OK, let me rephrase.
Is there really 40 PGs that are of the caliber to be considered solid or above average starters in the league?
That's an honest question because the NBA is the league I probably follow the least and I have little grasp on the advanced stats. I have a rough grasp on PER, but honestly I don't follow the league enough to really dive into it.
Is there an equivalent NBA stat to WAR in baseball? On the surface, when I see someone say that there are 40 starting PGs in NBA, it equates to me someone saying there are 40 #1 SP in baseball. Which technically could be true, since every team has a top dog and some have two. But saying #1 SP really means something different taken in context.
Obviously that's a different discussion than someone that could replace Paul and I didn't intend to bring that into the discussion. But if we are arriving at 40 by saying everyone has a starter and 10 teams have a backup they could live with as a starter, than I think the case is being overstated. You cite Collison - I don't really see 11 PT and 4 A to be a real asset at PG.
I do apologize if I'm not making my case coherent, it's been a long weekend and I may have had too many cocktails after work tonight.