[/quote]tsherkin wrote:ShotCreator wrote:Yeah, no. We're just talking in circles now. There's no way I'll ever agree to the bold. Young Stockton was a fastbreak demon because of his quickness.
No, read that line again, because you're reading more into it than is there.
I said he never relied on his quickness. He had other tools. That's why he aged well. Well, part of it.
(EDIT: whoops, hit SUBMIT too soon, forgot to flesh this out.
Like I said, I don't think Stockton was unathletic. I think what held him back was lack of ELITE quickness, which he very visibly did not have and no objective source will be able to describe. He was considerably slower than healthy KJ. That doesn't mean that he wasn't quick, and I've already SPECIFICALLY mentioned his end to end quickness as good in this thread, so you're not actually arguing points I've made. It's also worth realizing that you can mitigate quickness difference to some extent with threat of shot and with really quality approach to dribble attack, which Stockton did well, and with PnR, which he also manipulated quite adroitly. )My point of bringing up old Paul is to say you can be a small guard, and be much slower than Stockton was and still be very effective.
Not sure I see why this is relevant to the conversation we've been having.I want to take the chance to say this: I have never, ever been convinced Scottie Pippen was better than Stockton, at any point in their careers, on either end. I remember Ben Taylor clearly ranking Pippen above him and I just always felt that was wrong. I'm getting new info like the rim % stats, and the RAPM data, along with watching him and I really feel that gut feeling I had was right. Stockton was really unique. Deceptively had rim pressure based on quickness, pretty much never had a down defensive year and was a well above average shooter to top it off.
I think the difference Ben was after came from defense, and from Pippen (especially first three-peat Pippen) applying more scoring pressure, to the degree that Utah lacked alongside Malone.But you know what I can't help it, this is one of my last times going on about this quickness thing:
Look at what Stockton did to Jordan in 96 on ball: ;ab_channel=All-aroundNBA
Completely beat him at 0:46, 1:55, and 3:45.
:46 was nice. He was on a guy half a foot taller than him who did have to get closer to respect his shot and Jordan WAS shading him to the baseline, so I'm not as impressed by that as you are. Again, Stockton wasn't unathletic, and it's also a good counter to everyone who mopes that the 90s were nothing but handchecking that would ruin small guards today, heh.
1:55 isn't particularly impressive at all from a quickness POV, not a good example of your point. He switched directions with tons of space between him and Jordan. The real move he made there was the way he lulled Jordan into moving to the left and then pulled that cross while Jordan's momentum was going in the other direction. it was a particularly well-executed move that had much less to do about quickness and more about rocking his defender and manipulating timing and expectation. Look at him all upright, unrushed, just chilling, gets Jordan moving and then BOOM. That was a sweet move, and it only required so much athleticism to be effective. That was all skill.
3:45 wasn't quickness, that was getting the defender thinking about the screen and then declining it to go the opposite direction. And again, Stockton makes his move in one direction and then went another. That's misdirection and shifting weight, which was quite proficient.
Phil ended the game with Kerr on him, which is a preview of the 97 Finals. His quickness was a particular problem. He could get into the middle of the lane on elite defensive teams consistently. He was no Nash to me, but I think his low FGA really underestimate the pressure he put on defenses. This is no Ricky Rubio here. Not that you ever said that.
If Stockton didn't have the quickness you suppose he didn't rely on, we wouldn't even be talking about him right now. So I won't get into the hair splitting what he didn't rely on it even means. I don't even think I agree in any case.
Saying he BOOMED into a Jordan as a way saying it wasn't a use of quickness just sounds ridiculous. What was that boom? A slow step? He attacked him in space. Which really goes against this thing where you say he only beat people because they cared about his shooting. Then when they sag off because - like Jordan knew by that point, he had nothing for him as far as quickness off the bounce, you say it has nothing to do with quickness...
And bro, if thinking about the screen is all takes to get a halfcourt layup/dunk quality shot in the NBA, the game would be a lot different. Stockton beat Jordan AND help before they could even rotate. It's quickness. It's not complicated.
That's why sagging off doesn't work on Giannis, LeBron, Westbrook, etc. They gain momentum. Again this just fleshes out how aggressive and not lacking in defense pressure Stockton's game was. All based on quickness off the bounce.
