# Top ten shooting guards in NBA history



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

Here is my list.

1)MJ
2)Kobe
3)West
4)AI
5)Clyde
6)Gervin
7)Wade
8)R.Allen
9)Miller
10)Pistol

Honorable mentions-Dumars, Monroe

I think when it is all said and done, D-Wade will pass Gervin, Clyde, AI and become number four on my list.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

1)Michael Jordan
2)Kobe Bryant
3)Jerry West
4)Dwyane Wade
5)Clyde Drexler
6)George Gervin
7) Allen Iverson
8)Ray Allen
9)Reggie Miller
10) T-Mac, i'm not really sure..


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

1.) Michael Air Jordan
2.) Kobe Black Mamba Bryant
3.) Jerry Mr. Clutch West
4.) Clyde The Glide Drexler
5.) George Ice Man Gervin
6.) Allen The Answer Iverson
7.) Reggie Miller Time Miller
8.) Pete Pistol Maravich
9.) Earl The Pearl Monroe
10.) Dwyane Flash Wade


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> 1.) Michael Air Jordan
> 2.) Kobe Black Mamba Bryant
> 3.) Jerry Mr. Clutch West
> 4.) Clyde The Glide Drexler
> ...


Wade at ten? Are you joking? He's heads and shoulders above anyone not named Michael, Kobe, or Jerry.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

VanillaPrice said:


> Wade at ten? Are you joking? He's heads and shoulders above anyone not named Michael, Kobe, or Jerry.


I do think Wade is too low at 10, not top five yet IMO. But will eventually be there if he stays healthy.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Game3525 said:


> I do think Wade is too low at 10, not top five yet IMO. But will eventually be there if he stays healthy.


He's the only one besides Kobe and Jordan that led a team to a 'ship as a first option, and his individual plays blows all but three of them out of the water.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

VanillaPrice said:


> He's the only one besides Kobe and Jordan that led a team to a 'ship as a first option, and his individual plays blows all but three of them out of the water.


True, but his ability to stay healthy is what kept him out of top five IMO. Who knows if he can play like this when he is 30, but they said the same thing about AI, so who knows.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Game3525 said:


> True, but his ability to stay healthy is what kept him out of top five IMO. Who knows if he can play like this when he is 30, but they said the same thing about AI, so who knows.


If you look at peak impact then it's not even close.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

VanillaPrice said:


> If you look at peak impact then it's not even close.


That is true, at his best he is better then anyone on the list not named MJ or Kobe.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

at his peak you could argue tmac at 4. but his career ultimately doesn't warrant a 4 spot. 

it really gets hard when judging longevity with peak and how much weight to give each.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

kflo said:


> at his peak you could argue tmac at 4. but his career ultimately doesn't warrant a 4 spot.
> 
> it really gets hard when judging longevity with peak and how much weight to give each.


That is a good point because McGrady from 2000-2005 was as good as they come.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*My list of the elite shooting guards*

IMO, a player is going to have to play a minimum of 10 seasons or retired before being listed. My list is a subjective combination of longevity, high levels of performance and overall impact on the game:

1.) Michael Jordan
2.) Jerry West
3.) Kobe Bryant
4.) George Gervin
5.) Allen Iverson

6.) Clyde Drexler
7.) Sidney Moncrief
8.) Tracy McGrady
9.) Dave Bing
10.) Sam Jones


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

*Re: My list of the elite shooting guards*



Najee said:


> IMO, a player is going to have to play a minimum of 10 seasons before being listed. My list is a subjective combination of longevity, high levels of performance and overall impact on the game:
> 
> 1.) Michael Jordan
> 2.) Jerry West
> ...



Kobe past Jerry with his latest 'ship.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

It's your opinion, Vanilla Price. Just like it's my opinion Jerry West is ahead of Kobe Bryant -- neither is right or wrong.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Wade in the top 5 from some of you? Its not like anyone here can't see the possibility of Wade being an injury prone shell of himself by 30. I'd say its about 50/50 of him continuing to be a force of destruction on the league, and getting hurt yet again and begin losing a step or two.


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

Najee said:


> It's your opinion, Vanilla Price. Just like it's my opinion Jerry West is ahead of Kobe Bryant -- neither is right or wrong.


I will have to agree with Vanilla, Kobe has surpassed Jerry West on the all-time 2 guards list.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

there's no wrong answer between west and kobe. i'd pick kobe, but it's obviously close.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

For purposes of these lists I consider West and Maravich to be PGs. They consistently led their respective teams in assists and were the primary ballhandler and playmaker pretty much wherever they played. 

With that said, here's my quick list, with distance indicating tiers:

1) Michael Jordan
2) Kobe Bryant

3) Clyde Drexler
4) George Gervin

5) Dwyane Wade (has plenty of time to move up)
6) Allen Iverson

big drop here...

7) Tracy McGrady (incredible peak, but short and controversial)
8) Sidney Moncrief
9) Joe Dumars
10) Vince Carter


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Vince Carter should in no way be mentioned over Reggie Miller.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

If we're talking about basketball in general as opposed to solely the NBA I think this guy would fit in a top 10 list no problem; no one's really matched his level of dominance on the levels he has in terms of winning:

*Manu GINNOOOOBBILLII*

No one matches up with Ginobili's level of accomplishments internationally and he's got a one-of-a-kind type of game while being able to put up Kobe-esque numbers. Here are some of his accomplishments taken from his Wiki:


> Euroleague Final Four Most Valuable Player: 2001, FIBA Americas Championship Most Valuable Player: 2001, Italian Cup Most Valuable Player: 2002, Italian League Championship: 2001, Italian Cup: 2001, 2002; Euroleague: 2001, Triple Crown: 2001, Americas Championship: 2001, NBA Championship: 2003, 2005, 2007, Summer Olympic Games gold medal: 2004;
> Summer Olympic Games bronze medal: 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Ginóbili#Player_profile


However for the topic itself I more or less agree with Mark Simon's list with a couple of exceptions and I've even thrown Jerry West into the mix despite my bias against his era. The quoted stuff is taken from the ESPN article here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=080306-SGtidbits 

1. Michael Jordan -


> • Michael Jordan has the most seasons of any NBA/ABA guard, scoring at least 25 points per game while shooting 50 percent or better from the field. He had six such years. George Gervin and David Thompson rank second with four.
> 
> • If you ever want to stump your friends with a tricky trivia question, try this one: Against which NBA team did Jordan average his lowest regular-season point total?
> 
> ...


