How can anyone rank Stockton over Nash?

[Quotatious]

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?

Well, Stockton wasn't even the best player on his team, so I'm not sure if I really like the argument about him making two finals appearances.

[G35]

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?

Well, Stockton wasn't even the best player on his team, so I'm not sure if I really like the argument about him making two finals appearances.

Nash wasn't the greatest player on the team when he played in Dallas.

So by this logic, when Nash is the greatest player on his team, his team does not have a chance to make the finals.

Further it kills when people move the goalposts on these comparisons.

Awards mean something, but then they don't anything. Then rings mean something, but now they don't mean anything. Stats mean something until we do not like the result then we add context.

Stockton never had offensive players in Utah the way Nash did in Dallas or Phoenix. Stockton did not play with an innovative coach like D'Antoni who gave him total control over the offense either.

Then for all the MVP rhetoric that Stockton was never in the conversation is crap.

Let's look at Nash's MVP seasons and see if they would be in the conversation against the MVP award winners during Stockton's prime (1984-1999)

1984 -1986 Larry Bird
1987 Magic Johnson
1988 Michael Jordan
1989-1990 Magic Johnson
1991-1992 Michael Jordan
1993 Charles Barkley
1994 Hakeem Olajuwon
1995 David Robinson
1996 Michael Jordan
1997 Karl Malone
1998 Michael Jordan
1999 Karl Malone

Exactly what years would Nash be the MVP during these years? I already say none of these years because I think other than 1988 MJ and 1995 DRob, and 1999 Karl Malone all of these guys went to the finals so they were on dominant teams. Nash would not get the whole narrative boost because there would be another great team led by a great player......

[lorak]

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?

Well, Stockton wasn't even the best player on his team,

He was.

[RSCD3_]

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.

Two questions?

Was he a poor on ball defender susceptible to being blown past ? It's a stereotype of many white perimeter defenders it seems and even great help defenders like bird were weaker laterally and were went after on defense. Was stockton a guy you could exploit with speedy PG's?

What was his wingspan, could you classify him as a player with long arms?

[etopn23]

When people talk about Stockton's defense - so what? He was never a defensive anchor, just a damn good PG on the defensive end. He was efficient on the offensive end but he *never* *ever* could dominate a game the way a Magic/Zeke/Nash could. I'm sorry, but when I watched him play he was the type of guy who just got his stats throughout the course of a game, I'd liken it to Kevin Love. It's why Malone was easily the superior player, he was dominant.

Yeah, I think Nash was better. The guy simply dominated in a way Stockton never did.

