What is a "pure" point guard?

[35TangoTango]

We hear this term a lot. I would like to hear different peoples' ideas on what separates a "pure" point guard from any other kind.

I know that until her junior year, Sue Bird at UConn was often criticized as not being a pure point guard. Now, I have to reluctantly admit that pure or not, she was probably the most effective point guard in recent NCAA history.

So what makes a pure point guard, and what makes a pure point guard better than any other kind?

[DblT81]

A pure point guard is one that would not play as a shooting guard or another position on the court. A pure point guard is not better than any other kind. It depends on the offense and not all teams run similar offenses.

Melinda Schmucker-Pharies was a "pure" point guard. Her primary focus was to direct ball and player movement. Shooting was not a priority.

TJ Ford on UT's men's team is a pure point guard, maybe the best in mcbb ever before he's through. He can shoot well, but that is not his purpose in the offense. Sometimes the defense dictates that he score, so he does. But I bet if you checked, games where he is required to be a scorer are not UT's best games.

Some offenses don't need a pure point guard. Bob Knight's motion offense can run very well without a pure point guard because all of the players are moving based solely on where the defensive people are. There are no sets, no plays, just movement as a reaction to the defense. Two shooting guards work fine as long as there is a ball handler on the court to get the ball to half court and into the flow without a turnover. Kasib Powell, Tech's men's version of Stacy Dales (he can play every position on the court) did this some for Knight's Raiders.

Coales' offense had so much motion, that a player like Stacy Dales could direct it. Dales was not a pure point guard, but she did direct the offense much of time with her passing. Yet, she really played like a shooting guard or small forward.

Tech fans love a point guard that has a 3-1 assist-turnover ratio and scores few points because that is the way Sharp's offense worked for years. Ball movement was stressed rather than player movement. A quarterback on the court was critical to success. The inside players were the beneficiaries, taking the high percentage shots in the paint.

Sharp tried to play a shooting guard, Perkins, in the pg role. It was not successful. So Tech fans want to go back to the old formula which was successful.

Schmucker-Pharies led a team without a first team all B12 player to the Elite eight. We believe Erin Grant is in that mold. Her teams, on which she started from the first game of her freshman year, never lost a high school playoff game in four years in the largest school class. Yet, her box score stats are rather paltry. To look at her, you would think she might be in orchestra or choir, but not a heady bb athlete.

I'm not ready to crown Grant as the best PG in the conference or even on Tech's team for that matter. Mik Tennal may prove to be better to begin the season. I'm not sold either that the old "pure" point guard, ball movement offense, will ever be as successful again at Tech. I think teams must evolve and change, just as Tech no longer runs a 2-3 zone defense like they did in the NC year. I think Tech will use more motion on offense this year. After all, Sharp and Knight do talk to each other. In my crystal ball, I also see Grant evolving into the type of winner that Stacy Dales is- not the most athletic person on the court, but a smart and determined one. I doubt though that Grant will ever be mistaken for a shooting guard.

[ChipperF1]

Pure Point Guard. Translated from SportsSpeak to English means.

Player who can't shoot worth a pitcher of warm spit.

I've never been one to subscribe to the idea that a "pass-first score-second" point guard is any better or worse than a point guard who can put some points on the board, or even be explosive with scoring ability.

Granted the first job of the point guard is to run the offense, the objective of the game is to score more points than your opposition.

Give me a Lindsay Wilson-type anyday. Somebody who will give you your assists and can score point in buckets, too. The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

Point guards...The way Chipper likes them.
They can do the following.

1. Must be the BEST ballhandler on the team period. Point guards should be the penetration weapon defense are afraid of.
2. 4-6 assists per game minimum
3. Must shoot at least 35% from three point range, and at least 50-55% overall.
4. Must average at least 6-10 points per game
5. Must be the best on-ball defender on the team.

In short, my PG should be the #1 all-around player, because so much starts and ends with them.

I don't buy the concept of the "pure point guard" IF that point guard has a line of 0 points, 10 assists and can't play solid defense. Even if they create points, too often a "non-scoring point guard" puts your offense in a bad 4-on-5 situation and that gives a defense too many options against your off guards, forwards and centers. The key is forcing a defense to cover every threat, and a pount guard who can go nuclear on you like a Sue Bird is hell on a defense, because they can open so much for so many people on a team.

