In an article on CNNSI there is a quote that I think really wraps up what is happening in the league. The article is about the free agent options that the Lakers have to improve their PG play until Nash comes back. Pargo is the last option that Rob Mahoney mentions.
Last seen: Suiting up for the Wizards before being unceremoniously cut from the team mid-season.
As we emerge from a basketball era in which shot creation was valued above all else, Jannero Pargo stands as a bit of a dinosaur (and a pretty meager dinosaur at that — maybe the pigeon-sized Nemicolopterus?). Evolution has left him behind, and general managers have grown too wise to lean on a guard whose primary value is to generate his own inefficient offense.
The last sentence is about how the game is changing. That is why a guy like Beasley might find himself out of the league sooner than folks would expect, even though he is still averaging 11 points per game. The Knicks and the Spurs are part of that change. Teams are realizing that you don't need a bunch of shot creators on a team if you actually have an offensive strategy. There are a lot of GMs and owners in the league who still don't get that. But they are becoming the minority. And year after year as the Spurs continue to win and when the Knicks can create a dominate team out of one superstar and a bunch of basically fairly cheap free agents (Chandler is the only guy on the squad who is getting paid top dollar and he is obviously worth every penny) it is becoming harder and harder for the GMs who don't get it to keep their jobs.
Ask the Bulls what it is like when your best shot creator is Nate Robinson. Knicks are pretty average without their shot creator Carmelo Anthony. End of an Era for guys who can create space and get off their own shot? No
well ideally you would probably want your best players to also be the best shot creators and complement them with other players who necessarily dont need shot creating ability. i dont want my 12th man pg to be a shot creator i want him to play d and knock down his open shots when he gets them.
Exactly, you need an offense initiator and shot creator, but do you need ten of them on your team? You probably need one on the court at all times. But do you need four of them on the court? I think a lot of teams used to evaluate guys on the basis of how close they were to being Michael Jordan. They wanted a guy that they thought could at least have a chance of doing it all. The Sixers are still waiting for Nick Young to become Michael Jordan. But it isn't going to happen. He is just going to keep pulling up from 20 feet and clanging jumpers off the rim as long as they keep playing him.
Guys who are only good at a few things have a place if you create an offensive or defensive strategy that allows them to focus on what they do best. A PG who doesn't really pass, and who can't really get to the rim and score is kind of a waste of time. But those guys still get drafted and picked up. Unless you think the guy is good enough to be your guy, like a Melo or your sixth man like JCrawford, then what is the point of sacrificing a ton just because he has "shot creating" ability? Just get a more fundamentally solid guy instead and run an offensive play more complicated than ISO.
It's not an end of the era, but you are right, examples of Spurs or Knicks success will show teams how important ball movement, extra passes and good offensive strategy are. Although, talent is really important too, I don't think that one would argue that Spurs or Knicks doesn't have talent. But talent alone is not enough, chemistry is definitely a necessity.
What's really sad is that that type of play and strategy should be a given.
Hopefully the kids are taking note.
The end of the era of inefficient chuckers who don't do much else? Huh? Those guys will always be eventually marginalized, regardless of era. They are in the category of what are called: mediocre to bad basketball players.
Gary Neal and Pargo do the same thing tho