NBA point guards: A look at playoff performances and draft value

If you're like me, then you've been spending quite a bit of time watching the NBA playoffs lately. And if you've spent a lot of time watching the NBA playoffs, then you've probably noticed the high quality of point guard play during 2010's version of the tournament. Although not every good point guard performer has advanced past the first or second round, it was often the case that their teams would have been in far worse trouble had it not been for their efforts in keeping them afloat. Point guards typically don't garner the same level of attention as the elite wings and big men, a la Kobe, LeBron, Shaq, Dwight Howard, Dirk Nowitzki, Tim Duncan, etc., but I might argue that the point guards of the 2010 playoffs have been the main story thus far.

It all started with Derrick Rose averaging 26.8 pts, 7.2 ast, and 3.4 reb in a five game series against LeBron and the Cavs. Unfortunately for Rose, the Bulls' second best player is Joakim Noah, so an early exit to the top seed was pretty much inevitable. Then, Russell Westbrook introduced himself to casual basketball fans with his impressive six game series against the Lakers, averaging 20.5 pts, 6 ast, and 6 reb and often picking up the slack for Kevin Durant when his shot wasn't falling. Westbrook's numbers are good, but his energy and propensity for big plays can't be fully explained in the box score. Deron Williams helped the Jazz take care of the Nuggets in the first round, but he didn't have enough help to overcome the Lakers. Nevertheless, his playoff averages of 24.3 pts, 10.3 ast, and 2.7 reb are ridiculously good, and he did it against veteran point guards who are known for being ruthless in the playoffs -- Chauncey Billups and Derek Fisher.

Those three guys were terrific, but most people would agree that the two best playoff point guards so far have been Steve Nash and Rajon Rondo. Nash is a straight killer. He led the Suns to a herky-jerky series win over the Blazers before ripping the heart out of the Spurs. The funny thing is that he looks so harmless. He's listed at 6'-3", 178 lbs, but he looks more like 6'-1", 165 lbs. The guy has a very strict diet and conditioning routine that enables him to run around for 34 minutes per game without losing any steam. He's averaging 17.8 pts, 9 ast, and 3.1 reb after 10 playoff games so far, which is fantastic, but like Westbrook, his impact on the game goes well beyond the box score. Nash has been a master of dictating the team's pace and energy level while also flawlessly executing fast breaks, pick-and-rolls, and everything in between. His combination of top-notch ball handling, body control, and shiftiness allows him to penetrate the lane pretty much at will, and for a 36 year old, that is simply amazing. I hope he plays until he's 50; the guy is just so much fun to watch.

As for Rondo, I've known about his potential for quite some time, being that I'm a Kentucky homer ... err, fan. It's neat to see someone who was considered "raw" or a "project" coming out of college transform his game into that of a mature, composed, veteran point guard. Rondo is really one of a kind. It's pretty tough to find an active NBA player to whom you can compare Rondo. Some might say he has a little bit of Mookie Blaylock in him. Personally, I think the best comparison might be, coincidentally, Kentucky guard, John Wall. Wall is a little taller and is a better leaper, but both are super fast with the ball in their hands, both have incredible court vision and awareness (and the passing skills to take advantage of it), both prefer to drive or pull up for a short jumper or floater, rather than take long jumpers, and both have more than a little bit of showman in them -- a certain bit of flair (this and this, but not this). Oh, and both have really long arms, which gives them a distinct advantage on defense and with rebounding. While Wall is certainly the more talented prospect of the two and has the higher ceiling, Rondo is tearing it up against elite competition. A couple of nights ago, he absolutely went off to the tune of 29 pts, 13 ast, and 18 reb in a critical game four against the Cavs. He is averaging 17.9 pts, 11.4 ast, and 7.1 reb in nine playoff games so far.

As you might know, Nash and Rondo were not lottery picks. Nash was the 15th pick in the 1996 draft, and Rondo was the 21st pick in the 2006 draft. That might seem high if we were discussing NFL or MLB draft picks, but in the NBA, a non-lottery pick is not expected to ever develop into an all-star caliber player. Obviously, some do, but it is not a realistic expectation. In fact, a late first round pick might never play significant minutes, even off the bench. For that reason, I think it is interesting that the two most dominant point guards of the 2010 playoffs were both selected in the bottom half of the first round. You could say that the Celtics and Suns (although, Nash played for the Mavericks for six years in between two stints with the Suns) are receiving very good value on those selections. This piqued my curiosity, and so I proceeded to take a look at the NBA's 30 top point guards (I selected the top 30 leaders in assists per game among PG's) for 2010 and created a simple formula for calculating their value in relation to their draft slot. I did two separate tables: one for 2010 stats, and another for their career stats. I simply added their points per game and their assists per game, and then added a number based on their draft slot. This is hardly scientific, and you could easily argue for different numeric values for the draft slots, but I decided on this: 1 point for a top 5 pick, 2 points for picks 6-14, 3 points for picks 15-30, and 4 points for a second rounder or undrafted free agent (the Raptors' Jose Calderon was the only one). The higher the sum of the three numbers, the better the value. Therefore, if a player is selected in the top five and averages 10 pts and 10 ast, then he scores a 21. If a player drafted in the second round averages 10 pts and 8 ast, then his score is 22. The second-rounder is the better value, despite the fact that he averages two fewer assists per game. Like I said, the values are up for debate, and we could also look at this from a salary point of view, but it's interesting to look at and talk about, nonetheless. Here are the results:

