Exclusive OFFICIAL Around the NBA thread: October 2019

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
TorturedBlazerFan said:
He’s not a traditional PG though, he plays off the ball here and there, he seeks out his own offense more than PG’s did 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

We don't often have a traditional Thanksgiving, does that mean I can't call it Thanksgiving? :devilwink:
 
I've always assumed Doncic was basically playing PG. But the old saying is that you are who you guard. When the blazers played the Mavs, who did Doncic typically match up against on defense?
 
In the modern NBA, "guard", "wing", "forward", and "big" are much better positional descriptors than the traditional "PG, SG, SF, PF, C".

Dallas plays a guard (Curry), two wings (Doncic & Finney-Smith), and two bigs (Porzingis & Powell). Doncic is a ball dominant wing. Lebron and Ben Simmons are ball dominant forwards.
 
BonesJones said:
Wing is more of a SG/SF type. Think Hood and Bazemore. A forward I more of a SF/PF type. Think Harkless and Aminu.
Click to expand...
I understand the distinction you’re making, but in many ways they’re similar to me. Like Hood could kind of be a sg-pf depending on the situation. He’s probably better suited at 2-3 though.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I understand the distinction you’re making, but in many ways they’re similar to me. Like Hood could kind of be a sg-pf depending on the situation. He’s probably better suited at 2-3 though.
Click to expand...
All these positions are similar on the edges, but they make much more of a distinction between play style IMO.

Thing is, you're caught up on Hood being able to play "SG, SF, or PF". I think of it this way:

A team can play with two guards, two wings, no forwards and a big. (Dame, CJ, Bazemore, Hood, Skal)
or two guards, no wings, two forwards, and a big (Dame, CJ, Harkless, Aminu, Nurkic)
or three guards, and two bigs (Dame, CJ, Anfernee, Collins, Whiteside)
etc.

Describing lineups that way describes the style of the lineup much better than "PG, SG, SF, PF, C", and players are always described as the type of player they are (Hood is still a wing even if he's considered a "small-ball 4" by traditionalists).

My coaches and high-school and college leaned more towards these labels than traditional labels. In high school, we had a guard, two wings, and two "posts" (aka bigs).
 
BonesJones said:
In the modern NBA, "guard", "wing", "forward", and "big" are much better positional descriptors than the traditional "PG, SG, SF, PF, C".

Dallas plays a guard (Curry), two wings (Doncic & Finney-Smith), and two bigs (Porzingis & Powell). Doncic is a ball dominant wing. Lebron and Ben Simmons are ball dominant forwards.
Click to expand...

Doncic is listed as a shooting guard by ESPN and a point guard and shooting guard on Basketball Reference and Simmons is listed as a PG on both ESP and Basketball Reference. Doncic runs the offense pretty much anytime he is on the floor just like Lillard does for Portland. Why can't we call Lillard a point forward? and what position did Magic play as he plays very similar will similar size as Doncic. Show me how I am wrong.
 
CupWizier said:
Doncic is listed as a shooting guard by ESPN and a point guard and shooting guard on Basketball Reference and Simmons is listed as a PG on both ESP and Basketball Reference. Doncic runs the offense pretty much anytime he is on the floor just like Lillard does for Portland. Why can't we call Lillard a point forward? and what position did Magic play as he plays very similar will similar size as Doncic. Show me how I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Huh?

I'm saying that "Guard, Wing, Forward, and Big" are much better positional descriptors than "PG, SG, SF, PF, and C", and you're responding that with the argument that Doncic and Simmons are "PGs"? My opinion is based off how traditional positional labels aren't the best descriptors for players and you're arguing that by giving those labels to guys... It doesn't make sense and isn't relative to my point.

I also said Simmons and Doncic are ball-dominant and you're arguing that by saying they "run a lot of offense"?

I'm failing to see where you disagree with my point that "Guard, Wing, Forward, and Big" are better descriptive labels than "PG, SG, SF, PF, and C".
 
BonesJones said:
All these positions are similar on the edges, but they make much more of a distinction between play style IMO.

Thing is, you're caught up on Hood being able to play "SG, SF, or PF". I think of it this way:

A team can play with two guards, two wings, no forwards and a big. (Dame, CJ, Bazemore, Hood, Skal)
or two guards, no wings, two forwards, and a big (Dame, CJ, Harkless, Aminu, Nurkic)
or three guards, and two bigs (Dame, CJ, Anfernee, Collins, Whiteside)
etc.