Speaking of Sue Bird. If anybody critized her game, then they must be new to the sport who are just out to lunch. People acted like they never seen a point guard get explosive before (Gee, can you say "Isiah Thomas"?)



[This message has been edited by ChipperF1 (edited 08-14-2002).]

[DBLTFarmer]

To me, a pure point guard is one who is basically the quarterback of the team. They are the player that directs the offense, sets the defenses, communicates to the team what the coach wants to happen in the game.

A pure point guard is a player who sees the floor well and has an uncanny ability to make the right decision. They know when to pass, when to drive, or when to shoot. A pure point guard looks to pass first. Afterall, an assist is worth two or three points. However, if the drive to the basket is open they know to take it their and then dish off or shoot. Finally, if neither option is open they can take the outside shot and make it keeping the defense honest.

Personally, I dont like a point guard that drives to the basket most of the time. Generally these players have a lower assist to turnover ratio creating more scoring opportunities for the opponents. A player who makes 6 to 10 assists per game and has a high assist to turnover ratio limits opportunities for the opponents. Then if they can hit the outside shot and drive occasionally, they are a true point guard.

[elfdenmom]

I agree DoubleTFarmer. The thing that impressed me about Erin was that she saw the floor so well and was so quick to recognize defenses. Her passes were so sharp and accurate that she was terrific on the fast break opportunities. I don't see the press being an effective weapon against Tech when she is directing traffic. Her defense is already extremely good, and man does she have quick hands and great timing!

By the way she did tie for high score on the Texas team.

[GrantFanTT]

a Pure point guard is like a second coach on the court. They run the team and start up the offenses. Pure Point guard is looked to Pass the ball and see everyone and everything that goes on on the court. A pure point guard has to be smart. some guards that play both the shooting guard and the point guard is probably not a "pure" as a 'pure' point guard because they don't have the Pass first shoot second concept. Shooting guards look to shoot first because that is there job. I know that there are some good PG/G's out there but that is just my thought on PURE point Guards

[SKATERBOY]

Have only seen about 4 true point cards in my years of watching womens basketball. Not in any particular order. These were point guard "generals" that directed the teams they played on. They had a true feel for every player on the floor, knowing how to utilize everyone around them. Yet these were players that never had to shoot - they knew how to get the ball to the players that would shoot. They also had great free throw shooting percentages.

a) Rhonda Wyndham - usc
b) Kamie Ethride - texas
c) Kim Mulkey Roberston - la tech
d) Ellen Barody - auburn

let me know what you think. Give me some feed back if you feel I made a bad choice and why.

[DBLTFarmer]

Elfdenmom,

Erin Grant was 8 of 10 from the floor with 6 assists, 5 steals, and 17 points. Chelsi Welch also had 17 points and was picked as the MVP of the game.

[GrantFanTT]

Grant is Definitely a PURE point guard she fits ALL the defintions! She handles the ball GREAT, she is quick on defense (In the McDonald's All American game NO ONE was able to score on her), her passes are sharp, clean, crisp passes, She has a GREAT freetrow percentage, Even though she doesn't shoot alot when she does she is VERY accurate, I watched her play in the state basketball tournament and those teams had the hardest time with a press offense. Everything they through at her she broke it with her dribble. She know just when to drive, pass, or shoot, and she knows what is going on on the court at ALL times. She is the quarterback, the general, and the 2nd coach. She is the PERFICT example of a PURE point. Skaterboy after you watch this girl you might want to add her to your list. She doesn't look like much but she is going to direct tech these next 4 years!

[DBLTFarmer]

Some of us Raider fans here have been accused of wearing scarlet colored glasses when referring to Erin Grant. Believe me when I say we are definitely excited about her arrival at Tech and we definitely have our reasons. For one, Erin is the highest ranked recruit ever signed by Tech. Secondly, we have watched the Lady Raiders for many years and believe that Erin Grant may be the perfect fit for a point guard in Tech's system. Sure shes never played a second of D-1 ball, but we also saw how Melinda Schumcher Pharies arrival at Tech helped the team. Keep in mind that we are not expecting her to come in and score 20 points per game. What we are expecting her to do is come in and be the final piece of an already formidable Tech team.