2. Kobe Bryant 

3. Jerry West - He's the friggin NBA logo which gives him a pass despite playing in an arguably much-overrated era.

4. George Gervin

5. Allen Iverson - Even though he's still playing his career speaks for itself and he's probably the smallest person you'll see on any NBA GOATs list. He also impacted basketball in a way few players do since his street personality and undersized body probably made more people play and follow basketball than most of his counterparts imo. His prime is defnitely behind him though in terms of impact both on and off the court.

6. Clyde Drexeler:


> • Only three players in NBA history have registered 20,000 points, 6,000 rebounds and 6,000 assists: Oscar Robertson, John Havlicek and Clyde Drexler.
> 
> • Drexler ranks sixth in NBA history with 2,207 career steals, and had 100-plus steals in a season 13 times. Yet he was never selected to the NBA's All-Defensive Team.
> 
> • Drexler holds one odd NBA record. He's 12-for-12 all-time at the free-throw line in the NBA All-Star Game, the most total makes without a miss in All-Star history.


7. Reggie Miller - Definition of clutch although his sportscasting "talent" makes me want to remove him from the list altogether.

8. Ray Allen - He's on track to beat Reggie, I'd say Allen has the best form out of anybody on this list and he'd probably be my go-to guy to sink a clutch jumper and thats saying a lot since Reggie is hovering above.

9. Joe Dumars - One of the best SG to play defense if not the best. 

10. Oscar Robertson - Even though I think his era is overrated and almost irrelevant there's no denying his historical impact.

D-wade and T-mac need to accomplish more in their career and have a few more seasons of playing at a high level before either breaks the top 10 and right now Dwade has much better chances than his unfortunately often injured counterpart. Wade's also too young imo to belong on this list.


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

wow, jericho, totally dismissing the NBA logo man?


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Too late, I've already committed the sin willingly.

Miller was a better shooter (although Carter has become a very good one). He certainly made a name for himself in the clutch (although so did Robert Horry). To my mind, Miller's most important attribute may have been his fiery competitiveness. If Carter had had that, ol' Vince could rank much higher on all these lists.

Balance all that with the fact that Carter was a significantly better rebounder, playmaker, and all-around scorer, and arguably a better defender. 

Carter has/had more talent, but Miller had the killer instinct. Put the two of them together and you'd have a player somewhere between Kobe and Gervin...not too shabby.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

chairman5 said:


> wow, jericho, totally dismissing the NBA logo man?


Read the first sentence of my post...he's a point guard.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

jericho said:


> Too late, I've already committed the sin willingly.
> 
> Miller was a better shooter (although Carter has become a very good one). He certainly made a name for himself in the clutch (although so did Robert Horry). To my mind, Miller's most important attribute may have been his fiery competitiveness. If Carter had had that, ol' Vince could rank much higher on all these lists.
> 
> ...


Vince's shooting and Reggie's shooting shouldn't be mentioned together. That's like comparing Reggie's dunking to Vince's.
Vince was a better rebounder, I don't think he was a better passer, he just demanded the ball more so he gets more touches. Reggie's defense wasn't great, but is widely considered to have been underrated. Still not sure if that would be better than Vince's D though. Both are average at best when it comes to D.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Honestly, debating Miller vs. Carter just underscores my opinion that SG is the shallowest of the five traditional positions, in terms of depth of talent historically.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

I like jericho's list. only my last three would look like this;

8) Joe Dumars
9) Vince Carter
10) Reggie Miller


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

and like jericho, I think its a tragedy that Vince isn't at least in the top five. so much talent...yet he fell below it all.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

JT said:


> and like jericho, I think its a tragedy that Vince isn't at least in the top five. so much talent...yet he fell below it all.


Why not put all other highly talented guards up on the list who fell short as well then? Other than being the greatest dunker of all time, I'm not sure what Vince has done to warrant being on the top 10. If its for career then Vince and Tracy shouldn't be on the list. If its for singular years, then yea, I could see either making it.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

First, West, Bing, and Maravich were PGs . . . they brought the ball upcourt, set up their teams offense, and led their teams in assists just about every year they played . . . they were just scoring points.

Second, based on impact on the league Iverson belongs in there but if it's about the top 10 guys I'd want given their entire history and performances in the league, I don't want him. Same goes even more for Maravich.

That said . . . 

Jordan
Bryant (Oscar and West are PGs, I probably rate them Bryant, West, Oscar as SGs if you think anyone that scores a lot is a SG, but that is subject to daily changes right now)
Drexler 
Moncrief (if Havlicek counts as a SG, he goes here)
Gervin (he's a no defense gunner too . . . the difference is he is an efficient one; most dangerous wing scorer ever next to MJ)

Sam Jones 
Joe Dumars
Ray Allen (the 3 is the greatest invention for SGs since the jump shot)
Reggie Miller (see Ray Allen -- only Reggie didn't shoot as many 3s in an average year)
Dwayne Wade (has accomplished more than TMac despite the shortness of his career)


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

I guess with some players it's a matter of defining their roles. For instance, I don't see the difference between the role Dave Bing played for Detroit and the role Dwyane Wade plays for Miami -- namely, combination guards who typically handled the ball for their teams, did the scoring and (as a byproduct of handling the ball so much) generally leads their teams in assists.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Why not put all other highly talented guards up on the list who fell short as well then? Other than being the greatest dunker of all time, I'm not sure what Vince has done to warrant being on the top 10. If its for career then Vince and Tracy shouldn't be on the list. If its for singular years, then yea, I could see either making it.


tmac had a 7 year period of no question being a top 10 player in the league with a few of those years him legitimately being a candidate to be the best player in the league(and definitely was top 5). he absolutely belongs on the list and definitely has an argument to approach the top 5.

as for vince, he belongs in the discussion to be at the end of the list. does he make the list? that really depends on the person but i can't see him being too far off.

reggie miller's problem is that while he was very good for a long time, he never really had a peak that could compete with some of these other guys. i mean tmac had 6 years better than reggie's best season(and it would have been 7 had one not been cut short due to injury).


