Hoopshype's "20 Greatest PGs ever" list

[WarriorGM]

People who knows the simple basics about NBA history know that Oscar isn't ranked that high because of his numbers. He's ranked that high because he's one of the best offensive anchors ever and a guy who had no weakness on offensive end.

One of the best doesn't cut it against one who is arguably the best. As always with Robertson praise we get generalities not specifics. Curry's and Oscar's FG% are roughly similar—and then you remember Curry is shooting 3s.

Oscar is also arguably the best. You want to compare efficiency?

Curry career: 115 eFG+, 115 TS+, 2039.7 FG Add, 2405.0 TS Add in 779 games
Oscar Royals career: 112 eFG%, 117 TS+, 1691.7 FG Add, 3244.4 TS Add in 752 games

Oscar and Curry were comparable in terms of efficiency. I know you like scoring efficiency, so you should appreciate Oscar more than you do. I think you clearly misunderstand Oscar's greatness. From many debates we had before, it seems that you see Oscar as some kind of 1960s version of Westbrook, when in reality his on court-impact and production is more comparable to Curry's.

The stats you quote are relative to the league average of the time. I guess if one wants to say the players of that time were better than the players of today one might have an argument. Robertson's efficiency in comparison to Curry's is also dependent on free throws. Maybe the better comparison is James Harden. Without knowing the formula of some of these I really cannot take any other conclusions from them.

[70sFan]

One of the best doesn't cut it against one who is arguably the best. As always with Robertson praise we get generalities not specifics. Curry's and Oscar's FG% are roughly similar—and then you remember Curry is shooting 3s.

Oscar is also arguably the best. You want to compare efficiency?

Curry career: 115 eFG+, 115 TS+, 2039.7 FG Add, 2405.0 TS Add in 779 games
Oscar Royals career: 112 eFG%, 117 TS+, 1691.7 FG Add, 3244.4 TS Add in 752 games

Oscar and Curry were comparable in terms of efficiency. I know you like scoring efficiency, so you should appreciate Oscar more than you do. I think you clearly misunderstand Oscar's greatness. From many debates we had before, it seems that you see Oscar as some kind of 1960s version of Westbrook, when in reality his on court-impact and production is more comparable to Curry's.

The stats you quote are relative to the league average of the time. I guess if one wants to say the players of that time were better than the players of today one might have an argument. Robertson's efficiency in comparison to Curry's is also dependent on free throws. Maybe the better comparison is James Harden. Without knowing the formula of some of these I really cannot take any other conclusions from them.

So you think it's not fair to compare their relative numbers, but it's 100% fair to say Curry is better because he plays in an era with three point line, looser carrying rules and traveling allowed?

Are you aware that Curry himself wouldn't crack 65 TS% in the 1960s?

[WarriorGM]

Oscar is also arguably the best. You want to compare efficiency?

Curry career: 115 eFG+, 115 TS+, 2039.7 FG Add, 2405.0 TS Add in 779 games
Oscar Royals career: 112 eFG%, 117 TS+, 1691.7 FG Add, 3244.4 TS Add in 752 games

Oscar and Curry were comparable in terms of efficiency. I know you like scoring efficiency, so you should appreciate Oscar more than you do. I think you clearly misunderstand Oscar's greatness. From many debates we had before, it seems that you see Oscar as some kind of 1960s version of Westbrook, when in reality his on court-impact and production is more comparable to Curry's.

The stats you quote are relative to the league average of the time. I guess if one wants to say the players of that time were better than the players of today one might have an argument. Robertson's efficiency in comparison to Curry's is also dependent on free throws. Maybe the better comparison is James Harden. Without knowing the formula of some of these I really cannot take any other conclusions from them.

So you think it's not fair to compare their relative numbers, but it's 100% fair to say Curry is better because he plays in an era with three point line, looser carrying rules and traveling allowed?

Are you aware that Curry himself wouldn't crack 65 TS% in the 1960s?

Their FG% are about the same but Curry shoots from three point range. Do you think that is the same thing even if the threes were only counted as twos? It wouldn't be. Shooting from three point range still means Curry is going to create spacing. Which goes to the crux of this comparison. Even if we are to say Robertson is comparable to Curry on ball, what is he compared to Curry off ball?

