Top 5 point gaurds?

[Dex]

Alright, the idea for this post spawned from the 'Parker vs. Francis' bickering going on in the Sacramento Grades post. In trying to justify who really IS the better point gaurd, I figured it might help to put them up against the rest of the best.

1 - Jason Kidd - He's aging quickly and his club just went in the toilet, but he's still the greatest point gaurd in the game. He is the quintessential Assist Master. He has amazing court vision and passing skills, a habit of coming up with loose balls, and his shooting game isn't half bad either (though certainly not what it used to be.) The only thing he seems to lack is the eye of the tiger (consecutive Finals visits and no ring to show for it), and a brain. Should've signed with SA last season, buddy.

2 - Mike Bibby - the guy is fast on his feet, runs one hell of an offense, and has an amazing jump shot (which he usually defers too). Probably the best scoring point gaurd in the league, he's also got decent penetration and can finish at the rim. Where he struggles is on the flipside of the court, as he couldn't gaurd my Grandma. At least he fits right in there in Sacramento.

3 - Steve Nash - Nash is a complete point gaurd in the sense that he can dish out assists just as well as he can put up points. He can put numbers on the board with his quick penetration OR his jump shot, and he can be a deadeye from the perimeter as well. Combine this with a high basketball IQ and a knack for nifty passes, and you've got what I like to refer to as a Jason Bibby. Or is it Mike Kidd? Either way, Nashy struggles in the fact that he is a streaky shooter, and generally only plays as well as those around him.

4 - Stephon Marbury - Starbury is a hell of player, no doubt. He can score as well as anybody in the league, and is known to pick up a dime here or there, too. The only problem with Marbury is that he seems to have to choose between helping the team or helping himself. When he is dishing out assists, he forgets to score and when he is racking up baskets, he has to hog the shots. Either that, or he just forgets to show up at all. It didn't help that Marbury was shown up by Parker in 02-03...or that his Suns went down the hole and he deserted to NY. He seems happy as a Knicklebocker now, and I'm just glad we'll never have to face him in playoff contention ever again. :lol

5 - Tony Parker / Steve Francis

Here is where the controversy breaks out. Who deserves the 5 spot?

My vote goes to Tony, but I see both sides of the coin. Both are great point gaurds. Tony is quicker on his feet, Francis is better with the ball. Both can shoot, both can penetrate, both can pass. Both run strong offenses and both tend to be inconsistend players.

In general, Steve Francis may be able to put higher numbers down on the stat sheets, but no one can deny the success that Parker has helped the Spurs achieve. Tony already has a ring, with a seemingly annual chance to pick up another. Steve Francis only wishes he could say the same. What it all boils down to is the Ws, and I gaurantee Parker is going to pick up more of those over his career.

Your thoughts?

[timvp]

Nice work, Dex. For a team that has a variety of scorers, Parker is the better fit. If you are a lottery team in need of a scorer, Francis would probably be able to put up better all-around stats.

For the Spurs, it'd be Parker ... no question.

For this season alone, I'd probably only trade Parker for a healthy Kidd or Steve Nash. I like Bibby, but he's pretty much just a shooter. He doesn't run the offense in Sac, and I'm not sure how good he would fit in an offense where he'd have to be the playmaker.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

nice clearly thoughout thread, umm i think histroy will show Francis as the better passer as well as scorer, Tony's game is all based on his speed, which is perhaps just as valuble, but he certainly doesnt have the shot Francis does, that isn't debateable.

Another thing i would argue what it seems like you want to argue, that Steven Nash is the best point out there right now because of his ability to pass, penetrate, and shoot with such accuracy. Bibby, although good, probably shouldnt be included in this list.

[Brodels]

Alright, the idea for this post spawned from the 'Parker vs. Francis' bickering going on in the Sacramento Grades post. In trying to justify who really IS the better point gaurd, I figured it might help to put them up against the rest of the best.

1 - Jason Kidd - He's aging quickly and his club just went in the toilet, but he's still the greatest point gaurd in the game. He is the quintessential Assist Master. He has amazing court vision and passing skills, a habit of coming up with loose balls, and his shooting game isn't half bad either (though certainly not what it used to be.) The only thing he seems to lack is the eye of the tiger (consecutive Finals visits and no ring to show for it), and a brain. Should've signed with SA last season, buddy.

