RealGM Top 100 List #25

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Going controversial and voting for Kevin Durant.
As short as his career has been so far, his accomplishments rival all the other guys left on the table
- 1 MVP and 3 2nd places, as a contemporary of peak LeBron. His has been one of the greatest campaigns ever
- already 13th all time in MVP shares
- 5 consecutive and unanimous 1st all NBA teams
- historical combination of scoring volume and efficiency
- already one final, 2 WCF and one WCSF in the PS
- GOAT MVP acceptance speech
all this before turning 26
His peak is so much ahead all the other guys left that I'm ready to take 5-6 years of him than the other contenders for a full career.
We all know the next project he'll be ranked much higher than this, ma imo there's really no point waiting.

No offense but what the hell does Kd's acceptance speech have to do with his ranking or how good he is as a player?

Anyways you must weigh peak rather heavily because i would have a tough time taking Kd's 4-5 elite years over a whole career of excellence from that of baylor, hondo, drexler etc.

did I really have to put it in green?
I do value a 5-7 year peak high sure, but here the point is that the guy is imo on another planet vs all the guys remaining that you mentioned. At this point, I'm picking him over Baylor or Hondo.

[Basketballefan]

If Your going to bring up Nash/Kidd/Stockton you have to bring up CP3. He's arguably flat out better than alll 3 and as has similar number superstar level seasons(08,09,12,13,14). And if I'm completely honest I never looked at either kidd or Stockton as franchise superstar level guys. Even during his magical 2 years in NJ leading them to the finals Kidd was always a step behind the KG's, Kobe's, Duncan's, Shaq's, tmacs, etc of the world and that because he has serious flaws as a franchise guy.

Explain how Cp3 is "flat out better" than Nash? Nash is still better at running an offense imo and was better at taking over playoff games.

I'm still waiting for cp3 to have a playoff run like nash did in 05.

[Basketballefan]

Going controversial and voting for Kevin Durant.
As short as his career has been so far, his accomplishments rival all the other guys left on the table
- 1 MVP and 3 2nd places, as a contemporary of peak LeBron. His has been one of the greatest campaigns ever
- already 13th all time in MVP shares
- 5 consecutive and unanimous 1st all NBA teams
- historical combination of scoring volume and efficiency
- already one final, 2 WCF and one WCSF in the PS
- GOAT MVP acceptance speech
all this before turning 26
His peak is so much ahead all the other guys left that I'm ready to take 5-6 years of him than the other contenders for a full career.
We all know the next project he'll be ranked much higher than this, ma imo there's really no point waiting.

No offense but what the hell does Kd's acceptance speech have to do with his ranking or how good he is as a player?

Anyways you must weigh peak rather heavily because i would have a tough time taking Kd's 4-5 elite years over a whole career of excellence from that of baylor, hondo, drexler etc.

did I really have to put it in green?
I do value a 5-7 year peak high sure, but here the point is that the guy is imo on another planet vs all the guys remaining that you mentioned. At this point, I'm picking him over Baylor or Hondo.

KD did not have a 5-7 year peak. KD wasn't a clear top 5 player until 2012, so he has 3 years as a top 5 player and 4-5 as top 10. If you look at the peaks of guys like Baylor and Nash for example, i would say only the 2012-2014 versions of KD are better and outside of that there ain't a lot of longevity there.

Anyways your entitled to your opinion and you can use the criteria you see fit. But i find it a little unfair to put a 7 year career with only 3-4 prime years over guys who have had longer careers and accomplished just as much or more.

[E-Balla]

If Your going to bring up Nash/Kidd/Stockton you have to bring up CP3. He's arguably flat out better than alll 3 and as has similar number superstar level seasons(08,09,12,13,14). And if I'm completely honest I never looked at either kidd or Stockton as franchise superstar level guys. Even during his magical 2 years in NJ leading them to the finals Kidd was always a step behind the KG's, Kobe's, Duncan's, Shaq's, tmacs, etc of the world and that because he has serious flaws as a franchise guy.