Describing lineups that way describes the style of the lineup much better than "PG, SG, SF, PF, C", and players are always described as the type of player they are (Hood is still a wing even if he's considered a "small-ball 4" by traditionalists).

My coaches and high-school and college leaned more towards these labels than traditional labels. In high school, we had a guard, two wings, and two "posts" (aka bigs).
Click to expand...
I dont really think Im caught up on Hood. I see it as this, almost every good to great team the last few years is playing one smallish type guard, a Dame, Steph, Kyrie type. Is surrounded by 3 guys who can basically switch to guard anyone from the small guard to everyone but the “big”, and then you have the “big” who is generally your slower, rebounding/defense type. Some of those guys may be better suited to guarding bigger players, or smaller players, but if you arent a “small point guard type” or a big, you have to have a decent amount of switchability (which is a word Im making up). Which actually has lead to some of what has ailed the Blazers at time, who does CJ guard? He’s pretty limited and is definitely hard to hide defensively. Im not putting all the Blazers problems on CJ, just pointing out he doesnt really fit the typical NBA mold right now. So yeah I agree a wing is a 2-3, and a “forward”, is a 3-4 in the traditional sense but I think in many instances its become, 1, 2-4, 5. Where 2-4 is pretty flexible depending on the teams needs, matchups all that. I think we basically agree, just wording it slightly different.
 
I don’t care how tall you are, if they bring the ball up the court 90% of the time and run the offense, I consider them a PG. Magic, Stockton, Nash, Ben Simmons, Kidd, Dame, Doncic, Odom, Pippen, LeBron.
 
Last edited:
BonesJones said:
Huh?

I'm saying that "Guard, Wing, Forward, and Big" are much better positional descriptors than "PG, SG, SF, PF, and C", and you're responding that with the argument that Doncic and Simmons are "PGs"? My opinion is based off how traditional positional labels aren't the best descriptors for players and you're arguing that by giving those labels to guys... It doesn't make sense and isn't relative to my point.

I also said Simmons and Doncic are ball-dominant and you're arguing that by saying they "run a lot of offense"?

I'm failing to see where you disagree with my point that "Guard, Wing, Forward, and Big" are better descriptive labels than "PG, SG, SF, PF, and C".
Click to expand...

why are you arguing with me because I call them point guards? You don't make the rules and just because you like it better doesn't mean I should like it better. Some of the biggest sites have them listed as point guards or if they don't differentiate then they are listed as guards. Seems pretty simple to me.
 
For example, here's the traditional lineup structure:
PG - Play Initiator / Orchestrator
SG - Secondary Play Initiator
SF
PF
C

But if you give the play initiator responsibility to the SF, that doesn't change how big that SF, or who they guard on defense (they'd likely guard the other teams 3rd biggest player), etc.

The term "Point Guard" is the most subjective position in sports. The main initiator is pigeon-holed into the "point guard" role and that ignores any other factors and doesn't make sense when they're paired with another "Point Guard" who's been a "PG" his whole career, or if ball handling/initiating duties are split.

Nowadays, the best players at any position are good enough to handle the ball and initiate offense. Giannis, Jokic, Blake Griffin, etc. The term "point forward" has been more heavily used to try to explain this, but I think that still presents the same problem as a "Point Guard" designation.

Also, I know a lot of coaches at lower levels that don't use a PG designation. If you have two guards that can handle the traditional "PG" responsibility, why pigeon-hole one as a Point Guard? And you can't have two Point Guards because the traditionalist definition of a PG is a guy who has the main responsibility of initiating offense.
 
CupWizier said:
why are you arguing with me because I call them point guards? You don't make the rules and just because you like it better doesn't mean I should like it better. Some of the biggest sites have them listed as point guards or if they don't differentiate then they are listed as guards. Seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to argue with you, you responded to me. You're whole thing was "point out where I'm wrong", but as I said, what you posted didn't really apply to my overall point.

"You don't make the rules"... Huh? All I said is I personally like different positional designations better than the traditional PG through C labeling that those types of websites use. You can look at it however you want. I don't care. I don't even understand what you're trying to argue.
 
BonesJones said:
For example, here's the traditional lineup structure:
PG - Play Initiator / Orchestrator
SG - Secondary Play Initiator
SF
PF
C

But if you give the play initiator responsibility to the SF, that doesn't change how big that SF, or who they guard on defense (they'd likely guard the other teams 3rd biggest player), etc.

