better player nash or stockton

[spaskychess]

Who do you think is the better player between stockton and nash?

[therealbig3]

I'll take Nash. I think he's a superior offensive player, and the defensive advantage for Stockton doesn't offset that imo. Nash has also proven to be a franchise-level player, while Stockton did not, and Nash has proven that he can carry the scoring load when needed, while Stockton did not.

They're both great PGs, but I have Stockton as my #5 PG all time, while Nash is my #4.

[Tubal]

Stockton.

[penbeast0]

I personally have it Magic, West, Oscar, Frazier, Payton . . . . Stockton. Obviously I value defense in my PG more than some and Stockton provided a lot more agression at the point of attack. Add the superior assists, nearly equal efficiency (though on less shots), and ironman toughness and you have the superior PG.

[NYK 455]

Nash.

[mysticbb]

The better player at prime/peak is Steve Nash. His massive impact on the offensive end is easily way more important than his failures on defense. The low defensive usage of a point guard and due to that his lower impact level (whether it is positive or negative) makes it an rather moot point. Even the best defensive point guards as difference makers on defense like Jason Kidd or Eric Snow don't come close to the difference Nash made/makes on the offensive end.

Stockton has a huge longevity and a very consistent performance level. That is a big plus in the career evaluation of those two players. Steve Nash has clearly the edge in peak/prime level, that should make him the better player. But that doesn't mean he needs also be seen as having the overall better body of work. 7 All-NBA seasons for Nash (while his 2009 and 2011 seasons can be very well argued as being also All-NBA worthy seasons given his production, efficiency and impact). We have 11 All-NBA seasons for Stockton, but we can very well argue that he had something like 15 seasons on a similar level overall. It would be a tough decision. Is the difference in peak/prime enough to put Nash over Stockton for their respective careers?

[ronnymac2]

The better player at prime/peak is Steve Nash. His massive impact on the offensive end is easily way more important than his failures on defense. The low defensive usage of a point guard and due to that his lower impact level (whether it is positive or negative) makes it an rather moot point. Even the best defensive point guards as difference makers on defense like Jason Kidd or Eric Snow don't come close to the difference Nash made/makes on the offensive end.

Stockton has a huge longevity and a very consistent performance level. That is a big plus in the career evaluation of those two players. Steve Nash has clearly the edge in peak/prime level, that should make him the better player. But that doesn't mean he needs also be seen as having the overall better body of work. 7 All-NBA seasons for Nash (while his 2009 and 2011 seasons can be very well argued as being also All-NBA worthy seasons given his production, efficiency and impact). We have 11 All-NBA seasons for Stockton, but we can very well argue that he had something like 15 seasons on a similar level overall. It would be a tough decision. Is the difference in peak/prime enough to put Nash over Stockton for their respective careers?

Absolutely.

[MarJJMar]

penbeast tries to argue against Nash in all threads..

Superior assist rate means little, the pace in the 80s and early 90s was much higher. The difference between the Suns pace and pace in that time is as big or bigger than the pace difference between the Suns and the the slowest pace in the NBA last year basically.

Stocktons defense is OVERRATED. Stockton was all about hand-checking that is all.

Stockton/Malone and Nash/Amare are very comparable duos.

Now Malone was considered the much better player while on the other hand Nash was considered the much better player.

Nash > Stockton

[knicksosmoove]

gimme Nash. To me he was a lot more creative and the better passer and much better at creating for himself. He is also one of the greatest shooters of all time. Both these point guards were aided by their "systems" but I think Stockton was more a product of his system while Nash made his system work.

[SDChargers#1]

This is tough, Nash is slightly better offensively because he was able to handle being a go to scorer. Stockton was a better passer, his efficiency was just as good, and his defense was worlds better than Nash's, and Stockton was the definition of an iron man in his career. I have to go with Stockton, but to be fair I am a big Stock fan.

[GilmoreFan]

Easily Nash.

Penbeast thinks Shawn Marion was the Suns MVP in 06... nuff said.

[penbeast0]

If you read the post, I didn't say that. I said that he was a genuine star, not to be dismissed as a role player, and that he had a legitimate case to be the MVP. But, no, I don't think Nash did it alone with nothing but role players around him.

[G35]

gimme Nash. To me he was a lot more creative and the better passer and much better at creating for himself. He is also one of the greatest shooters of all time. Both these point guards were aided by their "systems" but I think Stockton was more a product of his system while Nash made his system work.

Stockton played the whole time with the Jazz but under two different coaches; Layden and Sloan. Even under two different styles Stockton was consistent across the board in his shooting and playmaking.

