Most Important Position: NBA

[Big Sexy]

With most of the 4 major sports it's easy to come up with what the most important position on the team is and not have much of an argument. In the NFL the most important position is quarterback, in MLB it is starting pitching, and in the NHL it is the goalie. However, when it comes to the NBA there is no clear cut position that is the most important. So I ask you: What is the most important position in the NBA?

At first I guarantee that most people will pick point guard, and that isn't a bad choice. However, when you look at history (especially the last 20 years) teams that win the NBA title don't always have an elite point guard or even a great one. The Lakers championship teams in the 2000's never had an elite point guard. The Bulls dynasty never had an elite point guard, or even a good one for that matter. When the Celtics won a few years ago Rondo was not yet an elite point guard. The Rockets didn't have an elite point guard in their 2 title wins in the mid 90's. Even the Spurs didn't always have one. Avery Johnson was good not great, Tony Parker was no where near elite in the Spurs second title win and he was borderline in the last two. You look at some of the best point guards ever and they have never won a title. John Stockton, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Kevin Johnson, Marc Jackson all failed to win an NBA title. It took Gary Payton basically his entire career to win one and when he finally did it was in a back up role well out of his prime.

To me the most important position to an NBA team is the center position. You look at the greatest centers of all time and almost all of them have won an NBA title. Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Bill Russell, The Dream, Moses Malone, David Robinson, Willis Reed, George Mikan, Bill Walton, the have all won championships. Patrick Ewing and Elgin Baylor are a couple of the exceptions that I can think of off the top of my head. Point guard is obviously a very important position because they handle the ball more then everyone else and the are the facilitator on offense but to me it's easier to win with a sub par point guard then it is with a sub par big man.

It's really a toss up between point guard and center. Having a great one or the other is almost always needed to win a title with the Bulls in the 90's being the exception to the rule. So what position do you got? Point Guard? Center? Or do you go with one of the other three?

 

[Alastor]

I wouldn't say which position is the most important because there are too many hybrid roles and would be difficult to define. A team can do without an exceptional point guard if they have a point-forward like Lebron James, or a shooting guard that can make his own shots like Jordan. A team can do without a true center if they have a good mix of rebounding talent. But if I have to pick one position to be the most important I would say center as well. Because a great center is usually one with height. As they say, you can train and improve your skills but you cannot train height. With a great big man, the job of everyone else on the court is much easier. Shooters can shoot with more confidence because if they miss the big man can bail them out with a rebound. Point guard can find easier mismatches. And having a bigger man when defending is great as size of the big man can alter the shot selections of the opposing team's smaller players.

 

[red ass skull muhfukkah]

Like Alastor said it's difficult nowadays to say which position is most important. Position roles are less defined and players are able to mix different styles of play that would negate the point of having a strong player at a particular position.

But to answer your question I'd have to go with a strong Center or Power Forward. Mainly a strong rebounding, post, and inside presence player is needed to be considered a championship level team, unless you have multiple stars and role players like the Lakers and Celtics. A strong under the hoop player makes the game so much easier for the rest of the team. Just look at the Magic at the moment. They have a solid team but without Howard grabbing all the boards, blocking shots, and dominating down low, how far would they really go? But because they have a dominant Center/Power Forward player like him, they are instantly pushed into the playoff/championship picture regardless of how strong the rest of the team is. That's not to say the Magic aren't a good team but without Howard they're a playoff team, with him they're a Top 5 in the league/Championship team.

 

[nwocongo]

I'm gonna agree and go with the power forward/center, the other posters have already mentioned why. Point guards are kind of like quarterbacks, it helps your chances if you have a great one, but if you have a good team and a dominant big man you just need a point guard who doesn't make alot of unforced errors.
I'll mention one other position that is definitely overlooked, a solid defensive stopper at the 2 or 3 spot. Most of the elite players in the league, Lebron, DWade, Durant, Kobe, Melo, Pierce etc play at the 2 or 3 spot most of the time, so having a guy like Artest or Bruce Bowen is important. I never liked Bowen, I thought he played dirty as hell, but other than Duncan he may have been the most important piece of the Spurs championship runs.