----------



## Game3525 (Aug 14, 2008)

rocketeer said:


> tmac had a 7 year period of no question being a top 10 player in the league with a few of those years him legitimately being a candidate to be the best player in the league(and definitely was top 5). he absolutely belongs on the list and definitely has an argument to approach the top 5.
> 
> as for vince, he belongs in the discussion to be at the end of the list. does he make the list? that really depends on the person but i can't see him being too far off.
> 
> reggie miller's problem is that while he was very good for a long time, he never really had a peak that could compete with some of these other guys. i mean tmac had 6 years better than reggie's best season(and it would have been 7 had one not been cut short due to injury).


Reggie Miller when you look at was one-dimensional. If T-Mac was able to stay healthy, I would have no problem bumping him off my top ten. Reggie has the clutchness, but one can say McGrady has had the better individual career.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

It's a matter of the role they play and the people they play next to. In Miami, Chalmers usually brings the ball up though he doesn't really create much for others. Jason Williams also played that role next to Wade, and their assist %'s are much closer to Wade's, they just play less minutes. 

In Detroit, Bing was usually the guy bringing the ball up, though not always, and usually the leader in assists/minute. In LA, West led Laker guards in assists/game every year of his career -- had this discussion with someone who was using his 1970 incarnation in a league. In 1970, West had "only" 6.9 assists but his backcourt partner had only 2.4. 

The real confuser is when a forward acts as the point like Paul Pressey did in Milwaukee. Pressey brought the ball up, set up the offense, and led the team in assists but defensively was clearly playing forward for them so he was called a forward (and Brian Winters, a classic catch and shoot guy, was called the PG just for size reasons). If Magic had played with Nixon AND Scott instead of one of them and Worthy as starters, he would be considered a forward too. It's not that important anyway except that we are here because we like arguing about basketball. 

Try the size threads -- it makes a different set of comparisoms that the positional ones -- again, just for fun (I think the positional ones mean more actually).


----------



## emofree (Jul 23, 2009)

For me ... my top 10 SG in NBA History 

1. Michael Jordan
2. Jerry West
3. George Gervin
4. Joe Dumars 
5. Pete Maravich
6. Clyde Drexler
7. Reggie Miller
8. Allen Iverson
9. Vince Carter
10. Mitch Richmond


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

*RWE's Top 10 SGs*

I love these threads. I'm sorry I'm just noticing it now. 

First, I'd like to speak on the position battles. BadBaron stole some of my thunder, but I see Jerry West, Penny Hardaway, and Pete Maravich as scoring PGs. I see Dave Bing, Dwayne Wade, and Earl Monroe as undersized SGs who dominate the ball like PGs. The other major difference you’ll see on my list compared to some others is the absence of Tracy McGrady. I have actually gone through the trouble of looking up game logs throughout his career to prove this point so I won’t bore you with the details, but McGrady has definitely played about three fifths of his career at SF and only two fifths of it at SG. For any all-time rankings, I consider him a SF.

Second, I will bring the statistical discussion to the table before I provide my subjective rankings. Here is a list of the top 20 shooting guards ranked by prime-level PER. In case anyone is interested, I define a player’s prime statistically by the number of years a player was above or around their career average production.

```
<TABLE border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="2" summary="Table Template">
  <TR>
    <TH colspan="8" align=center scope="colgroup">All-time NBA SGs (sorted by Prime PER)</TH>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TH>#</TH>
    <TH>Name</TH>
    <TH>Prime PER</TH>
    <TH>Career PER</TH>
    <TH>Prime Length</TH>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">1</TD>
    <TD>Michael Jordan</TD>
    <TD align=center>29.9</TD>
    <TD align=center>27.9</TD>
    <TD align=center>10</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">2</TD>
    <TD>Dwayne Wade</TD>
    <TD align=center>26.3</TD>
    <TD align=center>25.2</TD>
    <TD align=center>5</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">3</TD>
    <TD>Kobe Bryant</TD>
    <TD align=center>24.7</TD>
    <TD align=center>23.6</TD>
    <TD align=center>9</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">4</TD>
    <TD>Vince Carter</TD>
    <TD align=center>22.5</TD>
    <TD align=center>21.4</TD>
    <TD align=center>8</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">5</TD>
    <TD>George Gervin</TD>
    <TD align=center>22.3</TD>
    <TD align=center>21.4</TD>
    <TD align=center>10</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">6</TD>
    <TD>Allen Iverson</TD>
    <TD align=center>22.1</TD>
    <TD align=center>21.1</TD>
    <TD align=center>9</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">7</TD>
    <TD>Clyde Drexler</TD>
    <TD align=center>21.9</TD>
    <TD align=center>21.1</TD>
    <TD align=center>9</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">8</TD>
    <TD>Paul Westphal</TD>
    <TD align=center>21.8</TD>
    <TD align=center>19.4</TD>
    <TD align=center>5</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">9</TD>
    <TD>Ray Allen</TD>
    <TD align=center>21.6</TD>
    <TD align=center>19.7</TD>
    <TD align=center>7</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">10</TD>
    <TD>Bill Sharman</TD>
    <TD align=center>21.3</TD>
    <TD align=center>19.7</TD>
    <TD align=center>6</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">11</TD>
    <TD>David Thompson</TD>
    <TD align=center>20.4</TD>
    <TD align=center>19.9</TD>
    <TD align=center>6</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">12</TD>
    <TD>Walter Davis</TD>
    <TD align=center>20.2</TD>
    <TD align=center>19.1</TD>
    <TD align=center>7</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">13</TD>
    <TD>Sidney Moncrief</TD>
    <TD align=center>20.1</TD>
    <TD align=center>18.7</TD>
    <TD align=center>6</TD>
   </TR>  
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">14</TD>
    <TD>Reggie Miller</TD>
    <TD align=center>19.8</TD>
    <TD align=center>18.4</TD>
    <TD align=center>10</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">15</TD>
    <TD>World B. Free</TD>
    <TD align=center>19.7</TD>
    <TD align=center>18.8</TD>
    <TD align=center>9</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">16</TD>
    <TD>Mitch Richmond</TD>
    <TD align=center>19.2</TD>
    <TD align=center>17.6</TD>
    <TD align=center>5</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">17</TD>
    <TD>Sam Jones</TD>
    <TD align=center>18.7</TD>
    <TD align=center>18.4</TD>
    <TD align=center>10</TD>
   </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">18</TD>
    <TD>Alvin Robertson</TD>
    <TD align=center>18.6</TD>
    <TD align=center>17.0</TD>
    <TD align=center>6</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">19</TD>
    <TD>Earl Monroe</TD>
    <TD align=center>17.7</TD>
    <TD align=center>17.2</TD>
    <TD align=center>4 (2x)</TD>
  </TR>
  <TR>
    <TD scope="row">20</TD>
    <TD>Joe Dumars</TD>
    <TD align=center>16.9</TD>
    <TD align=center>15.3</TD>
    <TD align=center>6</TD>
  </TR>
  </TABLE>
```
In case any of you are unfamiliar with the statistic, PER basically collects all the measurable production values in the basketball statistics game into a nice, neat number. For some perspective, average SGs in the NBA each year usually have a PER somewhere between 14.3 and 14.8. 

