Skip Bayless - CP3 isn’t a top-15 PG all time

[Baz]

How this guy still has a job is beyond me

[Theocy]

You know how each village has its idiot. The village idiot kind of thing. If all those idiots bailed one day to start their own village and Skip joined them, upon his arrival he’d be crowned the village idiot

[dhsilv2]

I have to admit, his show would entertaining, if he was debating himself.

Wasn't he on cold pizza doing just that? I'm pretty sure it was him and black him just yelling nonsense...been a while since I saw it. But it was just two identical people screaming...neither were watching sports or could discuss them. Even a few times they'd get so made they'd just yell "barbra streisand" to end their point.

[dhsilv2]

For me the most unbiased take on top 10 all time PGs is something like:

1.Magic
2.Oscar or West

4. Curry

5. Paul or Nash or Stockton


8. Kidd
9. Isiah or Westbrook


Depending on what you think is important can be valued differently between these players who are tied, but I think 90% of people have these people on their top 10 anyway and many have them on this kind of order.

this is a reasonable list though I would have a few minor issues.

1. I think Curry after last season has narrowed the longevity gap enough with his higher peak to be in that oscar west tier. I know that's a tough adjustment for any of us to make, but I think we're there.
2. I'm not sure about your 9-10. Payton and Frazier were so far and away better defensively than those two while being not that far off as scorers. If you value rings, Frazier has two to match Thomas.
3. I wouldn't agree but Cousy gets talk here and while I think the 50's were just too far back and lesser an era, it's hard to not mention him.

[og15]

He's in the top 15, but in no way shape or form should he be infront of players who have finals appearances as 1b or 1a & or MVPs

Magic
Isaiah
Steph
Oscar
Stockton
Nash
A.I.

I saw all those guys play except Oscar and I'm taking all of them over CP3

CP3s lack of willingness to be scorer is what actually scores him lower on the totem pole for me. A lot of those LAC years he should've been looking to score himself instead of trying to set up everyone 80-90% of the time. He's was playing closer to like a rondo type of PG when they needed more IT or Nash

Gary Payton is also criminally underrated.

His Clippers ppg average is 21.2 ppg in the playoffs and he took 16 FGA and 4.5 FTA. His high was 25 ppg, he averaged ~23+ ppg in 3/6 runs and ~20 ppg in 5/6. That's a Rondo PG?

Nash on the Suns averaged 20 ppg in the playoffs, his high was 23.9 ppg. He was at ~20 ppg in 2/5 seasons with the Suns. I'm not seeing the Rondo type PG vs what Nash was doing.

IT during the Pistons championship runs averaged 19.4 ppg and took 16.2 FGA and 5.4 FTA. Paul outscored both of them, took as many of more FGA, so how is it working? If the Clippers were an elite defense (and not injured every other season) while Paul was there and had depth that wasn't Jamal Crawford, Mr 39% FG / 28% 3PT in the playoffs and young Austin Rivers, the perception would totally change as they would have been more successful.

[dhsilv2]

1) Magic Johnson
2) Oscar Robertson
3) Jerry West
4) John Stockton
5) Stephen Curry
6) Isiah Thomas
7) Chris Paul
8) Jason Kidd
9) Bob Cousy
10) Walt Frazier

I’ll never understand why people always have Stockton so high?

Tons of assists. Smart player. Good defender. But also, never a high volume scorer and he played his entire career with a top 20 player and 2 time MVP and still only played in exactly two finals, which they lost. Plus he was never even the best player on his own team.

Everyone else on your list was the best player on their team for a good chunk of their careers. Curry has 3 titles and literally transformed the game and he’s worse then Stockton? Cant see that. The funny part is that people never have any trouble calling CP a loser or a choker but Stockton has always avoiding any negative labels.

Stockton wasn't the best player but Frazier was over Reed?

But lets think about stockton.

I'm going to use my favorite bad metric RPM because I have no idea who's got RAPM, normalized, going back to 97 which is sadly as far back as we can go.

97 stockton 13 malone 14
98 Stockton 16 Malone 6
99 Stockton 6 Malone 18
00 Stockton 5 Malone Malone 18
01 Stokcton 2 Malone 25
02 Stockton 20 Malone 151
03 Stockton 15 Malone 114

A 7 year sample where stockton graded out higher than malone 6 of the years. Now RPM doesn't directly tell us who is better in all contexts but it paints a picture to me as does the raw real RAPM I've seen 01 and later that there was a real case to be made that Stockton was more important and perhaps he benefited Malone more than the other way.

I've really always wondered if Stockton had had a coach who pushed him to be more aggressive if he could have gotten better results. But impact metrics really do tend to paint the billing of Stockton and Malone accurate...it was STOCKTON and malone. Not the way the media and fans often painted it with one being an MVP while the other was his setup man.

[dhsilv2]

How this guy still has a job is beyond me

idiots keep posting his videos and people click them...it's unreal.

[Galloisdaman]

I hate Chris Paul, but not having his as a top 15 PG all time is silly. I can understand an argument for not being in the top 5, but he’s definitely in the top 10

I have always thought Cp3 was overrated but I would have him around the top 10. I would not have him in the top 5.

