Are Magic, Curry, Oscar, CP3 and Nash the de facto top 5 PGs?

[iggymcfrack]

Nash as Top 5 is gross to me.

I don't rank by positions, so here are a bunch of names in their order on my list. You can decide for yourself what position these guys play/ed. These aren't necessarily tiers, just groupings.

Magic and Curry, in that order, are at the top.

Then Oscar and West are together.

Then I have Harden, Paul, and Stockton.

Then Kidd, Frazier, and, finally, Nash.

Then Isiah Thomas, Westbrook, Cousy, Payton, Iverson, Ginobili...

Pretty good overall. Ginobili's definitely not a point guard though. Parker was the point and Manu was the 2 guard.

[70sFan]

Being in the same tier doesn't necessarily mean some players aren't better than the others.

Then what's the reason of creating such tiers?

That's a more objective way to rank players than creating a list of top 10, or top 100. It's hard for me to compare great players from different eras, I don't think it's really fair, but I can put them in the same tier. It's like with NBA teams, you can have a tier with the best of them, teams that are contenders for the championship, but one can still be considered the best or the favorite to win.

In Magic and Isiah case though, we're talking about two PGs who played in the same era and peaked at the same time. I think it's fair to say that Magic was on a different level than him.

[Gooner]

Then what's the reason of creating such tiers?

That's a more objective way to rank players than creating a list of top 10, or top 100. It's hard for me to compare great players from different eras, I don't think it's really fair, but I can put them in the same tier. It's like with NBA teams, you can have a tier with the best of them, teams that are contenders for the championship, but one can still be considered the best or the favorite to win.

In Magic and Isiah case though, we're talking about two PGs who played in the same era and peaked at the same time. I think it's fair to say that Magic was on a different level than him.

Most people consider Magic the best PG of all time, but Isiah was one of his biggest rivals.

[penbeast0]

Most people consider Magic the best PG of all time, but Isiah was one of his biggest rivals.

Most people consider Shaq one of the greatest centers of all time, but Zo was his biggest rival for much of his career. Doesn't make Zo a top 10 center of all time or on Shaq's level.

[HeartBreakKid]

Paul Pierce is Lebron's rival. Clyde Drexler is Jordan's rival.

Doesn't mean anything...other then they are very good players which like...every hall of famer is.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Nash and Paul were both legitimately MVP caliber players at their peak, Stockton was not. Longevity matters but does it outweigh that peak difference?

I'll take peak John Stockton over peak Paul and Nash. Nash simply wasn't as good and Paul was too small and injury prone.

Also, it would be laughable to watch Nash and Paul try to defend Jordan in the Finals. Defense matters.

Uhh CP3 was probably a better defender than Stockton, he actually guarded all sorts of offensive stars well in the Playoffs including KEVIN DURANT.

Nash was the best player on multiple 60 win teams that were barely league average with him off the floor. He spearheaded several GOAT-level offenses and raised his own game in the Playoffs. Stockton simply never played at that level, so it's very odd to say that "Nash simply wasn't as good".

The only argument Stockton has over Nash, imo, is longevity. It's a reasonable one, but the primes are not. Nash was a legit top 3 player in the league at his peak.

I've watched my Warriors destroy CP3. I know about his defense. It's not that great.

Peak Nash has a lower PER, BPM, WS, WS/48 and VORP than peak Stockton. Stockton has also lead his team to multiple 60 win seasons and multiple Finals on a well balanced team.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'll take peak John Stockton over peak Paul and Nash. Nash simply wasn't as good and Paul was too small and injury prone.

Also, it would be laughable to watch Nash and Paul try to defend Jordan in the Finals. Defense matters.

Uhh CP3 was probably a better defender than Stockton, he actually guarded all sorts of offensive stars well in the Playoffs including KEVIN DURANT.

Nash was the best player on multiple 60 win teams that were barely league average with him off the floor. He spearheaded several GOAT-level offenses and raised his own game in the Playoffs. Stockton simply never played at that level, so it's very odd to say that "Nash simply wasn't as good".

