Greatest Of The Three Point Era: Point Guard

although ben probably edited his original post to make me look more dumb than i already do

Yeah, I edited this thread too: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=78832

Can't top Ben's post. I knew Paul was great and the real 2008 MVP but I didn't know he was that good. Hopefully he doesn't have Roy knee.

Agreed that Chris Paul should've been MVP that year, but sadly the most valuable player doesn't always or rarely win it.

I'd have to add Mookie Blaylock and Sam Cassell to my honourable mentions list, can't believe I overlooked them.

I was a little surprised to see Isiah Thomas left out of the top ten on benji's list. I know it's not without good reason, so I'm definitely keen to hear more on that.

I would have Payton over Billups on Ben's list, shooting efficiency aside Payton was a better defender, better ball distributer and turned it over less.

hova with the fancy tables.

Payton was great, Billups was great. Why do I go with Billups? Because his offensive production is perfect. I don't want to make the impression that Payton isn't great, part of why I said you can't build around a PG is because Payton is more or less the one you'd want to build around. But if you want to win, I think you have to lean towards a Billups. A guy who takes every offensive possession and perfects it. Are point guards regularly that key as defensive monsters? I don't think so. As offensive monsters? Magic, Stockton, Nash, Billups, etc. I'll go with that.

The interesting thing about Isiah is why do people think he was so great? He scored a lot in the playoffs on contenders. But nobody ever asks why.

I think that looking at his post-NBA career IS important because it displays a key characteristic of Isiah himself. And it helps inform his playing career for those who don't bore into the stats. Isiah wants to be the center of attention and micromanage everything. It's how he's been post-playing. It's how he was with Jordan on the All-Star team. It's how he was his entire career.

If you look at Isiah's prime, he shot as much as three players. Jeff Malone, Clyde Drexler and Michael Jordan. Not point guards. He got all those assists for the same reason he scored all the points. Isiah had the ball.

The entire team wound up being constructed around this fact. Isiah had the ball.

He clashed with Adrian Dantley, one of the greatest scorers in NBA history and traded him for another no-defense scorer, but one who SPECIFICALLY would defer to Isiah in Mark Aguirre, because Isiah had the ball.

Isiah was a good player, but he had to have a team where he could take a bunch of shots and run the entire offense or he chafed and resisted. Daly didn't break him, he built the team around him.

Why did the Pistons depend on Isiah? Because they were built to depend on Isiah.

Think about the 2001 Sixers. That team was built around Iverson. The Bad Boys were built exactly the same way.

Isiah had the ball. And he either put it up or he passed it off to some one. And that's how it worked.

Isiah shot a lot, so he scored a lot. That didn't make him a god.

But Benji, don't you think that LeBron does the same as Iverson and Thomas? LeBron has the ball.

Lebron is a fucking beast though. You'd be nuts not to give him the ball. He's a Shaq at almost every position with ball handling capabilities. :\

I certainly won't argue any of that as far as Isiah is concerned, but does it really make him a lesser talent? I guess I'm missing the point here as far as the team being constructed around him, since they did ultimately win a lot of games, go to the Finals and win championships. Aren't most teams that win a championship, or compete for one for a number of years, constructed around the talents of their best player?

I certainly won't argue any of that as far as Isiah is concerned, but does it really make him a lesser talent?

Nobody said it did.

But Benji, don't you think that LeBron does the same as Iverson and Thomas? LeBron has the ball.

Iverson and Thomas's peak ORtgs are LeBron's career average.

LeBron's peaks are god-like.

But in that case, how is it a knock against him and a big enough one that he couldn't be considered to be in the top ten?

It's not, nobody said it was.

Wow. I knew Porter was a 'steady' PG (or efficient as benji puts it) but surprised to know that he's more than what I knew.

I was under the impression that your previous post about Isiah was describing the reason he didn't make the cut in your top ten.

The reason he didn't make the cut should be clear, he wasn't as good as the guys above him. That post was addressing the obvious coming rejoinder about his teams success plus his gaudy averages.

I left out how as the Pistons got better, Isiah GOT WORSE, but still used 25+% of possessions. He should have IMPROVED or lowered his usage as he got better players around him but he didn't, that's not normal. (But maybe part of Daly's brilliance.) (Actually as another aside, the story commonly goes that Isiah "sacrificed" his stats for the team, and he himself makes this argument all the time. But everyone ignores that he uses as much or MORE possessions but his stats still drop. He played on a better team but got fewer assists, shot worse and turned it over more than he did on the crappy teams earlier in his career all while using more possessions.)

You really don't want perimeter players using 25+% of possessions if their ORtg is below the league average UNLESS the team is specifically constructed where the other four players can make up for that lone player, and that's a very risky proposition as the Sixers showed.

Aren't most teams that win a championship, or compete for one for a number of years, constructed around the talents of their best player?

