Top 10 PGs of All-Time

[GP_20]

John Stockton should be 3rd and Kevin Johnson should be ahead of Jason Kidd if you ask me, rest are solid.

Kevin Johnson in his prime was better than Jason Kidd in his prime, yes. However, due to Kidd's longevity, I gave Kidd the edge over KJ. The same way I gave Stockton the edge over Payton due to his extra longevity.

[GP_20]

Also to add to Tiny Archibald, it's not just that he didn't make playoffs very often in his prime.

Only once in his prime was he on a team that didn't have a losing season.
All the numbers, and whatever you put in during your prime, really don't mean much. Because they were on horrible teams. It's like we are comparing Durant and Granger's statlines with Kobe and Carmelo, and declaring Durant/Granger better. Not only that, it's a widely known fact that Tiny dominated the ball very much, which gave him better stats, but prevented his teammates from contributing. No wonder he missed playoffs.

[Showtime]

My real top 10:

Magic
Oscar
Stockton
Zeke
Clyde
Cousy
Kidd
GP
Goodrich
Tiny

Stockton through Kidd could be interchangeable depending on the criteria, but all those guys could be placed top 5 with solid arguments. Nash doesn't sniff top 10. Nash belongs with guys like Mark Price, Fat Lever, Tim Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, etc. Hell, he won't even be better than Parker, Deron, Paul, etc when it's all said and done.

HM goes to Dennis Johnson.

[Mikaiel]

Did you say "funny" because of that?

Because winning a ring as a number 2 option isn't that great of a thing for a #2 All-Time great PG, that's why it was listed in his disadvantages. Furthermore, the players in front and behind him won rings as number one options. Advantages and disadvantages section explained why they weren't ranked higher, and that's the reason for Oscar. For Payton, the player above him, and 4 out of the 5 below Payton failed to win a ring. So it makes sense there.


You have to see the whole picture before you decide to think something is funny. Otherwise, the joke is on you.

No, that was funny because you said Oscar winning his only ring as a #2 is a bad thing, but then right after that you said one of Payton's advantages was that he had a ring

[Roundball_Rock]

Kidd and Nash are underrated on your list, other than that it is a very good one. Nash does not have as many great seasons as most great players--but the reasons for this are on your list: Kevin Johnson and Jason Kidd. He could not put up great stats when he was on the bench behind two of the greatest PG's ever.

[GP_20]

My real top 10:

Magic
Oscar
Stockton
Zeke
Clyde
Cousy
Kidd
GP
Goodrich
Tiny

Stockton through Cousy could be interchangeable depending on the criteria, but all those guys could be placed top 5 with solid arguments. Nash doesn't sniff top 10. Nash belongs with guys like Mark Price, Fat Lever, Tim Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, etc. Hell, he won't even be better than Parker, Deron, Paul, etc when it's all said and done.

HM goes to Dennis Johnson.

Goodrich? Tiny? You've got to be kidding me.

Correct me if I'm wrong. We were talking about PGs here.

And Gail Goodrich, has passed over 7apg just once in his career. While having only 1 All-NBA selection in his career. Are you serious? :confusedshrug

Awards/Accomplishments


Nash:

3 All-NBA 1st Selections
1 All-NBA 2nd Selection
2 All-NBA 3rd Selections
6 Time All-Star
2 Time MVP
3 Assist Titles



Goodrich:

1 All-NBA 1st Selection
5 Time All-Star
0 Assist Titles


Maybe Nash didn't deserve all his awards, but when the comparison is this one-sided, I'll take the more accomplished player 10/10 times.


But really, are you out of your mind putting a player with only 1 All-NBA selection in his career in Top #10 anything? Do you realize how stupid and ridiculous this sounds? Are you Gail Goodrich? Especially considering that he isn't even a good passer which is needed for these PG lists.

