Good point guards are shit, don't draft them

*It's been a long time since I've posted. But in all honesty, I haven't found a whole lot to gripe about. I really hope the Boston Herald/NY Post/SI.com set hasn't had some overhaul where they stop being dumbasses. But here's the first salvo in what will hopefully be a summer filled with bullshit.*

Who's the most important player on a basketball team? The point guard, probably. He handles the ball the most and facilitates the offense. You can easily overcome a shitty one with a great two-guard (see: Kobe, Wade, "I play every position" LeBron), but having a great one is a huge help.

But fuck drafting one high. Chris Paul? Dude's a stiff. Deron Williams? Guy sucks. They aren't winners.

*Gun loading*

DEREK FISHER PROVES TITLES AREN'T WON WITH GREAT POINT GUARDS

This was the teaser that set me off. Fisher has four rings. Three of them with Shaq/Kobe and one with an insane Kobe. Fisher had dick to do with them winning, aside from some "clutch" threes (that one against the Spurs kills me) and not turning the ball over. Awesome great job!

Derrick Rose was Rookie of the Year. Chauncey Billups was a hero in Denver. Jameer Nelson and Mo Williams were difference makers in the East. Aaron Brooks almost changed history. Point guards also are expected to dominate the first 10 or 12 picks in the draft next week.

All those dudes are A) either very good or awesome at basketball B) except for Williams, first round picks and C) teams that made the playoffs. And where's Paul and Deron Williams? They made the playoffs too.

And then there's Derek Fisher. He of the season averages of 10 points and three assists. He of the 40 percent shooting in the playoffs.

And he of the four rings.

Alright, fuck this. I am dubbing this the Ramiro Mendoza corollary: when a dude wins a ton of rings being very lucky or like the tenth best dude (or worse) on his team.

There's your reality check. At one of the great historical intersections in the history of point guards, an unexplainable convergence of circumstances from the 2008-09 season into the June 25 draft into free agency next month, the reminder note being distributed after Lakers-Magic is that it does not take a great talent at the point to win the title. Big men (Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon), yes. Wing players who leave defenders with singed jerseys (Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Michael Jordan), absolutely. But not point guards.

Tony Parker is an awful PG. How the hell did Duncan win the title ... what's that? He won a Finals MVP? He is a two-time all-star who has averaged 18 points or more and 5.5 assists or more over the past four seasons and is only 26 years old? Well shit...

I will cede that the teams Howard-Cooper cherry-picked didn't need awesome PGs to win titles. But of those seven players, two are in the top ten OF ALL-TIME and the four big men are in the top fifty or forty.

Point is, you need awesome players to win.

Fisher is just part of the story. Take a look at the point guards who have won in the Finals the past decade or so, and it's clear teams do not need great point guards to win a championship, and teams where the best player is a point guard do not win.

Already this list is bunk for a few reasons. The Lakers have won four of the past ten titles. The Bulls got one, and the Spurs PG is great. Let's see this thang.

2009 -- Fisher.
2008 -- Rajon Rondo, Celtics. Certainly has All-Star potential, but not there yet.
2007 -- Tony Parker, Spurs. Three All-Star appearances, one Finals MVP.
2006 -- Jason Williams, Heat. With the asterisk that Wade handled the ball a lot.
2005 -- Parker.
2004 -- Chauncey Billups, Pistons. Four All-Star appearances.
2003 -- Parker.
2002 -- Fisher (35 starts in the regular season and all 19 starts in the playoffs) and Lindsey Hunter (47 starts in the regular season, most at the point). With the asterisk that Bryant handled the ball.
2001 -- Fisher. Started only 20 times in the regular season because a foot injury cost him the other 62 games, then started the entire playoffs. Brian Shaw and Ron Harper played the point a lot in the regular season. Plus: the Kobe asterisk.
2000 -- Harper.
1999 -- Avery Johnson, Spurs.
1998 -- Harper, Bulls. Asterisk: Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen.

So throwing out Parker and Billups, two first rounders who are really good, what the fuck is the point of this? Answer: some teams with really awesome players won titles over the past ten years. Cool.

To review: Avery Johnson has one ring, Jason Williams has one ring, Steve Nash and Jason Kidd none.

Conclusion: Johnson and Williams are better than two HOFers.

Kidd was in back-to-back finals and lost to awesome teams. What a schlub. Steve Nash has two (ill-gotten) MVPs and is unfortunately running a flawed team that probably could never win a title. They are both great. And yes, they have both never won a crapshoot filled with landmines played underwater, drunk and blindfolded.