Explain how Cp3 is "flat out better" than Nash? Nash is still better at running an offense imo and was better at taking over playoff games.

I'm still waiting for cp3 to have a playoff run like nash did in 05.

Yeah I basically agree with you. Paul is a good playoff performer but he's never been great. I'm not thinking about Chris Paul until I start thinking about Isiah Thomas and start voting him (23/4/8 finals averages).

[ChiTown6rings]

This spot will probably go to Nash or Stockton, so I’ll focus on why I prefer Stockton over Nash.

Stockton had the more impressive peak and prime, greater longevity (6-7 additional quality seasons) and was a vastly superior defender (arguably top 5 defensive PG). I don’t subscribe to the notion that PG defense is largely irrelevant, therefore, I see Stockton’s defensive edge over Nash as a significant factor when comparing their careers.

Neither do I. I've always thought of it in simplistic form: It's easier and better to play defense 5 on 5 than 5 on 4.

[Owly]

If Your going to bring up Nash/Kidd/Stockton you have to bring up CP3. He's arguably flat out better than alll 3 and as has similar number superstar level seasons(08,09,12,13,14). And if I'm completely honest I never looked at either kidd or Stockton as franchise superstar level guys. Even during his magical 2 years in NJ leading them to the finals Kidd was always a step behind the KG's, Kobe's, Duncan's, Shaq's, tmacs, etc of the world and that because he has serious flaws as a franchise guy.

Explain how Cp3 is "flat out better" than Nash? Nash is still better at running an offense imo and was better at taking over playoff games.

I'm still waiting for cp3 to have a playoff run like nash did in 05.

Waiting for CP3 to have an average pg put up 24.3 PER, .631 TS% in a first round series against him? Is Paul('s Hornets) taking the Spurs to a seventh game in '08 less impressive than (Suns) bowing out in 5. Is a 6.277777778 assist to turnover ratio not good enough. How about 30.7 PER and .289 WS/48? There's not a great difference in sample size (12 games 486 minutes for Paul; 15g 610 mins for Nash). Paul gets way too much "not done enough in the playoffs" "didn't get past 2nd round" arguments. He's 6th in career playoff PER (behind Jordan, Mikan, LeBron, Shaq and Olajuwon) 14th in playoff WS/48 (behind Jordan, Mikan, LeBron, Magic, West, Wilt, Admiral, Duncan, Nowitzki, Frazier, Barkley, Jabbar and Frank Ramsey). Boxscore composites aren't all, especially in the playoffs, and perhaps moreso for pgs. Still you'd like to know how he'd fooled the boxscore so much if he really was somehow disappointing in the playoffs.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

KD did not have a 5-7 year peak. KD wasn't a clear top 5 player until 2012, so he has 3 years as a top 5 player and 4-5 as top 10. If you look at the peaks of guys like Baylor and Nash for example, i would say only the 2012-2014 versions of KD are better and outside of that there ain't a lot of longevity there.

Anyways your entitled to your opinion and you can use the criteria you see fit. But i find it a little unfair to put a 7 year career with only 3-4 prime years over guys who have had longer careers and accomplished just as much or more.

According to Bref:
MVP Award Shares 
2009-10 NBA 0.495 (2)
2010-11 NBA 0.157 (5)
2011-12 NBA 0.735 (2)
2012-13 NBA 0.632 (2)
2013-14 NBA 0.986 (1)
coming second three times to peak LeBron.
I guess the point here is that
1. I see him as being historically good
2. I see a seven year career enough to qualified over players who are clearly lesser. Longevity is nice if peaks are somehow close or one is too short, otherwise I value peak more

[Basketballefan]

If Your going to bring up Nash/Kidd/Stockton you have to bring up CP3. He's arguably flat out better than alll 3 and as has similar number superstar level seasons(08,09,12,13,14). And if I'm completely honest I never looked at either kidd or Stockton as franchise superstar level guys. Even during his magical 2 years in NJ leading them to the finals Kidd was always a step behind the KG's, Kobe's, Duncan's, Shaq's, tmacs, etc of the world and that because he has serious flaws as a franchise guy.

