Point Guard Rankings..Opinions wanted

[Koorverfor3]

Hey guys, sorry for the long post.
Working on a Sports Blog to enhance my portfolio in college to try and get some Ad hits, and whatnot.
For my first installment I wanted to rank every starting point guard, wanted some of your guys opinions since most of you all are BBALL geniuses.
I used to be that 16 year old who couldn't fathom why JR Smith wasn't starting and that George Karl was a Big fat bully. I also used to build championship 2k teams built around Monta Ellis and think this was realistic.
Crazy how times changed, I am now big proponent of using analytics as a tool when evaluating players.

The simple equation that helps me dictate how efficient players score is simply subtract their ppg from their Field goal attempts per game. Some players may not shoot terrific numbers from the field but their ability to get to the line makes them a proficient valuable scorer. (for Example, Derozan). Now this tool will obviously be more useful when im ranking shooting guards, as it is not going to be the end all be all when ranking the point guards and centers.
For example John Stockton in 1990 averaged 17 ppg on 11 shots per game. (Shot difference = 6)

Now onto 2013/2014...Ranking PG's based strictly on their Scoring Ability based on the shot difference (per 36)

5+ Elite (6.2-4.7)

1. Stephon Cury 6.2
2. R.Westbrook 5.5
3. Isaiah Thomas 5.2
4. Chris Paul 5.2
5. Damian Lillard 4.8

4+ Good Scorer

6. Ty Lawson 4.6
7. Kyle Lowry 4.2
8. Tony Parker 3.9
9. Jeff Teague 3.8
10. Kyrie Irving 3.5
11. Deron Williams 3.5
12. Mike Conley 3.3
13. John Wall 3.0
14. Brandon Knight 3.0

Average Scorer

15. Jose Calderon 2.6
16. Mario Chalmers 2.5
17. George Hill 2.2
18. Kemba Walker 2.1
19. MC Williams 1.7
20. Ricky Rubio 1.6
21. Brandon Jennings 1.4
22. Jameer Nelson 1.2
23. Jrue Holiday 1.0

Terrible
24. Trey Burke 0
25. Kendall Marshall .2
26. Raymond Felton .3



Now one specific tool I like for point guards is simple points generated when taking in account turnovers...
Assists minus Turnovers x 2 (points off assists basically) + points scored
For example a player averaging 16ppg and 10 assists 3 turnovers.
(10 assists - 3 turnovers = 7) ..............7x2 = 14.
14+ 16ppg= 28 points generated

My baseline for TOTAL points for PG include the
Shot Difference + Points generated + Steals per game. (Adjusted 36 mins per game)

For intangibles I applied this ranking to simply weed out some of the god awful defenders
They are designated by the number in the parenthesis (1) (2) (3)
3+ Good Defender - Can consistently defend position, good team defender as well
2+ Average Defender - Has some desirable traits, but well defined weaknesses
1+ Defensive Liability - Gets torched on the regular

Elite (44.7-38.55)

These are guys you can conceivably build a team around and contend for a Title, and are top flight point guards. Any slight weaknesses they may possess are completely wiped out by what they bring to the table every night.

1. Chris Paul 44.7 (3) (Tony Parker 2012/2013 Score was 41.9 in Comparison)
2. Stephen Curry 41.3 (2)
3. Russell Westbrook 40.3 (3)

Very Good (38.55-32.4)

Players who figure to be in the All Star conversation every year, but with slight chinks in the armor who either
- Are Not efficient enough yet to be go to options on winning teams (John Wall, Kyrie Irving)
- Have Severe weaknesses despite their amazing talents (Damian Lillard Defense, Eric Bledsoe out of control)
- Lack the physical gifts to be counted on as a franchise guard (Kyle Lowry, Ty Lawson, Mike Conley)

John Wall and Kyrie Irving and possibly Damian Lillard are two players who can potentially be mentioned in the conversation as Elite level in the near future.
Wall if he improves his jumpshooting..Kyrie if he becomes more of a complete player and Lillard if he takes the steps that Curry did to becoming an unconscious scorer

4. Tony Parker 35.9 (3)
5. John Wall 35.2 (3)
6. Kyle Lowry 35.0 (3)
7. Ty Lawson 33.5 (2)
8. Mike Conley 33.4 (3)
9. Jeff Teague 33.1 (2)
10. Damian Lillard 33.0 (1)
11. Kyrie Irving 32.7 (1)
12. Eric Bledsoe 32.5 (3)


Good Starters

These are guys who can be potentially be terrific third options on a championship team (Deron Williams in particular) Or simply good starters to have in your starting 5 who can bring something to the table on a winning basketball team (Holiday, Kemba). They can be replaced if struggling and aren't necessarily the epitome of consistency to be considered All stars every season.

