NBA first team, no point guard chosen, is it fair!

[nextnba]

The nba first team came out and as usual, they fail to choose based on position. No point guards were chosen. Is this fair?

[dopeboy]

When was it fair? If you'd choose PG, you have to leave either Wade or Bryant out of first team and that certainly wouldn't be fair. But if I had to choose 1st team based on pure performance not positions, it would be Howard, LBJ, D-Wade, CP3 and Kobe.

[benji]

They did choose it by position. One center, two forwards and two guards. Those are the designations the league recognizes, and the rules.

[MikeMan™]

They did choose it by position. One center, two forwards and two guards. Those are the designations the league recognizes, and the rules.

Yeah , Not one SG and one PG .
You can't make CP3 in front of Wade !

[Lamrock]

But you can put CP3 in front of Kobe. Wade is technically a combo guard if it bugs you that much.

[MikeMan™]

But you can put CP3 in front of Kobe. Wade is technically a combo guard if it bugs you that much.

Stat-Wise Yes , You can put CP3 in front of Kobe but in accomplishments this Season !?
Naw , No way you can put CP3 in front of Mamba .

[benji]

Stat-Wise Yes , You can put CP3 in front of Kobe but in accomplishments this Season !?

What's the difference?

[Oskar]

Stat-Wise Yes , You can put CP3 in front of Kobe but in accomplishments this Season !?

What's the difference?

Difference is that basketball isn't all about stats, Kobe's team was better and I'm most likely not the only one who thinks CP3 had a better season last year. This year though, I think this is the good spot for him.

G: Paul, Wade
F: Kobe, LeBron
C: Howard

That would've been the best one probably, but unfortunately Kobe can't be counted as a forward.

[Andrew]

I have to be boring and go with the crowd here, it's hardly unfair given the criteria of two guards, two forwards and one centre.

[shadowgrin]

basketball isn't all about stats, Kobe's team was better

Then why is Kobe's team better? The Lakers have more wins? That's stats (Wins). Explain, please.

[nextnba]

You have to have a pg. Most PG will not be able to put up the numbers in scoring because they are too busy running the team and throwing out assist. With this guideline, the only way a pg will make first all nba team is if they win mvp like how nash did it. You need to have different criteria for different positions. For the same purpose that all nba team has a pg on thier team becuase they recognized the importance of a pg and they need to have that same recognition when it comes to handing out all nba awards.

[dopeboy]

Nash isn't the best example here, don't ya think? And 4 of 5 guys who were ahead of any PG, were MVP candidates.

[benji]

Kobe's team was better

What does that have to do with Kobe's accomplishments? Sounds like it's the Lakers's accomplishments.

[Andrew]

You have to have a pg. Most PG will not be able to put up the numbers in scoring because they are too busy running the team and throwing out assist. With this guideline, the only way a pg will make first all nba team is if they win mvp like how nash did it. You need to have different criteria for different positions. For the same purpose that all nba team has a pg on thier team becuase they recognized the importance of a pg and they need to have that same recognition when it comes to handing out all nba awards.

No one is disputing the importance of a point guard to an NBA team but the criteria for the All-NBA teams isn't position specific (at least to the point of having one player from each position, simply two guards, two forwards and centre) so if the two best performances by a guard both happen to come from shooting guards - or point guards for that matter - then both can be recognised with All-NBA First Team honours. It's not about recognising the importance of each position, it's about recognising individual performances. They just choose to have some organisation through loosely selecting by general position (guard, forward, centre).

Furthermore, history doesn't support your "unfair to point guards" claim at all. This is the first time in five years that a point guard hasn't been selected to the All-NBA First team. Eight times this decade, the First Team has included at least one point guard. Beginning in 1993, at least one point guard was selected as one of the guards for ten straight years. In the last 25 seasons, 22 All-NBA First Teams have featured a point guard and 7 have included two point guards. So I'm sorry, but a rare instance of a point guard not being selected does not indicate criteria that is unfair to point guards and they most certainly do not have to win the MVP to make the First Team.

[nextnba]

so if the two best performances by a guard both happen to come from shooting guards - or point guards for that matter - then both can be recognised with All-NBA First Team honours. It's not about recognising the importance of each position, it's about recognising individual performances.