Explain how Cp3 is "flat out better" than Nash? Nash is still better at running an offense imo and was better at taking over playoff games.

I'm still waiting for cp3 to have a playoff run like nash did in 05.

Waiting for CP3 to have an average pg put up 24.3 PER, .631 TS% in a first round series against him? Is Paul('s Hornets) taking the Spurs to a seventh game in '08 less impressive than (Suns) bowing out in 5. Is a 6.277777778 assist to turnover ratio not good enough. How about 30.7 PER and .289 WS/48? There's not a great difference in sample size (12 games 486 minutes for Paul; 15g 610 mins for Nash). Paul gets way too much "not done enough in the playoffs" "didn't get past 2nd round" arguments. He's 6th in career playoff PER (behind Jordan, Mikan, LeBron, Shaq and Olajuwon) 14th in playoff WS/48 (behind Jordan, Mikan, LeBron, Magic, West, Wilt, Admiral, Duncan, Nowitzki, Frazier, Barkley, Jabbar and Frank Ramsey). Boxscore composites aren't all, especially in the playoffs, and perhaps moreso for pgs. Still you'd like to know how he'd fooled the boxscore so much if he really was somehow disappointing in the playoffs.

First of all i never said he was disappointing in the playoffs so don't put words in my mouth. Secondly no he never had a playoff run as good as 05 Nash which is a fact he averaged 24 11 on 60 ts% for a deep run Paul has not done this. Thirdly, i wasn't making the "Paul didn't get past the second round arguments" i' was simply refuting the statement that Paul was "flat out better" than Nash, because it simply isn't true. Better? Possibly, but way better? No way.

Don't get emotional.

[DQuinn1575]

This spot will probably go to Nash or Stockton, so I’ll focus on why I prefer Stockton over Nash.

Stockton had the more impressive peak and prime, greater longevity (6-7 additional quality seasons) and was a vastly superior defender (arguably top 5 defensive PG). I don’t subscribe to the notion that PG defense is largely irrelevant, therefore, I see Stockton’s defensive edge over Nash as a significant factor when comparing their careers.

Nash only has a significant advantage over Stockton as a scorer. Stockton is either comparable or clearly better than Nash at everything outside of volume scoring and 3PT shooting. I also think Stockton is more portable than Nash. Stockton would most likely be fine or thrive in any era, but I doubt whether Nash could be as effective had he played his prime seasons in a more physical era.

PEAK

Top 5 ASPM Seasons
Stockton:: 6.8 (89), 6.4 (90), 6.3 (88), 6.3 (91), 6.2 (92)
Nash: 4.1 (07), 3.6 (06), 3.5 (03), 3.0 (05), 2.7 (10)

Extended Peak Estimated Impact
Stockton 88-92: 4.2, 4.6, 4.9, 4.3, 4.7
Nash 03, 05-08: 2.9, 2.4, 2.7, 3.3, 2.0

Extended Peak VORP
Stockton 88-92: 6.3, 7.4, 6.5, 6.8, 6.4
Nash: 03, 05-08: 4.0, 3.5, 4.2, 4.3, 3.3


DURABILITY/LONGEVITY

Durability
10 Year Prime Stockton: 816 GP, 29543 MP
10 Year Prime Nash: 783 GP, 26632

Longevity
Stockton: 16 high quality seasons
Nash: 9-10 high quality seasons

PRIME

10 Year Prime ASPM
88-97 Stockton: 6.3, 6.8, 6.4, 6.3, 6.2, 4.4, 5.6, 6.0, 4.7, 4.8
02-11 Nash: 2.1, 3.5, 1.6, 3.0, 3.6, 4.1, 2.3, 1.3, 2.7, 1.8