Since defense cannot adequately be measured by using any currently available public statistical evaluations, a conversation like this warrants some discussion of that side of the ball. In that top 20 list, I would consider moving a few players up based on their prime level defensive abilities. I think Joe Dumars, Sam Jones, Sidney Moncrief, Michael Jordan, and to a lesser extent Alvin Robertson, Clyde Drexler, and Kobe Bryant certainly fit that criteria. 

Finally, I will throw in the subjective part of the discussion while I give you my list separated into tiers.

*ELITE TIER*
1.	Michael Jordan
2.	Kobe Bryant – 4 championships as best or second best player

*DIVERSE TIER*
3.	Clyde Drexler
4.	Dwayne Wade – Has not played enough years yet to be any higher

*TOP DEFENDERS*
5.	Sidney Moncrief – best defensive SG in history makes his way into the top 5
6.	Sam Jones – 10 championships as a top 4 player on his team

*TOP SCORERS*
7.	George Gervin
8.	Allen Iverson
9.	Vince Carter

*SOMEBODY HAD TO BE 10TH*
10.	Ray Allen – barely edges out Reggie, Bing, and Pearl

Tier 4 could really be organized in any order for my taste. They were all one-way players with a talent for dominating on offense. None of them won any championships.

Westphal just missed sneaking his way into the top 10 by having the best prime (albeit a short one) of any remaining SG. David Thompson’s prime was also meteorically high, but I would go with Westphal by a nose in that discussion. The next tier of offensive specialists behind tier 4 on my list would then be ranked next in some order. I would probably go with Reggie Miller, Gail Goodrich, Earl Monroe, Bill Sharman, Mitch Richmond, and World B. Free in that order. Somewhere in the middle of that tier, I’d put Joe Dumars, Hal Greer, Dave Bing, and Alvin Robertson. 

Overall, I’m in complete agreement that SG is the weakest position in basketball historically.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

The greatest shooting guards in NBA history were/are Tony Allen, Jamaal Tinsley, and Ticky Burden.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

emofree said:


> For me ... my top 10 SG in NBA History
> 
> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Jerry West
> ...


I hope it was just an accident that you left Kobe out.


----------



## emofree (Jul 23, 2009)

Basel said:


> I hope it was just an accident that you left Kobe out.


hehehe oops my bad yup your right I forgot about Kobe (head slap) ... I think I can insert Kobe in and replacing Allen Iverson ... :champagne:


----------



## Stan Van Gundy (Jul 15, 2009)

*Re: My list of the elite shooting guards*



Najee said:


> IMO, a player is going to have to play a minimum of 10 seasons or retired before being listed. My list is a subjective combination of longevity, high levels of performance and overall impact on the game:
> 
> 1.) Michael Jordan
> 2.) Jerry West
> ...



I agree with your list Najee, but I would switch Iverson and Drexler. Great list though.

Edit - Matter of fact, I gotta scratch that. Here's my list.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Jerry West
3. Kobe Bryant
4. George Gervin
5. Clyde Drexler
6. Sidney Moncrief
7. Tracy McGrady
8. Dave Bing
9. Sam Jones
10. Reggie Miller


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

emofree said:


> hehehe oops my bad yup your right I forgot about Kobe (head slap) ... I think I can insert Kobe in and replacing Allen Iverson ... :champagne:


So you think Kobe is only the 8th best SG in NBA history?


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: My list of the elite shooting guards*



Stan Van Gundy said:


> I agree with your list Najee, but I would switch Iverson and Drexler. Great list though.


I originally had Clyde Drexler ahead of Allen Iverson, but switched it recently. The more I thought about, the more I feel Iverson was a more dominant player than Drexler (who is one of my all-time favorite players). Sometimes, it seems like people underrate Iverson too much, given his accomplishments.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

*Re: My list of the elite shooting guards*



> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Jerry West
> 3. Kobe Bryant
> 4. George Gervin
> ...


Ranking McGrady or Miller over Iverson is pretty silly. Iverson was a better scorer, handler, passer and leader than either of them, and he has a much better playoff history, with less talent than McGrady. Miller has a much better playoff resume than Iverson, but his relative value to the teams he played on, especially his most successful teams, isn't really that close. I really liked Reggie, but putting him in this list is overrating his value a bit.