The only argument Stockton has over Nash, imo, is longevity. It's a reasonable one, but the primes are not. Nash was a legit top 3 player in the league at his peak.

I've watched my Warriors destroy CP3. I know about his defense. It's not that great.

Peak Nash has a lower PER, BPM, WS, WS/48 and VORP than peak Stockton. Stockton has also lead his team to multiple 60 win seasons and multiple Finals on a well balanced team.

This is such a bad, literal homer argument. Didn't even try to hide it

Chris Pauls' defense is pretty great for a PG. I mean what on earth are you going to say - hohoho, steph curry scored a lot when playing against him? What on earth does the Warriors have anything to do with someones defense unless you just fundamentally don't understand how defense works in basketball.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Uhh CP3 was probably a better defender than Stockton, he actually guarded all sorts of offensive stars well in the Playoffs including KEVIN DURANT.

Nash was the best player on multiple 60 win teams that were barely league average with him off the floor. He spearheaded several GOAT-level offenses and raised his own game in the Playoffs. Stockton simply never played at that level, so it's very odd to say that "Nash simply wasn't as good".

The only argument Stockton has over Nash, imo, is longevity. It's a reasonable one, but the primes are not. Nash was a legit top 3 player in the league at his peak.

I've watched my Warriors destroy CP3. I know about his defense. It's not that great.

Peak Nash has a lower PER, BPM, WS, WS/48 and VORP than peak Stockton. Stockton has also lead his team to multiple 60 win seasons and multiple Finals on a well balanced team.

This is such a bad, literal homer argument. Didn't even try to hide it

What?

"He guarded a guy on your team!"

Yeah, and we destroyed them. His defense was not impressive (relative to Stockton). He also falls apart (physically) everytime his team makes a run. No chance I take that over Stockton.

[penbeast0]

I would say Paul's man defense is better than Stockton's. Stockton' man defense wasn't bad (dirty but not weak), but he got the All-D for his steals, not his ability to shut down an opponent head to head.

[ardee]

I'll take peak John Stockton over peak Paul and Nash. Nash simply wasn't as good and Paul was too small and injury prone.

Also, it would be laughable to watch Nash and Paul try to defend Jordan in the Finals. Defense matters.

Uhh CP3 was probably a better defender than Stockton, he actually guarded all sorts of offensive stars well in the Playoffs including KEVIN DURANT.

Nash was the best player on multiple 60 win teams that were barely league average with him off the floor. He spearheaded several GOAT-level offenses and raised his own game in the Playoffs. Stockton simply never played at that level, so it's very odd to say that "Nash simply wasn't as good".

The only argument Stockton has over Nash, imo, is longevity. It's a reasonable one, but the primes are not. Nash was a legit top 3 player in the league at his peak.

I've watched my Warriors destroy CP3. I know about his defense. It's not that great.

Peak Nash has a lower PER, BPM, WS, WS/48 and VORP than peak Stockton. Stockton has also lead his team to multiple 60 win seasons and multiple Finals on a well balanced team.

1. HBK addressed this.

2. 2007 Nash: 23.8 PER, 12.6 WS, .225 WS/48
1995 Stockton: 23.3 PER, 13.9 WS, .233 WS/48

Close enough on all fronts from the way I see it.

And even so, it literally doesn't matter. David Robinson was better in all those stats than Hakeem Olajuwon. Kevin Durant is better in those stats than Larry Bird. It doesn't mean ****. This isn't 2011, we know that all in one box score stats are not indicative of which player is better.

And Stockton didn't "lead" those teams to anything, Karl Malone was the MVP on that team.

Here's a much more telling stat:

2005 Nash On/Off per 100 possessions: 13.9 on a 62 win team
2007 Nash On/Off per 100 possessions: 11.7 on a 61 win team

1997 Stockton On/Off per 100 possessions: +7.6 on a 64 win team (not his peak but still arguably in his prime and only two years away from what is regarded his best season)

1997 Karl Malone On/Off per 100 possessions: +21.9 on a 64 win team

[Gooner]

Most people consider Magic the best PG of all time, but Isiah was one of his biggest rivals.