What stands about Stockton is his longevity, it's the only real argument he has over a hell of a lot of players. If you go by peaks, he's probably not in my top 5 - some guys who I would easily take over him in his prime: Magic, Oscar, Paul, Payton, Thomas, Nash.

~~~

I'm sorry for going off on a tangent, but I was browsing that Zeke thread, and WOW. This is a guy who was a champion at the collegiate and the NBA level, someone who regularly destroyed Stockton head to head: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =stockjo01, who has some of the greatest playoff performances of all time (25 points in a quarter against the Showtime Lakers - in game 6 of the NBA FINALS while injured nonetheless, lost the game on a HORRIBLE call - Zeke played game 7 hobbled and they lost ofc).

Compare Zeke's playoff stats to Stockton. If you want to crucify Robinson for taking a step back in the playoffs, then you should be doing the same to Stockton. No double standards please.

What bothers me the most about the revisionist history on Stockton is that the guy was ACTUALLY a dirty player during his prime. Dirty screens, and him/Malone were GOONS who went out and tried to injure the competition regularly (See Malone's elbow/Stockton's illegal screens).

/EndRant

[Dr Spaceman]

Stockton never had offensive players in Utah the way Nash did in Dallas or Phoenix.

Karl Malone??? Jeff Hornacek?

Stockton did not play with an innovative coach like D'Antoni who gave him total control over the offense either.

Jerry Sloan was pretty damn good offensive coach in his own right. Maybe didn't innovate like MDA, but I'd say he was a better coach all told.

[JordansBulls]

Stockton was a better player peak wise and prime wise and career wise

[lorak]

I'm sorry for going off on a tangent, but I was browsing that Zeke thread, and WOW. This is a guy who was a champion at the collegiate and the NBA level, someone who regularly destroyed Stockton head to head: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =stockjo01, who has some of the greatest playoff performances of all time (25 points in a quarter against the Showtime Lakers - in game 6 of the NBA FINALS while injured nonetheless, lost the game on a HORRIBLE call - Zeke played game 7 hobbled and they lost ofc).

Compare Zeke's playoff stats to Stockton.

Yes, lets compare them when they both played the same opponent, so 1988 vs Lakers:

Stockton 19.3 PPG (58.8 TS%), 3.4 RPG, 16.4 APG, 4.0 SPG, 3.7 TPG, 44.6 MPG, 24.5 GmSc
Thomas 19.7 PPG (51.7 TS%), 4.4 RPG, 9.0 APG, 2.9 SPG, 3.7 TPG, 37.4 MPG, 16.6 GmSc

[lorak]

Jerry Sloan was pretty damn good offensive coach in his own right. Maybe didn't innovate like MDA, but I'd say he was a better coach all told.

Sloan was very good defensive coach, but bad offensively.

[Dr Spaceman]

Jerry Sloan was pretty damn good offensive coach in his own right. Maybe didn't innovate like MDA, but I'd say he was a better coach all told.

Sloan was very good defensive coach, but bad offensively.

i don't think I can agree he was bad offensively. He was one of the first coaches to make extensive use of the pick and roll and he had plenty of good sets based around Malone on the block. He wasn't overly creative, but he definitely knew what he was Doing, and results speak for themselves. He had the #1 offense several years in the late 90s, and hen did the exact same thing in the late 00s with the Williams/Boozer core. His team's always performed well, and we're pretty much always better on O than on D.

[tsherkin]

Well, Stockton wasn't even the best player on his team,

He was.

Based on RAPM, maybe, but at the same time, if he was, then it's his fault they didn't go any further because he was insufficiently assertive as a scoring threat in the playoffs when their main volume option was struggling. That's a pretty big counterbalance, IMO.

I'm inclined to believe that his role is what helped posted those more advanced metrics, because he was an extremely efficient per-possession guy, but he wasn't actually under the same kind of game pressure as was Malone. He was obviously a far better option to run the offense than almost anyone else in the league, but for pretty much two decades straight, they lacked the kind of secondary punch they needed in order to actual win, which lies directly on Stockton's shoulders if you want to call him the best player on the team.

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?

Well, Stockton wasn't even the best player on his team, so I'm not sure if I really like the argument about him making two finals appearances.

Nash wasn't the greatest player on the team when he played in Dallas.

So by this logic, when Nash is the greatest player on his team, his team does not have a chance to make the finals.

This doesn't follow logically.

Stockton never had offensive players in Utah the way Nash did in Dallas or Phoenix.

This is definitely wrong. Karl Malone stands as the obvious testament to this falsehood, but you could also look at Jeff Malone or Jeff Hornacek.

Stockton did not play with an innovative coach like D'Antoni who gave him total control over the offense either.

MAD wasn't actually an innovative coach, which is the first layer of issue with this statement, but Jerry Sloan was an ATG coach. He put together a tight system that maximized the efficacy of everyone on the floor with precision execution. He made a pretty big impact on Utah's offense, and this was while arriving a year AFTER Stockton became a breakout starter.

Meantime, Stockton DID have total control over the offense; he was the primary ball-handler and he had every opportunity to perform at a different level than he did. Obviously, you can't blame him for some years, but you can't turn around and try to say that he didn't control that offense, because that's rather blatantly incorrect.

Then for all the MVP rhetoric that Stockton was never in the conversation is crap.