I don't know about that. Ind. stats shows CP has better numbers than Wade and Bryant in FG%, FT%, 3P%, Reb, APG, SPG, and less TO and better over team record than Wade. The only atual stat CP is lower in is PPG.

[MikeMan™]

That's called Respect . . .
The NBA really is an unfair place .
He should've won that MVP last year .
So unfair .

[dopeboy]

I agree about CP3, he certainly could (or should) win it last year. But don't overrate him. If he was on a team with Kobe's supporting cast, he wouldn't average so many pts per game. Paul has better 3pt % just because he takes less shots from beyond the arc. CP3 has much less blocks per game and lower PER than Wade. Individual stats don't mean everything. Let's remember where in standings were Hornets and Heat last season btw.

[Oskar]

Kobe's team was better

What does that have to do with Kobe's accomplishments? Sounds like it's the Lakers's accomplishments.

I can't tell you that, all I know is that if players are almost equal, teams' success becomes a factor. With Kobe being the leader, captain, 1st option or w/e of a very succesful team, this really rises his value. If you're a good player on a winning team, you're still a better player than a player who has the equal stats with you. Not saying Kobe's stats were equal to CP3's, but this season, in my opinion, Kobe was more valuable than CP3, who lost a lot of respect from me this season, thanks to the flopping and neverending argueing.

Btw, winning - stats, whatever, you're not even talking about basketball anymore, basically just trying to 'win' the discussion.

[shadowgrin]

Btw, winning - stats, whatever, you're not even talking about basketball anymore, basically just trying to 'win' the discussion.

I was asking a question based on your previous statement...

basketball isn't all about stats, Kobe's team was better

Then why is Kobe's team better? The Lakers have more wins? That's stats (Wins). Explain, please.

...and you still haven't answered how "basketball isn't all about stats" and why "Kobe's team was better"...
Are you allergic to answering questions that's why you make it look like I was attacking you to "win" the discussion?

but this season, in my opinion, Kobe was more valuable than CP3, who lost a lot of respect from me this season, thanks to the flopping and neverending argueing.

So based on what you said, assuming Kobe and CP3 are almost equal (stats, w/e), if Kobe has the better team than Chris Paul, Kobe's more valuable? That's something.
What if Chris Paul went down with an injury, his average team will probably continue their play and not decline at all, unlike Kobe's better team which will be sucky if Kobe doesn't play. Kobe on a good team is indeed more valuable than Chris Paul on a bad team.

[Oskar]

Well, ofcourse, stats are important and as teams' success results in wins, hence teams success results in stats, then it's obvious that this 'stat' isn't left out when talked about MVP voting, NBA teams and so on.

Basketball isn't all about stats practically because of the reason why MJ is the goat, not Wilt, for example. Wilt had the better stats, but MJ was the better player and a better winner.

And why was Kobe's team better ? I mean .. Is that a joke ? Kobe is still playing in the playoffs trying to help his team to win the Rox, despite the fact Lakers suck at the moment, really hope the Rockets will beat them. Anyways, CP3 and his team got beat out early and had a poor seed.

The last quote, you practically said what I meant anyways, hence I agree with that.

[benji]

I can't tell you that, all I know is that if players are almost equal, teams' success becomes a factor.

What if the players aren't equal? Like in the Paul vs. Kobe situation.

If you're a good player on a winning team, you're still a better player than a player who has the equal stats with you.

How so?

Not saying Kobe's stats were equal to CP3's, but this season, in my opinion, Kobe was more valuable than CP3, who lost a lot of respect from me this season

Okay, so for you, personal emotions towards a player trumps their actual performances in deciding their "value" to winning.

Btw, winning - stats, whatever, you're not even talking about basketball anymore, basically just trying to 'win' the discussion.

So...talking about what a player does on the court and how he contributes to winning a games isn't talking about basketball? What exactly is "talking about basketball"?

Basketball isn't all about stats practically because of the reason why MJ is the goat, not Wilt, for example. Wilt had the better stats, but MJ was the better player and a better winner.

But this statement isn't true. Jordan has the best stats in NBA history (at least for a couple more years), and because his stats are the best and because he was on better teams, he was the better "winner." (Wilt has the superior but shorter and questionable "prime" but Jordan has the better statistical career especially after throwing out his Walker-esque performances in Washington.)

