What Does the Future NBA Point Guard Look Like?
Asking whether or not Lonzo Ball can be a point guard in the modern NBA is asking the wrong question.
For all of the praise Lonzo Ball received during his year at UCLA and leading up to the 2017 NBA Draft, one concern stood out: Was Ball’s game that of a bygone era?
The number one comparison he drew, and still draws, is Jason Kidd. A big point guard in his day (Kidd was 6'4", Ball is 6'6"), the Cal product entered the NBA in 1994 as a lauded passer, rebounder and defender. Scoring would be a struggle, but that didn’t stop the Mavericks from drafting him №2 overall.
Kidd went one pick ahead of Duke small forward Grant Hill, a decision Dallas certainly regretted early on. Hill won Rookie of the Year, while Kidd predictably struggled to score. Hill made every All-Star team during his six-year tenure in Detroit, and Dallas—likely in part due to the burden of Hill’s success—moved Kidd midway through his third season.
By the time both careers wrapped up, Kidd was on top. The story might be different had Hill not been derailed by knee problems, but it is what it is. Kidd retired a 10-time All-Star, NBA champion, nine-time All-Defensive player, second all-time in steals and assists, and third all-time in made 3s.
23 years later, Ball is facing a similar set of circumstances. The Duke small forward that went directly after Ball this time (Jayson Tatum) is no Grant Hill, and the Lakers have their own Dukie wing in Brandon Ingram. Still, many have questioned Ball’s ability, especially in the modern, pick-and-roll heavy NBA.
The irony is this: Ball’s game would fit better in another era, but not one that is behind us. He is the point guard of the future.
While NBA positional definitions have always been murky, point guard stands out over time as the most arbitrary. For decades, it was considered impossible for a point guard to be a dominant player, unless they happened to have the size of a forward. That’s why, after Bob Cousy in 1956–57, Oscar Robertson (6'5" in an era of 6'9" centers) and Magic Johnson (6'9") were the only point guards to win MVPs until Steve Nash in 2004–05 and 2005–06.
Even then, no one considered Nash a dominant player. His Suns were a regular season juggernaut that always came up short, so to speak, whether it be to Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan or Dirk Nowitzki. It wasn’t until the next point guard MVP—Derrick Rose—that people started to re-think the power of the position.
Rose, unlike Nash, was his team’s go-to scorer. He was the lead facilitator, too (7.7 assists in 2010–11, his MVP year), but it was his ability to take over as a shot creator—as well as come up with highlight-reel defensive plays—that allowed media members, still regretful of their mid-2000s Nash votes, to think of Rose as different.
He ultimately fell short to LeBron James in the 2011 Eastern Conference Finals, and we never saw Rose healthy again. He did, however, pave the way for a golden era of point guards. Suddenly, elite scoring ability was a prerequisite to be a star at the position, with Russell Westbrook, Damian Lillard, Kyrie Irving and others leading the charge.
And of course, there was Stephen Curry. A decade after Nash’s back-to-back MVPs, the kid from Davidson who was compared to Nash when he entered the league accomplished the same feat. The difference was that, while Curry shot and passed like Nash, he shot more and passed less. The other difference was that his Warriors won an NBA title (nearly two) and averaged 70 wins over his two MVP years.
But even as Curry and Co. are revolutionizing the game, the next evolution of the point guard position has already begun.
The idea of the playmaking wing is nothing new. Michael Jordan ran the offense in Chicago. Hill did the same in Detroit. James has done so for every team he’s played on over the last 15 years.
Really, Johnson and Robertson were wings, too. Johnson was the second-tallest guy in the Lakers’ starting lineup for most of his career, while there was always one or two starters shorter than Robertson in Cincinnati and Milwaukee. They were called point guards in eras that defined positions more rigidly, but in terms of who they guarded and who guarded them, Magic and Oscar were respectively no different than LeBron James and James Harden.
It is not a coincidence that the greatest “point guards” ever were not really point guards. Size is always an advantage in basketball, and it is no different with playmaking. The ability to see over the defense, pass out of double teams, and get to spots more easily is invaluable, particularly with today’s emphasis on defensive length.
Lead playmakers have historically been smaller because bigger players have historically not focused on developing ball handling and passing skills. Johnson, Robertson and James are outliers. But that is changing, and the role of “point guard-sized” players is changing with it.