[GP_20]

No, that was funny because you said Oscar winning his only ring as a #2 is a bad thing, but then right after that you said one of Payton's advantages was that he had a ring

Yeah and its all in context like I explained. At the #2 spot, thats a bad thing. But at the #6 spot thats a good thing. Because the players near them either had rings or didn't (In Big O's case, they did, in GP's case they didn't). It's all in context.

If I had Payton at #2 it would be a bad thing, and if I had Big O at #6, it would be a good thing.

[GP_20]

Kidd and Nash are underrated on your list, other than that it is a very good one. Nash does not have as many great seasons as most great players--but the reasons for this are on your list: Kevin Johnson and Jason Kidd. He could not put up great stats when he was on the bench behind two of the greatest PG's ever.

Yeah for 1 season. He spent some more seasons on the bench though.

[GP_20]

Also I love how stupid some posters on ISH are. They rank Tiny in Top 10. Either they don't know he has led his team to a winning record just once in his prime, or either they have some major double standards.

If they rank Tiny in Top 10, taking his statistics and ignoring the fact that he has been on a losing team in his prime all but once, then I better see them rank players like Bosh over KG, Al Jefferson over Duncan, Granger over Carmelo. Yes thats how brilliant ranking Tiny in top 10 is.

[lakers_forever]

Also I love how stupid some posters on ISH are. They rank Tiny in Top 10. Either they don't know he has led his team to a winning record just once in his prime, or either they have some major double standards.

If they rank Tiny in Top 10, taking his statistics and ignoring the fact that he has been on a losing team in his prime all but once, then I better see them rank players like Bosh over KG, Al Jefferson over Duncan, Granger over Carmelo. Yes thats how brilliant ranking Tiny in top 10 is.

If you don't respect other fans opinion, what are you doing in an online forum, making threads with top 10 and all?

[GP_20]

If you don't respect other fans opinion, what are you doing in an online forum, making threads with top 10 and all?

I do respect them. But I don't want anyone to come telling me Al Jefferson is better than Tim Duncan because of his stats.

I think I've shut down the Tiny Top 10 argument. No one has been able to counter it. And it's really just practical. You finish in a losing team every year besides 1? Gary Payton for example, has never in his career finished on a losing team despite having some awful starcasts and playing in a very strong conference. The only other players who can claim that today are O'Neal and Duncan.

[Showtime]

Goodrich? Tiny? You've got to be kidding me.

Correct me if I'm wrong. We were talking about PGs here.

And Gail Goodrich, has passed over 7apg just once in his career. While having only 1 All-NBA selection in his career. Are you serious? :confusedshrug

Awards/Accomplishments


Nash:

3 All-NBA 1st Selections
1 All-NBA 2nd Selection
2 All-NBA 3rd Selections
6 Time All-Star
2 Time MVP
3 Assist Titles



Goodrich:

1 All-NBA 1st Selection
5 Time All-Star
0 Assist Titles


Maybe Nash didn't deserve all his awards, but when the comparison is this one-sided, I'll take the more accomplished player 10/10 times.


But really, are you out of your mind putting a player with only 1 All-NBA selection in his career in Top #10 anything? Do you realize how stupid and ridiculous this sounds? Are you Gail Goodrich? Especially considering that he isn't even a good passer which is needed for these PG lists.

You judge point guard play on assists alone? Walt Frazier's best season was 8 assists, and the rest of his career the closest he got was 6.9. His career average is 6.1. Yet, he's one of the best two-way players in NBA history, and arguably a top 5 PG of all time. I don't judge point guard play on only assists.

And say what you will of Goodrich, but he was a good scorer and passer who won. Hell, in the 72 season, he lead the lakers in scoring (both regular season and playoffs), and played all 82 games and was key in their championship run that year (the same year as their 33 game winning streak). Granted, he was more scorer than facilitator at that point because West handled the ball more. The following season, he did the same thing in leading the team in scoring, and the team made it to the finals where the Knicks beat them. In fact, he lead the team in scoring for several years as West's career wound down and before Kareem came on board. He was no slouch and deserves more respect IMO. Maybe that's why I rank him higher than he should be. Oh, and let's not forget his college play.