10 Year Prime Estimated Impact
88-97 Stockton: 4.2, 4.6, 4.9, 4.3, 4.7, 3.2, 3.9, 4.8, 4.0, 4.1
02-11 Nash: 1.9, 2.9, 1.8, 2.4, 2.7, 3.3, 2.0, 1.2, 2.4, 1.5

10 Year Prime VORP
88-97 Stockton: 6.3, 7.4, 6.5, 6.8, 6.4, 4.9, 6.0, 6.0, 5.2, 5.2
02-11 Nash: 3.2, 4.0, 2.6, 3.5, 4.1, 4.3, 3.3, 2.3, 3.4, 2.6


Prime Regular Season
88-97 Stockton RS per 100: 21.8 PTS, 4.1 TRB, 17.9 AST, 3.9 STL+BLK, 4.7 TOV
88-97 Stockton RS: 22.7 PER, .619 TS%, .418 Ftr, 122 ORtg, 104 DRtg, .221 WS/48

03-10 Nash RS per 100: 24.9 PTS, 5.0 TRB, 15.1 AST, 1.4 STL+BLK, 4.8 TOV
03-10 Nash RS: 21.8 PER, .616 TS%, .266 FTr, 121 ORtg, 111 DRtg, .189 WS/48

Prime Postseason
88-97 Stockton PS Per 100: 21.4 PTS, 4.8 TRB, 16.2 AST, 3.3 STL+BLK, 4.5 TOV
88-97 Stockton PS: 20.4 PER, .574 TS%, .403 FTr, 117 ORtg, 108 DRtg, .163 WS/48

03-10 Nash PS per 100: 25.7 PTS, 5.1 TRB, 13.5 AST, 1.0 STL+BLK, 4.8 TOV
03-10 Nash PS: 20.7 PER, .590 TS%, .274 Ftr, 117 ORtg, 114 DRtg, .145 WS/48

Vote: John Stockton

Pretty hard to look at a stat that says Stockton has at least 10 years better than Nash's best

[Basketballefan]

KD did not have a 5-7 year peak. KD wasn't a clear top 5 player until 2012, so he has 3 years as a top 5 player and 4-5 as top 10. If you look at the peaks of guys like Baylor and Nash for example, i would say only the 2012-2014 versions of KD are better and outside of that there ain't a lot of longevity there.

Anyways your entitled to your opinion and you can use the criteria you see fit. But i find it a little unfair to put a 7 year career with only 3-4 prime years over guys who have had longer careers and accomplished just as much or more.

According to Bref:
MVP Award Shares 
2009-10 NBA 0.495 (2)
2010-11 NBA 0.157 (5)
2011-12 NBA 0.735 (2)
2012-13 NBA 0.632 (2)
2013-14 NBA 0.986 (1)
coming second three times to peak LeBron.
I guess the point here is that
1. I see him as being historically good
2. I see a seven year career enough to qualified over players who are clearly lesser. Longevity is nice if peaks are somehow close or one is too short, otherwise I value peak more

I don't put much value into 'mvp award shares' whatever that even is, but even if i did there's no way KD was a top 2 player in 2010, he was arguably not even top 10. Now was he the 5th best player in 2011? Possibly, but that is the absolute highest you can place him for that year.

[Quotatious]

I don't put much value into 'mvp award shares' whatever that even is, but even if i did there's no way KD was a top 2 player in 2010, he was arguably not even top 10. Now was he the 5th best player in 2011? Possibly, but that is the absolute highest you can place him for that year.

He absolutely was a top 10 player in 2010, probably even top 5 - LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Dwight, Dirk and Duncan are IMO the only guys who have a case over him. I'd probably put him 6th, behind all of these guys except Duncan.

