Below is the first blog post from Shut Up and Jam, a new blog in the Wages of Wins Network from James Brocato. Last June, James offered a post on the Oklahoma City Thunder. Here is his bio from that post:
James Brocato graduated from Washington State University in 2009. He is currently attending Law School at Gonzaga University. He grew up a passionate supporter of the Seattle Supersonics, but their relocation to Oklahoma City in 2008 put him in an awkward position. Failed attempts to root for Phoenix and Portland made him realize that his heart is still with the team he grew up loving, even if they’re not the hometown heroes anymore.
And as promised, here is the first post from Shut Up and Jam:
Anyone who watched the NBA Draft Lottery last night probably heard it at least 10 times (mostly from Jay Bilas): “It’s a point guard dominated league.” “You can’t have success in the NBA without a great point guard.” Of course, the media would have told you 10, 20, or 30 years ago it was a big man dominated league. But now they’re saying the point guard, not the big man, is the most important position for a team building for the future. How true is this though? Let’s take a look at the production offered by the point guards of the last five champions. (Note: I am using Dave Berri’s Wins Produced metric to determine production. For more information see the links at the bottom.).
| Year | Champion | Starting PG | WP48 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-10 | LA Lakers | Derek Fisher | -0.050 |
| 2008-09 | LA Lakers | Derek Fisher | 0.051 |
| 2007-08 | Boston | Rajon Rondo | 0.219 |
| 2006-07 | San Antonio | Tony Parker | 0.194 |
| 2005-06 | Miami | Jason Williams | 0.104 |
WP48 is the wins produced by the particular player per 48 minutes he is on the floor. 0.100 is what the average player produces. 0.200 is considered to be “star” level. The most elite players in the NBA usually have a WP48 of greater than 0.300. Only one point guard starting for the championship team in the last five years has produced at the level of a star, Rajon Rondo (though Tony Parker was very close). Jason Williams was roughly average and Derek Fisher has actually been below average in the Lakers’ last two championship seasons. This data suggests that an elite point guard is not necessary in building a champion in the NBA. So is there a position that dominates the league? Let’s take a look at the main big man from the last five champions.
| Year | Champion | Starting Big | WP48 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009-10 | LA Lakers | Pau Gasol | 0.307 |
| 2008-09 | LA Lakers | Pau Gasol | 0.250 |
| 2007-08 | Boston | Kevin Garnett | 0.370 |
| 2006-07 | San Antonio | Tim Duncan | 0.355 |
| 2005-06 | Miami | Shaquille O’Neal | 0.225 |
Of course, the term “big man” covers two positions, the power forward and the center. Still, I think it’s a fair comparison since these two positions are generally interchangeable, where the point guard is a very unique position. The second table demonstrates the importance of big men in title teams. Every single primary big man produced at “star” levels the year his team won the championship, and every single big man substantially out-produced his point guard counterpart.
So it seems that this league has not actually become a point guard dominated league. In fact, it remains dominated by the bigs. Thus, a general manager looking to build a champion should look at the big guys first. Of course, that is not to say that Cleveland should attempt to take a big with their #1 pick. In fact, there is a lack of quality big men in the draft. Kyrie Irving might be the right choice, but that post is for another day. Also, Derrick Williams, who played center at Arizona, is being evaluated as a small forward by NBA scouts. But is SF the best position for him in the NBA, or will he benefit a team more at power forward? NBA scouts don’t like his size for the PF position. But is the obsession with size (e.g., particular measurements for a particular position) warranted? Again, that will be discussed in another post.
-James
Wages of Wins Journal 
stephanieg
May 19, 2011
Along a similar vein, NBA talking heads vacillate between whether PG or C is the hardest position to learn and transition to from the college game. I wonder if WP has anything to say about that. To me it seems like good big guys come into the league and are awesome pretty much right away, but it could be interesting to look at maybe.
wiLQ
May 19, 2011
I think it’s a good question to ask and examine but I can’t believe that in the land of cursing small sample sizes you tried to come up with a conclusion based on 5 [somewhat random] teams…
Italian Stallion
May 19, 2011
I think a decent argument can be made that if you have a player like Kobe, James, or Wade, a good PG becomes less relevant because players like that dominate the ball on offense and create off the dribble. On most other teams, you need the play making to make the big men and spot up shooters as effective as possible.
Ken
May 19, 2011
It sounds, then IS, that what you really need is an elite ballhandler, regardless of whether he’s a 1, 2, or 3, to pair with that big man
Matt
May 19, 2011
I’m with wiLQ in saying thats too small a sample size. You’ve only looked at 1 team per year across 5 years. How would this look if you took the conference finalists for the five years? I imagine the conclusion would be the same, but it may be more interesting.
brgulker
May 19, 2011
It would be interesting to contrast usage between guards and big men. My sense is that when people talk about a guard-dominated league, what they’re actually observing is that guards dominate the ball, and hence, dominate the usage of possessions.