[Sprewell4Three]

I question your sanity if you actually enjoy or even tune into Undisputed.

It’s mindless fun hearing two guys make terrible takes. Shannon is entertaining.

[The_Hater]

1) Magic Johnson
2) Oscar Robertson
3) Jerry West
4) John Stockton
5) Stephen Curry
6) Isiah Thomas
7) Chris Paul
8) Jason Kidd
9) Bob Cousy
10) Walt Frazier

I’ll never understand why people always have Stockton so high?

Tons of assists. Smart player. Good defender. But also, never a high volume scorer and he played his entire career with a top 20 player and 2 time MVP and still only played in exactly two finals, which they lost. Plus he was never even the best player on his own team.

Everyone else on your list was the best player on their team for a good chunk of their careers. Curry has 3 titles and literally transformed the game and he’s worse then Stockton? Cant see that. The funny part is that people never have any trouble calling CP a loser or a choker but Stockton has always avoiding any negative labels.

Stockton wasn't the best player but Frazier was over Reed?

But lets think about stockton.

I'm going to use my favorite bad metric RPM because I have no idea who's got RAPM, normalized, going back to 97 which is sadly as far back as we can go.

97 stockton 13 malone 14
98 Stockton 16 Malone 6
99 Stockton 6 Malone 18
00 Stockton 5 Malone Malone 18
01 Stokcton 2 Malone 25
02 Stockton 20 Malone 151
03 Stockton 15 Malone 114

A 7 year sample where stockton graded out higher than malone 6 of the years. Now RPM doesn't directly tell us who is better in all contexts but it paints a picture to me as does the raw real RAPM I've seen 01 and later that there was a real case to be made that Stockton was more important and perhaps he benefited Malone more than the other way.

I've really always wondered if Stockton had had a coach who pushed him to be more aggressive if he could have gotten better results. But impact metrics really do tend to paint the billing of Stockton and Malone accurate...it was STOCKTON and malone. Not the way the media and fans often painted it with one being an MVP while the other was his setup man.

Frazier was the Knicks best player from 1970-71 onward and probably even during 1969-70 as well although it was close. So that would include both championship teams. In fact, Reed only averaged 11 ppg for the 1973 champs. And in 1970 with Reed hobbling, it was Frazier who posted 36/7/19 in game 7 over the Lakers in one of the handful, greatest game 7 performances ever.

Anyways, during their entire careers Malone, not Stockton was considered the superior player. It wasn’t even a debate. He won 2 MVP’s. He averaged 28+ ppg. He’s the one currently considered one of the 20 best players of all time while Stockton is much further down the list. Stockton finished 8th in MVP voting one season. That was his highest finish. Malone finished top 8, 14 times during his career. 14!

You’re in a clear minority with an opinion that Stockton was better.

[brutalitops]

Magic
Steph
Cp3

are the top 3 PGs of all time for sure

then you can slot in a bunch of guys...Big O, Thomas, Stock, Nash, Harden is in the convo too if u consider him a PG which we all probably should at this point

Skip probably reading threads after playoff games to get sources and inspiration for headlines

Honestly im kind of impressed, For millions of dollars il'd shitpost live on air

[hauntedcomputer]

Who were the evolutionary leaps at point guard? People who actually changed the court and the way the game was played?
I'd say Cousy. Then Oscar for size and spacing. Then Magic for size and fast-breaking. You could make an argument for Nash but I wouldn't quite put him there. Possibly Westbrook but I'd put that more as devolution because it generally makes your team worse instead of better. Steph for sure.

That's different than "best." CP3 can control the court pretty well but he doesn't change the game. But he's clearly in the top 5-10 tier.

Didn't Frazier also have like a dozen unofficial steals in that Game 7?

[dhsilv2]

I’ll never understand why people always have Stockton so high?

Tons of assists. Smart player. Good defender. But also, never a high volume scorer and he played his entire career with a top 20 player and 2 time MVP and still only played in exactly two finals, which they lost. Plus he was never even the best player on his own team.

Everyone else on your list was the best player on their team for a good chunk of their careers. Curry has 3 titles and literally transformed the game and he’s worse then Stockton? Cant see that. The funny part is that people never have any trouble calling CP a loser or a choker but Stockton has always avoiding any negative labels.

Stockton wasn't the best player but Frazier was over Reed?

But lets think about stockton.

I'm going to use my favorite bad metric RPM because I have no idea who's got RAPM, normalized, going back to 97 which is sadly as far back as we can go.

97 stockton 13 malone 14
98 Stockton 16 Malone 6
99 Stockton 6 Malone 18
00 Stockton 5 Malone Malone 18
01 Stokcton 2 Malone 25
02 Stockton 20 Malone 151
03 Stockton 15 Malone 114

A 7 year sample where stockton graded out higher than malone 6 of the years. Now RPM doesn't directly tell us who is better in all contexts but it paints a picture to me as does the raw real RAPM I've seen 01 and later that there was a real case to be made that Stockton was more important and perhaps he benefited Malone more than the other way.

I've really always wondered if Stockton had had a coach who pushed him to be more aggressive if he could have gotten better results. But impact metrics really do tend to paint the billing of Stockton and Malone accurate...it was STOCKTON and malone. Not the way the media and fans often painted it with one being an MVP while the other was his setup man.

