Talk:Point Guard

I've removed Allen Iverson's name from the page, as he is really a SG who can play some PG. I've also removed Nick Van Exel, Gary Payton because they are no longer considered "high-profile" as the article states. The reason I am posting this is because I think there are too many PG's listed, as "high-profile", as great and as good as all those players are, I'd like to propose that the following players be removed, because of lack of high-profile accomplishments, or stats: Rafer Alston, Damon Jones, Derek Fisher (Derek Fisher was really good, and he has made some huge shots in his time, but he is in a steady decline and I don't believe he merits inclusion on the list of "great shooters" any longer. Any thoughts or comments? KOS | talk 05:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has responded I'll go ahead and make the changes. KOS | talk 05:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering - can we really consider Arenas the best point guard playing now? Thats what this article states. Phs1234 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No we can't, nor should we. That is a highly opinionated statement, and should be removed. KOS | talk 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody is particularly active on this page I'm not sure this is entirely necessary, but I am going to re-write most of this page, clean it up, add a few refs, yadda yadda all that good stuff. Please comment, on the changes if you are interested. KOS | talk 23:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I arbitrarily decided to post on this page (well, not "arbitrarily" in that I like point guards better, because if I had any potential as a basketball player (which I don't) I would probably be a point guard, but anyway, moving on...) and discussion, if needed, can move to basketball position.

The decision on whether or not to merge the basketball position articles probably won't be an easy one and will be most influenced by personal views of what kind of thing merits its own article. I reckon they should be merged, because understanding of each basketball position is best achieved by understanding the other four as well, and no basketball position can work without the others. Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely (but you, KoS, have made a start to proving me wrong) that they will become full length articles (25-32kb), as each of them is too small a topic. The characteristics of any position are best explained in comparison to the other positions, so in my view, it is best to merge them so that the reader can read about them all at once. The evolution of each position depends on its counterparts, and, well, you get the idea. (Shouldn't be too hard to guess that I'm a mergist ;-) )

I'm not a fully-fledged expert in basketball, I'm just a strong enthusiast. Because of my activity status, I'm not going to draw out a long debate if one occurs. Views are welcome. Neonumbers 10:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that merging the article's together at the basketball positions page is a good idea, based on your arguments. I plan on re-writing the small forward, power forward, and the center articles much in the same mold as this one and the shooting guard articles. The PG and SG articles are now roughly 5kb each, and I believe that once the other three are re-written they will be about the same. Swingman and point forward, would be added as well though I doubt I'll be able to do much with them except maybe clean them up a little. After merging all or most of the information to the basketball position page, it could easily be at the length on 25-30 kb. I think an other question we should ask ourselves is: What would be the negative effects of a merge this large, if any at all?

And of course, the more people who make their opinions known the better. These pages are not very active, so perhaps running this idea past the NBA wikiproject or the Basketball wikiproject will give us extra feed back. KOS | talk 17:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps a good place to start would be this article, the other basketball position articles, and the basketball position article itself, so that it can be seen by those who watch the articles. If (say) a week goes by without objection, then it's a fair bet the merge can be carried out without strong opposition. (In other words, in my humble opinion, going past the bball wikiproject isn't necessary.) Neonumbers 11:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine, though I have to say, I'm leaving for a month and will have very limited internet access. I will not be able to post a reply quickly in this time frame. Anyhow, cheers! KOS | talk 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think they do not add anything to the article and should be deleted. Let me know if anyone else think so too. Leigao84 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've taken out both notable sections because they were attracting too much vandalism and they're really subjective.Leigao84 23:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are notable, people should know them and the LIST SHOULD NOT be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brave warrior (talk • contribs)

If they are notable, find a source that says that they are notable. These list of favorite players should be removed from this page, as well as from the other position articles. --OnoremDil 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says these players are notable? What criteria is being used to determine who is or isn't notable? It's completely unsourced POV. Come to some consensus criteria for what is going to be considered notable, and then add players back along with sources showing they meet these criteria. These sections are completely unacceptable per WP:A as they are currently written. --OnoremDil 15:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The notable player section is pure WP:OR and even if they meet a standard (say All star game the year before), there'll be other standards that makes other players notable. Corpx 16:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the soccer positions those all have lists and these lists can let people easily see some famous players without having to see another page. The standard is those players have won awards before such as All-Stars such as Tony Parker, MVPs such as Steve Nash or All-NBA teams Steve Nash and Billups. New England(Black Harry) also agrees with me and to prove it see:Talk:Power forward (basketball). Brave warrior 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's circular logic...Because soccer players have it, basketball players should? Just because another user agrees with you means it should be in there. I'm opposing based on the notion that wikipedia should not be setting the criteria on who is a notable PG and who is not. Corpx 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding soccer positions, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

If it's a list of players that have won MVP's, gone to All-Star games, or made the All-NBA team...then it should say that it is a list of those things, not that they are "notable." Without clarification, it's just going to be a section which is constantly in a state of edit-warring because people want to see their favorite players on the list. Also, please note that I started a new discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. This isn't something that should be decided on an article talk page if the resulting consensus is going to affect multiple pages within the scope of a project. --OnoremDil 17:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to describe the other point guards who have won the MVP as "much shorter." Oscar Robertson was also tall for the position at 6'5. Steve Nash is taller than many point guards at 6'3. Magic Johnson was an anamoly at pg because he was so tall. It is confusing to describe the others as short simply because they did not have his height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish1916 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

allen iverson is listed as a point guard, steve blake plays the sg on the nuggets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealbert (talk • contribs)

Steve Blake signed with his old team, the Portland Trail Blazers. Basketball110 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Chris Paul? He was Rookie of the Year! He should be on the notable list! Basketball110 (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added John Stockton's name to this page. He was at least one of the top 5 point guard to ever play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.146.202 (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the last sentence of the last paragraph of the "Offense" section begins with, "Jordan's habit of ..." Who is Jordan? I would guess Micheal Jordan but I do not know that. I am not knowledgeable about basketball so I do not know how many player's named Jordan there have been.

Nick Beeson (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]