Two starting point guards among the last 12 champions have been All-Stars. No Hall of Famer was in the role since Isiah Thomas with the Pistons in 1990.

This is so flawed because of the past 12 title winners, a whooping SEVEN of those were either the Spurs (Parker, who's an awesome PG remember) or Lakers (the land of two top twenty all-time guys). So this list is a whole huge weird mess of randomness.

The draft and free agency alone will alter the league for years. It just may not deliver a title. Because it doesn't take a great point guard to win.

I guarantee Chris Paul will win a title sometime as the best player on his team. Deron Williams is also very, very good and could get there. Jason Kidd has ran into some freight trains and Steve Nash's window is probably closed. Rajon Rondo and Derrick Rose look set to battle it out for decades, possibly contending for titles.

This has nothing to do with "title teams don't need point guards!" It's "title teams need really good players and a bunch of other shit to happen" to win. All-time greats help too.

If you are going to "prove" it doesn't take good PGs to win, how about deflating all the lottery PGs that stink now? I am sure that'd be more convincing than "the Spurs/Lakers -- winners of 58% of the last dozen titles -- didn't need one!"

It's good to be back.

An awesome idea to fix the NBA draft

Over at Truehoop (best blog about one sport? It's up there.) Henry Abbott responds to an idea a reader has about how to fix the admittedly horrible NBA draft lottery.

An interesting way to revamp the draft ordering system would be to assign teams points (for example one point for each loss they had during the season) and then auction off the draft slots.

I, for one think this is a great idea. Abbot points out a few problems with it (racist undertones, doesn't fix tanking), but overall, I love this plan - if only to make real sports more like fantasy ones.

In all seriousness, I think this is a really interesting idea. With a few tweaks, it could become a reality (not really, but let's pretend).

Why it would work

• Giving teams the flexibility to essentially choose their draft spot is infinitely better than placing your franchises' hope on some 19 year-old top draft pick who may or may not stink. Smart teams or teams that aren't in love with the upper-tier players could actually restock talent on the cheap and *gasp* put a competitive team on the floor. A team like the Miami Heat this season (riddled with injuries, but with two bona fide stars in Marion and Wade) may not want/need a top pick next season. Instead, preferring to take a middle first rounder for cheap and a quality second rounder. Much better than trying to trade the pick with another team.

• On the contrary, a middle of the road bad team who loves the top pick, could "overpay" for him, ensuring they get their man. Said team could then make the leap and become competitive - which is good for the league.

• Speaking of trading picks, this would be eliminated from NBA trades - an element that makes 90% of all trades work. With lottery protection and all that mumbo jumbo, trading picks often blows up in team's faces - see Detroit getting the number three pick from Atlanta in 2001. This would force teams to make more balanced trades and, while making them more difficult to pull off, would probably be best for the league.

• By adding a rule that teams only get one pick per round, the NBA would eliminate a really, really awful team from tanking and buying the top five picks.

• It would create undeniable drama/chaos that would be must-see TV. I just imagine GM's screaming out bids like they're on Wallstreet, hoping to get Kevin Love for $25 imaginary loss-dollars. This would be much better than the totally unwatchable draft in it's current format. I would watch the whole thing to see what team gets some kid from Northern New Mexico State for $1 who turns out to be the next Steve Nash. Additionally, we could see sly GM's driving up prices for hyped guys and screwing over dumber GM's. The Spurs front office would force Isiah Thomas to spend $45 on one of the Lopez twins, laughing the whole time.

Why it wouldn't work

• The racist undertones are a really big issue. As Abbott says, a room full of old white guys bidding on mostly young African-Americans? That's a huge problem.
  

• Fans would be totally confused. "What is this? Why aren't they going in order?!" *head explode* Like many good ideas, this one is pretty out there and change is painfully slow to come.
  

• A lot of front offices are dumb. Asking them to determine an order by which they think players are going to be taken is difficult enough (Chris Paul much?), asking them to place an abstract value on players while balancing an imaginary budget would be near-impossible. Fantasy auction pros are used to this and would probably dominate a draft, if given the chance. But as we know, they are too busy living in their mom's basement to do any real work.
  

• David Stern is kind of a jerk. If he won't do something as simple as re-seed the playoffs (although that may be coming), asking him to do something as revolutionary as re-invent the way NBA teams are built is insane. Maybe when Mark Cuban is the commissioner in 2015.
  

Stern has to know the draft system sucks as it is now. Teams suddenly come up with injuries to increase draft positions, the most needy teams rarely get the top pick and leaving something as important as the draft up to chance is ridiculous. Something has to change. Whether it's as radical as this method, or something else (tanking be damned, just do it by the standings), remains to be seen.