And more on that point: does Tony Parker have a lower rank because he was more of a scorer than facilitator? What about Dennis Johnson who didn't stun people with his assist numbers?

Irregardless, both GG, DJ, Hardaway, Johnson, Penny, etc were players that were better or had a better career than Nash.

[GP_20]

You judge point guard play on assists alone? Walt Frazier's best season was 8 assists, and the rest of his career the closest he got was 6.9. His career average is 6.1. Yet, he's one of the best two-way players in NBA history, and arguably a top 5 PG of all time. I don't judge point guard play on only assists.

I don't either. I was just pointing out that he isn't as good of a passer as you would like out of your PG. And I used apg to back myself up. And Goodrich is not a "good" passing PG compared to the greats we are talking about.

And say what you will of Goodrich, but he was a good scorer and passer who won. Hell, in the 72 season, he lead the lakers in scoring (both regular season and playoffs), and played all 82 games and was key in their championship run that year (the same year as their 33 game winning streak). Granted, he was more scorer than facilitator at that point because West handled the ball more. The following season, he did the same thing in leading the team in scoring, and the team made it to the finals where the Knicks beat them. In fact, he lead the team in scoring for several years as West's career wound down and before Kareem came on board. He was no slouch and deserves more respect IMO. Maybe that's why I rank him higher than he should be. Oh, and let's not forget his college play.

I know he was a great scorer, and won a ring as the 3rd best player. Ok?

But at the end of the day Showtime, he made it to 1 All-NBA Team in his whole career. Do you know how pathetic that sounds? All it takes is 2 great seasons and you are there. Goodrich was never able to. This alone should take him out of the discussion. Just think for a second. Please. 1 All-NBA selection. I mean f*uck, are you serious????? I still can't believe I'm hearing this. Even players like Marbury, Glen Rice, and Arenas have made more than 1. It's really not that hard, and if you are Top 10 material, you should have more than 1. (EASILY)

And more on that point: does Tony Parker have a lower rank because he was more of a scorer than facilitator? What about Dennis Johnson who didn't stun people with his assist numbers?

Irregardless, both GG, DJ, Hardaway, Johnson, Penny, etc were players that were better or had a better career than Nash.

Obviously when ranking PGs we are going to weight passing a little more than when ranking players. Parker is hurt by not being as good of a passer, but that alone won't stop him from being a Top 10 PG. Frazier didn't have great passing numbers either, he fell to 7th, but still is Top 10 material.




I'm going to be honest Showtime, I used to have respect for you as a poster. I thought you were rational. But after hearing Goodrich for Top 10 PG, it's gone. Fine, I'm going to give one more benefit of the doubt and think you only put Goodrich there because of his college play. We aren't talking about College here...

[Showtime]

I don't either. I was just pointing out that he isn't as good of a passer as you would like out of your PG. And I used apg to back myself up. And Goodrich is not a "good" passing PG compared to the greats we are talking about.

I don't care. Mark Jackson is arguably a better passer than many more PGs that are considered superior players.

I know he was a great scorer, and won a ring or 2 as the 3rd best player. Ok?

It's more than Nash has EVER been able to accomplish in a watered down west with a top talented (and heavily favored) team in an offensively-friendly league.

But at the end of the day Showtime, he made it to 1 All-NBA Team in his whole career. Do you know how pathetic that sounds? All it takes is 2 great seasons and you are there. Goodrich was never able to. This alone should take him out of the discussion. Just think for a second. Please. 1 All-NBA selection. I mean f*uck, are you serious????? I still can't believe I'm hearing this. Even players like Marbury, Glen Rice, and Arenas have made more than 1. It's really not that hard, and if you are Top 10 material, you should have more than 1. (EASILY)

This is exactly my point. Do those selections (or lackthereof) determine who was the better player or who had the better career? According to you, it does. IMO, it doesn't. So, in your viewpoint, should Marbury be ranked higher than Goodrich? Let's take a look at this:

They started having 3rd teams in '89, and before that, they only had first and second teams. So for arguments sake, let's look at first and second team selections, as those are samples everybody has had.