Maybe our expectations of her are too high, but from what we have seen she is the real deal. Also, if Erin doesnt meat our expectations there is always Mik Tennal right behind her.

[DblT81]

Originally posted by SKATERBOY:

a) Rhonda Wyndham - usc
b) Kamie Ethride - texas
c) Kim Mulkey Roberston - la tech
d) Ellen Barody - auburn

let me know what you think. Give me some feed back if you feel I made a bad choice and why.


Skater, I was never fortunate enough to see these players on the court, so I can't confirm your choices. I have read about the history of those teams during Ethridge and Mulkey's tenure. They led their teams to some of the greatest success in wcbb so they must have been good. Since USC and Auburn were also top wcbb teams of the 80's decade, I would assume the other two were very good as well, if that is when they played.

[ChipperF1]

I like Skater's group. They were all solid offensive threats in their own right and that added to teams that had a lot on the ball.

Wyndham would have been nasty lead scorer from the 2. If there was a team where somebody would be overshadowed, it the "Showtime" Women of Troy.

Etheridge wasn't the penetrator I'd like, but one thing I enjoyed about her on that Texas team was her defense and her toughness. She was a mini Clarissa Davis out there. Played bigger than she was, and one thing I value is 40-minute toughness. Kamie had that in abundance

People have forgotten how good a player Kim Mulkey was. Again, she earned her lettuce with me in terms of running the floor, keeping defenses honest and with her defense. Tough on ball, even without great speed. Very active with her feet and her hands, and another thing. She had maybe 3 disqualifications in her entire college career. That's key for a point guard.

Ellen Barody kept those talent Auburn teams ticking with her court savvy. Another one who isn't the "takeover" player, but her extra ability in running the offense and especially her passing and defense made her valuble.

I'd like to add a couple more solid PGs to the mix.

1. Dawn Staley, Virginia -- The prototype jet fighter of the next generation point guard. Staley would have been better if she was a better outside shooter. But I loved the way she could penetrate, disect a defense and then kick that ball out. Plus she could go to the hole and challenge a defender and score a lot of points in a hurry. Why did a Virginia team that was a little down on talent and depth get us as far as they did? Because a player like Staley can absolve a lot of sins.

2. Molly Goodenbauer, Stanford -- Molly had three things that I love. Brains, Toughness and Shooting.
She had an offense with a lot of interior weapons, and her ability outside stretched the floor and let those kids like Val Whiting loose. Toughness? I've seen few players take charges the way she did. Get in people's shirt the way she did and actually intimidate people. There was a mean streak in this girl.
And I wonder how many runs did she kill with a well timed three? She did that an awful lot.

3. Jen Rizzotti, Connecticut -- This woman could play for me ANYTIME she wanted to. One of the few players period that in the big games you want having a "40" in her part of the stat sheet for minutes played. Her biggest asset was attitude. She had the skills, but that attitude is something you have or you don't. Jen was a tough, heady and rather arrogant player on the floor. When you are about 5'5" and a winning to take on anybody, you are the bad mama.

4. Dena Head, Tennessee -- One of the best defensive players among point guards you'll ever see. She personally did the hatchet job late in the '91 Final vs. Virginia. Not to knock her offensive ability, which was solid. But my memories of her center around defense. Pat Summitt's always been more of a defense-first skipper, and Dena always took those lessons to heart.

Since Erin Grant is being thrown around here, I will say this about this kid. She has the potential to join this list. I saw a lot of her at the McDonald's game, and she met my criterion. She scores solid. Shoots well. Passes extremely good for a high school player, and her defense sold me. Moved her feet, doesn't foul and take smart chances. Its way too early to say if she'll do well on the next level, but I'll bet on her because kid has skills.

