With all due apologies to the late 80's and Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas and John Stockton, we are currently experiencing the golden age for point guards. Never has the positions seen such incredible depth, as compiling even a top-10 list is sure to snub multiple point guards. 

Every night if you're a point guard, there's a good chance you're covering the other team's best player. There's a lot of pressure that comes with that, and it can lead to people changing their opinion on players based on individual matchups, which is always a dangerous game.


For the most part, Chris Paul has been considered the undisputed best point guard in the NBA for quite some time. But with all the new talent coming into the league, there's a temptation to place "hotter" talents ahead of Paul in the point guard rankings.

Part of that has to do with boredom, too. Karl Malone won the MVP in a year when Michael Jordan was still at the peak of his powers, mainly because people wanted to reward someone different for a change. It's not the most legitimate reason to do that, but it's human nature to want to keep things fresh.

Right now, if you asked a wide variety of people, Stephen Curry might be considered the best point guard in the league. And for as great as Curry is, and for as deserving as he is to be the All-Star starter this year, he still isn't a better point guard than Paul.

You might think that this is going to launch into the splitting of hairs about "true" point guards and how scorers can't be considered in the same category as pass-first guys, but that's nonsense.

Curry is a point guard, just like Paul is a point guard. They have different strengths, of course, but they play the same position.

Look -- Curry is phenomenal. He might be the best shooter the NBA has ever seen, which seems blasphemous until you look at his career stats. He's unreasonably talented. 

And while Paul can't touch Curry as a shooter, which is saying something, there are multiple other areas where he's far superior. The first is on the defensive end, where Paul is easily one of the best on-ball defenders at his position. His hands are so incredibly quick and strong, which makes him a steals machine. Curry is probably a subpar defender at best. 

Paul is also a much better distributor, in part because that's more of a priority for him than scoring is. You could certainly argue that Curry is the better offensive player overall, as Paul doesn't score at the rim quite like he used to as a younger player, and Curry's shooting sets him apart. Still, the difference between the two defensively is so large that it's hard to say Paul isn't the better overall player.

Curry is just one example, but Paul's incredible versatility is what makes him the league's best point guard. There are better slashers, defenders, shooters, passers, scorers and ballhandlers, but no other player is near the very top in each and every one of those areas. That isn't to say that Paul isn't without flaws -- just that he makes up for it elsewhere.

So give props to Curry, or Damian Lillard, or whoever else you'd like. They can be great, too, but they just can't be the greatest.