[Andrew]

so if the two best performances by a guard both happen to come from shooting guards - or point guards for that matter - then both can be recognised with All-NBA First Team honours. It's not about recognising the importance of each position, it's about recognising individual performances.

I don't know about that. Ind. stats shows CP has better numbers than Wade and Bryant in FG%, FT%, 3P%, Reb, APG, SPG, and less TO and better over team record than Wade. The only atual stat CP is lower in is PPG.

Well, that's not to say I'd have a problem with Paul being on the First Team this year. But in response to your suggestion that the selection criteria is unfair to point guards unless they win the MVP, I must disagree because past selections say otherwise. There's debate to be had with some of the selections this year as there always is, but that doesn't mean it's unfair. Especially when 22 of the last 25 First Teams have included a point guard and seven of them have seen two point guards selected (though the latter figure is subject to debate as Iverson can go either way depending on the season).

[Oskar]

I can't tell you that, all I know is that if players are almost equal, teams' success becomes a factor.

What if the players aren't equal? Like in the Paul vs. Kobe situation.

If you're a good player on a winning team, you're still a better player than a player who has the equal stats with you.

How so?

Not saying Kobe's stats were equal to CP3's, but this season, in my opinion, Kobe was more valuable than CP3, who lost a lot of respect from me this season

Okay, so for you, personal emotions towards a player trumps their actual performances in deciding their "value" to winning.

Btw, winning - stats, whatever, you're not even talking about basketball anymore, basically just trying to 'win' the discussion.

So...talking about what a player does on the court and how he contributes to winning a games isn't talking about basketball? What exactly is "talking about basketball"?

Basketball isn't all about stats practically because of the reason why MJ is the goat, not Wilt, for example. Wilt had the better stats, but MJ was the better player and a better winner.

But this statement isn't true. Jordan has the best stats in NBA history (at least for a couple more years), and because his stats are the best and because he was on better teams, he was the better "winner." (Wilt has the superior but shorter and questionable "prime" but Jordan has the better statistical career especially after throwing out his Walker-esque performances in Washington.)

1. Kobe's team was more succesful than Paul's, but Paul's individual stats were better and as teams' success is also important, that makes Paul and Kobe pretty much equal.

2. Alright, I'll say it that way - if player A's stats are the same as player B's, but he helps his team finish the season with a 60-22 record, he's a better player than player B, who limits his team to 40-42.

3. Not really, but unfortunately that's how it works in the NBA, these systems are quite retarded, I'd say.

4. Well, this here isn't.

5. Jordan wasn't only on the better team, if you'd replace prime Wilt with prime Jordan on the Bulls team, they wouldn't do so good. Jordan's mindset, attitude and everything puts him sitting in the top, not just his stats. Wilt with Jordan's head would've been absolutely amazing, Jordan with Wilt's head would've probably been something like Kobe or a little bit better, but definitely not at the top. The all-NBA teams, MVP votings and all these things aren't based just on on the court stuff, if players A and B (not saying Kobe and Paul anymore, mkay) are again, pretty much equal, the one that has a better attitude, killer-instinct or anything similar, is the better player.

A lot of people, including me, would select Bill Russell over Wilt Chamberlain, or Tim Duncan over Karl Malone, just to have players with winning attitude.

[benji]

1. Kobe's team was more succesful than Paul's, but Paul's individual stats were better and as teams' success is also important, that makes Paul and Kobe pretty much equal.

No, it doesn't. It still means Paul is the better player. The quality of their teammates, and thus team success, has nothing to do with the quality of their personal performance.

2. Alright, I'll say it that way - if player A's stats are the same as player B's, but he helps his team finish the season with a 60-22 record, he's a better player than player B, who limits his team to 40-42.

How is he better, if he's the same? Player B didn't "limit" his team to anything, his teammates limited his team to 40 wins.

3. Not really, but unfortunately that's how it works in the NBA, these systems are quite retarded, I'd say.

Wait, so you're not even arguing from your own opinion but trying to argue from some "NBA point of view"?

4. Well, this here isn't.

Here's another chance: What exactly is "talking about basketball"?

5. Jordan wasn't only on the better team, if you'd replace prime Wilt with prime Jordan on the Bulls team, they wouldn't do so good.