[70sFan]

The stats you quote are relative to the league average of the time. I guess if one wants to say the players of that time were better than the players of today one might have an argument. Robertson's efficiency in comparison to Curry's is also dependent on free throws. Maybe the better comparison is James Harden. Without knowing the formula of some of these I really cannot take any other conclusions from them.

So you think it's not fair to compare their relative numbers, but it's 100% fair to say Curry is better because he plays in an era with three point line, looser carrying rules and traveling allowed?

Are you aware that Curry himself wouldn't crack 65 TS% in the 1960s?

Their FG% are about the same but Curry shoots from three point range. Do you think that is the same thing even if the threes were only counted as twos? It wouldn't be. Shooting from three point range still means Curry is going to create spacing. Which goes to the crux of this comparison. Even if we are to say Robertson is comparable to Curry on ball, what is he compared to Curry off ball?

Oscar averaged higher FG% in his Royals career than Curry (not by much, but still). Curry's peak FG% was 50.4%, the mark that Oscar surpassed two times in his career (and basically had the same average in another season).

Three point line opens up space for Curry's two point shots. You can't compare it straight like you do. Without the three point line, it's unlikely that Curry would finish inside with the same efficiency. The same thing applies to spacing - Oscar had to play with much worse spacing inside.

You want to make a point that Curry's three point attempts hurt his FG%, but you don't want to adjust Oscar's TS% to lack of the three point line? Why do you use double standards?

Who the hell says that Oscar is comparable to Curry on ball? He was far better on-ball player. I agree that Curry's off-ball game compensates the gap.

[GSWFan1994]

The Rockets won two championships running the offense through Hakeem Olajuwon.
Olajuwon would often switch off onto point guards and steal the ball and score a basket.
Olajuwon is obviously one of the best point guards of all time.
Olajuwon could score against anyone so he was obviously one of the best shooting guards of all time.
Olajuwon could guard anyone and he modeled his moves after watching videos of small forwards, so Olajuwon is obviously one of the best small forwards of all time.
Rebounding? Yeah. Obviously Olajuwon is one of the best power forwards of all time.
Olajuwon is a Top 5/Top 10 player at all 5 positions.

LOL! Exactly... gotta love your sense of humour.

Some people don't work well with logic.

[WarriorGM]

So you think it's not fair to compare their relative numbers, but it's 100% fair to say Curry is better because he plays in an era with three point line, looser carrying rules and traveling allowed?

Are you aware that Curry himself wouldn't crack 65 TS% in the 1960s?

Their FG% are about the same but Curry shoots from three point range. Do you think that is the same thing even if the threes were only counted as twos? It wouldn't be. Shooting from three point range still means Curry is going to create spacing. Which goes to the crux of this comparison. Even if we are to say Robertson is comparable to Curry on ball, what is he compared to Curry off ball?

Oscar averaged higher FG% in his Royals career than Curry (not by much, but still). Curry's peak FG% was 50.4%, the mark that Oscar surpassed two times in his career (and basically had the same average in another season).

Three point line opens up space for Curry's two point shots. You can't compare it straight like you do. Without the three point line, it's unlikely that Curry would finish inside with the same efficiency. The same thing applies to spacing - Oscar had to play with much worse spacing inside.

You want to make a point that Curry's three point attempts hurt his FG%, but you don't want to adjust Oscar's TS% to lack of the three point line? Why do you use double standards?

Who the hell says that Oscar is comparable to Curry on ball? He was far better on-ball player. I agree that Curry's off-ball game compensates the gap.

In his era sure Oscar was far better on-ball. In the three-point era? No, no he isn't.

[Dutchball97]

Zeke is too high imo but by far the worst part of this list is Dame (fringe top 100) ahead of Walt Frazier (at least top 40).

[70sFan]

Their FG% are about the same but Curry shoots from three point range. Do you think that is the same thing even if the threes were only counted as twos? It wouldn't be. Shooting from three point range still means Curry is going to create spacing. Which goes to the crux of this comparison. Even if we are to say Robertson is comparable to Curry on ball, what is he compared to Curry off ball?

Oscar averaged higher FG% in his Royals career than Curry (not by much, but still). Curry's peak FG% was 50.4%, the mark that Oscar surpassed two times in his career (and basically had the same average in another season).