[ronnymac2]

I don't put much value into 'mvp award shares' whatever that even is, but even if i did there's no way KD was a top 2 player in 2010, he was arguably not even top 10. Now was he the 5th best player in 2011? Possibly, but that is the absolute highest you can place him for that year.

He absolutely was a top 10 player in 2010, probably even top 5 - LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Dwight, Dirk and Duncan are IMO the only guys who have a case over him. I'd probably put him 6th, behind all of these guys except Duncan.

You need to put Steve Nash over him. That might be Nash's best season ever considering he lead PHX's offense to historic levels, an offense which obliterated teams in the playoffs, too. The only reason LA beat them is because LA put on perhaps the GOAT offensive series in Conference Final or NBA Final.

I'd also put Deron Williams over Durant that year, but that could be just me.

[Owly]

Explain how Cp3 is "flat out better" than Nash? Nash is still better at running an offense imo and was better at taking over playoff games.

I'm still waiting for cp3 to have a playoff run like nash did in 05.

Waiting for CP3 to have an average pg put up 24.3 PER, .631 TS% in a first round series against him? Is Paul('s Hornets) taking the Spurs to a seventh game in '08 less impressive than (Suns) bowing out in 5. Is a 6.277777778 assist to turnover ratio not good enough. How about 30.7 PER and .289 WS/48? There's not a great difference in sample size (12 games 486 minutes for Paul; 15g 610 mins for Nash). Paul gets way too much "not done enough in the playoffs" "didn't get past 2nd round" arguments. He's 6th in career playoff PER (behind Jordan, Mikan, LeBron, Shaq and Olajuwon) 14th in playoff WS/48 (behind Jordan, Mikan, LeBron, Magic, West, Wilt, Admiral, Duncan, Nowitzki, Frazier, Barkley, Jabbar and Frank Ramsey). Boxscore composites aren't all, especially in the playoffs, and perhaps moreso for pgs. Still you'd like to know how he'd fooled the boxscore so much if he really was somehow disappointing in the playoffs.

First of all i never said he was disappointing in the playoffs so don't put words in my mouth. Secondly no he never had a playoff run as good as 05 Nash which is a fact he averaged 24 11 on 60 ts% for a deep run Paul has not done this. Thirdly, i wasn't making the "Paul didn't get past the second round arguments" i' was simply refuting the statement that Paul was "flat out better" than Nash, because it simply isn't true. Better? Possibly, but way better? No way.

Don't get emotional.

Nothing was put intened as reading your post as saying something it wasn't (it was quoted in full), it's just your post is indicative of a trend of "Paul hasn't done X" in the playoffs (in this case matched Nash '05) and all the numbers say he's an incredible playoff player.

I'm not quite sure about your distinction between Paul '08 and Nash '05. Is it that he hasn't met the arbitrary (non-pace adjusted) boundaries. Or is it that he hasn't had a "deep run" because he played the Spurs (and played them tougher with a substantially worse supporting cast), when it was illustrated that the sample size was similar. Nash scored a bit more in raw terms for those runs but that's a Suns rocket pace thing.
Here's the per 100 possessions
points; assists; turnovers; steals; rebounds
Paul: 32.9; 15.4; 2.5; 3.2; 6.7
Nash: 29.9; 14.2; 5.9; 1.2; 6

So yeah Nash shot better (.604 to .565), he just did worse in every other aspect of the boxscore and on D.