Most people consider Shaq one of the greatest centers of all time, but Zo was his biggest rival for much of his career. Doesn't make Zo a top 10 center of all time or on Shaq's level.

I still put Isiah in the first tier, even if he wasn't as good as Magic. Magic is the best.

[RCM88x]

If we are just looking at peak/prime and not considering West a PG then I think that list is more than fine.

[Owly]

Uhh CP3 was probably a better defender than Stockton, he actually guarded all sorts of offensive stars well in the Playoffs including KEVIN DURANT.

Nash was the best player on multiple 60 win teams that were barely league average with him off the floor. He spearheaded several GOAT-level offenses and raised his own game in the Playoffs. Stockton simply never played at that level, so it's very odd to say that "Nash simply wasn't as good".

The only argument Stockton has over Nash, imo, is longevity. It's a reasonable one, but the primes are not. Nash was a legit top 3 player in the league at his peak.

I've watched my Warriors destroy CP3. I know about his defense. It's not that great.

Peak Nash has a lower PER, BPM, WS, WS/48 and VORP than peak Stockton. Stockton has also lead his team to multiple 60 win seasons and multiple Finals on a well balanced team.

1. HBK addressed this.

2. 2007 Nash: 23.8 PER, 12.6 WS, .225 WS/48
1995 Stockton: 23.3 PER, 13.9 WS, .233 WS/48

Close enough on all fronts from the way I see it.

And even so, it literally doesn't matter. David Robinson was better in all those stats than Hakeem Olajuwon. Kevin Durant is better in those stats than Larry Bird. It doesn't mean ****. This isn't 2011, we know that all in one box score stats are not indicative of which player is better.

And Stockton didn't "lead" those teams to anything, Karl Malone was the MVP on that team.

Here's a much more telling stat:

2005 Nash On/Off per 100 possessions: 13.9 on a 62 win team
2007 Nash On/Off per 100 possessions: 11.7 on a 61 win team

1997 Stockton On/Off per 100 possessions: +7.6 on a 64 win team (not his peak but still arguably in his prime and only two years away from what is regarded his best season)

1997 Karl Malone On/Off per 100 possessions: +21.9 on a 64 win team

Not getting into the bigger stuff here but Stockton played a significant proportion more with scrub units (including wildly ineffective Morris units). RAPM from '97 does, unlike other years (iirc), put Malone ahead but in a manner that suggests after lineups are attempted to be accounted for, the Jazz's top 3 guys are much more closely bundled in terms of impact than raw on-off suggests.
cf: https://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com/2013/10/introducing-1990s-rapm.html

Fwiw, I don't know if there is a strong consensus on Stockton's peak, but for productivity in the stats mentioned '90 (7 years removed) might be the choice (and '89 [3 games], '88 and '91 are among the [perhaps just "the", idk depending what you trust and accounting for competition etc] best years for playoffs by those composites). '89 is an option if you want the extra minutes to pop up the WS total at the cost of 2 of the Reference rate stats (PER and BPM [not cited above]) dropping. Fwiw, whilst this would make Stockton's box advantage relatively a bit bigger, in absolute terms it would still not be a large difference.

[cupcakesnake]

Nash couldn't come close to anything like that, he needs a ton of talent around him.

I really thought Nash put those "ton of talent" questions to bed when he made the 2006 WCF without Amar'e or the 2010 WCF with a team no one thought was very talented (Besides Nash and Amar'e the other top 6 minute getters were Jason Richardson, Channing Frye, a 37-year-old Grant Hill, and Jared Dudley). The only time the Suns felt stacked was in 2005, and even then Joe Johnson got injured in their playoff run. The D'Antoni era Suns would typically run out of depth and be running a 6-man rotation in the playoffs. I get that Nash played with some big names but I don't see how someone can look at the year-to-year details and say Nash needed "a ton of talent".

[oaktownwarriors87]

Uhh CP3 was probably a better defender than Stockton, he actually guarded all sorts of offensive stars well in the Playoffs including KEVIN DURANT.