2 - Mike Bibby - the guy is fast on his feet, runs one hell of an offense, and has an amazing jump shot (which he usually defers too). Probably the best scoring point gaurd in the league, he's also got decent penetration and can finish at the rim. Where he struggles is on the flipside of the court, as he couldn't gaurd my Grandma. At least he fits right in there in Sacramento.

3 - Steve Nash - Nash is a complete point gaurd in the sense that he can dish out assists just as well as he can put up points. He can put numbers on the board with his quick penetration OR his jump shot, and he can be a deadeye from the perimeter as well. Combine this with a high basketball IQ and a knack for nifty passes, and you've got what I like to refer to as a Jason Bibby. Or is it Mike Kidd? Either way, Nashy struggles in the fact that he is a streaky shooter, and generally only plays as well as those around him.

4 - Stephon Marbury - Starbury is a hell of player, no doubt. He can score as well as anybody in the league, and is known to pick up a dime here or there, too. The only problem with Marbury is that he seems to have to choose between helping the team or helping himself. When he is dishing out assists, he forgets to score and when he is racking up baskets, he has to hog the shots. Either that, or he just forgets to show up at all. It didn't help that Marbury was shown up by Parker in 02-03...or that his Suns went down the hole and he deserted to NY. He seems happy as a Knicklebocker now, and I'm just glad we'll never have to face him in playoff contention ever again. :lol

5 - Tony Parker / Steve Francis

Here is where the controversy breaks out. Who deserves the 5 spot?

My vote goes to Tony, but I see both sides of the coin. Both are great point gaurds. Tony is quicker on his feet, Francis is better with the ball. Both can shoot, both can penetrate, both can pass. Both run strong offenses and both tend to be inconsistend players.

In general, Steve Francis may be able to put higher numbers down on the stat sheets, but no one can deny the success that Parker has helped the Spurs achieve. Tony already has a ring, with a seemingly annual chance to pick up another. Steve Francis only wishes he could say the same. What it all boils down to is the Ws, and I gaurantee Parker is going to pick up more of those over his career.

Your thoughts?

I think you have some really good points.

It's difficult to compare Francis and Parker because their roles are different. Francis is a legit franchise player. He's not a very good one, but he has the scoring talent to carry a team. Parker hasn't shown that he can do that, and quite frankly, I'm not convinced that he could at this stage.

That doesn't necessarily make Francis better, but it does mean that Francis carries more of the burden. Parker is undoubtedly the smarter player and he's more of a team player. Francis is probably more talented.

And to be fair to Francis, he hasn't gotten as many wins because he hasn't played with Tim Duncan. Parker doesn't get that ring if he's in Francis' situation. It's unclear if a Francis/Duncan tandem could bring a title home. Wins mean something, but Tony was fortunate to get drafted by a winning team.

Also, don't forget about Cassell. He's coming off his best season and he probably was the best point guard in the entire league last year. He can still put up 40 and 8 on any given night.

Another is Baron Davis. He's a borderline franchise player like Francis. He's not exactly the smartest player and he doesn't always seem to do what's best for the team, but his talent level is high and he can carry a team for stretches. He's at least as good as Parker in my opinion.

One more to consider is Andre Miller. He doesn't have the speed or offensive ability that Parker has, but he's much better at seeing the floor and getting baskets for his teammates. I don't think he's better than Parker, but he's in his league for sure.

I consider the above point guards (except for Miller and maybe Bibby) to be in a tier above Parker. Tony can get to that level by playing consistent basketball. He has as much talent as anyone, but until he can show up in the regular season and playoffs regularly, I consider him to be just a notch below the top point guards.

Good players make adjustments when they need to. Tony will continue to get better and will probably be in that top tier, but he needs to be consistent and must be able to make better on-court adjustments before that can happen.

He's young and talented and the sky is the limit. Hopefully he'll bring it home.

[Brodels]

nice clearly thoughout thread, umm i think histroy will show Francis as the better passer as well as scorer, Tony's game is all based on his speed, which is perhaps just as valuble, but he certainly doesnt have the shot Francis does, that isn't debateable.