13. Deron Williams 31.3 (3)
14. Kemba Walker 30.7 (3)
15. Jrue Holiday 29.6 (3)
16. Brandon Knight 28.4 (1)
17. Brandon Jennings 28.0 (2)
18. MC Williams 27.6 (2)
19. Ricky Rubio 27.5 (2)

Backups, Spot Starters (27.5-22.64)

These are players on teams that would make terrific backups, whether it being a defensive specialist, or a combo scoring guard off the bench. If a respective team has this player as a starter they would be foolish not to look for someone to draft with their first round pick.

*Trey Burke is someone who can potentially play his way up

21. George Hill 27.2 (3)
22. Kendall Marshall 26.2 (1)
23. Jameer Nelson 26.1 (1)
24. Jeremy Lin 25.8 (2)
25. Jose Calderon 25.1 (1)
26. Trey Burke 23.6 (1)
27. Mario Chalmers 23.0 (3)

Bad Players

If these players find themselves in your starting lineup your in for a lot of trouble. Ideally these are guys who should be playing understudy to the top point guards in the game, who are durable and will only need around 10 minutes to be spelled.

28. Steve Blake 21.6 (1)
29. Raymond Felton 20.9 (1)
30. Patrick Beverely 20.1 (3)
31. Norris Cole 16.7 (3)


Let me know what you guys think!

[Grolgar]

Good stuff. I'm biased as a Thunder fan, but I just think Westbrook should be in the conversation for best point guard. Once you get over stereotypes about prototypical point guards and just concentrate on team impact, he's right there. Just look at him head-to-head last playoffs against Conley, Paul, and Parker. You could definitely make the case he was the best or second best player in the playoffs (depending what you do with the Spurs team of good players). A lot of people can't get over the flaws that are 10% of his game and focus on the 90% of his game that is elite. Narratives that portray him simply as a chucker are lazy and easily dismissed by his assist numbers.

[TaylorMonkey]

Given how highly Stephen Curry ranks, please spell his name correctly.

[NaturalBuns]

Goran dragic?

He's left off this list why?

[kulaz3000]

Good stuff. I'm biased as a Thunder fan, but I just think Westbrook should be in the conversation for best point guard. Once you get over stereotypes about prototypical point guards and just concentrate on team impact, he's right there. Just look at him head-to-head last playoffs against Conley, Paul, and Parker. You could definitely make the case he was the best or second best player in the playoffs (depending what you do with the Spurs team of good players). A lot of people can't get over the flaws that are 10% of his game and focus on the 90% of his game that is elite. Narratives that portray him simply as a chucker are lazy and easily dismissed by his assist numbers.

I think it's neck and neck with Westbrook and Chris Paul in my opinion. What could make Westbrook the clear best point guard is if he were to be more consistent on the defensive end. He has all the tools to be a lock down defender if he wanted to be, but at this stage he isn't - he is often too concerned with exerting most of his energy on the offensive end.

Though Chris Paul is an over-rated defender himself, he is a more well rounded player than Westbrook, not to mention a better team leader, and from the point guard spot that's a important attribute to have. Still, I think it's extremely close between those two, and like I said if Westbrook really took upon himself to be the best lock down defender in this league, he'd be the far away best point guard in my opinion.

And on that note, I don't think Curry can ever be considered the best point guard just because he is such a pitiful defender. He isn't the worst point guard defender in the league, but he is right there up there with one of the worst, that's for sure. It's the same reason why it angers me that Harden is considered the best shooting guard in the league when he is also arguably the worst defender in the league, but then again, the shooting guard spot is slim pickings so he is the best shooting guard practically by default.