[35TangoTango]

Chipper, now you left off Sue Bird. I mentioned her before, because a read an interview with her where she said that one of her motivations when rehabing from her freshman ACL injury was the comments she heard from all the UCONN fans who had already written her off as "not a true point guard". As far as ability to run an offense and set up scorers (and score herself if not covered), she was about as good as they come. And she had that same "swagger" that you describe in Rizzotti

[35TangoTango]

Consider This -

If a player has value as a point guard, but also has value as a scorer, it would seem that the scoring is more important. I can think of several instances where very good point guards were moved to other positions to better utilize their scoring ability.
The obvious one is Sheila Lambert (whose coach was a classic point guard herself). Another was Stacey Dales - (who certainly fits most of the above descriptions of a pure point guard - no one said they had to be short). On the men's side, OU's Hollis Price is a classic example of an excellent point guard moved to the two spot to better set up his scoring.

Maybe this whole position is over rated. Maybe a pure point guard tends to be real short because if they are taller they get switched to other positions.

What do you think?

[YCN]

My best definition of a "pure" point guard is you know one when you see one. As for the the attributes of such a player, I generally think of the following:

Must be a general on the court. Takes complete control of the offense, defense and tempo on the court. Calls the plays while bringing the ball upcourt. Is lightning quick with tremendous reflexes; next to impossible to dribble past to score or set up a score. Can pass with velocity and precision any distance on the court. Is consistently able to break a double- or triple-team without freezing the dribble; you can't take the ball away from a player like this, hard as you may try. Never gets out of control physically or mentally, and always plays within his/her skill level.

Can light it up at any time, from any reasonable distance from the basket, up to about 28 feet for men, and 23 for women. If a team opts to pack it in on defense, will single-handedly destroy the opponent with uncannily accurate shooting. MUST be a tremendous free throw shooter, and have a knack for getting fouled. Can be relied upon again and again to come up with the winning shot at the end of the game. Can take the ball solo from end to end and finish with the game on the line.

Doesn't back down from the opportunity to beat the opponent at any point, and will take every good opportunity to do so, while always aware of what every other player on the court is doing. Can consistently be counted upon to score at least 15 points per game.

BTW, my high school boy's basketball team had just such a "pure" point guard. We had the shortest team in the top division in Oklahoma, and went 26-2 in our championship season. Our win in the state final was considered then, and possibly still until this day, the greatest upset in Oklahoma schoolboy history.

I never bought into the upset theory. Our point guard, Scott Martin, played point at OU, starting each year he played.

[elfdenmom]

One more attribute of the "pure point guard" is the ability to pass the ball to another player where they have the best chance to score. This requires a knowledge of the scoring strengths and preferences of the other players.

[DBLTFarmer]

Everyone here has some good opinions of what a pure point guard seems to be. Obviously there are some varied opinions. So I will ask this question.

Which would you rather have, a point guard who gets 8 to 10 assists per game and 6 to 8 points per game or a point guard who gets 20 + ppg and 4 to 5 assists?? I know we would all like to have one that scores 20 ppg and double digit assists every game but those are few and far between. Either one mentioned above would probably be great assets to any team but which would you want.

[GrantFanTT]

I would rather have a point guard with 8-10 assists and 8-10points because you already have the other people on the court who can rack up the points. If you have a PG giving them the ball and sharing then the Forwards and the "SHOOTING" guards can do what they do best. You have 4 other players who have a chance at 20+ point a game because they had someone to help them out. If a PG had 10 assist one game that is good for 2 or 3 points each and plus the 8-10point they scored. This way they contribute alot more.

[DblT81]

YCN, I like what you said. A pure point guard makes all of those around them better.

I still think Melinda Schmucker's '99-'00 season was a performance that was classic for such a pg. Tech went to the Elite Eight with a 5'11 PF, a 6'1 freshman post, a 2 guard in Kat O'Neal who was a defensive specialist and couldn't score a lick, and a SF who had been a JUCO AA but missed much of her Jr year with a heart ailment. The only 3 pt shooter came off the bench, one of the 2 subs who ever saw much action.

But Schmucker was just what you described YCN. MS knew that each possession counted so much. She holds the B12 record for assist/TO margin. She also caused many turnovers with her outstanding defense, leading Tech to the B12 record in Turnover margin vs opponents for a season. Until Stacy Dales completed her career, MS was the B12 leader in assists in spite of the fact that Tech avg about 69 pts a game in 99-00 because there were not many prolific scorers on the team.