Nash was the best player on multiple 60 win teams that were barely league average with him off the floor. He spearheaded several GOAT-level offenses and raised his own game in the Playoffs. Stockton simply never played at that level, so it's very odd to say that "Nash simply wasn't as good".

The only argument Stockton has over Nash, imo, is longevity. It's a reasonable one, but the primes are not. Nash was a legit top 3 player in the league at his peak.

I've watched my Warriors destroy CP3. I know about his defense. It's not that great.

Peak Nash has a lower PER, BPM, WS, WS/48 and VORP than peak Stockton. Stockton has also lead his team to multiple 60 win seasons and multiple Finals on a well balanced team.

1. HBK addressed this.

2. 2007 Nash: 23.8 PER, 12.6 WS, .225 WS/48
1995 Stockton: 23.3 PER, 13.9 WS, .233 WS/48

Close enough on all fronts from the way I see it.

And even so, it literally doesn't matter. David Robinson was better in all those stats than Hakeem Olajuwon. Kevin Durant is better in those stats than Larry Bird. It doesn't mean ****. This isn't 2011, we know that all in one box score stats are not indicative of which player is better.

And Stockton didn't "lead" those teams to anything, Karl Malone was the MVP on that team.

Here's a much more telling stat:

2005 Nash On/Off per 100 possessions: 13.9 on a 62 win team
2007 Nash On/Off per 100 possessions: 11.7 on a 61 win team

1997 Stockton On/Off per 100 possessions: +7.6 on a 64 win team (not his peak but still arguably in his prime and only two years away from what is regarded his best season)

1997 Karl Malone On/Off per 100 possessions: +21.9 on a 64 win team

You left off VORP. Nash's top all time wouldn't even make Stocktons top 10

Code: Select all

Stockton Nash
  8.3    5.3
  8.1    4.9
  8.1    4.5
  8.0    4.4
  7.9    4.2
  7.6    4.2
  7.5    3.6
  6.4    3.3
  6.3    2.0
  6.2    2.9
  5.3    2.8
  5.3    2.7
  4.8    1.4
  4.0    1.0
  3.6    0.4
  3.4   -0.1
  2.8   -0.1
  2.1   -0.2
  0.7

Same with BPM, which you also left off

Code: Select all

Stockton Nash
  9.0   5.9
  8.9   5.0
  8.7   4.7
  8.5   4.6
  8.3   4.3
  8.3   3.9
  8.0   3.4
  6.8   3.2
  6.7   3.1
  6.6   2.8
  6.6   2.5
  6.6   2.4
  6.1   1.4
  5.6   0.4
  5.3  -0.9
  5.3  -2.4
  5.0  -3.1
  2.4  -3.6
 -0.1

Nash's peak WS is 12.6. Stockton has 9 seasons higher than that.

Code: Select all

Stockton Nash
15.6  12.6
14.4  12.4
14.1  11.6
14.0  10.9
13.9  10.5
13.6   9.9
13.4   9.9
13.2   8.8
13.0   8.4
11.2   7.9
10.8   7.3
10.7   5.9
10.6   4.8
9.0    4.3
8.0    3.0
6.7    1.0
6.4    0.7
5.9    0.1
3.1

Also, your on/off number are offense only.... kind of like Nash.

And Stockton was only +8.3 in 1997. Michael Jordan was +8.4 that same season.

[ardee]

I've watched my Warriors destroy CP3. I know about his defense. It's not that great.

Peak Nash has a lower PER, BPM, WS, WS/48 and VORP than peak Stockton. Stockton has also lead his team to multiple 60 win seasons and multiple Finals on a well balanced team.

1. HBK addressed this.

2. 2007 Nash: 23.8 PER, 12.6 WS, .225 WS/48
1995 Stockton: 23.3 PER, 13.9 WS, .233 WS/48

Close enough on all fronts from the way I see it.

And even so, it literally doesn't matter. David Robinson was better in all those stats than Hakeem Olajuwon. Kevin Durant is better in those stats than Larry Bird. It doesn't mean ****. This isn't 2011, we know that all in one box score stats are not indicative of which player is better.

