POINT/COUNTERPOINT: Is a Dominant Big Man or a Dominant Point Guard More Valuable?

Welcome to the second edition of POINT/COUNTERPOINT...a new segment posted every Friday where Erik Bohn and Jason Briggs discuss and debate the most talked-about topics in Minnesota Rec Ultimate Hoops.

Last week, Erik and Jason tackled the subject of who is the best GM in the MN Rec division. In case you missed it, here is the link.

Have a question you would like Erik and Jason to debate? Feel free to place it in the comments below or send it here and your topic could be up next.

Without further ado...

ERIK
Well Briggsy, we didn't get our feature cancelled after week one, which means we either wrote something a couple people actually read, or you have major dirt on some of the UH higher-ups. Either way, it's good to be back. Now, down to the business at hand. It's time to stop licking your wounds from our GM debate, because we have a real doozy of a subject on our hands this week. You ready?

BRIGGS
Am I ready for another convincing victory? You're damn right I am!! I'll try not to "waffle" this week so Joe doesn't get mad at me. What's on your mind for week 2? Better sports movie "The Air Up There" starring Kevin Bacon vs. "Mr. 3000" featuring the late, great Bernie Mac??

ERIK
That's not even a debate - both those movies are obviously in the Hall of Fame.

I was thinking more along the lines of taking the GM debate down a different route. Obviously putting together a top flight franchise is extremely difficult unless you're Hot Tub or Joe N, but here's what I want to know:

If you were the GM of an upstart franchise, who would you build your team around - an elite point guard or an elite big man?

For the sake of clarity, let's draw some parameters and define what constitutes a "big man." In my mind, I'm thinking of the Klobe's, Byrne's and Ferber's of the world. I'm excluding guys who play more of a power forward game, e.g. Justin Samuelson, Garland Sanchez, Chris Maher, and Joe Epple.

Who ya got?

BRIGGS
Well being a big man (that's what she said), I'm going to represent for all of the players 6'5" and over that get little to no respect from the officials. Getting the choice between some tiny guard or Ferber's defense, Byrne's smooth jumper, and Klobe's ballerina-like footwork sure doesn't seem like too tough of a decision for me. You sure this is fair? First I get Hot Tub for GM and then I get to ride the big man bandwagon...are you a glutton for punishment Mr Bohn?

ERIK
I'm glad you got your confidence back, because you're going to need it for this one. And since I'm one of the ten worst ball handlers in UH, I will gladly take the assist-men in this debate. I get Noe and Dupont in my corner? Done.

Impress me sir...

Briggs
Well Erik, I will win this argument based solely on two points. 1.) Really good big men are few and far between. 2.) They are match-up nightmares.

When scouring through every roster in MN rec basketball, I was only able to come up with 6 players I would describe as game-changing, elite big men. We mentioned Andrew Klobe, Mike Byrne, and Paul Ferber in the opening, but the only other players I can legitimately add to them are Don Kahl, Grant Dudinsky, Lawrence Barnes, Alex Skaja, and probably Nate Weaver off the Greenhorns. That is 8 really good centers spread over a combined 30 teams in Bloomington and Fridley, leaving almost 75% of the league with a hole at that position. When you really break down those 8, only 4 of them are consistent offensive options while the other half are known mostly for their stellar defense. Getting one of these players is an absolute must for any team in search of a Gold Cup, especially one that can hurt opposing teams from both ends of the court.

The other thing that a really good center brings you is an unparalleled match-up nightmare. Any one of those 8 centers above can completely change the opposing team's gameplan and make them alter what they want to do on both ends of the court. Take a look at a team like the Blue Chips last night and what happened the last 5 minutes of the game. The Riddlers go small after Don Kahl starts bleeding from the face, which then completely changed our lineup and rotation. Players like myself and Jeff Hoelscher are serviceable big men, but we're simply not good enough to stay on the court under that situation because we're not game changers.