Isiah wasn't definitively their best player. No team will contend with a player like Isiah as their clear best player.

Isiah may have been their most talented player, but that doesn't mean he was the best or most valuable player. Laimbeer, Dumars, Rodman, Dantley, etc. all played at least as big, most likely bigger roles, in those Pistons contenders as Isiah did.

It's like I said, Isiah had the ball, he loved to shoot and be at the center of everything, and so he shoot a lot he did, and thus he scored lots of points and thus he was the "star" and now has this elevated legacy because he shot a lot and had a couple memorable hot streaks or plays. (Which, like most anyone of all-star talent ever in the NBA you can find the same thing for.)

The Pistons would be just as good, likely better, with Stockton, Price, Porter all running the point instead. Probably even guys like Fat Lever and Derek Harper would have put the Pistons at a similar level as Isiah did. Efficiency breeds greater efficiency while usage consolidation on lesser efficiency players tends to harm overall efficiency.

Win shares aren't the greatest thing at all for cross-comparison due to how much team influence is involved, but I think they do a fantastic job of fairly accurately splitting up "credit" on a team. Thomas finishes around 3rd and 4th on nearly every relevant Pistons team. From 90-92 Porter is right at the top of the Blazers. Stockton dominates the Jazz for years. Kidd's at the top of the Finals Nets. Look at any team ever you can think of and the "star" will be at the top. Thomas is notably not. Even Iverson lands at the top of the 2001 and 2003 Sixers.

Actually, I should say this. Everyone after Price is completely interchangeable. I'd want Brandon or Cheeks above any of the rest, including Hardaway. If you want to say Thomas should be #10 over Hardaway because Thomas scored a lot in the playoffs and Hardaway is one of the worst playoff performers in league history, I'm fine with that. I just can't place Thomas any higher when we are trying to consider players as individuals. And if I'm trying to be more objective in the analysis, it's Hardaway who gets the slight nod over the rest. (I very much almost put Brandon there.)

But back to Thomas, look at the cases made FOR the guy:

3. Isiah Thomas ('84-'90): I wanted to start his a year earlier but playoff performances in 1990 kept me back that one year. Something about Isiah always irked me even though I know he could play.

which included three Finals trips, two championships and four straight years averaging over 20 points and 10 assists per game.

Where's the case he's better than the rest? There isn't one outside of the fact he was the most popular player who visibly scored on a contender.

My major point was Isiah had the ball a shit ton and shot a shit ton. But the team was built to negate that disadvantage. Thus demolishing the only case behind Isiah as a great point guard.

What argument is there for Isiah? I mean one that nobody else can make.

Isiah's at 19.6/10, Nash is at 17.7/10.6. We seem to talk about Isiah's various playoff performances constantly, when's the last time anyone even mentioned Nash's string in 2005? Oh, you don't know what I'm talking about? How about this six game string to take three of four against the Mavericks and open against the Spurs:
27/3/17
48/5/5
34/13/12
39/9/12
29/4/13
29/5/15

How about Terry Porter taking down the Suns in five and then dissecting the Jazz in six on the way to the Finals in 1992? (Lower end games included!)
31/7/7
27/3/6
20/8/11
31/6/14
20/4/4
26/3/8
41/6/7
13/2/7
34/5/7
24/4/11
18/4/10

I come back to the same thing you all have heard me harp on for over five years now. The focus on the "star" over everything else. Nobody cares to look at the Pistons or any team as a whole, it must all be the star! Thus, Thomas becomes a superstar and all-time great instead of an All-Star point guard (of which there are many in history) with some great teammates that similarly get simplified.

Really, what's the case anyone is going to make for Isiah?
1. Success of the Pistons.
2. Isiah's playoff scoring.
3. Isiah's gaudy per game numbers.
4. LEADERSHIP/WINNER/PATRIOTISM

And...

Anything else?

Look at any team ever you can think of and the "star" will be at the top.

Except Kobe.

#3rd in 10-11
#2nd in 09-10
#2nd in 08-09

He needs to get Gasol traded.

I probably should not have put in scare quotes.

He played on a better team but got fewer assists, shot worse and turned it over more than he did on the crappy teams earlier in his career all while using more possessions.)

That so much sounds like Lebron James.

I'm happy to see Isiah get a beating. As I said, he irked me as a player. I admittedly put him high based on the hype etc. I'd still put him above Kidd and KJ though. I did have Billups in my list at 10 but he was last out as I wanted to get some 80's rep in with Cheeks & hadn't actually taken a look at Billups' numbers.

Glad to see TeeBee get some representation from benji. When he was with Cavs and pre-injury, he was probably my favourite player in league. I was a huge fan of us

I know there's not a lot to debate about but these threads will get heated as soon as we get into centers/ guards. But I guess you're making Iverson a SG. I hope to see your opinion on him (maybe it's the same as Isiah).

benji's list is like an answer key to the test here. Lolz... Anyways, awesome reads from this thread. Can't wait to see where Wade stands in SG list and Bryant Reeves, Pete Chilcutt, Cherokee Parks in bigs list...