I think people underrate how utterly dominant Iverson was as an individual player. Iverson had a very long stretch of time where people talked about defending him the same way as Kobe: try to make him take jumpshots and pray. Teams would double and triple team him, and he would still get to the paint. He created havoc for defenses because he did things teams just weren't used to people his height doing. He was a freakishly great penetrator, and when he got hot, people just tried to defend the other guys. I'm not saying his game didn't have some pretty dramatic flaws, but he was one of very few players that people never could stop; they just tried to get him to score in the worst way possible.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Reggie Miller should not be above Vince Carter or Tracy Mcgrady, and I really hope the Magic can win a few titles during his tenure there. That should improve his standing with a lot of NBA fans. Miller was a great shooter, who provided a lot of dramatic shots, but he's probably one of the most overrated players especially with those career numbers of his.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

HB said:


> Reggie Miller should not be above Vince Carter or Tracy Mcgrady, and I really hope the Magic can win a few titles during his tenure there. That should improve his standing with a lot of NBA fans. Miller was a great shooter, who provided a lot of dramatic shots, but he's probably one of the most overrated players especially with those career numbers of his.


In my opinion, Reggie's clutch shots put him way over his numbers, which always rose in the postseason anyways. Vince has had a very long prime, and has certainly become underrated, but he and Reggie are on about the same tier.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: My list of the elite shooting guards*



Sliccat said:


> I think people underrate how utterly dominant Iverson was as an individual player. Iverson had a very long stretch of time where people talked about defending him the same way as Kobe: try to make him take jumpshots and pray. Teams would double and triple team him, and he would still get to the paint. He created havoc for defenses because he did things teams just weren't used to people his height doing. He was a freakishly great penetrator, and when he got hot, people just tried to defend the other guys.


I agree. People tend to overlook that outside of field goal percentage Allen Iverson's career numbers stack up favorably with Kobe Bryant's. Iverson was incredibly athletic and quick in his younger days, and his long arms and large hands for a person his size allowed him to create and take advantage of mismatches.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

The two stats that correlate most to winning are offensive efficiency (fg% or tsp if you use more advanced stats) and defensive efficiency (opponent's fg% or tsp). Turnover differential and rebounding differential are the other two major ones but they are less important.

What you are saying is that other than offense and defense, they are similar, lol.

But even there, Kobe's rebound% is one and a half times Iverson's and he blocks shots at a rate more than 3 times what Iverson does as expected with his greater size. Iverson has a higher assist% and steal% with his greater quickness. The only place they are actually similar is in Usage and scoring volume.

Not similar players at all other than both volume scorers in other words. But that's always been the ONLY argument for Iverson. If you look at anything other then pure number of shots taken, he's not a very good player.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Baron, it's pretty obvious of your bias of players known as scorers like Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkins, Adrian Dantley, etc. This is the same song you sing regularly, outside of your whining about Chris Webber.

Anyone who is going to make a statement that "If you look at anything other then pure number of shots taken, (Iverson is) not a very good player" is clearly biased.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Najee said:


> Baron, it's pretty obvious of your bias of players known as scorers like Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkins, Adrian Dantley, etc. This is the same song you sing regularly, outside of your whining about Chris Webber.
> 
> Anyone who is going to make a statement that "If you look at anything other then pure number of shots taken, (Iverson is) not a very good player" is clearly biased.


I must side with Baron in this. It's wrong to compare Iverson to a guy like Kobe and say "the stats measure up".
Not only Kobe was the better defender by a mile, he was also the better offensive player, considering both TS% and EFG%.
Not much of an argument, in fact.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> I must side with Baron in this. It's wrong to compare Iverson to a guy like Kobe and say "the stats measure up".
> Not only Kobe was the better defender by a mile, he was also the better offensive player, considering both TS% and EFG%.
> Not much of an argument, in fact.


He was only comparing their numbers. You and Baron are the only ones who are taking that statement and extrapolating it. By the way, once you throw apg into the equation, their statistical offensive outputs were pretty even from '00 to '08.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

It amazes me how over-rated Ray Allen has become. True, he may the greatest bomber in NBA history, but as an overall player he is being severely over-rated. For the bulk of his career he has been borderline as an All-Star and has never really been a true superstar or one of the league's absolute best. He was never the leader of great teams and has only had limited success as an alpha dog. He had mild success playing with Cassell and Big Dog and just one season of success in Seattle. When he retires, how will he be remembered? As a Sonic? Buck? Celtic? It's not very clear. He is not better than Vince Carter and certainly not better than Allen Iverson.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Also, there is not a single mention of Hal Greer in this thread.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Sliccat said:


> He was only comparing their numbers. You and Baron are the only ones who are taking that statement and extrapolating it. By the way, once you throw apg into the equation, their statistical offensive outputs were pretty even from '00 to '08.


Exactly -- take in mind one person is biased against volume scorers and the other person is a biased Lakers fan. All I said is compare their raw numbers, and these two took it to some other level.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Also, there is not a single mention of Hal Greer in this thread.


I thought about naming Hal Greer instead of Sam Jones or Dave Bing, and may change my list.

I agree with you on Ray Allen, who is being overrated for being a No. 3 player on a team that won a title. Now people on this site actually are trying to say he is better than Allen Iverson, which was never the case during their playing career.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Najee said:


> Exactly -- take in mind one person is biased against volume scorers and the other person is a biased Lakers fan. All I said is compare their raw numbers, and these two took it to some other level.


Oh, i got it wrong, then. Sorry.
I thought you were comparing two players. But if you want to compare player A's *certain *stats against player B's *certain *stats, then be my guest and have fun with it.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

PauloCatarino said:


> Oh, i got it wrong, then. Sorry.
> I thought you were comparing two players. But if you want to compare player A's *certain *stats against player B's *certain *stats, then be my guest and have fun with it.


And I'm sorry you feel we yanked your chain. I forgot we can't talk about any Lakers players in any regard with you feeling we're attacking them. Sheesh!

And we're not even saying *certain* stats, but looking Allen Iverson's and Kobe Bryant's raw cumulative stats. You and Baron came up with stuff like TS% and EFG%.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Najee said:


> And I'm sorry you feel we yanked your chain.




