A strange mixture of classifications. How about: Mike Conley Stephen Curry Jeff Teague All have names of uncles of mine Brandon Jennings Makes me think of "jeggings" Damian Lillard John Wall George Hill The "double-L gang" (includes Holiday if you spell it wrong) Ricky Rubio Greivis Vasquez Huh, huh - they talk funny.
Hardly. I think Lawson, Hill, Conley, and Curry are clearly PGs on winning teams. That means they're able to run an offense on a winning team. The others have to prove that, no? Teague and Jennings have had brief successes, but are inconsistent at winning. Rubio & Vasquez? Sergio part 2. Wall, Lillard. I expect their trajectory to be more like Curry than like Teague or Jennings. They're remarkably talented. The jury's out. And yeah, I think Winning is what the game is all about. No arbitrary criteria used.
Ranking them by how good they are right now: 1. Steph Curry 2. Ty Lawson 3. Lillard 4. Jennings 5. John Wall 6. Conley 7. Ricky Rubio 8. George Hill 9. Greivis Vasquez 10. Jeff Teague Self admitted Curry homer, but I honestly think hes the best player of the bunch and the closest thing to a guy you could build around. Far from traditional skillset but highly effective and took big time steps this year, to the extent that you could argue hes sort of in-between this tier and the next tier up. Lawson got the nod over a lot of these guys just because hes more under control than most of the younger guys, has played on a winner, etc. John Wall is pretty tough to gauge at this stage of his career. I've HATED Vasquez dating back to his days at Maryland. Perhaps its irrational hate, but fuck that guy and I think his stats are bloated. If I ranked them by who I was starting a team with (i.e. factoring in potential, health, age, etc.) it would be a completely different list.
The winning-only criteria is pretty arbitrary. Swap Conley with Jennings, Lillard, Wall, Rubio, etc. and is he still a winning PG? Are those teams winning any more games? Would the Grizzlies or Pacers or Hawks be worse off with Wall, Rubio, Lillard, Jennings?
Yeah, I think all those guys are winning PGs whatever team they're on. All the teams have some high caliber player or two. It's winning with what you have that matters. Stephon Marbury put up gawdy stats, but wasn't much of a winner. So it isn't just about stats.
Right now Curry Lawson Lillard Jennings Wall Rubio Conley Teague Vasquez Hill Future Lillard Wall Curry Rubio Lawson Jennings Teague Conley Vasquez Hill Lillard's "IT" factor is undeniable. He's already hit many big shots in his rookie season and he has the mindset you want in a franchise player. LeBron, Chris Paul, etc seem to absolutely love his game. Says a lot. Moving on, out of all the players his combination of shooting/athleticism/size is probably the best. Curry is a better shooter, but isn't quite as athletic. Wall is more athletic, but isn't quite the shooter Lillard is. Rubio is a better pure passer, but isn't quite the athlete or shooter Lillard is. Lillard is pretty much the combination of everything you want in a PG these days.
Yeah, if the Grizzlies had Wall, I think they'd be worse off. I'd take Conley over him simply from the perspective that Conley doesn't make the same stupid mistakes or force offense. He plays within the team concept, and I don't think Wall could do that. Other than that, I'd have to agree with your rankings but swap Teague and Vasquez. Greivis is fun to watch, but he plays so out of control and goes for so many home-run plays that I wouldn't really watch him being my team's pg either.
I'd say that you have to give just as much credit to Beal for the improvement. Having Wall back allows him to play his natural position. He's been on an absolute tear these past 25-30 games. Not to mention, just inserting any point guard into that lineup was going to help. They were revolving a group of shooting guards and D-league level point guards at the 1. Let's not forget, John Wall played in every game for them last year during that 20 win season.
Ha ha! Precisely my point though! No harm is done, just an "oops" moment. What's funny is I skimmed the list twice to make sure Lillard wasn't on there! I'm guessing that by and large we're all in here during working hours, and skim quite often. I don't have time to closely read every post in a thread (and I certainly don't read every thread), and I'm guessing that goes for all of us.
Y'alls are so lazy. Where are the advanced stats? Of course, I'm lazy too, which is why I wanted you to do it. (You also have to remember that Lillard is older than several players on that list. But then again, he's getting used to the NBA game. But then again again, other players are getting used to HIM - Damon Stoudamire looked like he'd end up all-NBA in his first season, but fizzled steadily from there.) Right now I would say that the only player that Lillard is clearly better than is Jeff Teague. Possibly Vasquez also (because he's a shit defender too) but even then there are circumstances where you might prefer Teague for his absurd athleticism and defense. And he's proved himself in the playoffs. Conversely, there aren't that many on that list who are clearly preferable to Lillard. Curry and Lawson, obviously, and possibly Conley, given how he apparently outplayed Lillard in the last game (and given that his main strength is his defense but he still scored along with Lillard). I was the world's biggest Wall-doubter last year, but Washington really has kicked into gear since he came back. Of course, that could be a number of factors. Beal's turned it around (and will almost certainly be better-regarded in the long run than Lillard, just as Ray Allen passed up Stephon Marbury - only Beal is 3 years younger than Lillard) but we don't know if he would've done that without Wall. If we add Holiday to the list, then I might put him above Lillard too.
They;re bunched up at around 17. Curry is 20.5. Lillard is at 16. I didn't look them all up yesterday.
You can't just look at the record of their teams: you have to look at that player's effect on the record of the teams, something that is notoriously hard to gauge. But what I meant was "strange" was that you seemed to be using different kinds of classification for different players. For example, Lillard and Wall had "potential" presumably because they're just starting out, but then you talked about the team record for other players. I guess you meant that Lillard and Wall's teams had potential to do well. In theory, though, everyone has "potential". Why choose Sergio? The only reason I can think is that they all speak Spanish, because Rubio and Vasquez have very different games. Vasquez is a sieve on defense but can shoot, and in fact loves taking the big shot, whereas Rubio is a great defender and passer but can't shoot a lick.
What I think of Lillard and Wall is that their teams aren't winning, but I would hardly be shocked if their teams do start winning as they mature. Curry's team didn't win until this season, but you could see he was an exciting prospect who could develop into a winner. You can't pretend to take a PG off the team and see what the results are. The bottom line is they are running the winning teams. The ball is in their hands an awful lot. Whatever they're doing is contributing to the wins. As I pointed out, Marbury could put up outrageous stats but couldn't win. As far as the Sergio comparison, my view is they're hyped and flashy players who won't pan out in the long haul. It's a hunch. There sure is a lot of hype about Rubio.
