How can anyone rank Stockton over Nash?

[ardee]

The arguments I see are defense and longevity. But they negate the fundamental issue that Nash was simply a different class of player. He was MVP caliber, Stockton was not. Indeed, even if you think he doesn't deserve those MVPs, you have to agree at the very least he was in the discussion. Stockton never was.

I personally have Nash a good 12-13 spots above Stock. I have the utmost respect for both players but I just see one as being capable of doing much more for a team than the other.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Quotatious]

The main reason why Stockton was never really a serious MVP candidate is that he had a better player than himself, on his own team, his entire career (a guy who actually won two MVPs, and finished top 5 multiple times). Nash would never get any serious MVP consideration if he played with Karl Malone, either.

I have Nash slightly ahead of Stockton because I think more highly of his offensive genius and ability to anchor top offensive teams, as well as being able to come up big in the playoffs, but Stockton's significant edge in terms of longevity, defense and generally better boxscore metrics make it very close. I can actually see myself ranking them within two spots on an all-time list - they're that close to me. The only thing is, Nash has to get the edge because of the fundamental advantages that I've just mentioned.

I strongly disagree there's a big gap between the two.

[SactoKingsFan]

Depends on how much you value longevity. I have Stockton (24) ahead of Nash (28) on my list because I value longevity quite a bit and don't think PG defense is insignificant. Either way I don't think there should be more than 5 spots separating them on all time lists.

[ChampionDrive]

Stockton being one of the best defensive PGs to ever play while Nash was one of the worst might skew people elsewhere.

[WhateverBro]

Stockton being one of the best defensive PGs to ever play while Nash was one of the worst might skew people elsewhere.

Nash is definitely not one of the worst PGs defensively to ever play the game.

[ChampionDrive]

Stockton being one of the best defensive PGs to ever play while Nash was one of the worst might skew people elsewhere.

Nash is definitely not one of the worst PGs defensively to ever play the game.

No maybe not all-time, but he is certainly one of the worst among all-time greats.

[lorak]

The arguments I see are defense and longevity. But they negate the fundamental issue that Nash was simply a different class of player.

When they both played and were starters Stockton was clearly a different class of player:

RAPM

2003
Stockton +2.6 (19 overall) PI, +1.2 (66) NPI
Nash +1.0 (76) PI, -0.2 (162) NPI

2002
Stockton +2.0 (11) PI, +3.0 (16) NPI
Nash +0.2 (109) PI, +0.9 (73) NPI

2001
Stockton +5.6 (3) NPI
Nash +0.6 (85) NPI

So that's not even close. Of course Nash was quite different since '05. But we don't know how Stockton would look in a league more perimeter friendly. And in worse environment he was still almost as impactfull as Nash post '04.

Anyway, I don't value longevity at all (except of "prime longevity") and I have Nash, Stockton and Mark Price together on my all time list. All three of them were elite PGs and only ignoring context makes one looks better than another (for example there's no way Nash would win MVPs with such good player like Malone on the same team).

[richboy]

Nash did play with Amare. I think Nash separated himself from Amare because Phoenix sucked when they had Marbury at PG. They sucked anytime Nash was injured. When Amare was gone for the year Nash kept on rolling.

In Utah it was always Stockton and Malone. They both were never injured. Malone always received the credit. It would have been interesting to see one without the other more. If I imagined what it be like without Stockton for a long stretch Utah probably could win games without Stockton because they were a strong defensive team unlike Phoenix.

I personally do not feel Nash's defense vs Stockton is that big of an issue. I do not consider Stockton one of the best defensive point guards ever. Saw him get abused too often by guys like Gary Payton, Tim Hardaway, Isiah Thomas and Kevin Johnson. Nash played his best years with a coach that didn't care about defense. He had Amare and Marion as his rim protection. Stockton started his career with Mark Eaton protecting the basket. Then Felton Spencer and Greg Ostertag. He never was asked to play defense on small ball lineups like Nash was. I doubt Stockton would have defended Tony Parker all that well if Amare was his last line of defense either.