Proof or ban.

Jordan's mindset, attitude and everything puts him sitting in the top, not just his stats.

No, it doesn't. The first two things are entirely debatable/anecdotal/unprovable, as it is just as easy to characterize Jordan as a "win at all costs" asshole (fueled by his gambling) who verbally and physically assaulted his teammates to their determent. I like how your last support is "everything" which is just silly.

No, Jordan is the best because he was the best post-merger player (again, for the next couple years at least) and this is evidenced through his unmatched statistical performance. Anything else is just made up BS to try and explain something nobody wants to actually bother to explain or find out.

The all-NBA teams, MVP votings and all these things aren't based just on on the court stuff

No, they're based on the media reinforcing the narrative they decided on independent of what actually happens on the court.

You've had reporters admitting they've done things like vote for Jermaine O'Neal because he gave better/more interviews than Kevin Garnett. The awards are meaningless.

A lot of people, including me, would select Bill Russell over Wilt Chamberlain, or Tim Duncan over Karl Malone, just to have players with winning attitude.

What are you selecting them for?

Russell's "winning attitude" stems entirely from playing on an unmatched juggernaut in league history. Put him on Wilt's teams and it's absurd to think he wins more titles just due to some perceived "winning attitude" which is evidenced only by his apparently being on the Celtics dynasty and a mythology he and the media has more than been willing to cultivate.

In the Duncan case, you're not picking the player with a "winning attitude" you're picking the superior player. Duncan's statistical performances are not far removed from Malone's (especially on a career level) but Duncan is something Malone is not, and that's the greatest defensive player of the post-merger era.

Also, of note, in both cases, you're picking the best defensive players in league history versus one of the greatest scorers in league history. (Wilt could have been, and showed later exactly how, the best defender ever if he ignored his coaches requests to score 40 a game. Malone also took possessions off, but was hardly a bad defender and played major minutes on enough great defensive teams to make one think he was even "very good.")

I don't see the evidence against or for any of these players for a supposed "winning attitude." Malone's playoffs ended in the NBA Finals twice, Conf. Finals three times, and second round four times. Teams he played for won 50+ games twelve times, and 60+ four times. Wilt along with two titles, ended his playoffs in the NBA Finals five times, Conf. Finals six times. The times they lost to inferior teams could probably be counted on one hand combined.

Nobody would question Hakeem Olajuwon's "winning attitude" but he only went to four NBA Finals (won only two just like Wilt), with only one more Conf. Finals. Zero 60 win seasons, and only six 50+ win seasons. While having a noted "attitude" problem including his contract disputes and fights with teammates. (Not to mention the "GIVE THE DREAM HIS CHANGE" anecdote from manslaughterer Jayson Williams.) Yet, he's often in discussions where Wilt and Shaq aren't considered.

There is too much blaming the best player for their teams successes/failures. It's stupid and boring. When an entire team collapses in the playoffs but their star (ask Garnett, for one, about this) does his thing. Nobody talks about how the rest of the team imploded, no it's the star who did not "elevate his game" or did not have the "winning mentality." I know we all desire to personalize the teams through their "star" players but we're missing 90% of the picture and ignoring the actual interesting things.

Of course this thread was boringly about All-NBA teams or individual awards. In that case, it's the players, and the teams should be ignored. The 15 best players, their team performances = meaningless as that leads to things like "teams needing representation" in which case we start to mask individual performance with the noise of team performance.

[Oskar]

You're pretty much right, but to answer "Wait, so you're not even arguing from your own opinion but trying to argue from some "NBA point of view"?", that's pretty much what I'm doing, but also a bit of my own opinions.

"How is he better, if he's the same? Player B didn't "limit" his team to anything, his teammates limited his team to 40 wins."

There are players who hold their teams back, such as Tracy McGrady, Ricky Davis, etc, basically stat padders who don't lead their teams to wins, but who'se wins are their own statistical success.

And the first point, it's somewhat true, that it does mean Paul is just on the worse team, never said he is one of those stat padders that limits his team, no, far from that, without him the Hornets would be something like the Kings are right now, but still, this is a neverending discussion, you think Paul should've deserved to be on the first team, I think the teams are good as they are.