Klay Thompson on the list of ATG SGs

[parsnips33]

There's obviously a lot of holes in his game, things he can't do that others have pointed out

But the things that he could do at a very high to elite level in his prime - shooting, off-ball movement, on-ball and multi-positional defense - make him extremely valuable in certain environments

Now how does that factor into an all-time rating is a difficult question and probably depends on what the specific criteria are

This becomes even more true considering he’s only the third or fourth best player from 2014–2019, and probably 4th , 5th, maybe even 6th in 2022. It’s a luxury to have such a player as your 3rd, 4th, 5th, or
6th best player.

Just as an example, I don't think it's controversial to say that Iverson would be a much better first "option" (not talking about offensive role necessarily, but more overall ranking in team hierarchy) for a team than Klay.

Would it be wrong to say Klay would be a much better third "option"? What about second? It's a 5-on-5 game, every team needs a second and third best player, and the quality of those secondary and tertiary stars can often be the difference between winning a championship and not for a team

So how do we rank them? That's why I flagged criteria specifically, I think there's a conversation that needs to be had before we can even have this conversation

[homecourtloss]

There's obviously a lot of holes in his game, things he can't do that others have pointed out

But the things that he could do at a very high to elite level in his prime - shooting, off-ball movement, on-ball and multi-positional defense - make him extremely valuable in certain environments

Now how does that factor into an all-time rating is a difficult question and probably depends on what the specific criteria are

This becomes even more true considering he’s only the third or fourth best player from 2014–2019, and probably 4th , 5th, maybe even 6th in 2022. It’s a luxury to have such a player as your 3rd, 4th, 5th, or
6th best player.

Just as an example, I don't think it's controversial to say that Iverson would be a much better first "option" (not talking about offensive role necessarily, but more overall ranking in team hierarchy) for a team than Klay.

Would it be wrong to say Klay would be a much better third "option"? What about second? It's a 5-on-5 game, every team needs a second and third best player, and the quality of those secondary and tertiary stars can often be the difference between winning a championship and not for a team

So how do we rank them? That's why I flagged criteria specifically, I think there's a conversation that needs to be had before we can even have this conversation

This is a good point. I can also extend this out to someone like Draymond Green. There are many other players who people think would be better first options, but if someone asked me whom would I start a team with, I would pick Draymond over most players, that other people might think are better as first options (long list of names here from Beal to Dominque Wilkins) because I will keep Draymond, and then I will find a scorer who could fit with him. This will be easier than trying to find a Draymond. And this discussion doesn’t even go over peak Draymond, whom I think could lead a team.