It may be worth putting that idea to the test.
jbrocato
May 19, 2011
Matt and wiLQ,
I agree the sample size is small, but I was trying to prove a quick point that you don’t necessarily NEED a great PG to win a title. I agree that it would be interesting to look at the conference finalists, so I just may do that.
fricktho
May 19, 2011
Big men naturally create more value. They rebound, defend the basket, and generally shoot a high percentage. Also because they have a lower usage rate they turn the ball over and shoot less than guards. I realize these big men are measured against other big men, but in general terms big men add more value to team than guards do.
You could go back further. Shaq, Olajuwan, B.Wallace, Duncan, Robinson, Rodman, etc. Championship teams have a top producing big man. Now Miami might buck this trend, but they have two of the best players in the league.
DR
May 19, 2011
“But is the obsession with size (e.g., particular measurements for a particular position) warranted?”
Too…many…obvious…jokes.
brgulker is correct in what they are really talking about here.
fricktho is correct about who is most important.
JLewis
May 19, 2011
Putting aside the issue of sample size, it’s already been proven that not only do guards contribute less to winning than big men (unless they are CP3 or Magic Johnson, a PF and PG in one) they are more plentiful, a fact that Dave has written, and re-written, many times (first here):
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/the-short-supply-of-tall-people/
So no matter how fun it is to watch guys like D Rose and Russell Westbrook, focusing on acquiring similar players in the draft, while overlooking big men, is a great recipe for GM unemployment.
Italian Stallion
May 19, 2011
There is something intuitively bothersome about the idea that PGs are less valuable than big men. If they aren’t as valuable, why aren’t teams able to become successful with just a combination of forwards and centers.
The most obvious answer is that ball handling, passing, outside shooting, and the ability to guard other highly skilled and quick small men are all essential skills and most big men don’t have those skills in sufficient quantities.
If they are essential skills, produce less value statistically, but you can’t substitute greater value big men and get better results, it could be that the values of those skills are off or not fully captured in the box score.
Philip
May 19, 2011
Building on Ken’s point, The early 2000s Pistons had Billups (he was about a .25 player, right?), but it was Wallace that really drove things. The ’99 Spurs didn’t have any good smalls, and I don’t think Ginobli or Parker were elite until 2005. The Mavs were contenders several years without an elite small.
And of course, Phil Jackson coached 10 championship teams and 0 elite PGs.
I don’t think it matters what position your elite player is – you just need an elite one. (Preferably 2 or 3). There just happen to be a lot more elite bigs than smalls. (And a lot more truly atrocious bigs than smalls).
todd2
May 20, 2011
Seconding some of the previous posts—the Pistons and Bulls won with a point-guard-by-committee approach. Ball-handling responsibilities were shared.
todd2
May 20, 2011
You can see some shared responsibilities with the current Bulls as well when Derrick Rose is out. They’ve got several guys that can lead their breaks. There are times when you don’t see outlet passes; they just rebound and go. Pretty scary.
wiLQ
May 20, 2011
James,
“I agree the sample size is small, but I was trying to prove a quick point that you don’t necessarily NEED a great PG to win a title”
That’s a proof not a cherry-picked anecdotal evidence?
What’s more, I’m pretty sure you can measure domination in many different ways: for example, AFAIK point guards played most minutes this season and used most possessions…
Clintonite33
May 21, 2011
Totally agree, James, that the league was previously centered around the big man. That is, until Michael Jordan came along and changed the model. Jordan popularized the need for a team to have a dominant wing man. This is what’s missing in your timeline between the bigs-centric NBA of yesteryear and the transition into what seems will be a point-centric NBA.
The conventional wisdom of today’s NBA says that a point guard can’t lead you to a title, with few exceptions, and those exceptions are what would be called “combo-guards” today (“scoring PGs,” such as Isiah Thomas, Chauncey Billups). I’ve felt, and vocalized (mostly on Twitter), for the last 18 months or so, that we have so many great points in the league today that it will be inevitable that a PG will lead a team to a title sooner or later.
As with everything, the model evolves, changes, over time, and we seem to be witnessing just such a thing right now, as the league moves in a new direction as an entity. Whether intentional or not, things change, cycle through. I’d love to see this data updated with the missing wing-centric NBA of the last 15 years added in.
As for the need of a big man today to take a title, in general:
http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/where-have-the-big-men-gone/?src=tptw
We could be witnessing the pinnacle of the wing-centric NBA era, with a cyclical shift into tomorrow’s point-led NBA soon to come.
wiLQ
May 25, 2011
It took me a while but I wrote a follow-up on this subject…
http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/is-the-nba-a-point-guard-dominated-league/