2009-2010 PG Value Chart:

Not surprisingly, Nash, Chris Paul, and Williams are the top three and have nearly identical numbers. While Paul and Williams have a slightly higher scoring average than Nash, he gains a little bit of ground value-wise by being a lower draft pick. The Rockets' young scoring point guard, Aaron Brooks jumps into the ranks of the elite due to his three points for being a late first round pick. Even though players like Brooks and Nash get extra value points for being low draft picks, six of the top ten only received one draft point, since they were top five picks. The highest ranked player with four draft points is the Raptors' undrafted Spaniard, Jose Calderon at number 19. The lowest ranked player for 2009-2010 with one draft point is the Hawks' Mike Bibby at number 29. Bibby, however, is past his prime and is not a bust by any means. He is simply not capable of putting up the scoring totals that he did in his days with the Kings. The next lowest high profile draft picks are Raymond Felton and Mike Conley at numbers 22 and 23, respectively. Both are still relatively young, but their teams are certainly growing impatient as they wait for them to live up to their lofty draft status, which comes with a higher salary.

Career PG Value Chart:

The career chart shows most of the same names at the top, with the addition of Tyreke Evans. Evans benefits from a rookie of the year campaign during which he put up fantastic stats, so he has the advantage of not having to include any poor statistical seasons in his average. The same goes for Stephen Curry and Brandon Jennings, so it will be interesting to see if they can improve on their rookie numbers next year or if they will experience sophomore slumps. If they improve, then all three will be considered elite NBA point guards in only their second year. As for right now, it is a bit too early to label them as surefire, top notch point guards, even though they are certainly on the right track.

Similarly to the first chart, the career chart shows only three players in the top ten who were not top five draft picks: Nash, Curry, and Andre Miller. While Nash, Brooks, and Rondo were the highest rated "low" draft picks in the first chart, Nash separates himself from the other two in the career chart, and Darren Collison, propelled by the fact that he is a rookie who had a nice year, jumps past Brooks and Rondo to stake the claim as the highest ranked player who was drafted in the twenties or below. Interestingly, only three of the bottom 15 point guards have a draft point of one, so over the span of their careers, it looks like the overwhelming majority of the elite point guards are high draft picks, even though the lower picks benefit from a couple of extra draft points. Clearly, we would expect higher draft picks to perform better than those picked outside the lottery, but it is a bit surprising to see the degree to which they out-perform the lower picks, especially since the point system gives the them a slight advantage. If you want to talk busts, then the conversation should obviously start with Mike Conley, who is ranked 25th. Conley was the fourth overall pick in 2007, and he is the lowest ranked player who was picked in the top five of his draft. The only other high draft pick who is close to Conley is Devin Harris at number 23. Harris, however, has had a couple of very solid years, a claim that Conley cannot make at this point in his career.

So, what did we learn? I think this means that teams should not necessarily try to look for the next Nash or Rondo -- that is, an under the radar player who falls outside the lottery. While those players are wonderful to come by, it is probably not the most realistic way to find your point guard of the future. It might also be interesting to note that two high profile players who did not qualify this year due to missing too many games, Tony Parker and Gilbert Arenas, are late first round and second round picks, respectively. They certainly would have shown well on the chart, but they are not your prototypical point guards, either. Arenas is obviously known more for his shooting ability, and Parker is not a true floor general type of point guard, either. Aaron Brooks and Rodney Stuckey are two guys on the chart who would tend to be described in a way other than "true" point guards, and they were also lower draft picks. One might gather that if you want a good, "true" point guard, then it will probably cost you a lottery pick -- probably one in the top five. But if your offense allows for a non-traditional point guard, then you might consider taking your chances with a lower pick and hope for the next Parker, Arenas, Brooks, or Stuckey to fall in your lap.

So, having said all of that, I hope you take the time to sit down and watch some of these great point guards do their thing. Most people want to see a Lakers-Cavs final so that they can see the Kobe vs LeBron matchup. But if that doesn't happen, maybe we can get Suns-Celtics and watch Nash vs Rondo. It might not get the hype of the Mamba vs the King, but at least the point guard match up would be way better than Derek Fisher vs Mo Williams.