Frazier was the Knicks best player from 1970-71 onward and probably even during 1969-70 as well although it was close. So that would include both championship teams. In fact, Reed only averaged 11 ppg for the 1973 champs. And in 1970 with Reed hobbling, it was Frazier who posted 36/7/19 in game 7 over the Lakers in one of the handful, greatest game 7 performances ever.

Anyways, during their entire careers Malone, not Stockton was considered the superior player. It wasn’t even a debate. He won 2 MVP’s. He averaged 28+ ppg. He’s the one currently considered one of the 20 best players of all time while Stockton is much further down the list. Stockton finished 8th in MVP voting one season. That was his highest finish. Malone finished top 8, 14 times during his career. 14!

You’re in a clear minority with an opinion that Stockton was better.

What is the point of forums and modern stats if we're not willing to engage in discussions about if we were right in the past? Reed was after all the MVP, the heart and soul of the team, and the big man defensive anchor. The view at the time was that it was still his team even as Frazier posted better stats. It was through review of the past that many of us have moved Frazier ahead of Reed.

Similarly, as we slowly get non box score data from the 90's that we are starting to paint this different picture of stockton and malone. Media and fans were pretty bad at player analysis back then. Points per game were king and most fans couldn't see past them. Today we have tools to go beyond that and they have shifted a lot of analysis. Guys like Miller who got looked over for allstar and all nba selections has moved up. I think the discussion about how good stockton was vs malone is another one. A LOT of people who do rank stockton higher than it seems you support, are very well aware of RAPM from the end of his career and how freaking good it painted him even at 40+. Dismissing it as "that's minority opinion" doesn't make much sense.

[The_Hater]

Stockton wasn't the best player but Frazier was over Reed?

But lets think about stockton.

I'm going to use my favorite bad metric RPM because I have no idea who's got RAPM, normalized, going back to 97 which is sadly as far back as we can go.

97 stockton 13 malone 14
98 Stockton 16 Malone 6
99 Stockton 6 Malone 18
00 Stockton 5 Malone Malone 18
01 Stokcton 2 Malone 25
02 Stockton 20 Malone 151
03 Stockton 15 Malone 114

A 7 year sample where stockton graded out higher than malone 6 of the years. Now RPM doesn't directly tell us who is better in all contexts but it paints a picture to me as does the raw real RAPM I've seen 01 and later that there was a real case to be made that Stockton was more important and perhaps he benefited Malone more than the other way.

I've really always wondered if Stockton had had a coach who pushed him to be more aggressive if he could have gotten better results. But impact metrics really do tend to paint the billing of Stockton and Malone accurate...it was STOCKTON and malone. Not the way the media and fans often painted it with one being an MVP while the other was his setup man.

Frazier was the Knicks best player from 1970-71 onward and probably even during 1969-70 as well although it was close. So that would include both championship teams. In fact, Reed only averaged 11 ppg for the 1973 champs. And in 1970 with Reed hobbling, it was Frazier who posted 36/7/19 in game 7 over the Lakers in one of the handful, greatest game 7 performances ever.

Anyways, during their entire careers Malone, not Stockton was considered the superior player. It wasn’t even a debate. He won 2 MVP’s. He averaged 28+ ppg. He’s the one currently considered one of the 20 best players of all time while Stockton is much further down the list. Stockton finished 8th in MVP voting one season. That was his highest finish. Malone finished top 8, 14 times during his career. 14!

You’re in a clear minority with an opinion that Stockton was better.

What is the point of forums and modern stats if we're not willing to engage in discussions about if we were right in the past? Reed was after all the MVP, the heart and soul of the team, and the big man defensive anchor. The view at the time was that it was still his team even as Frazier posted better stats. It was through review of the past that many of us have moved Frazier ahead of Reed.

Similarly, as we slowly get non box score data from the 90's that we are starting to paint this different picture of stockton and malone. Media and fans were pretty bad at player analysis back then. Points per game were king and most fans couldn't see past them. Today we have tools to go beyond that and they have shifted a lot of analysis. Guys like Miller who got looked over for allstar and all nba selections has moved up. I think the discussion about how good stockton was vs malone is another one. A LOT of people who do rank stockton higher than it seems you support, are very well aware of RAPM from the end of his career and how freaking good it painted him even at 40+. Dismissing it as "that's minority opinion" doesn't make much sense.

Reed was the regular seasonMVP in 1969-70 so he was likely better, but Frazier was 4th in the voting and he did take over in the finals when Reed was injured and had that incredible game 7. He was their playoff MVP. I said it was close that season and I still think it was. Go further down the road and Reed’s twilight was full of season ending injuries and increasing ineffectiveness. It was no longer very close. So your previous statement that Reed was always the best player on the Knicks doesn’t ring true.

I’m not dimssimg your opinion on Stockton because it’s a minority opinion, I brought in facts and some opinion on why Malone was considered superior both during their career and their post-career and pointed out that it’s a minority opinion. Which it is. There are just not many facts that you can bring to the table to claim otherwise.

