Terry Porter, Mark Price or Tim Hardaway?

[Quotatious]

How would you rank these PGs of the 90s, in their primes?

[Winsome Gerbil]

Well, best in their primes can really only be either Timmy>Price>Porter or Price>Timmy>Porter. Porter was clearly a step behind those guys at the time. He was like Mike Conley today compared to the Currys and Westbrooks.

For me the #1 is Timmy. In particular in his Run TMC days before the knee injury he was special, maybe the most impressive of the whole Run TMC trio. But he was never the same after the knees started to go, and his later career work with Miami was inefficient as he'd lost his quickness.

Price was more efficient for longer, but less forceful. More of a system PG.

There were only 2 or 3 brief years when Porter would have been talked about at those levels. he was the best defender of the trio, but otherwise much more of just a cog in the wheel sort of guy. One of 4 or 5 really talented Blazers at any one time, and despite good assist numbers early in his career I don't think as intuitive a passer as the other guys.

[BBallFreak]

This is Tim, Mark, followed by Terry. It really isn't close.

[Quotatious]

I think Porter may get a bit underrated here. He had a few playoff series where he could totally go toe-to-toe with top PGs like prime Stockton and KJ (for example Porter outplaying Stockton in the 1992 WCF was probably the reason why the Blazers beat the Jazz), and outplayed Drexler. Not saying that I would rank him as the best player in this thread, but that's definitely something to consider.

[BBallFreak]

I think Porter may get a bit underrated here. He had a few playoff series where he could totally go toe-to-toe with top PGs like prime Stockton and KJ (for example Porter outplaying Stockton in the 1992 WCF was probably the reason why the Blazers beat the Jazz), and outplayed Drexler. Not saying that I would rank him as the best player in this thread, but that's definitely something to consider.

Porter going toe to toe with those guys for a series or two isn't the same as what the other two did, which is playing to that level all the time. Tim, in particular, was an amazing player who far surpasses Porter and, IMO, Price as well.

[penbeast0]

At the time, I would have said Price, Hardaway, Porter but time and hopefully a better understanding of the game has me moving Porter up the list too. He was the best defender of the 3 and he and Price had the 3 point ability that is more important in the modern game. I saw Hardaway more in Miami than I had in GS but Timmy was more of a 70s style drive and dish PG which is something modern offenses have moved away from. Also, Hardaway came in as the best but over the course of his career, he didn't improve, instead his shooting and defense weakened though his turnovers did decrease. Price's prime was also cut a bit short; the best shooter of the 3, the worst defender, not as creative a PG as Hardaway.

For career, I might take Terry Porter because his prime was the longest, for a shorter prime, it would depend on the needs of my team. If I have a lot of catch and shoot guys, I'd take Hardaway as the best playmaker. If I have slashing wings who can create but themselves but need an outside threat, I'd take Price. If I have a team like the Kobe Lakers and need a defensive minded PG who can play off ball and hit open shots from the 2 or 3, I'd take Porter.

[BBallFreak]

At the time, I would have said Price, Hardaway, Porter but time and hopefully a better understanding of the game has me moving Porter up the list too. He was the best defender of the 3 and he and Price had the 3 point ability that is more important in the modern game. I saw Hardaway more in Miami than I had in GS but Timmy was more of a 70s style drive and dish PG which is something modern offenses have moved away from. Also, Hardaway came in as the best but over the course of his career, he didn't improve, instead his shooting and defense weakened though his turnovers did decrease. Price's prime was also cut a bit short; the best shooter of the 3, the worst defender, not as creative a PG as Hardaway.

For career, I might take Terry Porter because his prime was the longest, for a shorter prime, it would depend on the needs of my team. If I have a lot of catch and shoot guys, I'd take Hardaway as the best playmaker. If I have slashing wings who can create but themselves but need an outside threat, I'd take Price. If I have a team like the Kobe Lakers and need a defensive minded PG who can play off ball and hit open shots from the 2 or 3, I'd take Porter.

I'm sorry I have to take issue with this. Don't make it sound like Tim-Bug couldn't shoot. He was a very respectable, and might I add coldblooded, outside shooter. You could not lay off of Tim Hardaway. He was very much a floor space during his career, penetrated better than either Price or Porter, and was the best creator of the three as well.

[penbeast0]

Timmy was an average shooter at best; the other two were better, particularly Price. Timmy's strength was his penetration and playmaking where he was the best of the 3.

[Winsome Gerbil]

I hate to rely on this style argument here, but sometimes it is telling:

Tim Hardaway 5x All-Star, 5 All NBA Teams (1 1st, 3 2nd, 1 3rd)
Mark Price 4x All Star, 4 All NBA Teams (1 1st, 3 3rd)
Terry Porter 2x All Star, no All NBA Teams

Basketball people at the time weren't idiots. Those guys went head to head, and almost everytime Timmy/Mark won the accolades. Porter was the best of the rest guy, the solid professional. Everybody thought he was good. Nobody thought he was the best. He just wasn't as important a player. After Magic + Isaiah got old it was Stockton, Hardaway, KJ and Price who took over as the top PGs. Porter was just outside that group. Its why most of the others are talked about as possible borderline HOFs, and Porter really isn't. He was kind of a Mo Cheeks or Derek Harper figure. Really good, really solid, but a step back from the stars.