The term "Point Guard" is the most subjective position in sports. The main initiator is pigeon-holed into the "point guard" role and that ignores any other factors and doesn't make sense when they're paired with another "Point Guard" who's been a "PG" his whole career, or if ball handling/initiating duties are split.

Nowadays, the best players at any position are good enough to handle the ball and initiate offense. Giannis, Jokic, Blake Griffin, etc. The term "point forward" has been more heavily used to try to explain this, but I think that still presents the same problem as a "Point Guard" designation.

Also, I know a lot of coaches at lower levels that don't use a PG designation. If you have two guards that can handle the traditional "PG" responsibility, why pigeon-hole one as a Point Guard? And you can't have two Point Guards because the traditionalist definition of a PG is a guy who has the main responsibility of initiating offense.
Click to expand...
Anyway, that's how I look at it, and it's part of the reasoning as to why I think the simple terms of "Guard, Wing, Forward, and Big" are better because they take into account other things such as height, the types of players they'd defend, and are more descriptive of their play style (especially at the forward positions). Bojan Bogdonavic and Zach Collins are completely different types of players. I look at Bogdonavic as a wing and Collins as a big. However, they both play the traditional "PF" due to their team situation.

I also like those designations because it doesn't designate one-player as the "main initiator". In my mind, pretty much any guard has the ability to initiate the offense. Some wings and forwards can as well.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
I dont really think Im caught up on Hood. I see it as this, almost every good to great team the last few years is playing one smallish type guard, a Dame, Steph, Kyrie type. Is surrounded by 3 guys who can basically switch to guard anyone from the small guard to everyone but the “big”, and then you have the “big” who is generally your slower, rebounding/defense type. Some of those guys may be better suited to guarding bigger players, or smaller players, but if you arent a “small point guard type” or a big, you have to have a decent amount of switchability (which is a word Im making up). Which actually has lead to some of what has ailed the Blazers at time, who does CJ guard? He’s pretty limited and is definitely hard to hide defensively. Im not putting all the Blazers problems on CJ, just pointing out he doesnt really fit the typical NBA mold right now. So yeah I agree a wing is a 2-3, and a “forward”, is a 3-4 in the traditional sense but I think in many instances its become, 1, 2-4, 5. Where 2-4 is pretty flexible depending on the teams needs, matchups all that. I think we basically agree, just wording it slightly different.
Click to expand...
Switchability is a term that's actually used, and I use it quite a bit.

I'm not saying that, for instance, "a forward can only guard forwards".

There's a level of switchability due to who's next to you on the court. If you have three Maurice Harkless's on the court, they can all switch with each other because they're the same type of defender, and therefore it doesn't matter who each one guards. I actually think the "Guard, Wing, Forward, and Big" positional labels can help describe that. Let me try to explain:

If the Clippers start a linup of Beverly, George, Kawhi, Harkless, and Zubac, they'd be starting a guard, 3 forwards, and a big. Those 3 forwards are all switchable with each other without exposing the defense to a mismatch. Of course, a forward like Kawhi or Harkless could switch with Beverly and be fine defending a guard, but Beverly (the guard) would likely be stuck on a forward type, therefore presenting a possible defensive mismatch. This applies to guards (Dame & CJ), wings (Bazemore & Hood), or bigs (Collins & Whiteside).

So if you have a lineup described by some combination of "Guard, Wing, Forward, and Big", it can help you determine who's switchable with each other on the defensive end just based off their descriptor. Obviously there's going to be forwards that can guard 5 positions and some that can guard 2, but no simple positional labeling system is going to eliminate subjectivity like that.
 
Also, Portland struggled to protect the rim without a big last night, as can be expected. They were running 2G, 1W, 2F lineups with Hezonja and Tolliver as the biggest players on the court. They needed to play the one big we had more, since our rim protection was better with a big in the game.

Y'all can look at it any way you want, just sharing a way that I like that you might like as well:dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Chris Craig
Exclusive Blazersland Mailbag October 2019 Edition
Replies
3
Views
195
hoopsjock
hoopsjock
Chris Craig
Notice Submit Questions For Blazersland Mailbag October 2019 Edition
Replies
18
Views
927
PtldPlatypus
PtldPlatypus
PDXFonz
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
Exclusive Official Around the NBA: November 2022
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
49K
PDXFonz
PDXFonz
Chris Craig
Forum Game 2019 Trade Deadline Prediction Game
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
hoopsjock
hoopsjock
ABM
Trail Blazers Fan Fest to Be Held at Veterans Memorial Coliseum
Replies
5
Views
314
EL PRESIDENTE
EL PRESIDENTE

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top