[dhsilv2]

Frazier was the Knicks best player from 1970-71 onward and probably even during 1969-70 as well although it was close. So that would include both championship teams. In fact, Reed only averaged 11 ppg for the 1973 champs. And in 1970 with Reed hobbling, it was Frazier who posted 36/7/19 in game 7 over the Lakers in one of the handful, greatest game 7 performances ever.

Anyways, during their entire careers Malone, not Stockton was considered the superior player. It wasn’t even a debate. He won 2 MVP’s. He averaged 28+ ppg. He’s the one currently considered one of the 20 best players of all time while Stockton is much further down the list. Stockton finished 8th in MVP voting one season. That was his highest finish. Malone finished top 8, 14 times during his career. 14!

You’re in a clear minority with an opinion that Stockton was better.

What is the point of forums and modern stats if we're not willing to engage in discussions about if we were right in the past? Reed was after all the MVP, the heart and soul of the team, and the big man defensive anchor. The view at the time was that it was still his team even as Frazier posted better stats. It was through review of the past that many of us have moved Frazier ahead of Reed.

Similarly, as we slowly get non box score data from the 90's that we are starting to paint this different picture of stockton and malone. Media and fans were pretty bad at player analysis back then. Points per game were king and most fans couldn't see past them. Today we have tools to go beyond that and they have shifted a lot of analysis. Guys like Miller who got looked over for allstar and all nba selections has moved up. I think the discussion about how good stockton was vs malone is another one. A LOT of people who do rank stockton higher than it seems you support, are very well aware of RAPM from the end of his career and how freaking good it painted him even at 40+. Dismissing it as "that's minority opinion" doesn't make much sense.

Reed was the regular seasonMVP in 1969-70 so he was likely better, but Frazier was 4th in the voting and he did take over in the finals when Reed was injured and had that incredible game 7. He was their playoff MVP. I said it was close that season and I still think it was. Go further down the road and Reed’s twilight was full of season ending injuries and increasing ineffectiveness. It was no longer very close. So your previous statement that Reed was always the best player on the Knicks doesn’t ring true.

I’m not dimssimg your opinion on Stockton because it’s a minority opinion, I brought in facts and some opinion on why Malone was considered superior both during their career and their post-career and pointed out that it’s a minority opinion. Which it is. There are just not many facts that you can bring to the table to claim otherwise.

So the point I'm getting at which might be getting missed is that Stockton never had the opportunity to shine without Malone like Frazier did and while many did see Frazier better than Reed, I've gone back and watched those finals (what games i could find on youtube) and read a bit from the era. Reed was still seen as the leader of the team. Him coming back to play injured was the story, not how great Frazier was. This is far less stark a contrast, but it shows that these narratives even before 24/7 news were hard to break even as a guy did become the star. And I'd argue having go back that Frazier was just better than Reed and the league was just too big man focused.

We never got a chance to see Stockton without Malone and we barely saw Malone without stockton. But when we look at modern data and stats. When we look through the lenses of analytics and how players create value outside the box score...stockton not malone is the guy who checks all the boxes. If nothing else, it isn't that we need to go as extreme as to moving Stockton ahead of Malone, but I think there's a good case to be made we should move them FAR more into the consideration of equals...with Malone being the guy who got the final shot...and I don't think that was the right call, he wasn't that guy. No clue if stockon could have been.

[The_Hater]

What is the point of forums and modern stats if we're not willing to engage in discussions about if we were right in the past? Reed was after all the MVP, the heart and soul of the team, and the big man defensive anchor. The view at the time was that it was still his team even as Frazier posted better stats. It was through review of the past that many of us have moved Frazier ahead of Reed.

Similarly, as we slowly get non box score data from the 90's that we are starting to paint this different picture of stockton and malone. Media and fans were pretty bad at player analysis back then. Points per game were king and most fans couldn't see past them. Today we have tools to go beyond that and they have shifted a lot of analysis. Guys like Miller who got looked over for allstar and all nba selections has moved up. I think the discussion about how good stockton was vs malone is another one. A LOT of people who do rank stockton higher than it seems you support, are very well aware of RAPM from the end of his career and how freaking good it painted him even at 40+. Dismissing it as "that's minority opinion" doesn't make much sense.

Reed was the regular seasonMVP in 1969-70 so he was likely better, but Frazier was 4th in the voting and he did take over in the finals when Reed was injured and had that incredible game 7. He was their playoff MVP. I said it was close that season and I still think it was. Go further down the road and Reed’s twilight was full of season ending injuries and increasing ineffectiveness. It was no longer very close. So your previous statement that Reed was always the best player on the Knicks doesn’t ring true.

I’m not dimssimg your opinion on Stockton because it’s a minority opinion, I brought in facts and some opinion on why Malone was considered superior both during their career and their post-career and pointed out that it’s a minority opinion. Which it is. There are just not many facts that you can bring to the table to claim otherwise.

So the point I'm getting at which might be getting missed is that Stockton never had the opportunity to shine without Malone like Frazier did and while many did see Frazier better than Reed, I've gone back and watched those finals (what games i could find on youtube) and read a bit from the era. Reed was still seen as the leader of the team. Him coming back to play injured was the story, not how great Frazier was. This is far less stark a contrast, but it shows that these narratives even before 24/7 news were hard to break even as a guy did become the star. And I'd argue having go back that Frazier was just better than Reed and the league was just too big man focused.