[Koorverfor3]

Good stuff. I'm biased as a Thunder fan, but I just think Westbrook should be in the conversation for best point guard. Once you get over stereotypes about prototypical point guards and just concentrate on team impact, he's right there. Just look at him head-to-head last playoffs against Conley, Paul, and Parker. You could definitely make the case he was the best or second best player in the playoffs (depending what you do with the Spurs team of good players). A lot of people can't get over the flaws that are 10% of his game and focus on the 90% of his game that is elite. Narratives that portray him simply as a chucker are lazy and easily dismissed by his assist numbers.

Yea I agree somewhat, according to the numbers I pulled out of my ass hes neck an neck with Curry.
Chris Paul is just virtually on a whole another level..10.5 assists to 2.5 turnovers is absurd. In his prime he was at 12 assists to 2.3 turnovers. It's simply why him and LeBron are always on 55 win teams. Most efficient superstars of our generation, and arguably top 5 of all time at their positions.
But I agree that any given moment Westbrook is capable of taking over, hence why I put him in the same breath and tier as Chris Paul..within the next 720 days if Paul starts to age I can see Westbrook being hands down #1.

These numbers also bring to light some weaknesses about one of my favorite players Rondo. (Not sarcasm)
In his BEST season his number scored around 31-32 mark right around The Eric Bledsoe range..which is what I consider a great player to have in your 5, but someone who is either a third option on a title team or a 2nd option playing with a top 8 player in the league.

And really looking at his numbers he post fabulous assist rates, but his best scoring season was like 13ppg on 11 shots.

Makes me view this article in a different light now
http://nesn.com/2014/02/rajon-rondos-wo ... mous-take/


All in All Context is important these aren't set in stone just kind of a guidline I enjoyed making

[NDaATL]

How are Jeff Teague and Bledsoe (11 & 12) below Irving and Lillard (9 & 10) on the second set of stats when they have higher numbers?

[Koorverfor3]

Goran dragic?

He's left off this list why?

Love Goran but didn't get to watch many Suns games So considered him a 2 guard figured Bledsoe was the 1.
Best value in the NBA at 7.5 million hands down

[cw3k]

My elite top 3: Parker, Westbrook and Curry.

Chris "Flopper" Paul or any flopper should not even consider elite.

[dlts20]

finally someone who recognizes Wall's talent. Sadly even many Wiz fan dont which is a joke. Hopefully he gets to play with a stretch big for one to unclog the lane for him but doesnt looke like that will happen anytime soon

[Koorverfor3]

Good stuff. I'm biased as a Thunder fan, but I just think Westbrook should be in the conversation for best point guard. Once you get over stereotypes about prototypical point guards and just concentrate on team impact, he's right there. Just look at him head-to-head last playoffs against Conley, Paul, and Parker. You could definitely make the case he was the best or second best player in the playoffs (depending what you do with the Spurs team of good players). A lot of people can't get over the flaws that are 10% of his game and focus on the 90% of his game that is elite. Narratives that portray him simply as a chucker are lazy and easily dismissed by his assist numbers.

I think it's neck and neck with Westbrook and Chris Paul in my opinion. What could make Westbrook the clear best point guard is if he were to be more consistent on the defensive end. He has all the tools to be a lock down defender if he wanted to be, but at this stage he isn't - he is often too concerned with exerting most of his energy on the offensive end.

Though Chris Paul is an over-rated defender himself, he is a more well rounded player than Westbrook, not to mention a better team leader, and from the point guard spot that's a important attribute to have. Still, I think it's extremely close between those two, and like I said if Westbrook really took upon himself to be the best lock down defender in this league, he'd be the far away best point guard in my opinion.

And on that note, I don't think Curry can ever be considered the best point guard just because he is such a pitiful defender. He isn't the worst point guard defender in the league, but he is right there up there with one of the worst, that's for sure. It's the same reason why it angers me that Harden is considered the best shooting guard in the league when he is also arguably the worst defender in the league, but then again, the shooting guard spot is slim pickings so he is the best shooting guard practically by default.

It's pretty tough to gauge point guard defensive rankings because the schemes and rule changes these days don't necessarily call for a stopper to pressure the ball like you could in the 90's.
I assigned the 3/2/1 scale to account for who can hold their own and who is just a stat padder who plays no defense.

The Curry argument brings upon another segment I wanted to get into..Superstars.
Superstars to me are guys who can impact every aspect of the game and play with virtually any player a GM puts next to them. AKA not worrying about putting a shotblocker next to Cousins, or drafting a 3pt marksman for Wall.

