5y prime: Mark Price vs Terry Porter

[Mike Hok]

Price (89;90;92;93;94)
RS: 18.3 | 2.9 | 8.1 | 1.4 | 0.1 (.603)
PS: 16.6 | 2.5 | 6.5 | 1.4 | 0.1 (.557)

Porter (88;89;90;91;92)
RS: 17.1 | 3.8 | 8.5 | 1.8 | 0.1 (.590)
PS: 19.8 | 3.8 | 7.2 | 1.3 | 0.1 (.608)

[Winsome Gerbil]

statistically it may be an interesting case, but in real life it wasn't really much of a debate. Price was seen by some as the "best of the rest" PG (after Magic and Stockton), and by virtually everyone as in the same class as Timmy Hardaway and KJ. Porter on the other hand was kind of the Mike Conley of his age. Really solid on both ends, but a second banana behind Drexler and not quite full fledged star.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

To be honest, early 90s guys like Stockton, Price, Kevin Johnson and Timmy Hardaway were considered pretty much at the same level. Stockton runs away in all time lists thanks to his longevity, not because his peak was much higher than the one of his peers.

[Mike Hok]

statistically it may be an interesting case, but in real life it wasn't really much of a debate. Price was seen by some as the "best of the rest" PG (after Magic and Stockton), and by virtually everyone as in the same class as Timmy Hardaway and KJ. Porter on the other hand was kind of the Mike Conley of his age. Really solid on both ends, but a second banana behind Drexler and not quite full fledged star.

I am well aware they were perceived quite differently. I've been around for a while. Porter is probably the most underrated point-guard to ever play this game. His box-score numbers look good, at his peak his impact stats look amazing, and I have him as a better defender than Price by a decent margin. Obviously he was 2nd banana to Drexler, but let's not make of Mark Price what he was not, and that is a first option on offense. He shared his prime with Daugherty and Nance on the court.

[Bwelc679]

statistically it may be an interesting case, but in real life it wasn't really much of a debate. Price was seen by some as the "best of the rest" PG (after Magic and Stockton), and by virtually everyone as in the same class as Timmy Hardaway and KJ. Porter on the other hand was kind of the Mike Conley of his age. Really solid on both ends, but a second banana behind Drexler and not quite full fledged star.

I love me some late 80s and early 90s point guard discussions so finding this gem made me quite happy despite it being from 2017.

Anyways, I don't think using the argument that a player was "seen as better at the time" is anywhere close to a way to prove someone was superior. Just because people felt that way so many years ago doesn't mean it was accurate. Thanks to everything we've learned about basketball and the addition of advanced stats (at least in this case adjusted plus minus stats) we can make more informed opinions.

I think that OP nailed this question by making it a 5 year prime considering both Price And Porter had relatively short peaks. Price due to injury but Porters was a bit more confusing. He was incredible all the way through the 92 playoffs, was really good in the 93 season then fell off a cliff. After that, he bounced around and was an "okay" backup in Minnesota then a really really good 6th man in Miami and a very good vet role player in San Antonio. I guess age just hit him hard after the 93 season. Being that he came from a division 3 college and didn't even put up big numbers when he was playing for them, it's crazy how he ended up being drafted first round and being as good as he was.

Although I absolutely love Mike Conley and also think he was underrated during his peak (see 17' playoffs for more context), I see Porter as more of a Chauncey Billups mold. Always controlled the pace and was ultra efficient while playing both sides of the floor. Just like Billups he was a big time playoff performer. I think you and OP have it slightly wrong about not being a number one option. These guys may have not been the number one scorer on their teams but they were always at least a 1B offensive player as they were the ones getting the other scorers their shots or just doing it themselves if they weren't open. Definitely the most vital parts of both their respective offenses.

The 90-91 season was Porter's best regular season and he had some insane adjusted plus/minus numbers that season.
His BPM was 6th in the league at 7.4
His historical RAPTOR was also 6th in the league at 7.6
His straight RAPM was 3rd in the league at 5.3.
Price has some really impressive top 10 seasons as well but never peaked this high.

They were both incredible shooters but I would have to put Price as the winner here. He's legitimately a top 10 shooter of all time. One of those guys where you thought it was going in anytime he released it and would absolutely thrive in today's spaced out hands off game where he would take 7-9 threes a game. Still, Porter was also an elite shooter including shooting 47% from three (decent volume and very high volume for the era) during the playoffs where he and Clyde lead the Blazers to their 2nd finals appearance.

I love both these guys and think they were great for their era and would be great today. I legitimately see Price as better than the Cavs point guard right now in a very talented Darius Garland. Price is a slightly better shooter (Garland is also insanely accurate), a much better passer/playmaker and noticeably quicker. Defensively they both are negatives but Price at least looked more committed to trying to get stops, was tough as nails always popping back up after getting slammed to the ground and an excellent screen navigator.

Porter was a better defender than Mark(mostly due to size) and played better in the playoffs where he would significantly outplay John Stockton twice and hold his own against KJ, Zeke and Magic which his team won against all of them except Zeke. Because of the playoffs and defensive advantage I would give the edge to Porter but it's incredibly close and I could understand arguments for either guy.

[penbeast0]

To be honest, early 90s guys like Stockton, Price, Kevin Johnson and Timmy Hardaway were considered pretty much at the same level. Stockton runs away in all time lists thanks to his longevity, not because his peak was much higher than the one of his peers.

No, I think Stockton and KJ were considered a cut above quite clearly due to Price's defense and Hardaway's inefficiency. I do admit Terry Porter was looked at as a level below Price and Hardaway, compared to Derek Harper of Dallas but the numbers say he was underrated quite clearly in his day.

In terms of the OP, Porter's offense is pretty comparable to Price, he's more resilient in the playoffs, and his defense is much stronger. I have him higher.

[Yinwest]

Hold his own? No, Isiah was eating Terry Porter alive.

[migya]

To be honest, early 90s guys like Stockton, Price, Kevin Johnson and Timmy Hardaway were considered pretty much at the same level. Stockton runs away in all time lists thanks to his longevity, not because his peak was much higher than the one of his peers.

No, I think Stockton and KJ were considered a cut above quite clearly due to Price's defense and Hardaway's inefficiency. I do admit Terry Porter was looked at as a level below Price and Hardaway, compared to Derek Harper of Dallas but the numbers say he was underrated quite clearly in his day.

In terms of the OP, Porter's offense is pretty comparable to Price, he's more resilient in the playoffs, and his defense is much stronger. I have him higher.

Hardaway was a better defender than all but Stockton and about equal to Porter, while being a better playmaker and carrier than all but Stockton (playmaking) and KJ(playmaking about equal and carrying also). Price was very good but did have stacked Cleveland teams all his prime.