We never got a chance to see Stockton without Malone and we barely saw Malone without stockton. But when we look at modern data and stats. When we look through the lenses of analytics and how players create value outside the box score...stockton not malone is the guy who checks all the boxes. If nothing else, it isn't that we need to go as extreme as to moving Stockton ahead of Malone, but I think there's a good case to be made we should move them FAR more into the consideration of equals...with Malone being the guy who got the final shot...and I don't think that was the right call, he wasn't that guy. No clue if stockon could have been.

That’s true about Stockton, but your previous comment which I was responding to claimed he was superior to Malone.

The thing is, we can’t grade players based on unknowns. Stockton may have flourished as the best player on a team but considering he didn’t when a championship beside Malone, it would difficult to convince me that he would have had more team success as an alpha dog then then he did as a #2. Perhaps we’d actually view him as being a lesser player too.

[dhsilv2]

Reed was the regular seasonMVP in 1969-70 so he was likely better, but Frazier was 4th in the voting and he did take over in the finals when Reed was injured and had that incredible game 7. He was their playoff MVP. I said it was close that season and I still think it was. Go further down the road and Reed’s twilight was full of season ending injuries and increasing ineffectiveness. It was no longer very close. So your previous statement that Reed was always the best player on the Knicks doesn’t ring true.

I’m not dimssimg your opinion on Stockton because it’s a minority opinion, I brought in facts and some opinion on why Malone was considered superior both during their career and their post-career and pointed out that it’s a minority opinion. Which it is. There are just not many facts that you can bring to the table to claim otherwise.

So the point I'm getting at which might be getting missed is that Stockton never had the opportunity to shine without Malone like Frazier did and while many did see Frazier better than Reed, I've gone back and watched those finals (what games i could find on youtube) and read a bit from the era. Reed was still seen as the leader of the team. Him coming back to play injured was the story, not how great Frazier was. This is far less stark a contrast, but it shows that these narratives even before 24/7 news were hard to break even as a guy did become the star. And I'd argue having go back that Frazier was just better than Reed and the league was just too big man focused.

We never got a chance to see Stockton without Malone and we barely saw Malone without stockton. But when we look at modern data and stats. When we look through the lenses of analytics and how players create value outside the box score...stockton not malone is the guy who checks all the boxes. If nothing else, it isn't that we need to go as extreme as to moving Stockton ahead of Malone, but I think there's a good case to be made we should move them FAR more into the consideration of equals...with Malone being the guy who got the final shot...and I don't think that was the right call, he wasn't that guy. No clue if stockon could have been.

That’s true about Stockton, but your previous comment which I was responding to claimed he was superior to Malone.

The thing is, we can’t grade players based on unknowns. Stockton may have flourished as the best player on a team but considering he didn’t when a championship beside Malone, it would difficult to convince me that he would have had more team success as an alpha dog then then he did as a #2. Perhaps we’d actually view him as being a lesser player too.

You asked why stockton is so high on these lists and your reasoning is that he wasn't the best player on his team while others were. The best stats we have to look at their careers, lean towards Stockton being the more important player. I'm not going to take those stats and claim they mean he was better but Stockton was the guy with the ball in his hands, he made the decisions, he made the calls. He really was even when we just go back and look at the games, the "Floor General" in a way that I can't think of any other guy seen as a "number 2" ever would have been. Amre was the guy getting 25 a game with Nash, but we correctly viewed Nash as the leader. I don't know that stockton was the leader in that same way with Malone...we just back then weren't willing to look past points per game or who takes the final shot.

For nearly 20 years Stockton was the best or darn close to the best floor general in the NBA and if he wasn't the best player on his team, he was darn close and that other guy is widely viewed as a top 20 if not 15 player. Ranking stockton ~25-30th all time doesn't seem unfair at all given that context, and ahead of guys who were the best players on their teams.

[JN61]

For me the most unbiased take on top 10 all time PGs is something like:

1.Magic
2.Oscar or West

4. Curry

5. Paul or Nash or Stockton


8. Kidd
9. Isiah or Westbrook


Depending on what you think is important can be valued differently between these players who are tied, but I think 90% of people have these people on their top 10 anyway and many have them on this kind of order.

this is a reasonable list though I would have a few minor issues.

1. I think Curry after last season has narrowed the longevity gap enough with his higher peak to be in that oscar west tier. I know that's a tough adjustment for any of us to make, but I think we're there.
2. I'm not sure about your 9-10. Payton and Frazier were so far and away better defensively than those two while being not that far off as scorers. If you value rings, Frazier has two to match Thomas.
3. I wouldn't agree but Cousy gets talk here and while I think the 50's were just too far back and lesser an era, it's hard to not mention him.

1.
don't think Curry is there yet.