[Exodus]

1. Price
2. Hardaway
3. Porter


Price is the best pure point guard. Hardaway played in a gimmick offense that would inflate stats, also playing that run and gun style with Mullen and Sprewell helped. Porter was an over achiever. He wasn't specifically talented, but was focused and played hard. When his shot wasn't going down, he was pretty bad.

[RebelWithACause]

If I were to choose similar players to each of them, it would be
Price similar to Nash
Hardaway similar to Marbury (offensively)
Porter similar to Conley maybe?

Back then Price and Hardaway were close, even though I would prefer Price. Porter is a distant third, prime wise.
Today I would prefer Price, by a sizeable margin.

[Quotatious]

Porter similar to Conley maybe?

I'd say Billups.

As far as Hardaway, Kyrie Irving seems to be pretty similar.

[RebelWithACause]

Porter similar to Conley maybe?

I'd say Billups.

As far as Hardaway, Kyrie Irving seems to be pretty similar.

Hmm Billups is a good one.

For Tim I think Marbury is the better comparison than Kyrie, because Kyrie is a more reliable shooter than both of them and lacks that elite first step and quickness that Marbury and Tim had.
Obviously both score first mentality guys, but good passers as well. Small, super quick, with a great crossover and streaky shots.

[Quotatious]

For Tim I think Marbury is the better comparison than Kyrie, because Kyrie is a more reliable shooter than both of them and lacks that elite first step and quickness that Marbury and Tim had.
Obviously both score first mentality guys, but good passers as well. Small, super quick, with a great crossover and streaky shots.

Marbury is a pretty good comparison for Tim, I guess Kyrie was just the first guy who came to my mind because he's a current player, and it's been a while since Marbury was in his prime...Hardaway/Marbury had higher raw assists numbers and lower shooting percentages than Irving, sure.

I think Ty Lawson has something in common with Tim Bug, too.

It feels almost like we're playing the "you remind me" game, like they did on Open Court a few months ago, lol.

[D Nice]

This is insanely close. Porter was a bigger, better scoring, better playmaking version of Billups. He was fantastic in both of Portland's runs to the finals. Incredibly efficient player.

Price, to me, was the best guy here. Tim Bug was my favorite 90s PG until Penny was came into the league. Definitely the most capable of taking over a game here (be it with his scoring or playmaking) but wasn't really as efficient as either of these guys, and IMO was a smarter player and a better shooter only after injuries had taken away some of his athleticism.

Gonna go Price 1, Porter 2, Tim 3 here for Peaks, Price 1, Hardaway 2, Porter 3 for primes (Porter only had a 5-6 year prime, at most).

[penbeast0]

Ah, you are right, his prime is a lot shorter than I remembered it. He wasn't a better scorer or a better playmaker than Billups though; just a more conventional one.

[D Nice]

Ah, you are right, his prime is a lot shorter than I remembered it. He wasn't a better scorer or a better playmaker than Billups though; just a more conventional one.

Yeah, fair enough. More willing to be a high-volume shooter. He was a better athlete though which translated into more fast-break assists (playing with Drexler helps here) and also tended to penetrate a bit more rather than post up, which again leads to assist generation.

Either way, I feel like Porter makes a tad bit more "happen" offensively, hence I slightly prefer him to Chauncey.

[trex_8063]

I'd rank primes:
Tim
Mark
Terry

For peak, I do think Mark Price was pretty dang good; very different type of PG, but I think his peak is totally on par with---if not marginally better than---Timmy. But with injury and what-not, he just had the such a relatively short prime.....I gotta give Hardaway the modest edge there.

Porter, for all the years and games played, his prime actually wasn't terribly long (really only about 6 years), and I'd have to rate his peak the lowest of the three.

For total career, though, I'm thinking more and more of Porter these days. Aside from his prime (during which he was at least a borderline All-Star each year), he had A LOT of years as a valuable/significant role player: like a solid decade-worth of years like that. Me being a career value kind of guy, those years are far from irrelevant to me. I might actually put him 2nd all-time among the three.

[Bwelc679]

This is a fun argument and I can understand someone choosing any of the three. I think people are underestimating Terry Porters peak which was much shorter than the others but in my opinion was the best of the three. From 88-92 Porter was the starting point guard and second leading scorer on a team that was constantly either in the conference finals or the actual finals. He had huge 40 point playoff games and really upped his game in the postseason like all greats do. He was not a lockdown defender but he was very good at that end often being trusted to guard the likes of Michael Jordan, ever heard of him? He guarded Stockton extremely well and did what he could against Isiah Thomas in the finals which is no easy task. On top of that, the advanced stats love him which makes sense considering how efficient he was and his willingness to play hard on both ends of the floor. His BPM in the 90-91 season was ridiculous! I know that BPM is not the best way to evaluate a player but when it matches the eye test it's something worth pointing out. Unfortunately, Terry had a weird drop off after the 93 season and ended up never being the same with Rod Strickland taking over. Surprisingly though, he had a reassurance as a back up for a time in Minnesota and playing great in limited minutes on the early Duncan spurs days. I was strolling through ESPNs RPM stats the other day and decided to look at previous years and was surprised to see Terry had excellent scores with RPM even when he was well passed his prime.

Baller!

[tsherkin]

Now this is some kind of bump, heh.