RealGM Consensus Deep Dive All-Time Lists - Point Guards

[michaelm]

I don't think any of these guys on the list prevents you from winning... but at the end of the day he didn't win a ring. If I start a franchise and have my choice between Nash and Curry, I think I am picking Curry every time.

For me, when you are putting together all time great lists you have to take into account a mix of personal and team accomplishments. If Jordan went 0-6 in the finals... he isn't the best SG of all time... and the same line of thinking for me says Nash needs to be dropped way out of the top 5 for never making it out of the conference finals.

Side note...I give Stockton a little bit of a pass since he made it to the finals twice and ran into Jordan and the Bulls.

Oh I value team success as well. My issue is its really hard to win championships and Nash played in a conference where one of Kobe, Duncan, or Dirk was always representing his conference and the Suns lost to the West champ and/or the Spurs every single year and in 03 his only contending level team in Dallas lost to the Spurs when Dirk got hurt.

So context matters. It's like all the players in the East for the past decade where Lebron was looming over everything. Judging them all terrible because Lebron was in the way feels misguided at best since Lebron is arguable the GOAT and at minimum in that conversation. Same with guys whose primes overlapped Russell's or Jordans or was trying to deal with Bird/Magic/Moses.

There was this KG can't win narrative and then he got to move East and all of sudden it was deep run after deep run. That narrative was dead wrong all along.

So I look at Nash's level of play which was really high, his team success which was good, though not great. The bad luck he had with his best teams that was outside of his control and then I look at Curry who was definitely the driving force on the first championship team and the 73 win team that lost. But who then had overwhelming talent and for all his regular season brilliance his game hasn't proven to be as durable against better teams, better coaches, defenses better able to scheme him over a series. And Draymond proved the oppposite--he had great regular season impact as well, but upped his game in the playoffs.

I say none of that to take away from Curry, but rather to say for me its not as simple as this guy won 3x and this guy never did so the winner has to be better. He is definitely better in some ways, but Nash is clearly better in some others. And as of now I would rate his career higher. Steph still has time and if healthy should continue to move up the list.

I rate Nash highly, but in what ways exactly does he surpass Curry ?.

[bondom34]

Russell Westbrook has

- MVP award
- Been major contributor to a finals team
- 3x Western conference finalist
- Annual triple double average
- Top 2 player on a 9.15 SRS team
- Top 5 MVP voting in 4 separate years

And yet is nowhere near a lot of people's lists that are populated with players either not as good and/or no more successful than he has been.

I'll note his impact/advanced stats are excellent too. He's been quite able to run an elite offense (frankly as well or better than even a guy or two I have over him for longevity reasons). RAPM had been quite high.

I'll admit he's my guy, but his numbers (not just box score) are the level of top 10 guys or better, he's not Nash/Paul/Curry but he's up there higher than I've seen a few have him in terms of level of impact.

Edit: If I get time tomorrow or Sunday might try to add to my 10

[Young gun 6]

1) Magic
2) Nash
3) Stockton
4) Kidd
5) CP3
6) Oscar
7) Curry
8) Thomas
9) Payton
10) Westbrook

[Leslie Forman]

1.Magic
2.Robertson
3.West
4.Curry
5.Nash
6.Paul
7.Stockton
8.Payton
9.Billups
10.Westbrook

[Tim Kempton]

1. Magic
2. Oscar
3. Zeke
4. Stockton
5. Kidd
6. Curry
7. Paul
8. Frazier
9. GP
10. Cousy
11. Nash
12. Russ
13. Tiny
14. DJ
15. Price
16. Billups
17. Tim Hardaway
18. KJ
19. Bing
20. Deron Williams
21. Cassell
22. Strickland
23. Penny
24. Porter
25. Baron Davis
26. Lowry
27. Gus Williams
28. Bibby
29. Lillard
30. Maravich
31. Wilkens
32. Parker
33. Arenas
34. Dre Miller
35. Cheeks