Three point line opens up space for Curry's two point shots. You can't compare it straight like you do. Without the three point line, it's unlikely that Curry would finish inside with the same efficiency. The same thing applies to spacing - Oscar had to play with much worse spacing inside.

You want to make a point that Curry's three point attempts hurt his FG%, but you don't want to adjust Oscar's TS% to lack of the three point line? Why do you use double standards?

Who the hell says that Oscar is comparable to Curry on ball? He was far better on-ball player. I agree that Curry's off-ball game compensates the gap.

In his era sure Oscar was far better on-ball. In the three-point era? No, no he isn't.

Even if it's true, it makes Oscar on Curry level. He never played in three point era after all.

[CobraCommander]

John Stockton is better than Isiah Thomas.
So much more efficient. fg%51.5 >45.2. 3fg%: 38.4>29
plus longevity -- 19 seasons to 14 seasons.

I love Stockton but not winning a ring matters. Who cares how it happens but wining a ring and being the best guy on that team puts Isiah above Stockton or we should stop valuing rings all together....


Isiah no ring and Stockton got him IMO....I think Stockton is the POiNT god and the best small guard in the history of sports not to win a ring

[NZB2323]

1. Jerry West is a shooting guard.

2. I definitely have Steph over Oscar Robertson. We've seen from Russel Westbrook that getting triple doubles doesn't make you the best player in the league. Steph has the only unanimous MVP in league history and is on pace to get another one this year. Also, Oscar played in an era where it was easy to put up stats. In 1962 teams averaged 118.8 ppg, and the 10 highest scoring seasons in NBA history are all when Oscar played. In 1962 when Oscar averaged 31, 13, and 11 was the same season Wilt averaged 50 and 25 and Elgin Baylor scored 61 points in a Finals game, so I take all those records with a grain of salt.

The 1 year Oscar won a title was when he had the league's best play in Kareem as a teammate. Kareem averaged 32 and 16 on 58% shooting during the regular season of 71 and 27 and 17 on 52% shooting in the playoffs. Oscar put up 18, 9, and 5 on 49% shooting that playoff run. When Steph won it all in 2015, he didn't have anyone on his team who was nearly as good as Kareem.

3. Bob Cousy was probably in the best position of any player in NBA history. Bill Russel would block a shot to him, and he would have Sam Jones and John Havlicek running the fast break with him. I think he's ranked too high.

4. After the 2019 playoffs, Westbrook should never be ranked ahead of Lillard.

[azwfan]

After posting the PFs, SFs and SGs lists, here comes the latest one:

1. Magic Johnson
2. Oscar Robertson
3. Jerry West
4. Stephen Curry
5. Isiah Thomas
6. Chris Paul
7. John Stockton
8. Steve Nash
9. Bob Cousy
10. Jason Kidd
11. Gary Payton
12. Russell Westbrook
13. Damian Lillard
14. Walt Frazier
15. Nate Archibald
16. Pete Maravich
17. Tony Parker
18. Lenny Wilkens
19. Kyrie Irving
20. Dave Bing

Here's the full article if you wanna check the players' accolades & brief reasoning behind the ranking.

Cheers & discuss.

With Curry and West its tough to compare, but Curry has 2 league MVPs.
West has a FMVP... which is basically a 7 game series.
West has a lot more Allstars / All NBA ... with half as many teams in the league.

Think Curry has to be #2 above West.

Aside from that, I'd have Stockton slightly above Paul at this stage, but Paul isn't done quite yet. I might even put Nash above Paul. 2 league MVPs is pretty significant IMO. Westbrook is the hardest guy to rank for me. I'd have Dame and Parker over him, except for that fraud of an MVP he has... but he still has it. Guess I'm okay with how they have it.

[70sFan]

1. Jerry West is a shooting guard.

West played 2 seasons at most as a shooting guard. The only time when he wasn't clearly a PG is when he shared the floor with Walt Hazzard. You have no argument for calling West a SG.

2. I definitely have Steph over Oscar Robertson. We've seen from Russel Westbrook that getting triple doubles doesn't make you the best player in the league. Steph has the only unanimous MVP in league history and is on pace to get another one this year. Also, Oscar played in an era where it was easy to put up stats. In 1962 teams averaged 118.8 ppg, and the 10 highest scoring seasons in NBA history are all when Oscar played. In 1962 when Oscar averaged 31, 13, and 11 was the same season Wilt averaged 50 and 25 and Elgin Baylor scored 61 points in a Finals game, so I take all those records with a grain of salt.