But every decade or so there is a superstar who impacts the game so much with their strengths its hard to hold their weaknesses against them...I like to use Barkley and Iverson as prime examples.
I think Curry can potentially in that same type of category

AND BTW Spurs fans
Tony Parker is a Hall of fame PG....if using these numbers for last year he would rank above Curry this is just for this past season strictly.

[NashtyNas]

I think the methodology is a tad bit flawed because it puts a lot of emphasis on being able to shoot.
For example, since Curry is likely the best 3 point shooter of the group, he's moved up quite a bit on the list above guys like Westbrook. Then there's the fact that you're basing their defensive ability off steals, which is completely flawed because steals =/= good defense.

For example, Westbrook has Durant on his team, and isn't the greatest 3-pt shooter. However he's pretty much better at everything else, and even if you give Curry an edge in passing, I think Westbrook is much better suited as a #1 option than Curry.

I think if you want to rank them in an overall "who's the best PG" type of ranking, this doesn't quite work.
The rankings aren't terribly off, but they're just not a completely accurate description of who's truly a better complete basketball player.

[Koorverfor3]

I think the methodology is a tad bit flawed because it puts a lot of emphasis on being able to shoot.
For example, since Curry is likely the best 3 point shooter of the group, he's moved up quite a bit on the list above guys like Westbrook. Then there's the fact that you're basing their defensive ability off steals, which is completely flawed because steals =/= good defense.

For example, Westbrook has Durant on his team, and isn't the greatest 3-pt shooter. However he's pretty much better at everything else, and even if you give Curry an edge in passing, I think Westbrook is much better suited as a #1 option than Curry.

I think if you want to rank them in an overall "who's the best PG" type of ranking, this doesn't quite work.
The rankings aren't terribly off, but they're just not a completely accurate description of who's truly a better complete basketball player.

The Curry/Westbrook was a tough one. I'd be interested in hearing who everyone would take if they were starting a team from day 1.

And in regards to the 3pt shooting elevating the pure shot rankings of guys like Lillard and Curry I guess that's why teams are putting such a premium on getting shooters. 10 years ago you were a bitch if you were 6'10 and lived beyond the paint now its the new fad. Points per possession go up.
Lillard only shot 40% from the field but his 4.8 shot difference (For PG) is terrific for the amount of points he puts up.

[kulaz3000]

It's pretty tough to gauge point guard defensive rankings because the schemes and rule changes these days don't necessarily call for a stopper to pressure the ball like you could in the 90's.
I assigned the 3/2/1 scale to account for who can hold their own and who is just a stat padder who play no defense.

I get where you're coming from as these days the rules don't exactly encourage great defensive guard play, but at the end of the day that's not an excuse to simply not play defense.

When talking about Westbrook who at times doesn't even seem like he cares to play much defense, and then other times you see him being totally amped to stop his man, for him it's all about him simply wanting to play defense and not being so fixated on getting the ball on the offensive end and looking to score.

As for Curry, a lot of the times he seemingly gives in to the fact that he is a bad defender, so he just sags off his man on defense and continues to play crappy defense. It's one thing to be limited of a defender due to the rules, but to me at least, it doesn't excuse a player to not put as much or as close to the amount of effort on the defensive end as they would on the offensive end.

The Curry argument brings upon another segment I wanted to get into..Superstars.
Superstars to me are guys who can impact every aspect of the game and play with virtually any player a GM puts next to them. AKA not worrying about putting a shotblocker next to Cousins, or drafting a 3pt marksman for Wall.

But every decade or so there is a superstar who impacts the game so much with their strengths its hard to hold their weaknesses against them...I like to use Barkley and Iverson as prime examples.
I think Curry can potentially in that same type of category

Iverson was a product of his generation though, of low efficiency, ball dominating guards - he was the best of them, and thus was treated as a superstar when in actuality, if he were to be playing now, though he'd still be considered a great player, he definitely wouldn't be lauded as one of the top 3 guards in the league, because his style of player simply wouldn't be as productive now.

As for Barkley, he may not have been the best defender, mostly due to his size, but he was most certainly not one dimensional. He could shoot from distance, he could create for himself and others, and he rebounded like a mad-man. For quite some time, he was considered the best power forward in history, until Duncan came along - basically he deserved the tag of a superstar because he was.