 

[People's Champ]

While it may be true that roles aren't as defined as they use to be, if you were going to have a true dominae player, you want him to be a center. As B.S said, looking back, even to just last year, the most important position is center. Being able to guard the basket and grab rebounds is a vital part of the game. What's the problem with the Heat and why they won't win the title this year? No true big, no true center. The Celtics run was helped by having a true big man in Perkins. While the PG is considered the QB of the NBA and is important, as we have seen, the center is what makes championship teams.

 

[The Best]

You know, I'm going to be a little bit different than you guys here and say the shooting guard.

I'll say that because all though the point guard is the guy who sets up the scores, and the center is the guy who does the dirty work on both offense and defense, the shooting guard is the guy who is supposed to score 20, 25, 30 points day in and day out. The possible two greatest shooting guards of all time in Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan combine for 11 titles in 13 appearances.They led they're respective teams all throughout they're careers, and it's hard to argue that Jordan's Bulls are the team of the 90's and Kobe's lakers are the team of the 2000's. Also, the guy on the NBA logo, Jerry West was a shooting guard, he carried the Lakers on his back in 1972 along with Chamberlain. West, Jordan, and Kobe are three of the best players of all time, and they're job was to put points on the board which they did, and that's what a shooting guard has to do day in and day out.

Now, back to the position as a whole, shooting guards are the ones who NBA coaches put their top defenders on, they're the ones who you get the ball to at the end of a game(unless if you have someone like LeBron, Melo etc.) What I figured out is that LeBron didn't win a title in Cleveland because he didn't have another shooter around him, if LeBron had a decent shooter around him(please don't say Mo Williams is that good), than maybe Cleveland would go farther, but they didn't have a shooter to back themselves up. You always need a good player at the 2 position, a guy who can score in or outside, a guy who is supposed to lead your team in scoring day in and day out. More than 1/5 of the teams in the NBA have leading scorers that are shooting guards, and the guy who has the most points per game on Tuesday's is a shooting guard(I know it's not important, it's supposed to be a joke.)

Although any one could make a good argument on why the point guard or the center is the most important position you could have, i'm just trying my best to say something different, I know this might get ripped, but I just wanted to put out something different.

 

[Slyfox696]

First of all, just so we're clear, the topic is discussing the NBA, correct? Not basketball? Because there is a big difference between basketball and the NBA.

In the NBA, there's only one important position, and it's the "Superstar" position. It doesn't matter whether it's at PG, SG or C, you need the Superstar position. You can find champions with their best players at every position. But you won't find a team that doesn't haven't at least one superstar caliber player. Here's a link:

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html

Go ahead, find me one team on there where you can't say they don't have a player who is an All-Star and arguably the best player at their position. The only team that comes CLOSE would be the Pistons in the mid 2000s, and I'd say Ben Wallace was easily the best defensive player in the league, and arguably the best Center in the league. Otherwise, on every one of those teams, you can find a great superstar.

However, in BASKETBALL (from elementary school up to the International level) the most important position is the point guard. When you're playing a game where continuity offense relies on rhythm your point guard is where the game starts and ends. They guard the playmaker on the other team, and they create the offense for yours.

So, in the NBA, the most important position is the Superstar position, and in basketball, the most important position is the point guard.

 

[ROCKY VS CENA OMG]

In the last 20 years 2 NBA teams have won a title without a good wing player that usually plays the 2 or 3 spot. (The 1999 and 2003 Spurs).
The 1990-1993 Bulls had Pippen and Jordan
The 1994-1995 Rockets had Clyde Drexler
The 1996-1998 Bulls had Pippen and Jordan
1999 Sean Elliot (Exception)
2000-2002 Lakers had Kobe Bryant
2003 Spurs had Stephen Jackson (another exception)
2004 Pistons had Rip Hamilton
2005 Spurs had Manu Ginobli
2006 Heat had Dwayne Wade
2007 Spurs had Manu Ginobli
2008 Celtics had Ray Allen and Paul Pierce
2009 Lakers had Kobe
2010 Lakers had Kobe

Even though some of these Wing players aren't the best players on their team. Only 2 teams have won a title without a solid wing player the 1999 Spurs and the 2003 Spurs. These players still averaged over 11 points a game respectively per season.