I don't. I just thought you were on a different subject.



> I forgot we can't talk about any Lakers players in any regard with you feeling we're attacking them. Sheesh!


lol. 



> And we're not even saying *certain* stats, but looking Allen Iverson's and Kobe Bryant's raw cumulative stats. You and Baron came up with stuff like TS% and EFG%.


I again apologize to try and compare two players, instead of some players' stats.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> It amazes me how over-rated Ray Allen has become. True, he may the greatest bomber in NBA history, but as an overall player he is being severely over-rated. For the bulk of his career he has been borderline as an All-Star and has never really been a true superstar or one of the league's absolute best. He was never the leader of great teams and has only had limited success as an alpha dog. He had mild success playing with Cassell and Big Dog and just one season of success in Seattle. When he retires, how will he be remembered? As a Sonic? Buck? Celtic? It's not very clear. He is not better than Vince Carter and certainly not better than Allen Iverson.


All true, but I'd put him over Reggie, and if they were the same age, I'd rather have him on my team than Vince at any point in their careers.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Najee said:


> Baron, it's pretty obvious of your bias of players known as scorers like Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkins, Adrian Dantley, etc. This is the same song you sing regularly, outside of your whining about Chris Webber.
> 
> Anyone who is going to make a statement that "If you look at anything other then pure number of shots taken, (Iverson is) not a very good player" is clearly biased.


Actually I love efficient volume scorers (basically ALL the great players) though I think as a stat, pure scoring volume is overrated. I dislike inefficient, selfish volume scorers who don't play team ball or defense. If you take Iverson's volume scoring away, what you are left with is a guy who takes the ball in his hands all the time and has a reasonably high foul draw and average assist ration for a small guard (might be below average relative to his usage numbers). He is a below average outside shooter, a poor defender, a selfish player who doesn't practice hard, and one who won't take on a non-star/starting role to help his team. 

You say other than the amount of shots he puts up he is a very good player. He's not . . . he's a guy who can get his shot against anyone . . . and does. THat's his only real value and his inefficiency (especially before they changed the rules to help players like him) dramatically lessens that value. He is the modern Pete Maravich.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Give me an efficient volume scorer who makes a decent effort on defense and I'll support him to the death. I have championed Alex English, Bob Pettit, Dr. J, LeBron, and a host of others against people who think that players like Iverson, Nique, Maravich, Tom Chambers, etc. are their peers because they look ony at scoring average and ignore the total package and will contine to do so.

Iverson just happens to be the modern poster boy for this fallacy.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

iverson was a bulk scorer. he created for others. he dominated an offense. and he scored inefficiently. his career per of 21 reflects his overall impact trailing the impact maybe implied by his raw numbers. he was an impact player, for sure, but the impact was both good and bad. and he's not the type of player you just plop in any situation and he can adapt. he had 1 deep playoff run in a relatively weak conference. he was a freak, a rare talent. but his overall value was below the very top players, imo.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Actually I love efficient volume scorers (basically ALL the great players) though I think as a stat, pure scoring volume is overrated. I dislike inefficient, selfish volume scorers who don't play team ball or defense. If you take Iverson's volume scoring away, what you are left with is a guy who takes the ball in his hands all the time and has a reasonably high foul draw and average assist ration for a small guard (might be below average relative to his usage numbers). He is a below average outside shooter, a poor defender, a selfish player who doesn't practice hard, and one who won't take on a non-star/starting role to help his team.
> 
> You say other than the amount of shots he puts up he is a very good player. He's not . . . he's a guy who can get his shot against anyone . . . and does. THat's his only real value and his inefficiency (especially before they changed the rules to help players like him) dramatically lessens that value. He is the modern Pete Maravich.


This is ignoring the fact that Iverson became a much more efficient scorer and player both when he played point guard, and when he played for good offensive teams (Nuggets). His main years being inefficient were only his most successful ones as a team. Funny how that worked out.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

mikul jawdon is da bestest.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

for stat freaks, I am curious as to the 20+ PER players with the highest PER to Usage ratio and the lowest . . . for anyone that has the time, energy, and inclination


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> for stat freaks, I am curious as to the 20+ PER players with the highest PER to Usage ratio and the lowest . . . for anyone that has the time, energy, and inclination


First of all, there are only 7 SGs with career PER over 20. The only two who move significantly when PER is "balanced" out by Usage Rate are predictably Allen Iverson (who moves down) and Clyde Drexler (who moves way up).


Michael Jordan - .838
Clyde Drexler - .830
Dwayne Wade - .783
Kobe Bryant - .756
George Gervin - .723
Vince Carter - .721
Allen Iverson - .659
Therefore, Drexler produced well despite not getting as many touches as these other guys while Iverson produced less efficiently (needed more touches) than the others. That's what I would've guessed before I looked it up.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Sliccat said:


> All true, but I'd put him over Reggie, and if they were the same age, I'd rather have him on my team than Vince at any point in their careers.


Why? The only thing he did better was shooting and thats not even that big of a difference.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Thanks Roll, nice . . . (assuming you have West as a PG as he should be)

And my choice for 5th best shooting guard of all time though he wasn't a dominant offensive player . . . 

Sidney Moncrief, Career PER 18.7, Career Usage 20.6, PER/Usage .908


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

HB said:


> Why? The only thing he did better was shooting and thats not even that big of a difference.


Yeah, never mind.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Thanks Roll, nice . . . (assuming you have West as a PG as he should be)
> 
> And my choice for 5th best shooting guard of all time though he wasn't a dominant offensive player . . .
> 
> Sidney Moncrief, Career PER 18.7, Career Usage 20.6, PER/Usage .908


I do have West as a PG, and Sid the Squid is my choice for 5th best SG as well.


----------



## ForTheWin (Sep 17, 2009)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> First, West, Bing, and Maravich were PGs . . . they brought the ball upcourt, set up their teams offense, and led their teams in assists just about every year they played . . . they were just scoring points.