[brutalitops]

Goran dragic?

He's left off this list why?

Goran Dragic is left off every list, most journalists never mention him, Im half inclined to believe he doesn't even exist

[NashtyNas]

The Curry/Westbrook was a tough one. I'd be interested in hearing who everyone would take if they were starting a team from day 1.

And in regards to the 3pt shooting elevating the pure shot rankings of guys like Lillard and Curry I guess that's why teams are putting such a premium on getting shooters. 10 years ago you were a bitch if you were 6'10 and lived beyond the paint now its the new fad. Points per possession go up.
Lillard only shot 40% from the field but his 4.8 shot difference (For PG) is terrific for the amount of points he puts up.

Yep, very entertaining debate, but IMHO I don't think it's really close if you're starting a team.
You obviously have to pick the guy that has less flaws on the court, and I think that guy is definitely Westbrook.

It's interesting that Goran Dragic, Derrick Rose are not on the list, would love to see where they would rank (obviously using Rose's last healthy season).

Also, I think having Isaiah Thomas as a top 5 elite point guard scorer shows you exactly how flawed that metric is.

[yosemiteben]

As a Kemba Walker fan I'm going to feign outrage!

[Koorverfor3]

It's pretty tough to gauge point guard defensive rankings because the schemes and rule changes these days don't necessarily call for a stopper to pressure the ball like you could in the 90's.
I assigned the 3/2/1 scale to account for who can hold their own and who is just a stat padder who play no defense.

I get where you're coming from as these days the rules don't exactly encourage great defensive guard play, but at the end of the day that's not an excuse to simply not play defense.

When talking about Westbrook who at times doesn't even seem like he cares to play much defense, and then other times you see him being totally amped to stop his man, for him it's all about him simply wanting to play defense and not being so fixated on getting the ball on the offensive end and looking to score.

As for Curry, a lot of the times he seemingly gives in to the fact that he is a bad defender, so he just sags off his man on defense and continues to play crappy defense. It's one thing to be limited of a defender due to the rules, but to me at least, it doesn't excuse a player to not put as much or as close to the amount of effort on the defensive end as they would on the offensive end.

The Curry argument brings upon another segment I wanted to get into..Superstars.
Superstars to me are guys who can impact every aspect of the game and play with virtually any player a GM puts next to them. AKA not worrying about putting a shotblocker next to Cousins, or drafting a 3pt marksman for Wall.

But every decade or so there is a superstar who impacts the game so much with their strengths its hard to hold their weaknesses against them...I like to use Barkley and Iverson as prime examples.
I think Curry can potentially in that same type of category

Iverson was a product of his generation though, of low efficiency, ball dominating guards - he was the best of them, and thus was treated as a superstar when in actuality, if he were to be playing now, though he'd still be considered a great player, he definitely wouldn't be lauded as one of the top 3 guards in the league, because his style of player simply wouldn't be as productive now.

As for Barkley, he may not have been the best defender, mostly due to his size, but he was most certainly not one dimensional. He could shoot from distance, he could create for himself and others, and he rebounded like a mad-man. For quite some time, he was considered the best power forward in history, until Duncan came along - basically he deserved the tag of a superstar because he was.

I take back the Iverson comment..my inner Philly getting to me.
Its incredible how my fellow idiot Sixers fans say he's better than Kobe.
31 ppg on 27 shots is slightly below average..Kobe and Wade were hitting those numbers with 5 shots less per game. Big difference in Win/Loss column.

Like I said it's not a perfect science I just thought It would be interesting to try for each position. The ratings pretty much came out how I would rank them personally.
I might just take out the steals and try it that way as well

[Koorverfor3]

As a Kemba Walker fan I'm going to feign outrage!

Big Kemba Walker fan..nothing wrong with being a top 15 PG in a loaded era. Can definitely win big with the guy
Solid, smart defensive player. Can penetrate, knows his limits.
I'd rather have him than an Isaiah Thomas, Brandon Jennings or Jrue Holiday. Rather have a complimentary player who plays like a complimentary player than a high usage low efficiency player who play as if they think they have the skills of Stephon Marbury.

[teerfour+40LG]

Missing Goran Dragic in the elite category.