 

[Slyfox696]

In the last 20 years 2 NBA teams have won a title without a good wing player that usually plays the 2 or 3 spot. (The 1999 and 2003 Spurs).
The 1990-1993 Bulls had Pippen and Jordan
The 1994-1995 Rockets had Clyde Drexler
The 1996-1998 Bulls had Pippen and Jordan
1999 Sean Elliot (Exception)
2000-2002 Lakers had Kobe Bryant
2003 Spurs had Stephen Jackson (another exception)
2004 Pistons had Rip Hamilton
2005 Spurs had Manu Ginobli
2006 Heat had Dwayne Wade
2007 Spurs had Manu Ginobli
2008 Celtics had Ray Allen and Paul Pierce
2009 Lakers had Kobe
2010 Lakers had Kobe

Even though some of these Wing players aren't the best players on their team. Only 2 teams have won a title without a solid wing player the 1999 Spurs and the 2003 Spurs. These players still averaged over 11 points a game respectively per season.

No offense, but that's a terrible argument. I could say the exact same thing about "post players" using the 4 or the 5 spot. Gasol, Garnett, Duncan, Shaq, Wallace, Rodman, Olajuwon, etc.

When you start make one position into two, it's not really "one" position, especially when there are only five positions total.

 

[ROCKY VS CENA OMG]

No offense, but that's a terrible argument. I could say the exact same thing about "post players" using the 4 or the 5 spot. Gasol, Garnett, Duncan, Shaq, Wallace, Rodman, Olajuwon, etc.

When you start make one position into two, it's not really "one" position, especially when there are only five positions total.

I agree with you about the bigmen. However Jordan's first run did not have a great bigman (Horace Grant was good but was he as good as the wings?) and that is why I thought about the wing idea. In the NBA teams do require 2 to 3 good-great players with 1 of them being a superstar. I'm just saying that the wing position always has 1-2 good guys. Even in the 80's the Lakers had worthy, Celtics had Bird, 76ers had Erving, and the Pistons had Dumars. The majority of the good teams are more likely to have solid wing players rather than a bigman or a point guard and that is why I think the 2 or 3 is the most important position. Look at the league now, the most dominant players are on the wing. (Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Durant, Gay, Melo, Ellis, Pierce, Allen,Gordon, Johnson, and Wallace)

 

[Alastor]

First of all, just so we're clear, the topic is discussing the NBA, correct? Not basketball? Because there is a big difference between basketball and the NBA.

In the NBA, there's only one important position, and it's the "Superstar" position. It doesn't matter whether it's at PG, SG or C, you need the Superstar position. You can find champions with their best players at every position. But you won't find a team that doesn't haven't at least one superstar caliber player. Here's a link:

http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html

Go ahead, find me one team on there where you can't say they don't have a player who is an All-Star and arguably the best player at their position. The only team that comes CLOSE would be the Pistons in the mid 2000s, and I'd say Ben Wallace was easily the best defensive player in the league, and arguably the best Center in the league. Otherwise, on every one of those teams, you can find a great superstar.

However, in BASKETBALL (from elementary school up to the International level) the most important position is the point guard. When you're playing a game where continuity offense relies on rhythm your point guard is where the game starts and ends. They guard the playmaker on the other team, and they create the offense for yours.

So, in the NBA, the most important position is the Superstar position, and in basketball, the most important position is the point guard.

In fairness, the superstar player is not really a position. Saying a great player is the most important position in the NBA is like saying good players enable a team to win. Redundant. A superstar is such vague term. Is it the guy that take the most shots? The go to guy at the buzzer? The one that sells the most jersey? When teams that have no stars win, it is usually the exception rather than the rule. Sometimes it could just be the blossoming of a solid player into a superstar in the team that won. Aren't superstars made because their teams won?

I agree with you about the bigmen. However Jordan's first run did not have a great bigman (Horace Grant was good but was he as good as the wings?) and that is why I thought about the wing idea. In the NBA teams do require 2 to 3 good-great players with 1 of them being a superstar. I'm just saying that the wing position always has 1-2 good guys. Even in the 80's the Lakers had worthy, Celtics had Bird, 76ers had Erving, and the Pistons had Dumars. The majority of the good teams are more likely to have solid wing players rather than a bigman or a point guard and that is why I think the 2 or 3 is the most important position. Look at the league now, the most dominant players are on the wing. (Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Durant, Gay, Melo, Ellis, Pierce, Allen,Gordon, Johnson, and Wallace)

I think the abundance of good to excellent wing players means you do not need to have the best in the position to win. Finding a decent player for that position is easier than to find a solid center or post player. That is why there is always a premium for solid post players in the NBA. Great wing player win you games, great post players win you titles. Jordan was an exception but even he needed Rodman the second time round.