Teams don't adjust their lineups and bring in subs to defend people like me, they simply throw their tallest guy on me and hope my 6 points don't turn into 8. Teams that have Klobe, Byrne, or Ferber force teams to adjust to them, rather than the other way around. Those players stay on the floor under any and all circumstances, changing the game more than any point guard in this league. I've had multiple battles with these players and they are almost always one-sided. If Ferber or Skaja is on you, your teammates might as well find someone else to pass to because you're night at the offensive end is pretty much over.

While I think there are a couple of pretty sweet point guards in UH, they just don't compare to a player that dominates the paint.

Erik
It looks to me like you're trying to win this argument based on personal stories of torment at the hands of the finest big men in MN Rec. If we're going that route, here is a re-enactment of the time Noe crossed me up a couple seasons ago:



And yes, the Bobcats bench reacted in the same manner.

While I agree that big men certainly aren't growing on trees in the Rec division, you can hardly tell me elite point guards are a dime a dozen. I did my own scouring of the MN Rec rosters in Fridley and Bloomington and found very few guys that would qualify as top tier. The two best at this position are clearly Dustin Dupont and Noe Mendez, who are in a class by themselves. After them, you are looking at Nick Roell, Jeremy Bachman, and Chris Daly. You can also include Ryan Samuelson and Johnny Webb in this category, but even though both are phenomenal players, they typically play more of a shooting guard style than point guard - especially Webb. I would argue it's more difficult to find a true point guard than a legitimate big man.

And speaking of match-up nightmares, what causes more headaches for opposing GM's than trying to field a team that can deal with a Dupont or Mendez? Even if you have an undersized team, there are defensive schemes and strategies that can be used to mitigate the effectiveness of great big men.

Nobody is a better example of this than the incredibly scrappy Saints+ team that recently won the Chicago Open Invitational title a couple months ago against some of the best teams in the country. They had nobody over 6'4" on their roster (and as great a player as he is, the Saints+ big man, Joe Epple, simply isn't a defensive asset against big men) and went undefeated, twice beating the Balln dynasty of Chicago, which touts two 6'9” all-stars, and also completely dominating the Heat's 6'5” 245-pound behemoth of a center, J'Nathan Bullock. They accomplished this through high-pressure on-ball defense and a phenomenal zone, which completely took the big men out of the game.

And guess who spear-headed that remarkable run and also took home tournament MVP honors? That's right, Dustin Dupont.
You can talk to me all you want about match-up problems, but nothing is harder to prepare for than a guy who has the ball in his hands the majority of the time and is capable of creating his own shot, breaking down his defender and dishing to an open man, and also creating havoc on the defensive end.


Briggs
Just because Robert Sutton hasn't taught his team how to play against a zone, doesn't make an elite center less valuable. Yes Dupont was MVP of that tourney, but who was the MVP in the championship game versus the Celtics last season? While 4 of the 7 point guards you mentioned were on the court at the same time, Mr Paul Ferber walked away from the championship game with MVP honors. Leads me to believe that if Ferber could have made the trek to Chicago, Saints+ could have run any damn defense they wanted to and still come home with bragging rights.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to completely devalue what great players like Dustin Dupont and Noe Mendez bring to their teams. I just don't see how having a quality point guard compares in importance to a dominating center. Let's take a look at the 7 players you mentioned as quality point guards and break down their teams. Jeremy Bachman and Chris Daly both are really good point guards, but neither guy has ever sniffed a Gold Cup game or even semi-final. If having an elite point guard was so important, wouldn't the teams lucky enough to grab one of these 7 players have a distinct advantage over their competition? Also, look at the cases of Webb and Ryan Samuelson. Although Ryan is forced into some point guard duty for teams like the Celtics and St Baul due to lack of options, he is probably better playing off the ball and stroking threes for either team. Pretty much the same thing for Webb, who is much better creating his own shot versus looking to create for other players.

That leaves Nick Roell, Dustin Dupont, and Noe Mendez as the three remaining true point guards whose teams have consistent success in Ultimate Hoops. What else does each of their teams have? That's right Bohn, a dominant big man!