[turk3d]

Stockton's D

[microfib4thewin]

If Nash stayed in Dallas would he be perceived as one of the ATG? It was only after he left Dirk's shadow and joined a team where it's completely dependent on Nash to create that he elevated himself in the all time list. I don't think Stockton could have done the same but he never had the opportunity.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Stockton being one of the best defensive PGs to ever play while Nash was one of the worst might skew people elsewhere.

Nash is definitely not one of the worst PGs defensively to ever play the game.

And Stockton is definitely not one of the best.

[MrKnox]

How? Let's see. Stockton is the all time leader in assists (5000 more than Nash, think about that), the all time leader in steals, more longevity, a better defensive player, comparable offensively and while not a 50/40/90 player he was a 50/35/83 type of player. You can make a case for Stockton quite easily.

[GYK]

Latest and greatest.
Efficiency on volume there's also improves the advanced stats narrative used in today's discussion.
But as the game evolves the new newly evolved will be more favored.

[Dr Spaceman]

Stockton being one of the best defensive PGs to ever play while Nash was one of the worst might skew people elsewhere.

Nash is definitely not one of the worst PGs defensively to ever play the game.

And Stockton is definitely not one of the best.

Really? I think he is. He was scrappy and aggressive, and probably the best ball theif ever. He's not GP, but other than that He has a good argument over Kidd, DJ, Paul, anyone. He can definitely be considered top 5 at the position, and that might be underselling him.

Even in his very late 30s he looked like one of the best perimeter defenders in the league in RAPM, and advanced age Stock was comfortably ahead of Kidd at his peak. I don't have any reason to believe those numbers weren't reflective of reality.

[BasketballFan7]

How? Let's see. Stockton is the all time leader in assists (5000 more than Nash, think about that), the all time leader in steals, more longevity, a better defensive player, comparable offensively and while not a 50/40/90 player he was a 50/35/83 type of player. You can make a case for Stockton quite easily.

Even better, really. He was consistently over 40% from 3 in those prime years.

[turk3d]

Stockton being one of the best defensive PGs to ever play while Nash was one of the worst might skew people elsewhere.

Nash is definitely not one of the worst PGs defensively to ever play the game.

And Stockton is definitely not one of the best.

Even though Nash may not be one of the worst and I don't know how Stockton stacks up defensively against the rest of the point guards who've played, but I do know he was a lot better than Nash was defensively. As for offense, I'd say they were about equal, perhaps giving Nash a slight edge. Tough comparison with two great players.

[DamnWestbrook]

Basically just reputation and the fact that STockton played further back in the past. Anyone whose career started earlier generally gets a reputation boost on sites like this for some reason.

As a player its obvious Nash was better than Stockton.

[tsherkin]

I don't consider these guys too far apart, but nash's improvisation and shooting skill typically lead me to choose him. Stock's an overrated defender, though still good (and better than Nash at that). I don't value total longevity, because the squeaker years at the end aren't interesting to me. They aren't competitive. If he longevity is similar, I'll look at comparative play at age durin decline, but not so much otherwise.

Close, but Nash.

[Hornet Mania]

If Nash stayed in Dallas would he be perceived as one of the ATG? It was only after he left Dirk's shadow and joined a team where it's completely dependent on Nash to create that he elevated himself in the all time list. I don't think Stockton could have done the same but he never had the opportunity.

I think there is quite a bit of truth to this. Nash was great in Dallas but if he stayed with Dirk throughout his career I doubt he ever gets the same credit. Even if they win a ring or two it would be hard to see him benefiting from that team success as much as he did from the SSOL Suns situation and the 2 MVP awards. The Suns gave him the spotlight and he ran with it, and he should get all the credit in the world for that, but it just goes to show how your role can dramatically impact your output and have a major impact on legacy.

I'm not sure if Stockton could step into that PHX situation and be the engine of a GOAT-caliber offense, but I definitely think he was much more impressive as a secondary star to Malone than Nash ever was as a secondary star to Dirk. Honestly I think the gap between those two overall is razor thin. I personally go back and forth on who should be ahead but either way they're going to end up right next to each other in any PG ranking, and rightfully so imo.

[Johnlac1]

That's easy...Stockton was a better all-around ballplayer. Off. production might be similar, but Nash wasn't even close to Stockton defensively. Plus Stockton played in two finals. How many did Nash with that "greatest off. team in league history" get into?