Yes, I think so. Stan, while a more viciously dangerous player at his very best than Andy, never had the consistency that Andy had. If you look at Andy's career at Slams and big tournaments, he was always there - always going deep in Slams. Consider that for ten years in a row, 2008-17, Andy reached the QF or deeper in at least two Slams per year; in most of those ten years (six to be exact) it was three or more.
Historically speaking, I think Andy will come to be seen as at the head of the pack that includes Courier, Kuerten, and Ashe; I think he was greater than all three. There's an argument that could be made that he's as good or greater than Wilander, but people will never look past the big Slam title gap, even though Andy was greater in just about every other way.
Andy's true level can perhaps best be summarized by his rankings in terms of Slam finals: only eight players (Roger, Rafa, Novak, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Lendl, Borg) were in more Slam finals, and he's tied with McEnroe, Wilander and Edberg with 11, and just ahead of Becker's 10. That's some good company.