I agree that West, Bing and Maravich could play PG and that they did during their career, but still their main position is SG. How can a player who shot more than 20 times per game during his career be considered a PG ? That doesn't make any sense to me. Then that's right that Bing shot a little less than the other two but still he doesn't have enough assists in his career to be considered a PG. Same thing for the other two. To me a true PG is someone who has at least 7 assists per game in his career. So no Maravich, Bing and West are SG's. 
I think that Oscar Robertson can be mentioned here cause he was a pure combo guard. He wasn't a 1 or a 2 but both at the same time. That's why I personally am going to mention him.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

ForTheWin said:


> I agree that West, Bing and Maravich could play PG and that they did during their career, but still their main position is SG. How can a player who shot more than 20 times per game during his career be considered a PG ? That doesn't make any sense to me. Then that's right that Bing shot a little less than the other two but still he doesn't have enough assists in his career to be considered a PG. Same thing for the other two. To me a true PG is someone who has at least 7 assists per game in his career. So no Maravich, Bing and West are SG's.
> I think that Oscar Robertson can be mentioned here cause he was a pure combo guard. He wasn't a 1 or a 2 but both at the same time. That's why I personally am going to mention him.


By your definition, then, Tony Parker won't go down in history as a PG. Neither will Steve Francis or Walt Frazier. 

Oscar, Maravich, West and Bing all played in an era when backcourt roles were much less defined than they are today. A guard was a guard, and was expected to be able to handle the ball, initiate the offense, and (if possible) shoot from outside. A guard with notably superior ballhandling and playmaking skills might naturally gravitate into a "lead guard" role, as was the case back in the day with Cousy, McGuire and Philip. I think those guys set the trend, Frazier and others continued it, and now we have the current delineation of roles between PG and SG. 

I generally consider Maravich, West and Bing PGs even though they frequently led their teams in scoring, because they also generally served as the leading assist man and chief ballhandler for whatever team they played on. If you don't think West posted enough assists to be considered a PG, check out the numbers for his main running mate Gail Goodrich.

I'll grant you it's not always the case that a team's leader in assists is a PG (see: Bird, Lebron, Wade, Pippen). But when a backcourt player brings the ball up the floor, runs the offense, and is the assist leader throughout his career, we might as well call him a point guard. Just my opinion.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

ForTheWin said:


> To me a true PG is someone who has at least 7 assists per game in his career.


That would mean that there are only 6 active PGs in the NBA today.

Chris Paul
Steve Nash
Deron Williams
Jason Kidd
Andre Miller
Baron Davis

That would make Jose Calderon, Tony Parker, Mike Bibby, Chauncey Billups, Rajon Rondo, TJ Ford, and Raymond Felton (to name a few) into shooting guards. Historically speaking, Mark Price, Walt Frazier, Gary Payton, Terry Porter, Mookie Blaylock, Lenny Wilkens, and Mo Cheeks would all be shooting guards as well. Do you really feel that way about all those players?


----------



## ForTheWin (Sep 17, 2009)

jericho said:


> By your definition, then, Tony Parker won't go down in history as a PG. Neither will Steve Francis or Walt Frazier.
> 
> Oscar, Maravich, West and Bing all played in an era when backcourt roles were much less defined than they are today. A guard was a guard, and was expected to be able to handle the ball, initiate the offense, and (if possible) shoot from outside. A guard with notably superior ballhandling and playmaking skills might naturally gravitate into a "lead guard" role, as was the case back in the day with Cousy, McGuire and Philip. I think those guys set the trend, Frazier and others continued it, and now we have the current delineation of roles between PG and SG.
> 
> ...


Okay I admit that I exaggerated a bit when I said that a PG has to average 7 assists at least, and yes you're right a PG can be very good while only getting 5 or 6 assists per game, but not if he shoots more than 20 times per game at the same time. 

Anyway even if I don't consider Paker and lets say Billups as shooting guards, I definitely think they can be considered as combo guards. There's something important to remember is that Billups was a SG at the beginning of his career in fact. Billups became PG in 2003 with Detroit. He's not really a pure PG.

Then Parker always played PG but it's thanks to Pop who keeps him under control. Parker's first instinct is to attack the rim. In his first years in the league he sure wasn't a true PG. Pop made him become one. A decent one. But his game is still first the game of a SG for me. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd play SG later in his career personally. That doesn't mean that he will though..

But anyway yes a true PG must think first about passing the ball, then about shooting.

So in short I think that West and Maravich can be considered combo guards if you wish, but definitely not more PG's than SG's. It's not only a matter of assists it's also a matter of shooting. I repeat someone who shoots more than 20 times per game cannot be considered a PG. That's just impossible.

By the way you mentioned Frazier and Francis, well they were combo guards too. Francis was even playing SG at the end of his career


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

ForTheWin said:


> Okay I admit that I exaggerated a bit when I said that a PG has to average 7 assists at least, and yes you're right a PG can be very good while only getting 5 or 6 assists per game, but not if he shoots more than 20 times per game at the same time.
> 
> Anyway even if I don't consider Paker and lets say Billups as shooting guards, I definitely think they can be considered as combo guards. There's something important to remember is that Billups was a SG at the beginning of his career in fact. Billups became PG in 2003 with Detroit. He's not really a pure PG.
> 
> ...


I believe some PG's have a natural ability to be great scorers and great at passing and initiating offense for their team. There for IMO your logic should note that there are exceptions. Who shoot 20x a game and average over 7 assists, and are a PG not a combo or anything else. A great example of this would be Isiah Thomas. Who was one of the best point guards of all time.


----------



## ForTheWin (Sep 17, 2009)

23AJ said:


> I believe some PG's have a natural ability to be great scorers and great at passing and initiating offense for their team. There for IMO your logic should note that there are exceptions. Who shoot 20x a game and average over 7 assists, and are a PG not a combo or anything else. A great example of this would be Isiah Thomas. Who was one of the best point guards of all time.


Isaiah Thomas shot 16 times per game in career. Maravich and West shot 22 times per game in career. Huge difference. And Thomas wasn't a pure PG anyway, he was a scoring PG.