Marbury has two 3rd team selections. ZERO second or first teams.

Rod Strickland has a 2nd team selection.

Mark Price has four total (one 1st team, three 3rd team).

Do those selections mean that they are better than Goodrich?

Did they have the all time great talent ahead of them on those all-nba teams like Jerry West, Walt Frazier, and Oscar Robertson? Guys like that took up spots, you know. I'm sure if they had a third team, you would have seen his name up there more. You might forget that those are annual awards on the best players, so obviously the level of guard competition effects the choices. I don't know anybody that would rank Price ahead of Goodrich. Is Rod going to the HOF because of that all-nba second teams?

I'm going to be honest Showtime, I used to have respect for you as a poster. I thought you were rational. But after hearing Goodrich for Top 10 PG, it's gone. Fine, I'm going to give one more benefit of the doubt and think you only put Goodrich there because of his college play. We aren't talking about College here...

I already admitted I put him there, probably higher than he should be, based upon the lack of respect he gets. But honestly, he's accomplished more in his career than many other point guards that are considered superior players. I don't base everything on awards, because then I would end up with Marbury or Price ranking higher. Certainly you don't think that logic is respectable.

[GP_20]

I don't care. Mark Jackson is arguably a better passer than many more PGs that are considered superior players.

Once again, I didn't say passing is the only thing that counts. But it is one of the most important here because we are talking about PGs.

This is exactly my point. Do those selections (or lackthereof) determine who was the better player or who had the better career? According to you, it does. IMO, it doesn't. So, in your viewpoint, should Marbury be ranked higher than Goodrich? Let's take a look at this:

They started having 3rd teams in '89, and before that, they only had first and second teams. So for arguments sake, let's look at first and second team selections, as those are samples everybody has had.

Marbury has two 3rd team selections. ZERO second or first teams.

Rod Strickland has a 2nd team selection.

Mark Price has four total (one 1st team, three 3rd team).

Do those selections mean that they are better than Goodrich?

Did they have the all time great talent ahead of them on those all-nba teams like Jerry West, Walt Frazier, and Oscar Robertson? Guys like that took up spots, you know. I'm sure if they had a third team, you would have seen his name up there more. You might forget that those are annual awards on the best players, so obviously the level of guard competition effects the choices. I don't know anybody that would rank Rod Stickland ahead of Goodrich. Is Rod going to the HOF because of those two all-nba second teams?

I wouldn't rank Rod over Goodrich either. 1st of all, Rod only made 1 All-NBA Team just like Goodrich, and it was All-2nd team. So even with the Award logic, Rod ranks behind Goodrich. So I don't know where you got that Rod would be ahead of Goodrich based on awards.

2nd of all, there is tough competition in every era. Some tougher than others thats true.

But it's not 1 All-NBA Selection vs. 2. The difference between Nash and Goodrich's awards is astronomical. The difference between Goodrich and anyone on the list is huge. If it was close, sure you can argue competition, but it's not close.

That's why you just can't have Goodrich in The Top 10 PG list. You just can't have anyone with 1 All-NBA selection on any Top 10 list.

I already admitted I put him there, probably higher than he should be, based upon the lack of respect he gets. But honestly, he's accomplished more in his career than many other point guards that are considered superior players. I don't base everything on awards, because then I would end up with Strickland ranking higher. Certainly you don't think that logic is respectable.

Yeah, well now isn't the time to give him as much respect as he deserves. I agree he is underrated. But he has no business in the Top 10 PG list. And I don't base everything on awards either. But I do place value in awards. And when differences are that great between 2 players, its clear who is better. Unless you had some great excuse such as injuries, or much tougher competition, both which don't seem to be the case here. But yeah, I do place value in awards (and rightfully so), I can't just completely ignore them.

And once again, Stickland isn't over Goodrich even based purely on awards.