Another thing i would argue what it seems like you want to argue, that Steven Nash is the best point out there right now because of his ability to pass, penetrate, and shoot with such accuracy. Bibby, although good, probably shouldnt be included in this list.

The problem with Nash is that he's a poor defender. I can't consider him to be the best point guard in the league until he can at least try to stay in front of his man.

[Guru of Nothing]

Nice post.

I just want to add that, in two years, Tony will be the only one left on this list (except maybe Francis).

There is a lot of PG talent on the horizon.

[Dex]

Yeah, Nash definitely loses points for his defense. For all of the money Mark Cuban throws around, Dallas couldn't even buy a stop when they need it. I would like to think he has a more capable club defensively out there in Phoenix, so it will be interesting to see what he does this season. You have to wonder what kind of player he could be if inserted into a system like Gregg Popovich's or Larry Brown's?

Sam Cassell was the first name that instantly came to mind when I tried to figure out who I forgot. He has a beautiful stroke and, like you said, has the ability to drop 20-30 points if he gets hot. His age is starting to limit his defense a bit (as well as making him senile, as he never seems to be happy with his contract situation), but he is definitely one of the top points in the game. Given further consideration, I may even concede to give him the fifth rank.

Baron Davis, another great consideration, but I can't help but consider him more style than substance, not to take anything away from his level of talent. The guy definitely has what it takes to take a team places...he just has to do it.

I wouldn't necessarily say Andre Miller is as much of a threat just because I can't see a whole lot of teams changing their game plan AROUND him (and I could most definitely be wrong with that.) Tony's game is the type that disrupts offenses and collapses defenses. He changes what teams have to do. Had the Lakers not tailored their gameplan to Tony's play after Game 2, they would have likely been toasted last year. That's what great players do; they change the game. They effect the outcome. Andre Miller is good, no doubt, but I still don't get worried when I see him out there on the floor.

There are too many good point gaurds. We should expand the list to 10. :rolleyes

[ducks]

nice it will be intersting if those players stay the same after this year

kidd to me has to prove to me he is still number one
right now I am not convince he will ever ever be healthy

[Kaster]

You're leaving out Baron Davis. Davis can easily be the best point guard in the league when he wants to be. Problem is that Floyd was completely clueless about how to use him last season, letting him hoist far too many threes to be considered the best PG in the league (at the beginning of the season when he was hitting them, he was the best PG in the league). When Davis gets back down to a reasonable amount of threes this season (his norm), all he has to do is continue to do his thing and he'll continue to be a top 3 lock.

My order would be like this:

1. Kidd
2. Marbury
3. Davis
4. Nash
5. Bibby

Then you have PGs like Cassell, Andre, Francis, Billups, etc. Sorry, but Parker is no where near a top 5 PG. Yet. We'll see how he progresses. These next two years are Tony's time to bloom, because if he doesn't he'll never be better than he is now, or that much better. He's far too inconsistent, and just not that good of a PG to be considered top 5. He's also a very average defender, whereas guys like Marbury, Kidd (when healthy), Davis, Francis, Billups, and others are noticeably stronger, quicker and smarter defenders. The PGs who aren’t better defenders than Tony (Cassell, Nash, Bibby), are better PGs because of their vastly superior jumpers and generally better passing skills.

[spurster]

You are also missing Sam Cassell, who was only 2nd team all-NBA last year.

[spur219]

My top 5
1.Kidd
2.Marbury
3.B.Davis
4.Bibby
5.Cassel
6.Nash
7.Billups
8.Arenas
9.Parker
10.A.Miller

Parker would be #9 on my list but will be moving up pretty soon.

[Brodels]

You're leaving out Baron Davis. Davis can easily be the best point guard in the league when he wants to be. Problem is that Floyd was completely clueless about how to use him last season, letting him hoist far too many threes to be considered the best PG in the league (at the beginning of the season when he was hitting them, he was the best PG in the league). When Davis gets back down to a reasonable amount of threes this season (his norm), all he has to do is continue to do his thing and he'll continue to be a top 3 lock.