[Topofthekey]

Earvin Johnson
Stephen Curry
Isiah Thomas
John Stockton
Gary Payton

Steve Nash
Jason Kidd
Baron Davis
Chris Paul
Damian Lilliard

Steve Francis
Tim Hardaway
Tony Parker
Kyrie Irving
Russell Westbrook

Chauncey Billups
Kevin Johnson
John Wall
Mark Price
Mark Jackson

Gilbert Arenas
Deron Williams
Mike Bibby
Andre Miller
Rod Strickland

Terrell Brandon
Jason Williams
Derrick Rose
Stephen Marbury
Sam Cassell

[Texas Chuck]

I rate Nash highly, but in what ways exactly does he surpass Curry ?.

I feel like I already addressed this, but what is the primary role of a point guard? To drive the offense, right? Nobody in the history of basketball has consistently driven elite team offense better than Nash. It's still a team game and so guys who drive the team are the most valuable. It's why Russell was so much better than Wilt despite the offensive statistics saying something different.

Nash was leading his team to the best offense in the league every year. He wasn't Curry in terms of range or volume, but Nash is a top 5 shooter in his own right. And he showed that when his team needed it he could elevate his scoring volume.

[michaelm]

I rate Nash highly, but in what ways exactly does he surpass Curry ?.

I feel like I already addressed this, but what is the primary role of a point guard? To drive the offense, right? Nobody in the history of basketball has consistently driven elite team offense better than Nash. It's still a team game and so guys who drive the team are the most valuable. It's why Russell was so much better than Wilt despite the offensive statistics saying something different.

Nash was leading his team to the best offense in the league every year. He wasn't Curry in terms of range or volume, but Nash is a top 5 shooter in his own right. And he showed that when his team needed it he could elevate his scoring volume.

So Curry gets downgraded for being too good off the ball ?. The whole GSW offense has always pivoted on him, and it has not exactly been a poorly rated offense, and he has been pretty much the only PG they had for most of their run, Livingstone never really played PG.

[Texas Chuck]

I rate Nash highly, but in what ways exactly does he surpass Curry ?.

I feel like I already addressed this, but what is the primary role of a point guard? To drive the offense, right? Nobody in the history of basketball has consistently driven elite team offense better than Nash. It's still a team game and so guys who drive the team are the most valuable. It's why Russell was so much better than Wilt despite the offensive statistics saying something different.

Nash was leading his team to the best offense in the league every year. He wasn't Curry in terms of range or volume, but Nash is a top 5 shooter in his own right. And he showed that when his team needed it he could elevate his scoring volume.

So Curry gets downgraded for being too good off the ball ?. The whole GSW offense has always pivoted on him, and it has not exactly been a poorly rated offense, and he has been pretty much the only PG they had for most of their run, Livingstone never really played PG.

I'm done here after this. I'm always willing to engage those who disagree, but we are derailing the OP's thread and people are super defensive about their guys.

I don't know how to be more clear: Steph Curry is an amazing player. so is Steve Nash. I don't believe this to be a zero sum game where pointing out one guy is good means another player is therefore worse.

[rtiff68]

I rate Nash highly, but in what ways exactly does he surpass Curry ?.

I feel like I already addressed this, but what is the primary role of a point guard? To drive the offense, right? Nobody in the history of basketball has consistently driven elite team offense better than Nash. It's still a team game and so guys who drive the team are the most valuable. It's why Russell was so much better than Wilt despite the offensive statistics saying something different.

Nash was leading his team to the best offense in the league every year. He wasn't Curry in terms of range or volume, but Nash is a top 5 shooter in his own right. And he showed that when his team needed it he could elevate his scoring volume.

Not to belabor this, but Curry has shown the ability to drive great offenses both on and off the ball— something we never saw from Nash.