I'm a Nash fan, he's legitimately in the discussion here, but if we're going to say Nash hasn't met some '05 gold standard, and the metrics suggest he comfortably did (PER: 30.7 > 23.4 ; WS/48: .289 > .164) and the things the metrics are worst at (accurately crediting D) will tend to skew anti-Paul and pro Nash; then I'd want more than "[he hasn't done] 24 11 on 60 ts% for a deep run". I've said boxscore stuff is imperfect, moreso in the playoffs and for pgs. And there could be non-boxscore stuff that runs pro Nash. But if the claim is Paul didn't meet the standard I need more than what we have so far because if it's a problem with raw totals, then pace adjustment shows the pro-Nash slant to be illusory, if it's TS% then does that outweigh everthing else in Paul's favour, and if it's well it wasn't a deep enough run, again, sorry CP3 didn't quite beat the Spurs, I'd argue he did as well as could be expected. TBH though, all of that focus on a single year, doesn't matter so much as the fact that Paul has got crazy career long playoff productivity.

i' was simply refuting the statement that Paul was "flat out better" than Nash, because it simply isn't true. Better? Possibly, but way better? No way.

Yeah, I wasn't going on this but the poster did say "arguably". I'm not saying you can't respond to say it isn't arguable but given the suggestion of misrepresentation I'd be careful to be accurate in reporting others words. Personally if I were making the Nash over Paul case I'd point to longevity. Nash has 38069 (RS) minutes, Paul 22448. You'd have to have Paul as considerably more productive to put him ahead at this point. Now there could be a case he is based on some pretty crazy metrics for a pg (Paul's already ahead in career RS Win Shares) but it demands a better pro Paul case than suggestion he may be "flat out better". But instead you say he doesn't have a playoff run that matches up and that really just doesn't seem to be true.

[Doctor MJ]

Neither do I. I've always thought of it in simplistic form: It's easier and better to play defense 5 on 5 than 5 on 4.

You need to start thinking in nuance then, because 5 on 4 doesn't describe the situation in the slightest.

[magicmerl]

Through to #94

3 John Stockton - trex_8063, FJS, SactoKingsFan
2 Walt Frazier - GC Pantalones, penbeast0
2 Steve Nash - RSCD3_, Doctor MJ
1 Kevin Durant - Ryoga Hibiki

Leaning Nash - ronnymac2, Quotatious

Edit: Clyde....

[DQuinn1575]

Through to #94

3 John Stockton - trex_8063, FJS, SactoKingsFan
2 Steve Nash - RSCD3_, Doctor MJ
1 Kevin Durant - Ryoga Hibiki
1 Clyde Frazier - GC Pantalones
1 Walt Frazier - penbeast0

Leaning Nash - ronnymac2, Quotatious

Really? Walt Frazier is the man they call Clyde

Same guy

[Texas Chuck]

My vote: Hondo

I hear some of the arguments against him in terms of efficiency, but it was simply a different style game then. I don't have the expectations that a guy should be judged by a standard that he wouldn't have been in his day. He played the way the Celtics asked him to in a variety of roles and was great in all of them.

I also think Pippen might have an argument against him and Pippen is my 2nd favorite player ever, but I think Hondo ultimately deserves to be ranked a little higher.

Was an ironman in terms of games and minutes played. John Stockton played roughly 1k more minutes than him in their careers and you could argue that Hondo played more minutes than Stockton at a high level considering the first couple of Stockton years.

Pioneered the 6th man role that has become so popular.

Did it all--scored, rebounded, was a good playmaker, and was a very good defender.

Had the unique ability to play huge minutes while never having to take possessions off at either end and played a fast breaking style.

[Clyde Frazier]

I want to comment a bit on how we weight offense vs. defense for the various positions, with application toward the Stockton/Nash comparison.

I see stockton's major advantage defensively giving him the edge. I find it interesting that Nash's lack of D is seemingly getting pushed aside here when he was highly criticized for it during his prime.

Go through and look at how PGs performed against Nash and against Stockton. If you can't identify a significant difference in the individual performances, what about their defensive play makes you think they are helping the team Globally in a way that creates a significant difference? Besides Nash leading in the league in charges and such...

(PS the games I tracked Nash is not a BAD defender. He's not a positive one, but the movement to view him as around a neutral impact defender isn't merely about low defensive usage for his position, it's that he's not doing things that kill his team defensively.)