 

[Slyfox696]

I agree with you about the bigmen. However Jordan's first run did not have a great bigman (Horace Grant was good but was he as good as the wings?)

Neither was Sean Elliot, every rule has an exception.

But I'm not trying to argue that the post is an important position, I'm arguing you can't make 2 positions as 1. You're using the 2 and 3 spots, which is 40% of a team to make your case. I'm just saying it's not really a good argument.

In fairness, the superstar player is not really a position.

Sure it is, why isn't it?

When the Heat went out for free agency this offseason, did they look for a SF? Did they look for a PF? Or did they look for two Superstars to play alongside their other superstar, and then worry later about how they would play together?

When the Knicks traded for Melo, did they trade because Wilson Chandler was a bad SF, or did they trade because Melo was a Superstar?


In today's NBA, the Superstar is a position which MUST be filled. Every championship team has one, and these days, teams are clamoring to get two or three of them on their team.

Saying a great player is the most important position in the NBA is like saying good players enable a team to win.

Good players don't win, great players do.

A superstar is such vague term. Is it the guy that take the most shots? The go to guy at the buzzer? The one that sells the most jersey?

It's the guy that you immediately think of when you hear the team now. If I said Los Angeles Lakers, who do you think of? Kobe. If I say San Antonio Spurs, Tim Duncan immediately comes to mind. If I say the Cleveland Cavaliers, you think LeBron James, and he doesn't even play there anymore.

Those are superstars. If I say "Sacremento Kings", now who do you think of? Does it take you a bit longer? Do you think of a couple different players? How about the current Utah Jazz? Take you a few seconds to say "that guy is the man there"? How about the Chicago Bulls? Whoops, there's Derrick Rose immediately coming to mind.

Those guys are the Superstars. Perhaps you can't define them, but you know them when you see them.

Sometimes it could just be the blossoming of a solid player into a superstar in the team that won. Aren't superstars made because their teams won?

Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing and Karl Malone say no.

 

[Alastor]

Sure it is, why isn't it?

Because that is a cope out and you know it.

When the Heat went out for free agency this offseason, did they look for a SF? Did they look for a PF? Or did they look for two Superstars to play alongside their other superstar, and then worry later about how they would play together?

We are discussing which of the 5 positions in a team is the most important in the the NBA, not what strategy teams use to build a winning team. The contrast to the Heat's method is the Spurs and Thunders method of building around their best player instead of signing superstar players for the sake of it. Conversely I can say tittle contenders always go out of their way mid season to find veterans to fill the bench. Does that mean that is the most important position in the NBA?

When the Knicks traded for Melo, did they trade because Wilson Chandler was a bad SF, or did they trade because Melo was a Superstar?

Not all players that you want to trade away means they are bad players. Is Perkins a bad player because the Celtic traded him? Melo is a better player in than Chandler hence the Knicks made the trade.

In today's NBA, the Superstar is a position which MUST be filled. Every championship team has one, and these days, teams are clamoring to get two or three of them on their team.

Who wouldn't want great players on their team? If you could get a better player than the one you have, you can go for it. I can understand that school of thought but whether it is the best way to win is another story.

Good players don't win, great players do.

Robert Horry, Derrick Fisher says hi.

It's the guy that you immediately think of when you hear the team now. If I said Los Angeles Lakers, who do you think of? Kobe. If I say San Antonio Spurs, Tim Duncan immediately comes to mind. If I say the Cleveland Cavaliers, you think LeBron James, and he doesn't even play there anymore.

Those are superstars. If I say "Sacremento Kings", now who do you think of? Does it take you a bit longer? Do you think of a couple different players? How about the current Utah Jazz? Take you a few seconds to say "that guy is the man there"? How about the Chicago Bulls? Whoops, there's Derrick Rose immediately coming to mind.

Those guys are the Superstars. Perhaps you can't define them, but you know them when you see them.

So the guy that sells tickets are the superstars.

Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing and Karl Malone say no.

I didn't mean to say they have to win the title to be considered superstars. That would mean a ridiculous shallow pool of superstars. I meant a deep run into the playoffs or title win can make people change perception of the player. Deron Williams blossomed into a superstar when the Jazz made a deep run in the playoffs. Rondo and Parker became superstars because they led their team to the title.