And while Nash has shown the ability to elevate his scoring volume when needed, the difference between elevating from a 16ppg-18ppg guy to a 20ishppg guy isn’t the same as being able to elevate to a 27ppg-30ppg type of guy (without making enormous efficiency and/or team success sacrifices). Nash could never do that, while Curry is that. It’s a big difference.

Finally, it’s fair to point out that Nash enjoyed almost all of his success in a system that notoriously inflates the numbers of the PG. Can you imagine what Curry’s numbers would look like in D’Antoni’s system?

I enjoy your takes. And, as you mentioned, you are certainly entitled to use whatever criteria you want when making your list, but to have Curry so low without having criteria that heavily leans in a singular direction (like longevity, in this case) is really difficult for me to wrap my head around. I’m no Kobe fan, but I still have him as the 2nd best SG ever, and you rarely see him outside of the top 3. To have him hovering around 10th would make little sense, unless you have some kind of aforementioned heavily weighted singular criterion (like efficiency, in this case).

[Texas Chuck]

Not to belabor this, but Curry has shown the ability to drive great offenses both on and off the ball— something we never saw from Nash.

And while Nash has shown the ability to elevate his scoring volume when needed, the difference between elevating from a 16ppg-18ppg guy to a 20ishppg guy isn’t the same as being able to elevate to a 27ppg-30ppg type of guy (without making enormous efficiency and/or team success sacrifices). Nash could never do that, while Curry is that. It’s a big difference.

Finally, it’s fair to point out that Nash enjoyed almost all of his success in a system that notoriously inflates the numbers of the PG. Can you imagine what Curry’s numbers would look like in D’Antoni’s system?

I enjoy your takes. And, as you mentioned, you are certainly entitled to use whatever criteria you want when making your list, but to have Curry so low without having criteria that heavily leans in a singular direction (like longevity, in this case) is really difficult for me to wrap my head around. I’m no Kobe fan, but I still have him as the 2nd best SG ever, and you rarely see him outside of the top 3. To have him hovering around 10th would make little sense, unless you have some kind of aforementioned heavily weighted singular criterion (like efficiency, in this case).

Excellent post. I was going to be done, but this deserves a response.

To the first point, no question that's an edge for Curry. I guess I feel the same way about Nash I do Lebron or Harden. They are so special on ball, it doesn't really matter that they wouldn't be as effective off-ball because I would never employ them in that manner. Though Nash is such a special shooter and would be terrific at the extra pass that I think he would still be really good---let me be clear though, not nearly as good as Steph in that role.

Nash has elevated more than that at times. The 05 2nd round series against Dallas for instance. But absolutely, Curry as a volume scorer has a significant edge on Nash.

No doubt Nash benefited from playing for Nellie and MDA with lots of offensive talent around him. Both guys fortunate to land in spots where the surrounding talent fit like a glove. Klay's shooting and Draymond's ability to create so much perfectly suit Steph. Worth noting regarding the numbers than while the SSOL Suns were the fastest pace team of their era, they'd not be in today's game--they'd be slow. Warriors actually play considerably faster now.



And finally, its pretty clear by how much push back I'm getting that it's likely that I have Curry too low.

[rtiff68]

Not to belabor this, but Curry has shown the ability to drive great offenses both on and off the ball— something we never saw from Nash.

And while Nash has shown the ability to elevate his scoring volume when needed, the difference between elevating from a 16ppg-18ppg guy to a 20ishppg guy isn’t the same as being able to elevate to a 27ppg-30ppg type of guy (without making enormous efficiency and/or team success sacrifices). Nash could never do that, while Curry is that. It’s a big difference.

Finally, it’s fair to point out that Nash enjoyed almost all of his success in a system that notoriously inflates the numbers of the PG. Can you imagine what Curry’s numbers would look like in D’Antoni’s system?