Is it? You turn around and try to make it about WINNING the award, but really, the comment is about "being in the conversation." Stockton's got 3 finishes above 10th. There weren't enough titanic legends in the league during his ENTIRE career span that if he was comparable in voter regard that he couldn't have finished higher. Magic and Bird retired during his peak, and while he had a handful of centers and MJ to contend with, you'd think he could have at least hit 5th or 6th once or twice during Utah's peak.

Nash was 14th and 11th in the MVP vote even while he was in Dallas, which is comparable to Stockton's usual finish. He won in consecutive seasons, then was 2nd in the vote even in 2007. 08, 2010 and 2012, he was 9th, 8th and 9th. '

He had some pretty significant competition during that time. We're talking Kobe, Paul, Dirk, Lebron, Durant, etc, etc. In 05 and 06, you had the tail end of Shaq. You could throw in Deron during the first chunk. Etc, etc.

This is definitely something that leans in Nash's favor.

You CAN reasonably argue that the presence of Malone on Stockton's team made it harder to evaluate his worth as an MVP, though... but at the same time, you could say the same thing about the titanic presence of Amare's 05 season, and he was there in 07 as well, and 2010 for that matter.

[Brenice]

I'm sorry for going off on a tangent, but I was browsing that Zeke thread, and WOW. This is a guy who was a champion at the collegiate and the NBA level, someone who regularly destroyed Stockton head to head: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... =stockjo01, who has some of the greatest playoff performances of all time (25 points in a quarter against the Showtime Lakers - in game 6 of the NBA FINALS while injured nonetheless, lost the game on a HORRIBLE call - Zeke played game 7 hobbled and they lost ofc).

Compare Zeke's playoff stats to Stockton. If you want to crucify Robinson for taking a step back in the playoffs, then you should be doing the same to Stockton. No double standards please.

What bothers me the most about the revisionist history on Stockton is that the guy was ACTUALLY a dirty player during his prime. Dirty screens, and him/Malone were GOONS who went out and tried to injure the competition regularly (See Malone's elbow/Stockton's illegal screens).

/EndRant

Welcome to Realgm

[HeartBreakKid]

How is there revisionist history on Stockton in regards to him being a dirty player? Seems like that dude is just venting and making strawman arguments. I've never seen anyone say Stockton was not a dirty player.

[Hendrix]

I think the reason some people rank Stockton over Nash is because they are close in a lot of departments, and the department with the biggest gap (defense) favors Stockton.

Nash was a hyper efficient scorer that could 50/40/90. But, overall Nash was a .605ts% scorer throughout his career. Stockton was a .608ts% scorer himself.

Nash was the best passer in the league, leading the league in assists a few years. Stockton lead the league in assists a bunch of years, and is the all time leader in assist.

Not a massive gap in those 2 departments. Not enough to overshadow the advantages Stockton has in defense, and longevity imo.


The entirety of your reasoning why Nash is better seems to rest on him being an MVP, and imo that is a poor way to judge players.

[lorak]

Well, Stockton wasn't even the best player on his team,

He was.

Based on RAPM, maybe,

Not only RAPM, but also Jazz fans - on this forum too - who followed Jazz in late 80s and 90s claims that.

Jerry Sloan was pretty damn good offensive coach in his own right. Maybe didn't innovate like MDA, but I'd say he was a better coach all told.

Sloan was very good defensive coach, but bad offensively.

i don't think I can agree he was bad offensively. He was one of the first coaches to make extensive use of the pick and roll and he had plenty of good sets based around Malone on the block. He wasn't overly creative, but he definitely knew what he was Doing, and results speak for themselves. He had the #1 offense several years in the late 90s, and hen did the exact same thing in the late 00s with the Williams/Boozer core. His team's always performed well, and we're pretty much always better on O than on D.

Well, yes, as a system-coach he was good, but he wasn't able to see outside of his system, for example to make adjustments, because he was too attached to his system. And that was one of the main reasons why Jazz had so many disappointed losses in the playoffs - for example look at that series vs GSW, when both Malone and Stockton played on insane level and Utah still lost.

[G35]

Stockton never had offensive players in Utah the way Nash did in Dallas or Phoenix.

Karl Malone??? Jeff Hornacek?

Stockton did not play with an innovative coach like D'Antoni who gave him total control over the offense either.

Jerry Sloan was pretty damn good offensive coach in his own right. Maybe didn't innovate like MDA, but I'd say he was a better coach all told.

Karl Malone, Jeff Hornacek

Nash played with Dirk, Amare, Marion, Joe Johnson, Diaw, Quentin Richardson, Cedric Ceballos, Finley, Van Exel, Barbosa, Shaq, Kobe, Dwight, and Grant Hill


When we talk about the Suns and Nash being relevant in any all time talks it's strictly on the offensive side of the ball. Sloan is not anywhere near innovative on the offensive side of the ball. Those Jazz teams are actually criticized for being too predictable......

[HeartBreakKid]

Stockton never had offensive players in Utah the way Nash did in Dallas or Phoenix.

Karl Malone??? Jeff Hornacek?

Stockton did not play with an innovative coach like D'Antoni who gave him total control over the offense either.

Jerry Sloan was pretty damn good offensive coach in his own right. Maybe didn't innovate like MDA, but I'd say he was a better coach all told.

Karl Malone, Jeff Hornacek

Nash played with Dirk, Amare, Marion, Joe Johnson, Diaw, Quentin Richardson, Cedric Ceballos, Finley, Van Exel, Barbosa, Shaq, Kobe, Dwight, and Grant Hill