And Stockton didn't "lead" those teams to anything, Karl Malone was the MVP on that team.

Here's a much more telling stat:

2005 Nash On/Off per 100 possessions: 13.9 on a 62 win team
2007 Nash On/Off per 100 possessions: 11.7 on a 61 win team

1997 Stockton On/Off per 100 possessions: +7.6 on a 64 win team (not his peak but still arguably in his prime and only two years away from what is regarded his best season)

1997 Karl Malone On/Off per 100 possessions: +21.9 on a 64 win team

You left off VORP. Nash's top all time wouldn't even make Stocktons top 10

Code: Select all

Stockton Nash
  8.3    5.3
  8.1    4.9
  8.1    4.5
  8.0    4.4
  7.9    4.2
  7.6    4.2
  7.5    3.6
  6.4    3.3
  6.3    2.0
  6.2    2.9
  5.3    2.8
  5.3    2.7
  4.8    1.4
  4.0    1.0
  3.6    0.4
  3.4   -0.1
  2.8   -0.1
  2.1   -0.2
  0.7

Same with BPM, which you also left off

Code: Select all

Stockton Nash
  9.0   5.9
  8.9   5.0
  8.7   4.7
  8.5   4.6
  8.3   4.3
  8.3   3.9
  8.0   3.4
  6.8   3.2
  6.7   3.1
  6.6   2.8
  6.6   2.5
  6.6   2.4
  6.1   1.4
  5.6   0.4
  5.3  -0.9
  5.3  -2.4
  5.0  -3.1
  2.4  -3.6
 -0.1

Nash's peak WS is 12.6. Stockton has 9 seasons higher than that.

Code: Select all

Stockton Nash
15.6  12.6
14.4  12.4
14.1  11.6
14.0  10.9
13.9  10.5
13.6   9.9
13.4   9.9
13.2   8.8
13.0   8.4
11.2   7.9
10.8   7.3
10.7   5.9
10.6   4.8
9.0    4.3
8.0    3.0
6.7    1.0
6.4    0.7
5.9    0.1
3.1

Also, your on/off number are offense only.... kind of like Nash.

And Stockton was only +8.3 in 1997. Michael Jordan was +8.4 that same season.

I don't really care about BPM/VORP/WS or any of those stats. Like I said, if a family of stats tell me David Robinson was a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon, or that Kevin Durant is better than Larry Bird, I'm going to disregard those.

And no, my On/Off stats were for both sides of the ball.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stockjo01/on-off/1997

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01/on-off/2005

Have a look for yourself.

[oaktownwarriors87]

1. HBK addressed this.

2. 2007 Nash: 23.8 PER, 12.6 WS, .225 WS/48
1995 Stockton: 23.3 PER, 13.9 WS, .233 WS/48

Close enough on all fronts from the way I see it.

And even so, it literally doesn't matter. David Robinson was better in all those stats than Hakeem Olajuwon. Kevin Durant is better in those stats than Larry Bird. It doesn't mean ****. This isn't 2011, we know that all in one box score stats are not indicative of which player is better.

And Stockton didn't "lead" those teams to anything, Karl Malone was the MVP on that team.

Here's a much more telling stat:

2005 Nash On/Off per 100 possessions: 13.9 on a 62 win team
2007 Nash On/Off per 100 possessions: 11.7 on a 61 win team

1997 Stockton On/Off per 100 possessions: +7.6 on a 64 win team (not his peak but still arguably in his prime and only two years away from what is regarded his best season)

1997 Karl Malone On/Off per 100 possessions: +21.9 on a 64 win team

You left off VORP. Nash's top all time wouldn't even make Stocktons top 10

Code: Select all

Stockton Nash
  8.3    5.3
  8.1    4.9
  8.1    4.5
  8.0    4.4
  7.9    4.2
  7.6    4.2
  7.5    3.6
  6.4    3.3
  6.3    2.0
  6.2    2.9
  5.3    2.8
  5.3    2.7
  4.8    1.4
  4.0    1.0
  3.6    0.4
  3.4   -0.1
  2.8   -0.1
  2.1   -0.2
  0.7