Compared to Robertson, you have way weaker playmaking, miles behind on first team all-NBAs. So Curry haven't played long enough on high enough level in my opinion. Curry has just 4 that level of seasons while Robertson has 9+. Then we go to career totals and Robertson leads him by good 8,000 points, 4,000 rebounds and 5,000 assists. So Curry is so far behind Robertson on individual career achievements. I would say it's also wash between these players in terms of playmaking vs shooting. Gap is on both cases enormous. And Robertson had elite efficiency for his era and tools he had available for him.
Only arguments one can make for Curry here is that he has more championships and more MVP. But his first MVP season wasn't anything special and he has no FMVPs, which Robertson doesn't have either so for me amount of Championships doesn't add as much value as they could add to either player. Robertson on his championship run averaged 23.5 points, 5 rebounds and 9.5 assists on 52.3% FG and 81.3% FT while Curry averaged 26, 5.2, 6.3 on 44.3 FG and 88.5% FT shooting on his run where one can argue he was the best player on his team.

Or for his whole career stuff that looks significantly weaker:
26.5 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 6.2 apg on 42% FG and 92.7% FT shooting

Good but not great for either player. Granted for Oscar it was already on way on downside of his career.


Compared to West the comparison is different. West has on defense bigger lead than Curry has on shooting over him. It's total opposites here. West being one of all time best defensive guards and Curry, well bellow average on today's era where no point guard plays defense. West also has significant lead on longeativity of his peak over Curry, which Curry again has chance to take over but he is not there yet. 11 seasons vs 6 seasons on over 25 ppg averages.

In terms of shooting I think these players are relatively close. Curry is of course all time greatest 3 point shooter but they just didn't have that line back then and West is one of all time best shooters as well. Just different eras and West was just as lethal shooter for his own time. However gap on playmaking is again enormous and I want my PG be able to playmake for me. Curry is very reckless with basketball and has many silly passes (que Curry passing championship trophy out of bounds to Thompson gif) that lead to turnovers.

In terms of Finals performances West might be one of all time greatest finals performers, which Curry is not.

For career stats you have West leading Curry on every average statistic and has major 7,000 point, 2,000 rebound and 1,000+ assist lead on Curry. I think Curry might have chance to pass West eventually if he keeps up this type of seasons for good 3-4 years and possibly wins another championship later on in his career.



2.

Frazier and Payton (and Cousy) are ultimately players I have to left out. My reasoning for this is as expected they don't stand up as high as Westbrook and Thomas. Westbrook in terms of individual brilliance and Thomas in terms of team and individual brilliance.

I take Frazier first. He doesn't have longeativity that Thomas and Westbrook has and I'm not sure if he even peaked higher than Thomas, who won first team all-nba (3 times) when both Jordan and Magic were in the league. Westbrook is of course only one with highest individual award in terms of MVP and he has arguably one of highest carry jobs for a regular season MVP holders.

Frazier has large defensive edge on both. Very large to Westbrook and smaller to Thomas. However he is not in same ballpark to these 2 guys in terms of playmaking. Who are probably both no doubt top 10 (maybe even top 5) all time playmakers especially when it's all said and done for Westbrook. Frazier I'm not sure if I would take into my top 50 all time on that category. In terms of scoring I don't think these players are that far apart. Westbrook of course peaked with massive lead over these guys but in terms of scoring ''goodness'' I think they are close.

Argument you can make for Frazier is the championships but Thomas has 2 as well and one FMVP. For Westbrook I hold MVP higher than championships for Frazier even though he was very good on his first time around.

And lastly for career totals
Frazier: 15.6k points, 4.8k rebounds, 5k assists
Thomas: 18.8k points, 3.5k rebounds, 9.1k assists
Westbrook: 21.9k points 7k rebounds, 8.1k assists

It's just for me very hard to justify Frazier here when he had such short career and never actually peaked very high but on defensive end.

And for Payton, analysis is very similar. He was brilliant defensive player but I don't think he peaked as high as these other guys but unlike Frazier Payton has longeativity. Good decade of elite play, but still never as great offensively. Payton lacks both first teams, championships (his Heat one counts nothing for him) and higher individual awards for me to qualify him past Thomas and Westbrook.

Career stat wise he is about levels of Thomas and Westbrook.


So to summarize it. In my opinion Frazier just doesn't have longeativity that Westbrook and Thomas have and Payton doesn't have peak that these two guys have and Thomas of course has 2 championships on top of it all.



However it will be very interesting to see where Curry and Westbrook end up. It seems Curry has very legit change to pass great Jerry West if he keeps playing high level. If he wins more championships and ends up winning FMVP we need to have a talk about him passing Oscar as well. While I don't think Curry sets any unbreakable records and his career 3 point total gets eventually broken he still has chance to finish with higher scoring totals than Oscar.

For Westbrook it seems almost done deal he rises ahead of guys like Thomas, Kidd, Nash, Stockton and depending how Paul and Westbrook finish their careers off he has change to pass Paul as well. Westbrook might be 2nd player in history of game to reach 30/10/10 thousand career milestone which is absolutely massive thing and seems to be just matter of years at this point, can he play to 37 year old as a starter is the question here. If he ever wins championship as one of main guys even just as big playmaker it's in my opinion instant top 5 point guard all time.