Nash played under one system at the beginning of his career with the Suns. Then he went to Dallas and then came back to the Suns.

Was Nash the same player under those various systems?...no he wasn't. He played with similar talent but under the D'Antoni Suns he was able to maximize his talents the most and had much stronger shooters on his team. Nash had multiple strong 3pt shooters to pass to; Joe Johnson, Jim Jackson, Quentin Richardson, Raja Bell, Eddie House, Leandro Barbosa, James Jones, Channing Frye, Jared Dudley.

They didn't surround Stockton with hardly any shooters. The only real shooter Stockton had around him was Hornacek....

[An Unbiased Fan]

Stockton is equal offensively, and greater defensively. So Stockton.

[unbeheld]

Stockton is equal offensively, and greater defensively. So Stockton.

How is he equal offensively? Stockton had the better "career" simply because of his iron man body of work with incredible consistency. Nash was a late bloomer, it's unfair to compare the body of work until Nash officially hangs it up (meaning we don't know how many years Nash has left, it's not a stretch to say he could very well finish in the Stockton age level). As for his defense, it's not lateral quickness that defined Stockton but it was his steals through hand checking. I'm not stretching that Nash is equal on D, but I'm saying you guys need to keep in perspective that had Stockton played in this era he wouldn't have been "as" effective on D as you portray him to be. Stockton was NOT Gary Payton who could smother you till you cried.


As for offense, which part is he equal?

1. Creating his own shot: Ummm noo
2. Creating for his teammates: I'd argue that Nash has the better court vision but either way both were excellent and the edge each have here would be very miniscule.
3. Passing: Same as above though the gap is prob wider with Nash's creativity
4. BBIQ: both about equal.
5. Free throws: Nash
6. 2pt FG: Nash
7. 3pt FG: Nash
8. Pick and Roll: See this is where I'd say they should be equal but I'd still argue Nash is the superior P&R, for the pick to be effective you need your PG to be able to shoot the open shot. You cannot compare Nash with Stockton when shooting, this was precisely why though Amare was not as dominant (but more athletic) than Malone he was able to thrive because the defense could not cheat on Nash.

On a side note, people talk about how the D provided by PG's "is" a determining factor. Do you want to know why Rondo never led his team in offensive efficiency? It's because his contribution on the offensive end also becomes a detriment to complement his defense. Seriously, teams will cheat on PG that can't shoot. Rondo, Kidd... so yeah they might give you superior D but they also give you 5 defender to 4 offensive player offense. When will a team EVER give nash open looks? He constantly gets double teamed, or even triple teamed. This is why he can pick and roll with any big man in the league, anyone can roll for a dunk or layup, but not every PG can make them pay when they leave them open.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Obviously it's Stockton. He won more, played both sides, is statistically superior, and played in an era that was harder on perimeter players. Nash has proven to only be successful in a gimmick system. Even when the Suns have played 2 real big men his production has dropped dramatically. These are facts.

[NYK 455]

Obviously it's Stockton. He won more, played both sides, is statistically superior, and played in an era that was harder on perimeter players. Nash has proven to only be successful in a gimmick system. Even when the Suns have played 2 real big men his production has dropped dramatically. These are facts.

Facts? Your whole post is full of fail.

[NYK 455]

Enough with the PG defense already, it's not enough to close the gap between the offensive difference between Nash and other PGs. I've seen Rose, Rondo, Stockton fans among others argue it.

People will cite stats, but ignore that Nash was the number one option that created his own shot and everyone else's shot, and Stockton was a number 2 guy who couldn't create his own shot as effectively, and didn't see a fraction of the defensive coverage Nash saw. And all those years Stockton put up huge numbers didn't seem to help the Jazz offensively, they had better ORT when Stockton had a reduced role and lower numbers.

[FJS]

It has been debated to the death, and always Stockton have won.

Nash has been incredible, this is for sure, but Stockton was able to do what Nash did, and he was able to do a few things more in the game.

There's a few people here saying he was the PHO leader, but as a leader he had epic fails too, like to miss playoffs with O'Neal (still a 18 ppg player) and Stoudemire in his team, or after playing a WCF like this year.

Nash is a better shooter, but not by much. Stockton was as effective as him, and a much agresive player. Nash in those years in PHO has a peak of 3.5 FTA per game, the same Stockton was averaging in his last season. Not to play about deffense.

Nash was a genius in offense, but still in his peak he barely beat stockton better years, where Stockton beat him in APG, SPG and FG%

[Baller 24]

Nash and IMHO it isn't even close, he's had hands in some of the greatest offensive teams of all-time (Top 5).