I enjoy your takes. And, as you mentioned, you are certainly entitled to use whatever criteria you want when making your list, but to have Curry so low without having criteria that heavily leans in a singular direction (like longevity, in this case) is really difficult for me to wrap my head around. I’m no Kobe fan, but I still have him as the 2nd best SG ever, and you rarely see him outside of the top 3. To have him hovering around 10th would make little sense, unless you have some kind of aforementioned heavily weighted singular criterion (like efficiency, in this case).

Excellent post. I was going to be done, but this deserves a response.

To the first point, no question that's an edge for Curry. I guess I feel the same way about Nash I do Lebron or Harden. They are so special on ball, it doesn't really matter that they wouldn't be as effective off-ball because I would never employ them in that manner. Though Nash is such a special shooter and would be terrific at the extra pass that I think he would still be really good---let me be clear though, not nearly as good as Steph in that role.

Nash has elevated more than that at times. The 05 2nd round series against Dallas for instance. But absolutely, Curry as a volume scorer has a significant edge on Nash.

No doubt Nash benefited from playing for Nellie and MDA with lots of offensive talent around him. Both guys fortunate to land in spots where the surrounding talent fit like a glove. Klay's shooting and Draymond's ability to create so much perfectly suit Steph. Worth noting regarding the numbers than while the SSOL Suns were the fastest pace team of their era, they'd not be in today's game--they'd be slow. Warriors actually play considerably faster now.



And finally, its pretty clear by how much push back I'm getting that it's likely that I have Curry too low.

Your point about Klay and Draymond fitting Curry like a glove is a great one, and one I often make myself. After their 73rd win on the final game of the 2016 season, an elated Jerry West was interviewed on-court, and after praising the players effusively, he said “this is not the most talented team in the league.”

He didn’t mean it as an insult. He was pointing out something that made him proud— they didn’t win 73 games the year after winning a title by overwhelming teams with superior talent; rather, they did it by blending together in a way that perfectly complimented their relative skill-sets, making the whole truly greater than the sum of its parts.

I love Klay and Draymond, and I think they both probably make it to the HOF— mostly because team accolades are often overvalued when making those decisions, and because the bar isn’t an especially high one (the NBA HOF is a lot easier to make than the NFL HOF, for instance). Do I think either of them have a shot at that if they don’t land in GS.

Very doubtful, IMO. If you look at them individually and measure them against the other #2’s and #3’s of great and/or dynastic teams, they don’t really measure up.

[foreigngrammar]

Fun challenge, I'll see what I can do.

1. Chris Paul
2. Magic Johnson
.
.
.
35. Patrick Beverley (his traditional stats are so poor and his advanced stats so good that I just felt like he was the perfect person to occupy the last position on my chart)

I'm pretty sure you forgot Jason Kidd

[Clyde Frazier]

For reference / discussion, here's the all time PG ranking from our last top 100 project on the PC board in summer 2017. Curry's the main guy who would clearly move up on a more current list. 

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1573442

Magic
Oscar
Stockton
Paul
Nash
Curry
Payton
Kidd
Frazier
Isiah
Cousy
Westbrook
Billups
Kevin Johnson
Tony Parker
Terry Porter
Mo Cheeks
Tim Hardaway
Mookie Blaylock

Honorable Mentions:
Mark Price
Tiny Archibald
Dennis Johnson
Penny Hardaway
Lenny Wilkens

[michaelm]

I feel like I already addressed this, but what is the primary role of a point guard? To drive the offense, right? Nobody in the history of basketball has consistently driven elite team offense better than Nash. It's still a team game and so guys who drive the team are the most valuable. It's why Russell was so much better than Wilt despite the offensive statistics saying something different.

Nash was leading his team to the best offense in the league every year. He wasn't Curry in terms of range or volume, but Nash is a top 5 shooter in his own right. And he showed that when his team needed it he could elevate his scoring volume.

So Curry gets downgraded for being too good off the ball ?. The whole GSW offense has always pivoted on him, and it has not exactly been a poorly rated offense, and he has been pretty much the only PG they had for most of their run, Livingstone never really played PG.