It will always be great to have a do-it-all little guy like Curry or Lillard. But if your point guard is not an elite scorer, it is becoming better to have them be a spot-up shooter than it is ball-dominant assist guy, as the traditional model has been. With so many young playmaking wings and bigs emerging around the league (and more on the way in the 2018 draft class), this will rapidly become a league-wide reality.
Just look at the Philadelphia 76ers. Ben Simmons does everything a Jason Kidd used to do, only with far greater size (6'10"), strength and athleticism. His presence allows them to play more size and shooting in the backcourt (JJ Redick and Robert Covington are their effective starting guards); they have no need for a little guy who can orchestrate but struggles in other facets.
Secondary playmaking and passing still matter, of course. That’s why Markelle Fultz, provided his jumper returns to form, is the perfect long-term fit alongside Simmons. He’s 6'5", a theoretical knockdown shooter, strong cutter and a projectable, if greatly unproven, defender. He can also run the offense, make plays when called upon, and be part of a ball movement-heavy offense.
Ball was labeled by many the anti-Fultz coming out of college. Lacking Fultz’ athleticism, wingspan, shot creation or driving ability, he was seen as a pass-first point guard in an era that was leaving such players behind.
There were two problems with this assessment. The first was that it ignored Ball’s other skills. He is a far more engaged, advanced defender than Fultz, and is miles better as a rebounder. He might not carve out enough space to shoot off the dribble at the NBA level, but he can knock down catch-and-shoot jumpers.
As a modern point guard in the Curry/Lillard/Irving mold, this is insufficient. But in the future, when bigger players are more often your typical lead playmakers, his catch-and-shoot game will far outweigh his off-the-dribble game in terms of importance.
The other problem with Ball’s assessment was a glossing over of his size. Poor shooting off the dribble makes it hard for small guys to create for others, because defenses can sag off. For bigger players, there are ways around this. They can eat up the space they’re given, turn their back and pass out of the post. They can grab rebounds and push the ball in transition themselves, or throw easy over-the-top outlet passes. They can leverage their size as a cutter, collapsing the defense that way before dumping it in for a dunk or kicking it to a shooter.
For those who have watched Simmons, Giannis Antetokounmpo and Draymond Green in recent years, it should be clear that a terrific passer can use size as a weapon just as much as they use shooting and scoring ability.
Of course, Simmons and Giannis can also blow by defenders and fill it up. But Green, who isn’t a scorer at all, is as effective a player as the others. He is essentially Kidd: A terrific passer, rebounder and defender who can space the floor adequately but does not look to score. He is a couple inches taller and more than a couple pounds heavier, but his role is the same.
It must be noted that Ball is not some underdog. He was drafted №2, ahead of several high-level point guard prospects in De’Aaron Fox, Frank Ntilikina and Dennis Smith.
But after just 46 NBA games, Ball is already being labeled a bust, or at least a disappointment. His 44.8 true shooting percentage is hideous, and his lack of burst and low-release jumper are seen as major red flags.
Yet Ball is averaging 1.8 made 3s on 31.6% shooting, which is actually 2.3 triples on 35.8% shooting if you take out his dreadful first month. He’s adding 6.9 rebounds, 1.7 steals and 0.9 blocks per game, and the Lakers are 4.5 points per 100 possessions better defensively when he’s on the court.
Forget his 7.1 assists. Next to Ingram (who, before getting hurt in early March, was averaging 5.4 assists since January 26, along with 18.4 points on 59.1% true shooting), Ball will be a perfect fit so long as he continues to impact the game as a shooter, rebounder, multi-position defender and help defender. The fact that Ingram — who was not seen as a “point forward” coming into the league — is developing these skills is a sign of a shifting emphasis in the league, one that will benefit Ball long-term.
The court vision that made Ball look like a relic of an antiquated era is still his biggest strength. Passing is a good skill for any player, and Ball’s elite version of it may ultimately separate him from the point guards he is competing with for the next decade-plus.
Still, it is not Ball’s passing, but rather everything else — his shooting, rebounding, defense and size — that makes him the prototypical point guard of the future.
Stats courtesy of Basketball-Reference.com and Cleaning The Glass. Follow me on Twitter @Simoncgo