My order would be like this:

1. Kidd
2. Marbury
3. Davis
4. Nash
5. Bibby

Then you have PGs like Cassell, Andre, Francis, Billups, etc. Sorry, but Parker is no where near a top 5 PG. Yet. We'll see how he progresses. These next two years are Tony's time to bloom, because if he doesn't he'll never be better than he is now, or that much better. He's far too inconsistent, and just not that good of a PG to be considered top 5. He's also a very average defender, whereas guys like Marbury, Kidd (when healthy), Davis, Francis, Billups, and others are noticeably stronger, quicker and smarter defenders. The PGs who aren’t better defenders than Tony (Cassell, Nash, Bibby), are better PGs because of their vastly superior jumpers and generally better passing skills.

While I agree that Parker isn't a top-five point guard, there is no way that Bibby is better than Cassell. Sam is coming off his best season. He was arguably the best point guard in the league last season. He's a better shooter. Both players struggle defensively, but offensively, is Bibby really better than Sam in even one area? I say no.

With Baron, you can't use his talent level to determine how good of a point guard he is. He's like Francis: he's got all the talent in the world, but he's underachieved because he doesn't know what to do with it once he gets on the basketball court. He may or may not be better than Parker, but he certainly isn't better than Cassell or Nash.


Marbury, Kidd (when healthy), Davis, Francis, Billups, and others are noticeably stronger, quicker and smarter defenders.

Davis, Francis, and Billups are not that much better than Parker defensively if they are even better at all. Again, you're confusing ability with performance. They are stronger, but Francis takes too many possessions off and Davis simply isn't any smarter than Parker on the defensive end.

For all of Davis' talent, I can't believe that you used the word "smarter" to describe him.

[Brodels]

My top 5
1.Kidd
2.Marbury
3.B.Davis
4.Bibby
5.Cassel
6.Nash
7.Billups
8.Arenas
9.Parker
10.A.Miller

Parker would be #9 on my list but will be moving up pretty soon.

Why do you think that Bibby is better than Cassell? Cassell has better statitics, more successful playoff experiences, and has shown he can carry a team.

My list:

1. Kidd
2. Marbury
3. Cassell
4. Nash
5. Davis
6. Bibby
7. Billups
8. Parker
9. Miller
10. Arenas

[tlongII]

Why isn't Damon Stoudamire on this list?

[ducks]

he would be if we are talking about most overpaid point guards

[Marcus Bryant]

Top 5 point guards who want to play long term in San Antonio:

1. Tony Parker


That's the list that matters most.

[bigzak25]

better put dwayne wade up there too fellas....the boy is silky.

[spurster]

Notable by his absence from anybody's list is Gary Payton. His stock took a big dive last season.

[Marcus Bryant]

Too bad the Spurs didn't deal Parker and Rose for him.

[tlongII]

Sebastian Telfair will be on that list within the next 3 years.

[Dex]

Alright, Top 5 may be a bit to ask for. Still, I would definitely rank him among the Top 10. In a time when so many of those great point gaurds are on the decline (Kidd, Cassell, Payton, Nash), that's not too shabby. Given a couple years, it will be interesting to watch his stock rise.

My modified, expanded list o' 10:

1 - Kidd (still unanimous?)
2 - Nash (despite his defense, he can pass AND score)
2 - Cassell (can't believe I forgot Cassell in my original list, really)
3 - Bibby
5 - Marbury
6 - Davis
7 - Arenas
8 - Parker
9 - Billups
10 - Miller (Wade is threatening to steal the 10 spot)

[SMSpur]

It is a hopeless cause tring to rank the top point guards, because unless you are dealing with a younger Jason Kidd, who was the total package and did not have any signifcant weakness's then it all comes down to what that team needs out of the PG position.

As for the Spurs, and what we need out of the PG position, for just 1 year I would take Jason Kidd, Stephen Marbury and maybe Steve Nash over Tony Parker, but when you look long term, their is noone I would rather have than Tony Parker.

The Spurs don't need a scorer at PG, they need a guy who is the more traditional PG, who is a great passer and gets the ball to the right guy. Parker would put up better numbers, expecially assist numbers, ifhe didn't play on a team that is SO unselfish with the basketball. One thing that Tony Parker brings, that very few point guards can do, is he can and will almost completely reside in the opponents paint, with causes all type of havoc, expecially with guys like Tim Duncan at PF, and shooters like Manu and Brent Barry on the outside.