I'm done here after this. I'm always willing to engage those who disagree, but we are derailing the OP's thread and people are super defensive about their guys.

I don't know how to be more clear: Steph Curry is an amazing player. so is Steve Nash. I don't believe this to be a zero sum game where pointing out one guy is good means another player is therefore worse.

To be clear, I would not demur at having both top 5 and the case for your top 3 is strong. I just don't see how you can have Nash 5 if you have Curry 10.

[michaelm]

double

[Metallikid]

Using my own scoring scheme, which I have yet to add a longevity component to, here are my semi-objective Point Guard rankings:

1. Magic Johnson - 81 points
2. Jerry West - 65 points
3. Bob Cousy - 63 points
4. Oscar Robertson - 62 points
5. Chris Paul - 58 points

6. Gary Payton - 50 points
7. John Stockton - 48 points
8. Jason Kidd - 47 points
9. Steve Nash - 40 points
10. Russell Westbrook - 38 points

11. Walt Frazier - 38 points
12. Stephen Curry - 34 points
13. Isiah Thomas - 33 points
14. Dennis Johnson - 30 points
15. Tiny Archibald - 22 points

16. Dave Bing - 19 points
17. Bob Davies - 19 points
18. Tony Parker - 18 points
19. Slater Martin - 17 points
20. Norm Van Lier - 17 points

21. Don Buse - 17 points
22. Chauncey Billups - 16 points
23. Jo Jo White - 16 points
24. Damian Lillard - 15 points
25. Tim Hardaway - 15 points

26. Rajon Rondo - 15 points
27. Derrick Rose - 14 points
28. Kevin Johnson - 13 points
29. Maurice Cheeks - 13 points
30. Kyrie Irving - 12 points

31. Jimmy Jones - 12 points
32. Mack Calvin - 12 points
33. Andy Phillip - 12 points
34. Micheal Ray Richardson - 12 points
35. Lenny Wilkens - 11 points

[Metallikid]

1. Magic
2. Oscar
3. Zeke
4. Stockton
5. Kidd
6. Curry
7. Paul
8. Frazier
9. GP
10. Cousy
11. Nash
12. Russ
13. Tiny
14. DJ
15. Price
16. Billups
17. Tim Hardaway
18. KJ
19. Bing
20. Deron Williams
21. Cassell
22. Strickland
23. Penny
24. Porter
25. Baron Davis
26. Lowry
27. Gus Williams
28. Bibby
29. Lillard
30. Maravich
31. Wilkens
32. Parker
33. Arenas
34. Dre Miller
35. Cheeks

Great list! When did you start watching the NBA? Who's your favourite player from your list? Anyone really underappreciated?

[Metallikid]

Earvin Johnson
Stephen Curry
Isiah Thomas
John Stockton
Gary Payton

Steve Nash
Jason Kidd
Baron Davis
Chris Paul
Damian Lilliard

Steve Francis
Tim Hardaway
Tony Parker
Kyrie Irving
Russell Westbrook

Chauncey Billups
Kevin Johnson
John Wall
Mark Price
Mark Jackson

Gilbert Arenas
Deron Williams
Mike Bibby
Andre Miller
Rod Strickland

Terrell Brandon
Jason Williams
Derrick Rose
Stephen Marbury
Sam Cassell

Another awesome list! I see yours is a lot more heavily weighted towards players from the last 30-35 years. You have Steve Francis very high, is he a personal favourite of yours? What made him so good in your opinion?

[SpreeS]

Ainsworth Sports' Top 1000 Players of All-Time (A very interesting and objective ranking that focuses on players' 7-year peak) - http://ainsworthsports.com/basketball_player_rankings_all_time_1_to_1000.htm

What kind of ranking system must you use that Dennis Smith Jr would be over Don Nelson???? I saw a lot craps rankings but this is on my top.