[The_Hater]

So the point I'm getting at which might be getting missed is that Stockton never had the opportunity to shine without Malone like Frazier did and while many did see Frazier better than Reed, I've gone back and watched those finals (what games i could find on youtube) and read a bit from the era. Reed was still seen as the leader of the team. Him coming back to play injured was the story, not how great Frazier was. This is far less stark a contrast, but it shows that these narratives even before 24/7 news were hard to break even as a guy did become the star. And I'd argue having go back that Frazier was just better than Reed and the league was just too big man focused.

We never got a chance to see Stockton without Malone and we barely saw Malone without stockton. But when we look at modern data and stats. When we look through the lenses of analytics and how players create value outside the box score...stockton not malone is the guy who checks all the boxes. If nothing else, it isn't that we need to go as extreme as to moving Stockton ahead of Malone, but I think there's a good case to be made we should move them FAR more into the consideration of equals...with Malone being the guy who got the final shot...and I don't think that was the right call, he wasn't that guy. No clue if stockon could have been.

That’s true about Stockton, but your previous comment which I was responding to claimed he was superior to Malone.

The thing is, we can’t grade players based on unknowns. Stockton may have flourished as the best player on a team but considering he didn’t when a championship beside Malone, it would difficult to convince me that he would have had more team success as an alpha dog then then he did as a #2. Perhaps we’d actually view him as being a lesser player too.

You asked why stockton is so high on these lists and your reasoning is that he wasn't the best player on his team while others were. The best stats we have to look at their careers, lean towards Stockton being the more important player. I'm not going to take those stats and claim they mean he was better but Stockton was the guy with the ball in his hands, he made the decisions, he made the calls. He really was even when we just go back and look at the games, the "Floor General" in a way that I can't think of any other guy seen as a "number 2" ever would have been. Amre was the guy getting 25 a game with Nash, but we correctly viewed Nash as the leader. I don't know that stockton was the leader in that same way with Malone...we just back then weren't willing to look past points per game or who takes the final shot.

For nearly 20 years Stockton was the best or darn close to the best floor general in the NBA and if he wasn't the best player on his team, he was darn close and that other guy is widely viewed as a top 20 if not 15 player. Ranking stockton ~25-30th all time doesn't seem unfair at all given that context, and ahead of guys who were the best players on their teams.

That was only part of my reasoning about Stockton. I listed several reasons

Time to end this, I think Stockton is a bit overrated, you don’t. Nothing will change.

[dhsilv2]

For me the most unbiased take on top 10 all time PGs is something like:

1.Magic
2.Oscar or West

4. Curry

5. Paul or Nash or Stockton


8. Kidd
9. Isiah or Westbrook


Depending on what you think is important can be valued differently between these players who are tied, but I think 90% of people have these people on their top 10 anyway and many have them on this kind of order.

this is a reasonable list though I would have a few minor issues.

1. I think Curry after last season has narrowed the longevity gap enough with his higher peak to be in that oscar west tier. I know that's a tough adjustment for any of us to make, but I think we're there.
2. I'm not sure about your 9-10. Payton and Frazier were so far and away better defensively than those two while being not that far off as scorers. If you value rings, Frazier has two to match Thomas.
3. I wouldn't agree but Cousy gets talk here and while I think the 50's were just too far back and lesser an era, it's hard to not mention him.

1.
don't think Curry is there yet.

Compared to Robertson, you have way weaker playmaking, miles behind on first team all-NBAs. So Curry haven't played long enough on high enough level in my opinion. Curry has just 4 that level of seasons while Robertson has 9+. Then we go to career totals and Robertson leads him by good 8,000 points, 4,000 rebounds and 5,000 assists. So Curry is so far behind Robertson on individual career achievements. I would say it's also wash between these players in terms of playmaking vs shooting. Gap is on both cases enormous. And Robertson had elite efficiency for his era and tools he had available for him.
Only arguments one can make for Curry here is that he has more championships and more MVP. But his first MVP season wasn't anything special and he has no FMVPs, which Robertson doesn't have either so for me amount of Championships doesn't add as much value as they could add to either player. Robertson on his championship run averaged 23.5 points, 5 rebounds and 9.5 assists on 52.3% FG and 81.3% FT while Curry averaged 26, 5.2, 6.3 on 44.3 FG and 88.5% FT shooting on his run where one can argue he was the best player on his team.

Or for his whole career stuff that looks significantly weaker:
26.5 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 6.2 apg on 42% FG and 92.7% FT shooting

Good but not great for either player. Granted for Oscar it was already on way on downside of his career.


Compared to West the comparison is different. West has on defense bigger lead than Curry has on shooting over him. It's total opposites here. West being one of all time best defensive guards and Curry, well bellow average on today's era where no point guard plays defense. West also has significant lead on longeativity of his peak over Curry, which Curry again has chance to take over but he is not there yet. 11 seasons vs 6 seasons on over 25 ppg averages.

In terms of shooting I think these players are relatively close. Curry is of course all time greatest 3 point shooter but they just didn't have that line back then and West is one of all time best shooters as well. Just different eras and West was just as lethal shooter for his own time. However gap on playmaking is again enormous and I want my PG be able to playmake for me. Curry is very reckless with basketball and has many silly passes (que Curry passing championship trophy out of bounds to Thompson gif) that lead to turnovers.