When we talk about the Suns and Nash being relevant in any all time talks it's strictly on the offensive side of the ball. Sloan is not anywhere near innovative on the offensive side of the ball. Those Jazz teams are actually criticized for being too predictable......

Stockton is also criticized because people felt his assist came as a result of Sloan's system. The offensive talent thing makes no sense here. Jerry Sloan is a much better coach than D'Antoni is, he has a point guard friendly system and John Stockton has played with plenty of offensive talent. Most of the guys you mentioned there are roleplayers or guys who were way past their prime (and you're even mentioning guys Nash played with when he himself was past his prime). Not to mention most of those guys did not play with Nash at the same time.


Nash has lead great offenses with many different types of players, so I don't understand that argument. Stockton had an all time great player and coach attached to him for nearly 20 years, while having good offensive players like Hornacek, Bailey, Jeff Malone. Then you consider that Stockton played during the 90s expansion era, there weren't many teams that had a better offensive cast than him.

[tsherkin]

Not only RAPM, but also Jazz fans - on this forum too - who followed Jazz in late 80s and 90s claims that.

I've watched a fair amount of 90s Jazz basketball myself. I'm inclined to disagree with them, personally. Like I said, though: if you allow for the notion that he was the best player on the team, then you have to look at him as lesser than the sum of his gaudy numbers because of Utah's team performance. They weren't that stunning on offense despite the numbers he and Malone posted (at least until Hornacek and actually scaling BACK Stockton's role) and his postseason performances really give me pause in some cases.

If he was the best player on the team, then that didn't work out as well as it could have, and that actually harms his case here.

for example look at that series vs GSW, when both Malone and Stockton played on insane level and Utah still lost.

Mmm. They got PUNKED by the Golden State offense in that series and were themselves about as effective on O as they were in the RS. This isn't really the example you want to use as far as harping on Sloan's offense.

What actually happened in that series is that Chris Mullin and Mitch Richmond kicked their teeth in, hard. Mullin doffed almost 33 ppg on them on his customary ridiculous efficiency; it was a Jordan-esque performance, and Richmond popped for like 25/8/6.

The Jazz lost a 4-point opener 123-119, coughing up 41 to Mullin and 30 to Mitch. Basically everyone else was crud on offense, very much the way you're trying to describe Utah. On the Jazz's side, Malone was murdering the offensive glass but had a relatively quiet 22 points but couldn't take care of the ball. 7 turnovers really wasn't helping their case. He scored efficiently, and Stockton had a fantastic game himself with 30/14. Thurl Bailey was better for Utah than anyone that wasn't Mullin or Mitch that game, and they still lost because they couldn't guard Golden State's perimeter guys, particularly at that pace. Darrell Griffith sucked a lot.

In any case, defensive failure, not offensive issue.

Come game 2, they lost by 8, 99-91 in a slower-paced affair, more like what the Jazz would prefer in the 90s (indeed, a sub-90 pace). Stockton was dreadful, Malone exploded, but the whole team outside of the Mailman wasn't making shots, so they lost. They were even up 3 after the third quarter, then got taken apart in the fourth.

Game 3 was a 14-point blowout to close out the series. Malone and Stockton were great, Griffith was solid, everyone else was meh. The Jazz gave up 120 points and scored 106. They got murdered in the third, which is really what sank them. Again, though, Mullin and Richmond murdered them with impunity. Teagle had a big game off of the bench, but even had he not, I doubt Utah was going to win.

They just couldn't guard the Warriors at all.

[theonlyclutch]

I have them as equals, as the biggest argument for Nash comes from non-boxscore numbers, and even the most ardent Nash supporters can't argue that Dallas Nash was equal to Phoenix Nash in terms of impact, so Stockton has a very significant lead on prime longetivity there.

I have Nash as significantly better at his best than Stockton though, my biggest problem with Stockton was that when he was playing a more reduced role from 96-98, Utah didn't miss a beat and actually went to the finals twice in this timeframe, that doesn't really suggest MVP-level impact, as Phoenix Nash has repeatedly shown through plus-minus and RAPM.

[lorak]

Not only RAPM, but also Jazz fans - on this forum too - who followed Jazz in late 80s and 90s claims that.

I've watched a fair amount of 90s Jazz basketball myself. I'm inclined to disagree with them, personally.

Why?

Like I said, though: if you allow for the notion that he was the best player on the team, then you have to look at him as lesser than the sum of his gaudy numbers because of Utah's team performance.

Not really, because it depends on if it was his fault (sometimes it was, but we can't generalize like you just suggested that it was always his fault) that Jazz played bad. It's like with for example MJ vs Pistons in late 80s - it wasn't his fault Bulls lost, but Pippen or generally weak supporting cast.

Besides, if you really believe in something like that, then you must criticize Malone a lot.

Mmm. They got PUNKED by the Golden State offense in that series and were themselves about as effective on O as they were in the RS. This isn't really the example you want to use as far as harping on Sloan's offense.

Jazz RS ORTG 106,6; GSW RS DRTG 107,7, so Jazz expected ORTG was 107,2.

Jazz ORTG game by game
1 - 114,3
2 - 101,7
3 - 101,4

So one game above expected value and two below, ergo offense also suffered in that series.