Thanks for the clarification. X has probably hit the nail on the head there as far as the hype when it comes to Thomas. Things such as his ability to take over a game (as noted, easier to do with his usage and the like) despite his small stature, the performance on the sprained ankle against the Lakers in the Finals, praise from his former teammates when looking back on the championship years...those are things that come to mind when I think of Isiah Thomas and in doing so, I'm probably giving flash too much credit over substance. With that in mind, I might have to re-think my rankings, but I'd still deem him to have been a very talented basketball player.

I wouldn't change your rankings Andrew, just as I won't change mine. Without we might not have a more interesting debate going on. I must admit I'm kicking myself for not including Billups in top 10, as he was in originally, but don't want to edit it. I guess for next position, I'll be more the wiser & try to look beyond hype & try to dig down a bit deeper into substance. Naturally my bias will come into play.

I think all those NBA DVD's have us brainwashed Andrew

It's certainly easy to get caught up in the "story" and I do think that's what makes sports enjoyable, but it's not much good for an objective ranking of players.

Haven't had much time to put in much thought to this, but here's my top 10 PG's:

1. Magic Johnson
Seasons - Hard to decide, but I'm going from the 1981-82 season to the 1988-89 season (yes, I know this is 8 seasons)
The most versatile and successful point guard out of the 10 on my list. From winning five championships to nearly averaging a triple-double (which is why I included '81-'82), Magic is the obvious choice at number one.

2. John Stockton
Seasons - from the 1988-89 season to the 1994-95 season
He had less success than Magic championship-wise and stat-wise (for the most part), but he maintained an assist% of over 50% throughout his whole career, and at some points during this 7-season stretch, led the league in TS%. I'm not a big fan of Stockton, but I've always liked guards that play hard-nosed defense.

3. Gary Payton
Seasons - 1995-96 to 2002-03 season (he had about a half-season in 98-99)
I'm putting him higher up than Billups because he has higher stats, per game, and per 36, and as I said, I like point guards that play good defense. Just unfortunate that he had to latch on to the '06 Heat to win a championship.

4. Chauncey Billups
Seasons - 2003-04 to 2009-10 season
There are three things I love about Chauncey, 1. It's gotta be the best name (and surname) I've ever heard, 2. Out of all the ten point guards on this list, I'd trust him the most in the clutch, and 3. He isn't a fast point guard, but he owns other point guards with his strength and sharp-shooting. Combine that with a high TS% and an excellent Ortg, he's been one heck of a point guard.

5. Kevin Johnson
Seasons - 1989-90 to 1996-97 season (combining 92-93 and 94-95 seasons)
Turnovers were a problem for him early in this 8-year span, they would take a dip and then rise again in some seasons as well. With a high PER, and Offensive Rating, I guess I could put him above Billups, but I think fifth on this list suits him well.

6. Chris Paul
Seasons - all of his seasons
The only player on this list to not play over 7 seasons, but I put him up here because of his alarming AST/TO ratio. He currently leads the league right now with the best AST/TO. His stats in 08-09 are monstrous, and I agree with benji's statement that he should've been MVP then. Some may not agree with Paul being this high up on a top 10 list, but based on what he's done so far in his career, I think he deserves to be this high up.

7. Steve Nash
Seasons - 2003-04 to 2009-10
You can argue that he should be above Chris Paul on this list, but Paul does more for his team than Nash does. They're both distributors, and scorers, but CP3 brings more to the table defensively, and collects more rebounds. There's also the fact that Nash's AST/TO ratio is significantly lower than Paul's. Still, what Nash has done so far in his career is obviously top 10 worthy. He consistently scores and gets his 10 apg, and gets consistent 50-40-90 seasons, usually always top 5 in TS%.

8. Isiah Thomas
Seasons - 1983-84 to 1989-90
If benji didn't point out the fact that he always had the ball, I'd most likely have put him higher on this list. His stats look very convincing, but his career AST/TO ratio is at about 2.45. Yikes. What he did with that many touches is still impressive, though.

9. Jason Kidd
Seasons - 1998-99 to 2004-05
I'm surprised others have put him higher on their list. He has the lowest FG% on my list, but there's no denying his amazing passing skills and the way he runs the break. Carried the Nets to two consecutive Finals appearances, but unfortunately has not won a championship. The fact that he shoots inefficiently makes me reluctant to put him any higher up than this.

10. Mark Price
Seasons - 1988-89 to 1994-95 (joining the 90-91 and 94-95 season)
Turned the ball over a little too much for someone who didn't get as many assists as those above him. Efficient offensively however (making consistent top 10 TS% appearances), I think of him as a 90's Steve Nash.

So yeah, looking forward to the SF's thread.