 

[Slyfox696]

Because that is a cope out and you know it.

Not in the NBA, it's not.

We are discussing which of the 5 positions in a team is the most important in the the NBA, not what strategy teams use to build a winning team. The contrast to the Heat's method is the Spurs and Thunders method of building around their best player instead of signing superstar players for the sake of it. Conversely I can say tittle contenders always go out of their way mid season to find veterans to fill the bench. Does that mean that is the most important position in the NBA?

You could, but you'd be wrong. Teams sign Superstars to win titles. We both know it's true.

Not all players that you want to trade away means they are bad players. Is Perkins a bad player because the Celtic traded him? Melo is a better player in than Chandler hence the Knicks made the trade.

That's pretty much my point.

Melo is a Superstar, Chandler is not.

Who wouldn't want great players on their team? If you could get a better player than the one you have, you can go for it. I can understand that school of thought but whether it is the best way to win is another story.

As I've pointed out, find me a team that won the NBA championship without a Superstar on their team.

Robert Horry, Derrick Fisher says hi.

Oh, that's who those guys were? I couldn't see them behind Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant.

So the guy that sells tickets are the superstars.

...pretty certain that's not at all what I said.

I didn't mean to say they have to win the title to be considered superstars. That would mean a ridiculous shallow pool of superstars. I meant a deep run into the playoffs or title win can make people change perception of the player. Deron Williams blossomed into a superstar when the Jazz made a deep run in the playoffs. Rondo and Parker became superstars because they led their team to the title.

Which shows that Superstars win...which has been my point from the beginning. I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you are getting at here.

 

[The Crock]

Sly is right, in the NBA game, Superstars win. They need certain players that will complement them, but if you took the Superstar out of the equation they wouldn't have anything. You can have a bunch of good players, role players, but you won't win many games. The Suns, the Jazz, the Blazers, all good teams, but aside from Steve Nash, neither team has a legitimate star. None of those teams can make it far in the playoffs, because when it comes down to it, they have nobody to take the clutch shot. Nobody to handle the ball in those tough spots.

A STAR is the most important spot. But in all of basketball, it's a Point Guard. He's the field general. The Center is important too, but without a good Point Guard you cannot have a good Center either.

 

[Alastor]

Not in the NBA, it's not.

You could, but you'd be wrong. Teams sign Superstars to win titles. We both know it's true.

That's pretty much my point.

Melo is a Superstar, Chandler is not.


As I've pointed out, find me a team that won the NBA championship without a Superstar on their team.

Oh, that's who those guys were? I couldn't see them behind Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant.

...pretty certain that's not at all what I said.


Which shows that Superstars win...which has been my point from the beginning. I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you are getting at here.

My point was using the Superstar position as the most important position is not answering the nature of the question, which I assumed was asking which playing position is the most important in the NBA. I understand you did post you belief that the point guard position is the most important in basketball, just wanted to know what you feel is the most important of the 5 in the NBA.

I disagree with using the Superstar position as an answer because that can be used for any team sports that ask which is the most important position. What is the most important position in baseball, football, soccer or hockey? A superstar position reply would cover it in almost all of them. I understand your point as basketball is only 5 on 5. It is a team sport that emphasize both team and individual excellence and having a a better player in any position greatly affects the game compared to most other team sports.

 

[ROCKY VS CENA OMG]

Sly is right, in the NBA game, Superstars win. They need certain players that will complement them, but if you took the Superstar out of the equation they wouldn't have anything. You can have a bunch of good players, role players, but you won't win many games. The Suns, the Jazz, the Blazers, all good teams, but aside from Steve Nash, neither team has a legitimate star. None of those teams can make it far in the playoffs, because when it comes down to it, they have nobody to take the clutch shot. Nobody to handle the ball in those tough spots.

A STAR is the most important spot. But in all of basketball, it's a Point Guard. He's the field general. The Center is important too, but without a good Point Guard you cannot have a good Center either.

I agree with you that if you disregard the NBA the point guard is the most important position. In the NBA, many teams have won titles without a good point guard like Jordan's Bulls, Kobe's Lakers and The Spurs first title. That is 12 out of the last 20 champions that did not have a good point guard. It's amazing really of how different the NBA is from other forms of bball.