A different look at the NBA’s best backcourt discussion

Oct 30, 2012; Cleveland, OH, USA; Washington Wizards shooting guard Bradley Beal (3, right) shoots over Cleveland Cavaliers shooting guard Dion Waiters (3, left) in the fourth quarter at Quicken Loans Arena. Mandatory Credit: David Richard-USA TODAY Sports
Oct 30, 2012; Cleveland, OH, USA; Washington Wizards shooting guard Bradley Beal (3, right) shoots over Cleveland Cavaliers shooting guard Dion Waiters (3, left) in the fourth quarter at Quicken Loans Arena. Mandatory Credit: David Richard-USA TODAY Sports /
facebooktwitterreddit

The big debate around the NBA during the first week of training camp has been over which team has the best backcourt. In one corner are the Wizards with John Wall and Bradley Beal, in the other, Cleveland with Kyrie Irving and Dion Waiters. Though this war of words has helped pass the time until the start of actual competition, it has been without any real resolution. After all, the evaluation seems to align nearly perfectly with factors favorable to the players on the judge’s favored team. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

On the merits, between Washington and Cleveland the most sensible answer for which has the best duo is  “neither.” Having the “best” guards implies a paired set, both of whom have reached some degree of achievement. With all due respect to Beal and Waiters, their teams don’t yet qualify. Someday soon, perhaps even this year, one or both may start to deliver on that promise, but it hasn’t happened yet.

Most importantly, trying to isolate the best backcourt divorced from team concept and construction is largely pointless. Any inquiry that intentionally ignores the question of what the overall team needs from two starters ignores fundamental truths about basketball being a dynamic game filled with teammate interaction.

Where, for example, in this debate have been notions of defense? Aside from those supporting the cause of the Warriors (Klay Thompson being a third leg of the “not that guy yet” triumvirate with Beal and Waiters), nowhere to be seen. Being able to defend and especially to prevent penetration by opposing guards in a a game where offenses are increasingly focused on layups and kickouts to open three-point shooters is important.

So too is salary. While the three shooting guards mentioned thus far are all still on very affordable rookie scale contracts, that will soon change. Thompson is in line for a hefty raise after this coming season, while Beal and Waiters will be seeking lucrative new deals which go into effect the season after next. How does the comparison change when Thompson is making in the neighborhood of $15 million next season?

At that point, when Thompson and partner Steph Curry are making around $27 million total, is it not fair to wonder whether a combination such as Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan ($21.5 million combined) or even Tony Parker and Danny Green (unsigned after this coming season but likely in the $18-20 million range, total) are more helpful?

Green in particular is a useful reminder of the value and importance of fit, chemistry and complimentary talents. Whether or not one thinks him a “better” player than Waiters, for example, the Cavs would almost certainly be better off if the players swapped. Cleveland certainly has more need for a knockdown shooter who doesn’t need the ball in his hands than it does for another (in this case middling) creative type in Waiters. Those skills aren’t bad things for Waiters to have, but are superfluous and duplicative for a team which employs LeBron James and Kyrie Irving. Plus, of course, Green’s massive advantage over Waiters in terms of defense,  an area of real need for the Cavs.

To repeat, this isn’t to say Green is “better” than Waiters. It’s to illustrate that aside from cases where the ranking is so obvious as to not be worthy of discussion, the correct response is usually “it depends.” Notions  of a “better”, “more desirable”, “more valuable” player depends greatly on factors such as who is already on the team, intended style of play and of course salary cap implications.

Rankings can be a fun diversion, and represent a wonderful opportunity to organize ones thoughts about the game. But the endless search for the “best” in some arbitrarily determined category with an infinitely malleable definition is more often an attempt to justify fandom, where no justification is actually needed. It’s sometimes fine saying “I like Bradley Beal and hope he does well because I’m a Wizards fan” and leave it at that.

More from FanSided.com

NFL Power Rankings Week 4: Cowboys rise
College Basketball: Preseason AAC  power rankings
NBA Power Rankings: 2014-15 training camp edition
Derek Jeter and MLB’s 20 richest players
All 30 NHL franchises ranked by all-time greatness