or transcendant swingman, or both, should be a franchise's number one priority when making the drive to a championship. Think of the dominant players to win multiple titles in the last twenty years: Jordan, Pippen, Duncan, O'Neal, Bryant, Olajuwon. All big men, or wing men. So, using that logic, one can understand why teams like the Atlanta Hawks and New York Knicks signed Amar'e Stoudemire and are excited by the prospect of gaining Carmelo Anthony in the next six months. This logic also looks favourable for the Miami Heaat, who while they have a rotation of second and third string point guards without a clear starter, have filled the most important positions historically to win a championship with acquisitions of LeBron James and Chris Bosh. This theory also spells bad news for the Hornets and Jazz, with franchise point guards being far and away better than the second best player on each team. Chicago Bulls fans can take refuge in the fact that their team currently, short of a decent two guard, is built in a very similar fashion to the Detroit Pistons team of 2004, with a scoring PG and PF, a handy SF in Luol deng (who has picked up his defense this year), and a defensive player of the year candidate when healthy in Joakim Noah. Using the Pistons championship team as a base, the Bulls only need a dependable shooting guard that can hit threes and defend to be a contender.

Now I'm not saying that this trend will continue, in fact, due to the large influx of dominant point guards weight of numbers suggests that the reverse will be the case. What I am saying is that franchises should think twice before mortgaging their future just to obtain, or keep, an A-Grade Point Guard. Franchises such as the Utah Jazz and the New Orleans Hornets. Chris Paul and Deron Williams are amazing players, and may one day lead their teams to championships, however by building around them, you are taking the road less travelled in recent times.