I will refer to Chuck Texas' post below on how opposing PGs fared against nash in the playoffs relative to their RS production. As others have noted, he may not have always been guarding them, but it's a pretty large sample size. Regardless of how much you value a PG's ability defensively, maybe nash's teams get over the hump in a few of these series if he was a better defender.

I'm in the process of putting together a post on my vote for stockton, so i'll address some series where he had a noticeable impact defensively.

Just to sort of provide some data on Nash defense and how it might be more of a factor than people want to believe:

Steve Nash against opposing PG's he faced multiple times in the playoffs.

Mike Bibby:
02 vs Kings (Kings win series)

Against Dallas in the playoffs: 22/7 58%TS
Bibby's RS numbers that year: 14/5 51%TS

04 vs Kings (Kings win series)

Against Dallas in the playoffs: 24/5 60%TS
Bibby's RS numbers that year: 18/5 56%TS


Tony Parker:

03 vs Spurs (Spurs win series)

Against Dallas in PS Parker 16/4 49%tS
Parker's RS numbers: 9/4 50%TS

05 vs Spurs (Spurs win series)

Against Phoenix in PS Parker 20/4 49% TS
Parker's RS numbers: 17/6 53% TS

07 vs Spurs (Spurs win)
Against Phoenix in the PS Parker 21/6 49%TS
Parker in the RS: 19/6 57% TS

08 vs Spurs (Spurs win)

Against Phoenix in the PS PArker 30/7 58%TS
Parker in the RS 19/6 54% TS

10 vs Spurs(Suns win)
Against Phoenix in the PS 20/5 50% TS
PArker in the RS 16/6 54% TS

Jason Terry

05 vs Mavs (Phoenix wins)

Against Phoenix in the PS 17/5 55% Ts
Terry's RS numbers: 12/5 61%TS

06 vs Mavs (Dallas wins)

Against Phoenix in the PS 16/4 49%TS
Terry's RS numbers: 17/4 58%TS

Make of this what you will, but it seems a clear pattern of opposing PG's performing well offensively against Nash and the Suns in the playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

Through to #94

3 John Stockton - trex_8063, FJS, SactoKingsFan
2 Steve Nash - RSCD3_, Doctor MJ
1 Kevin Durant - Ryoga Hibiki
1 Clyde Frazier - GC Pantalones
1 Walt Frazier - penbeast0

Leaning Nash - ronnymac2, Quotatious

Really? Walt Frazier is the man they call Clyde

Same guy

Yup.

For those who don't know "Clyde" was a reference to Bonnie & Clyde because Frazier dressed in a similar style to the Clyde character.

[RayBan-Sematra]

So... I guess I am going to vote for one of three PG's.

Nash - Tend to view him as a more valuable player then Stockton due to his superior scoring ability.

Stockton - Better then Nash defensively and by far the best longevitiy of the group.

Frazier - Way better defensively then Nash or Stockton. I have watched much video of Frazier and his defense really was amazing. Probably the best defensive PG I have ever seen though to be fair I haven't watched video of Payton in some time.

I decided to go for Frazier before Nash.
He was the better scorer and I do agree with Pen that his playmaking is underrated due to the balanced system he played in.

Not sure about Frazier over Stockton career wise.
The gap in longevity is quite sizable.

Frazier had about 6-7 seasons where he was at the top of his game.
He also has about 3 other season where he was an elite player.

Stockton has about 10 seasons where he was at the top of his game.
He also has 6-8 other seasons where he was a pretty high quality guy.

This is hard. I really see Frazier in his Prime as being a way better franchise cornerstone and much more of a "Super-Star" then Stockton ever was but Stockton has such a huge edge in longevity.

I do give extra value to guys who I think are noticeably more valuable in a main star role because I would rather have a great Super-Star for 10 years then a high quality roleplayer for 50 years.
But in this case Stockton is not a roleplayer so...

I am leaning towards Stockton as of now but I will wait until later on to actually vote.