The ultimate proof that MS was a tremendous pure point guard was the Tech-Texas game that year. Edwina Brown had an unbelievable performance in Austin that probably solidified her end of season national recognition. But....Schmucker played all 50 minutes in that double overtime game, leading Tech to an answer every time Texas threw a punch or sank a dagger- MS hit consecutive free throws down the stretch for a Tech victory.

About the only criteria YCN listed that Schmucker didn't meet was the 15 ppg avg. Aleah Johnson, the leading scorer for Tech that year, only avg. 14.7 a game. Just as YCN described, MS took a group of undersized, misfit but dedicated players, leading them to unexpected results.

Another way to spot a pure point guard-- they are generally on a bench as a coach after graduation.

[elfdenmom]

You are so right, DblT81! Schmick will always be one of my favorite and most underated players!

[SKATERBOY]

CHIPPER thanks for agreeing with my post. I take that as a real compliment comming from you because you are very knowlegable on this board.

[grojc]

Another sign of a true point guard is when they take their team to final fours and national championships. Let's see, who mentioned here has done that and who hasn't. Schmucker had guts, but she's not in the same league as the others mentioned here. Do you all watch any other games besides Tech games?

[KSUron]

A pure point guard is a point guard who does not smoke or drink or, ahh, err, you get the picture. (Sorry some wise guy was going chip in with that sooner or later) http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by grojc:
Another sign of a true point guard is when they take their team to final fours and national championships. Let's see, who mentioned here has done that and who hasn't. Schmucker had guts, but she's not in the same league as the others mentioned here. Do you all watch any other games besides Tech games?


Whoah, grojc! As the topic originator, I call a foul here for hacking. The topic is characteristics of a "pure" point guard, not who were the best ones. No point guard can get to the final four all by herself - it's a team game. Also, some teams get to the final four without a "pure" point guard. I think that happened this year.

[DblT81]

Originally posted by grojc:
Another sign of a true point guard is when they take their team to final fours and national championships. Let's see, who mentioned here has done that and who hasn't. Schmucker had guts, but she's not in the same league as the others mentioned here. Do you all watch any other games besides Tech games?

Yes I do. I talk about Tech because I watch more of their games than anyone else. I can't give examples of the traits of a pure point guard from watching another player in a single national championship game.

Few wbb games before 1990 were televised so I did not see the others mentioned play. If you did, please enlighten us on examples of their characteristics. How about discussing your thoughts about examples of pure point guards rather than criticizing mine. I believe Longhorn fans are free to discuss their favorites. And other Longhorn fans are free to agree.

Gosh a mighty! Schmucker was within one game of the final 4, losing to a Tennessee team led by Tamika Catchings. That hardly makes her style of play and her accomplishments meaningless.

Soonerman, thank you for your comments and this thread. It was a great idea to talk about something to pass the time before basketball season. Skaterboy, thank you for the list you provided. Do you know more about them? Are Rhonda Wyndham and Ellen Barody coaches? I know the other two are some of the best young coaches in the game today. Jen Rizzotti and Dawn Staley are just getting into the coaching side, but their early results have been very good. Schmucker will be a full time coach in the near future, I am sure. Currently she is the BB Operations person on the Tech staff.



[This message has been edited by DblT81 (edited 08-15-2002).]

[KSUron]

Originally posted by soonerman:
[/b]
The topic is characteristics of a "pure" point guard, not who were the best ones.[/B][/QUOTE]

See that! My post is right on topic. I must be a "pure" something? http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

Actually to get into the spirit of the thing a bit I think I consider a "pure" any position to be a player who is a natural at that position. That is to say their skill sets fit the need for the position. In many cases a skille player can play a variety of places but one spot is where they fit the best. Laurie Koehn can play the point but you would rather use her skills at the 2. Chelsea Domenico is much more a pure point guard IMHO. Sue Bird looks plenty pure at the point to me even though she can play other positions.

In that vein I don't think Nicole Ohlde is a pure center. If we had a highly skilled pure 5 Ohlde would make a fabulous 4.

[mred]

Originally posted by KSUron:
In that vein I don't think Nicole Ohlde is a pure center. If we had a highly skilled pure 5 Ohlde would make a fabulous 4.



I dare you to find a "pure" center in college WBB. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif I think Welle would have been a decent 4 as well. Most college WBB centers are really 4s who play 5 because nobody else can.