Same with BPM, which you also left off

Code: Select all

Stockton Nash
  9.0   5.9
  8.9   5.0
  8.7   4.7
  8.5   4.6
  8.3   4.3
  8.3   3.9
  8.0   3.4
  6.8   3.2
  6.7   3.1
  6.6   2.8
  6.6   2.5
  6.6   2.4
  6.1   1.4
  5.6   0.4
  5.3  -0.9
  5.3  -2.4
  5.0  -3.1
  2.4  -3.6
 -0.1

Nash's peak WS is 12.6. Stockton has 9 seasons higher than that.

Code: Select all

Stockton Nash
15.6  12.6
14.4  12.4
14.1  11.6
14.0  10.9
13.9  10.5
13.6   9.9
13.4   9.9
13.2   8.8
13.0   8.4
11.2   7.9
10.8   7.3
10.7   5.9
10.6   4.8
9.0    4.3
8.0    3.0
6.7    1.0
6.4    0.7
5.9    0.1
3.1

Also, your on/off number are offense only.... kind of like Nash.

And Stockton was only +8.3 in 1997. Michael Jordan was +8.4 that same season.

I don't really care about BPM/VORP/WS or any of those stats. Like I said, if a family of stats tell me David Robinson was a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon, or that Kevin Durant is better than Larry Bird, I'm going to disregard those.

And no, my On/Off stats were for both sides of the ball.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stockjo01/on-off/1997

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/n/nashst01/on-off/2005

Have a look for yourself.

That's offense only. You said Stocktons on/off was +7.6. His net Ortg (offensive rating) was +7.6. His opponents Ortg was -0.7. That's a net of +8.3.

Also, for the case of Hakeem vs Robinson there is a different story line because a) Robinson was far more dominant in the regular season and b) Hakeem beat and dominated Robinson head to head in the playoffs.

Stockton not only had better regular season numbers, but he won more and had more success in the playoffs. Not only did Nash never make the Finals, his team won it after they let him walk away for nothing. The comparison isn't really there.

I also have no problem with anyone thinking KD is better than Bird.

[eminence]

That's offense only. You said Stocktons on/off was +7.6. His net Ortg (offensive rating) was +7.6. His opponents Ortg was -0.7. That's a net of +8.3.

Also, for the case of Hakeem vs Robinson there is a different story line because a) Robinson was far more dominant in the regular season and b) Hakeem beat and dominated Robinson head to head in the playoffs.

Stockton not only had better regular season numbers, but he won more and had more success in the playoffs. Not only did Nash never make the Finals, his team won it after they let him walk away for nothing. The comparison isn't really there.

I also have no problem with anyone thinking KD is better than Bird.

You're reading those tables wrong. It's +6.9 for offense, -0.7 for defense, +7.6 total.

Saying Nashs team won it all after letting him walk is kinda silly, there were 6 seasons in between his departure and their title.

[oaktownwarriors87]

That's offense only. You said Stocktons on/off was +7.6. His net Ortg (offensive rating) was +7.6. His opponents Ortg was -0.7. That's a net of +8.3.

Also, for the case of Hakeem vs Robinson there is a different story line because a) Robinson was far more dominant in the regular season and b) Hakeem beat and dominated Robinson head to head in the playoffs.

Stockton not only had better regular season numbers, but he won more and had more success in the playoffs. Not only did Nash never make the Finals, his team won it after they let him walk away for nothing. The comparison isn't really there.

I also have no problem with anyone thinking KD is better than Bird.

You're reading those tables wrong. It's +6.9 for offense, -0.7 for defense, +7.6 total.

Saying Nashs team won it all after letting him walk is kinda silly, there were 6 seasons in between his departure and their title.

Yep, you're right. I was looking at opponent and difference.

[SpreeS]

De facto the best top 5 pg would be

Magic
Curry
Oscar
West
Paul

And I don’t see any arguments for Nash/Stockton over Paul. There is only one option could change my top5 - Harden, but here must happen something huge in last couple his career years and i must consider him as PG