In terms of Finals performances West might be one of all time greatest finals performers, which Curry is not.

For career stats you have West leading Curry on every average statistic and has major 7,000 point, 2,000 rebound and 1,000+ assist lead on Curry. I think Curry might have chance to pass West eventually if he keeps up this type of seasons for good 3-4 years and possibly wins another championship later on in his career.



2.

Frazier and Payton (and Cousy) are ultimately players I have to left out. My reasoning for this is as expected they don't stand up as high as Westbrook and Thomas. Westbrook in terms of individual brilliance and Thomas in terms of team and individual brilliance.

I take Frazier first. He doesn't have longeativity that Thomas and Westbrook has and I'm not sure if he even peaked higher than Thomas, who won first team all-nba (3 times) when both Jordan and Magic were in the league. Westbrook is of course only one with highest individual award in terms of MVP and he has arguably one of highest carry jobs for a regular season MVP holders.

Frazier has large defensive edge on both. Very large to Westbrook and smaller to Thomas. However he is not in same ballpark to these 2 guys in terms of playmaking. Who are probably both no doubt top 10 (maybe even top 5) all time playmakers especially when it's all said and done for Westbrook. Frazier I'm not sure if I would take into my top 50 all time on that category. In terms of scoring I don't think these players are that far apart. Westbrook of course peaked with massive lead over these guys but in terms of scoring ''goodness'' I think they are close.

Argument you can make for Frazier is the championships but Thomas has 2 as well and one FMVP. For Westbrook I hold MVP higher than championships for Frazier even though he was very good on his first time around.

And lastly for career totals
Frazier: 15.6k points, 4.8k rebounds, 5k assists
Thomas: 18.8k points, 3.5k rebounds, 9.1k assists
Westbrook: 21.9k points 7k rebounds, 8.1k assists

It's just for me very hard to justify Frazier here when he had such short career and never actually peaked very high but on defensive end.

And for Payton, analysis is very similar. He was brilliant defensive player but I don't think he peaked as high as these other guys but unlike Frazier Payton has longeativity. Good decade of elite play, but still never as great offensively. Payton lacks both first teams, championships (his Heat one counts nothing for him) and higher individual awards for me to qualify him past Thomas and Westbrook.

Career stat wise he is about levels of Thomas and Westbrook.


So to summarize it. In my opinion Frazier just doesn't have longeativity that Westbrook and Thomas have and Payton doesn't have peak that these two guys have and Thomas of course has 2 championships on top of it all.



However it will be very interesting to see where Curry and Westbrook end up. It seems Curry has very legit change to pass great Jerry West if he keeps playing high level. If he wins more championships and ends up winning FMVP we need to have a talk about him passing Oscar as well. While I don't think Curry sets any unbreakable records and his career 3 point total gets eventually broken he still has chance to finish with higher scoring totals than Oscar.

For Westbrook it seems almost done deal he rises ahead of guys like Thomas, Kidd, Nash, Stockton and depending how Paul and Westbrook finish their careers off he has change to pass Paul as well. Westbrook might be 2nd player in history of game to reach 30/10/10 thousand career milestone which is absolutely massive thing and seems to be just matter of years at this point, can he play to 37 year old as a starter is the question here. If he ever wins championship as one of main guys even just as big playmaker it's in my opinion instant top 5 point guard all time.

With curry it comes down to how much higher you see is ceiling/peak. Not something worth an in depth debate at this time and to be fair...I sometimes waffle over how high west and oscar peaked due to how the game was played in that era (so big man dominate).

I'd point out both Frazier AND Payton finished higher in MVP voting than Thomas ever did. Thomas made first team all nba in MJ's second year...so I'm not sure that should really be used and MJ wasn't in the league in 84 when Thomas made it his first time. In terms of metrics Frazier peaked at a 15.6 WS and has 3 seasons 14 or better, also lead the league in WS/48 one year which is staggering given how much that metric is TS% biased and that was a point guard player before the 3 point line. Career WS for Frazier is 113.5 to Thomas at 80.7 despite the shorter career, at least that one metric paints Frazier pretty well ahead of Thomas. Now I prefer VORP but we don't have it for Walt. We do have it for Payton where he peaked at 7.3 to Thomas at 6.5, but Payton has 5 seasons better than Thomas's second best season at 5.1. So in terms of peak, both objective box metrics and subjective voting (all be it MVP isn't a perfect tool) paint these two as having better peaks. We all know Westbrook's metrics are awesome so no need to dive in there and we know westbrook was an MVP. The issues with westbrook are of course more related to his team success and that gets more subjective, but since you see Thomas and Westbrook as the same tier, I'm focusing on Thomas for the analysis.

The finals MVP is an interesting one....but can you honestly say Frazier wasn't the actual finals MVP in 70 and 73? The finals MVP is just a bad award that gets constantly given to people on weird narratives over what happens sometimes. I mean in 70 the guy in game 7 against a lakers team with Wilt, West, and Baylor dropped 36 points and 19 assists with 7 rebounds and did it on 17 FGAs with Reed hobbled and barely able to play.

I have a hard time seeing these two as a tier behind Thomas or Westbrook and being consistent with my evaluations.