[35TangoTango]

Originally posted by KSUron:
A pure point guard is a point guard who does not smoke or drink or, ahh, err, you get the picture. (Sorry some wise guy was going chip in with that sooner or later) http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

Pure=virgin=untried=Erin Grant (Oops! another wise guy) http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

[SKATERBOY]

I dont really think Erin Grant will be about to step up on day one as point guard her freshman year. Im not saying she is not talented or a smart player. But the big 12 is brutal, and from a step out of high school to divisionI basketball thats another story. Look at Kaira White who was Texas player of the year two times in high school also from Mansfield. Her freshman year was barely average. She was used to always playing since her high-school days but could not hang in the big 12 and had to cop out to the WAC. I know I might just cause a stir, but these girls on our conference are big and strong. Erin is rather small.

[Guns Up!]

Dynamite comes in small packages!!!!

[swok34]

There are high-schoolers that come into their freshmen year and astound you....look at Dionnah Jackson at OU, she was BETTER than they coaches thought she would be her first year.

Never know how good a player may or may not be/become when they are coming into the next level, same can be said for Juco players.

[YCN]

SKATERBOY, I have no doubt that Erin Grant will be a starter from day one, and that she will have a terrific freshman season.

Certain players are just a given to succeed early in college sports. One that comes to mind for me (not in women's basketall) was Tommie Harris, the defensive tackle for the OU football team. There wasn't a doubt in my mind that he would have a strong impact as a freshman, and I was right.

I feel the same way about Erin Grant.

[DBLTFarmer]

Skaterboy,

Your thoughts are right on the money about Erin Grant. What you stated has been a fear thats been in the back of my mind since we signed her. However, I think Erin Grant will have a better chance of success for no other reason than position. I may be wrong hear but Kaira White was recruited to come in and score a lot of points from a wing position. Teams are more likely to try and shut down a player like her. Erin Grant at point is not going to be expected to score a lot of points. She is coming to Tech to play the point and run the offense. Her main purpose will be to get assists. Teams will probably not play her as physical as they would a Kaira White or a Heather Schreiber. Later in the season, I do expect the Big 12 to be much more physical with her but she has to prove herself first before that occurs.

Another point to consider is how much Marsha Sharp will put on Erin Grants shoulders. With the signing of Mik Tennal, Marsha might be able to bring Erin along a little slower. Let her learn the system better instead of throwing her directly into the fire.

[TXSNOS]

I think Erin Grant is going to do fine in the Big 12. Comparing her to Kaira White is like comparing apples to oranges. Grant is much more of an accomplished player than White was at the same point in her career. I think White has a lot of potential and hope she is successful at SMU, but she's not anywhere near the player that Grant is and is going to be.

Just my opinion.

TXSNOS

[This message has been edited by TXSNOS (edited 08-18-2002).]

[TXSNOS]

I dare you to find a "pure" center in college WBB. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/smile.gif

I think Anderson at Vanderbilt would qualify. A few years ago, Texas had a true center in Angela Jackson. As for the high school class of 2003, Alison Bales looks like a true center. Not sure how she plays.

TXSNOS

[jazzyjeff]

As for a true center the best is a player in the 2003 class out of Colorado. Elizabeth Sherwood who played high school ball with Ann Strother

[HuskerFan86]

Another true center is Carla Bennet from Drake. Some people don't know much about her because she plays in a mid-major conference, but this girl can play. She is a back-to-the-basket, banging, rebounding, low post center... a rare find in the women's game. When Baylor played Drake in the NCAA's this year, they couldn't stop Bennet and she led Drake to the upset. Bennet, Anderson, and also Vanessa Hayden from Florida are the "cream of the crop" as far as "true" centers this year around the country.

[metromaniac]

Enjoyed the attempts and analysis of the learned. Although some strayed to pure "OTHER POSITIONS", I can only answer as one of our wise Supreme Court Justices wrote when trying to define obscenity. "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it!"

Isn't that really how you tell a "true point"?

[kate dawg]

Mandy Nightingale. Yes she scored a lot, but her assist to turnover ratio was SICK at over 3:1. That's ridiculous and was the best among point guards on top 25 teams last season. She was I think a true point guard.