And Maravich and West weren't over 7 assists per game in career anyhow. Far away from it.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

ForTheWin said:


> Isaiah Thomas shot 16 times per game in career. Maravich and West shot 22 times per game in career. Huge difference. And Thomas wasn't a pure PG anyway, he was a scoring PG.
> 
> And Maravich and West weren't over 7 assists per game in career anyhow. Far away from it.


Per Career, but what about the season Zeke shot 20x a game and had over 7 assists ? And what gives you the authority to say Thomas wasn't a pure PG ?? Zeke played PG for one of the hardest college coaches in the history of the game under Bob Knight, and then went on to be the captain and PG for a two time champion NBA team in the Detroit Pistons. Not only is Isaiah Thomas a point guard, but he's considered one of the greatest point guards of all time. Not some damn scoring guard as your trying to make him out to be. 

And I never commented on Maravich or West, however I disagree with you about the Pistol. I was simply suggesting that you should note that there are exceptions to your own made up rules on what makes a PG. Zeke being a clear and obvious exception to your logic and rules.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> Per Career, but what about the season Zeke shot 20x a game and had over 7 assists ? And what gives you the authority to say Thomas wasn't a pure PG ?? Zeke played PG for one of the hardest college coaches in the history of the game under Bob Knight, and then went on to be the captain and PG for a two time champion NBA team in the Detroit Pistons. Not only is Isaiah Thomas a point guard, but he's considered one of the greatest point guards of all time. *Not some damn scoring guard as your trying to make him out to be. *
> And I never commented on Maravich or West, however I disagree with you about the Pistol. I was simply suggesting that you should note that there are exceptions to your own made up rules on what makes a PG. Zeke being a clear and obvious exception to your logic and rules.


What's so bad about being a scoring point guard?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> What's so bad about being a scoring point guard?


Should we call Chris Paul a scoring point guard as well ? 

What you have and had in Paul and Thomas were PG's that dispose of the traditional scope of PG. They're PG's x 10. They do everything for their team that a traditional PG would do, but on top of it they can score the rock. However that doesn't turn them into a scoring PG which are generally guy's with low assists, and high scoring volume.

My point stands, there are exceptions to any rule, especially ones we make up our selves.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

23AJ said:


> Should we call Chris Paul a scoring point guard as well ?
> 
> What you have and had in Paul and Thomas were PG's that dispose of the traditional scope of PG. They're PG's x 10. They do everything for their team that a traditional PG would do, but on top of it they can score the rock. However that doesn't turn them into a scoring PG which are generally guy's with low assists, and high scoring volume.
> 
> My point stands, there are exceptions to any rule, especially ones we make up our selves.


Chris Paul also averages four more assits then Thomas did if I remember correctly. Not really a valid comparison.

I guess I just don't understand why you think that being called a scoring point guard is such an insult. Thomas' scoring effected his team more then his passing, theres nothing wrong with that.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

VanillaPrice said:


> Chris Paul also averages four more assits then Thomas did if I remember correctly. Not really a valid comparison.
> 
> I guess I just don't understand why you think that being called a scoring point guard is such an insult. Thomas' scoring effected his team more then his passing, theres nothing wrong with that.


Uh do you even know who Zeke is ? And did you even watch him play basketball in his prime ? Paul and Zeke's career averages for assists nearly the same. Thomas high APG average is higher than Paul's. And Zeke's decline years have been added to his numbers, Paul's decline has yet to happen, but will impact his numbers as well. The point I was making, is that both these guy's are incredible PG's. Not shooting point guards. If you want to know what a shooting PG is check Mo Williams for an example, and there is plenty more of the ilk. However Paul and Thomas were not shooting guards. They are exceptions to the previous posters theory and rules of what makes a PG a PG. Because Thomas and Paul did all that in spades, plus could pour in the points.


----------



## ForTheWin (Sep 17, 2009)

23AJ said:


> Per Career, but what about the season Zeke shot 20x a game and had over 7 assists ? And what gives you the authority to say Thomas wasn't a pure PG ?? Zeke played PG for one of the hardest college coaches in the history of the game under Bob Knight, and then went on to be the captain and PG for a two time champion NBA team in the Detroit Pistons. Not only is Isaiah Thomas a point guard, but he's considered one of the greatest point guards of all time. Not some damn scoring guard as your trying to make him out to be.


Thomas never shot more than 20 times a game. But anyway a career is a long thing and you can't play the same way during your career, you have to take a lot of things in consideration. If you shot more than 20 times per game for your whole career that means that you spent your time shooting more than everything else. Bryant for example who's known as one of the most selfish players of the league shot less than 20 times per game in his career. More than 20 times per game is a lot man and you can't be considered as a PG if you shot more than 20 times per game during your career.

Thomas was a PG alright, he was scoring PG. And for me a scoring PG can't be considered as a pure PG. A PG has first to run the offense of the team and to pass the ball. He's usually the last scoring option. That's why I can't definitely consider Thomas as a pure PG. But he was a PG alright. Not being a pure PG ain't an insult by the way. He was a very talented PG, one of the very best. But I think he could have been a decent SG. Definitely.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

you can't define the role of a pg without considering the circumstances and ability of the player and the team. that's what defines the role, not some predefined pg definition. each players responsibility is to maximize the performance of the unit, not fit some predefined positional role. if guys like paul or isiah aren't considered pure pg's, what's the point of trying do define a pure pg in the first place?


----------



## NBA GOAT (Jun 19, 2017)

My ranking of the 20 greatest Shooting Guards in NBA history.

01. Michael Jordan
02. Kobe Bryant
03. Jerry West
04. Dwyane Wade
05. Clyde Drexler
06. George Gervin
07. Allen Iverson
08. Ray Allen
09. Sam Jones
10. Reggie Miller
11. Earl Monroe
12. Pete Maravich
13. Bill Sharman
14. Joe Dumars
15. David Thompson
16. Mitch Richmond
17. Sidney Moncrief
18. Hal Greer
19. Tracy McGrady
20. Manu Ginobili


----------