Erik
I can make the same argument for Kahl, Ferber, and Skaja you are making for Roell, Dupont, and Noe. Those big men also have great point guards on their team! I feel a chicken or the egg situation coming on....

And in the case of Noe, in addition to his success with the Celtics, he also guided the Bobcats to a Final Four appearance in Spring 2011 without a big man on the roster and is currently leading the big man-less Avengers, who were a Final Four team in Fall 2011.

I have a question for you Briggsy: How many times do you see the ball in the hands of the big men of UH at the end of close games? In my experience, the answer is very rarely, and that's because nobody is more important to their team in close games than the point guard. A great point guard is more than just the floor general; he is a reliable ball-handler who can break a pressure D. He has great floor vision to find his teammates when they're open, which includes the big men, who rely on someone else to get them the ball. A great point guard can break his man down off the dribble and either get his own open shot or create one for a teammate. And most importantly, the best point guards in UH make great decisions with the ball the large majority of the time. No other position has as much responsibility or affects the outcome of a close game more than an elite point guard.

I hope you saved something strong for your closing argument, because this debate is starting to get lopsided.

Briggs
You are exactly right Erik, since most of the teams winning the Gold Cup have both a great point guard and great big man. You have to go all the way back to Summer 2010 to find a team that won without both, the mighty Timberpuppies featuring Mike Byrne. This championship squad lacked a true point guard, but seemed to have no problem going 11-0 on their way to the title.

You are also right about centers being completely dependent on other people to get them the ball, since people like you yell at them when they try to bring the ball up the court. The big man gets the defensive rebound, passes the ball off to the point guard, then runs down to the other end of the court hoping that the defensive intensity and elite rebounding ability he demonstrated has earned him the right to touch the ball at the other end of the floor. Because people like Klobe and Byrne are over 6'5", they get to watch some short little dude dribble around while they are busting their asses to get solid positioning in the post or an open look from the baseline. While your point guards are sitting up at the top of the key pounding the rock, Paul Ferber and Grant Dudinsky are using every muscle in their bodies to fight for one small piece of court to give their teammates someone to pass to. It's a thankless job on most possessions, but you'll seldom hear them complain.

So why are they doing all of this? Because when it comes down to it, the point guard is just as dependent as everyone else on the court. He needs someone to finish the play for them or screen for him, otherwise you'd see 44 minutes of dribbling and very few shot attempts. On the defensive end, players like Dustin Dupont can afford to take chances because they have a shot blocking force patrolling the lane if someone gets by them. The same thing with players on the Riddlers and Greenhorns. They get to be overly agressive with perimeter defense or even throw out a zone, because teams are foolish to attack the rim with Nate Weaver or Don Kahl ready to block your shot. They change a team's entire offensive strategy, forcing them to bomb from the perimeter instead of working the ball inside.

Anyone can throw an entry pass Mr Bohn, it takes an elite player to finish that play despite being clobbered as a confused official looks on whistle in hand. That's what an elite big man does, which is why I'll take them over a good point guard any day.

Erik
You're cherry-picking one of the better MN Rec teams of all time bringing that Timberpuppies squad into the argument. Is it possible they went undefeated that season because they also happened to add Marcus Marshall - arguably the most dominant MN Rec player of all time - to their team? The season before their 11-0 title run, the Timberpuppies had the exact same roster minus Marshall (except having Nick Jude in place of Matt Grantz) and went 6-4. Let's get one thing straight, Marcus Marshall won that Gold Cup for the Pups.

Basketball is a team game, so players are clearly dependent on each other, but you're overstating the importance and impact of a big man, while understating what a great point guard brings to the table. I know you're trying to defend the honor of your brethren, but this is one fight where it pays to be small.

At the end of the day, you probably can't go wrong as a GM if you're lucky enough to add an elite point guard or a dominant big man to your roster, but just to be safe, you might as well get one of each.

Whattya say Briggsy, think we can hit the court and run a deadly point/big combo between the two of us?

Briggs
Since you can't dribble and I can't score, I'm guessing we better leave that play to the professionals.