Nobody who treat NBA history seriously ranks Oscar high because of his stats or triple doubles... You want to criticize Oscar for things that are not related to Oscar. If you believe that Westbrook is a good comparison to Oscar, then it proves that you know nothing about the 1960s NBA.

The 1 year Oscar won a title was when he had the league's best play in Kareem as a teammate. Kareem averaged 32 and 16 on 58% shooting during the regular season of 71 and 27 and 17 on 52% shooting in the playoffs. Oscar put up 18, 9, and 5 on 49% shooting that playoff run. When Steph won it all in 2015, he didn't have anyone on his team who was nearly as good as Kareem.

Cool, but Oscar never played with elite defensive team like 2015 Warriors. His Royals rosters were full of poor defenders and the franchise didn't have any stability in terms of coaching or team structure.

3. Bob Cousy was probably in the best position of any player in NBA history. Bill Russel would block a shot to him, and he would have Sam Jones and John Havlicek running the fast break with him. I think he's ranked too high.

Bob Cousy should be ranked high mostly for his pre-Russell career, when he was arguably the best offensive player in the league.

[hauntedcomputer]

Maravich LOL. Barely a replacement-level player.

Watch footage of Oscar. He very much controlled the floor like a 6-5 Chris Paul. No problem there.

I tend to rank Cousy higher than most because he was an evolutionary leap.

[slick_watts]

isiah over chris paul? huh?

[dhsilv2]

Wtf is with the insane reassment of Jerry west that's lead to him being an all time top 10 player in the last few years.

He's always been ranked that highly.

2010
https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/simmons_pyramid.html

2011
https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/slam_500_greatest.html

[dhsilv2]

John Stockton is better than Isiah Thomas.
So much more efficient. fg%51.5 >45.2. 3fg%: 38.4>29
plus longevity -- 19 seasons to 14 seasons.

Stockton was primarily a bench player his first three seasons, so for an All-Time ranking, those seasons aren't really giving a player a boost.

I do think Isiah tends to get overrated among PG's though, but there's always going to be some level of winning bias.

Stockton's 3rd season was rank in a tie for thomas's 7th best VORP season and tie for 8th best WS season.

94 and really 93 despite the allstar selection which seems like a life time achievement award aren't really any better than stockton's 2nd year.

[Kvothe22]

Isiah Thomas will forever be a better athlete, better leader, and a more dynamic player than John Stockton.

And Stockton will forever be a better player than Isiah Thomas.

[dhsilv2]

Yet again we are being told that up is down and white is black.

Robertson's efficiency is in a league of its own for non-big men? So is Curry's. Indeed Curry has led the league in TS% twice even including big men!

Curry's shooting is down significantly? Uh, no. Curry's not Harden, Lillard or Young. There was a graphic around here that showed very clearly that Curry hasn't been affected that much at all. Curry is probably the high-volume scorer least reliant on free throw attempts in NBA history.

Thing is TS% favours heavily 3 point volume which is not surprising. It's not a good measure to compare it vs players who doesn't shoot 3 point shots. Instead of being ignorant look up Robertson's play and his teammates and success. He had constantly one of the weakest teams in the league in terms of supporting cast. Something Curry haven't had since first few years of his career.

Yada, yada, yada. Curry was literally on a team that finished last in the league the year before and he led that team to a 54% win record. When Curry was actually given a decent if not great roster he led it to the league's best record and a championship. This year he is leading the Warriors to the best record even though Klay is still not playing. Robertson does not have an argument against Curry.

JN61 is a rampant curry hater, but he's not wrong here. Curry's having one of his worst TS% season relative to the league at 111 TS%+ vs 115 TS%+ career (and last year). Oscar's career TS%+ was 115, matching Curry but in an era where it was harder for small guys to compete vs bigs.

Doesn't make Oscar better or not than Curry...but that's a much more nuanced discussion.

[dhsilv2]

If we ignore Thomas being overrated as always. Ignore westbrook because he's polarizing.

The rest is still awful.

[Dmagic]

ill take Tony Parker over russ, the glove, and lilliard and Kyrie over lilliard.