Where Stockton rank all time among point guards?

[Doctor MJ]

BTW, according to your logic in 1996, despite 1995 playoffs, Robinson was better than Olajuwon because the people who watched the games choose Robinson over Hakeem in All NBA voting and MVP voting.

In 1996, David Robinson was a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon.

Wow, yeah, there's a couple misunderstandings here:

1. TrueLA is not saying that you ignore the playoffs in evaluating players. He's saying the MVP & other accolades are great for evaluating the regular season.

2. As sp64 said, Hakeem's superiority over Robinson was not a constant thing, despite what so many people believe right now. Hakeem deserves tons of credit for what he did while marching toward those 2 rings, and he should be rated ahead of Robinson on an all-time list because of it, but throughout their career, Hakeem was not playing at that higher level. It's wrong to extrapolate what happened in those playoffs to assume that however the regular seasons before and after appeared Hakeem must have been playing better because of those few shining moments.

[sp6r=underrated]

BTW, according to your logic in 1996, despite 1995 playoffs, Robinson was better than Olajuwon because the people who watched the games choose Robinson over Hakeem in All NBA voting and MVP voting.

In 1996, David Robinson was a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon.

Wow, yeah, there's a couple misunderstandings here:

1. TrueLA is not saying that you ignore the playoffs in evaluating players. He's saying the MVP & other accolades are great for evaluating the regular season.

2. As sp64 said, Hakeem's superiority over Robinson was not a constant thing, despite what so many people believe right now. Hakeem deserves tons of credit for what he did while marching toward those 2 rings, and he should be rated ahead of Robinson on an all-time list because of it, but throughout their career, Hakeem was not playing at that higher level. It's wrong to extrapolate what happened in those playoffs to assume that however the regular seasons before and after appeared Hakeem must have been playing better because of those few shining moments.

Nice post, especially with the summary of why Hakeem deservedly being rated above Robinson does not invalidate MVP voting.

[KING JAMES1978]

1.Magic
2.Robertson
3.Cousy
4.Isiah
5.Frazier
6.Stockton
7.Kidd
8.Nash
9.Archibald
10.Billups

Jerry West was a shooting guard..........and he is the 3rd Greatest behind MJ and KB.......

[Doctor MJ]

I do want to chime on something that goes in Stockton's supporters' favor.

While the idea that voters take to MVP voting drastically differently from All-NBA is wrong, MVP voting has a weakness as it drifts much past the top 5. Once you get to around 10th, guys are being rated above others because of what a small fraction believe. So for someone like Stockton who wasn't really a Top 5 type guy, All-NBA voting is the better way to rate him imho.

Now though, in making that statement, I'm making the assumption that people agree that Stockton wasn't a Top 5 guy, which I know not everyone agrees with. In arguing with those people I'd totally parrot TrueLA's argument that you better be damn careful going against what people said at the time. Those people were not idiots.

Anyway getting to my opinion of what Stockton's All-NBA's say about him: He basically had 4 years that he was the best point guard not named Magic, and pretty much everyone agrees that Stockton was not a 4-year-peak guy. So what that says was that his peak was pretty comparable to several other guy's in his generation, and he gets the career nod based on longevity. It also says that he shouldn't get a clear peak nod over other guys who were the clear #1 point guard of their era unless you believe Stockton's era was ridiculously stacked at that position.

In terms of where I rate him, after the top 3 (Magic, Oscar, Frazier - I think of West as a SG), it's really, really close between him, Isiah, Kidd, Nash, and Payton. I don't have a real problem with anyone rating him 1st or 5th among those guys. The last time I made an all-time great list I had him below Isiah and Kidd, but I've had others where I had him about both of those guys.

[lorak]

I do want to chime on something that goes in Stockton's supporters' favor.

While the idea that voters take to MVP voting drastically differently from All-NBA is wrong, MVP voting has a weakness as it drifts much past the top 5. Once you get to around 10th, guys are being rated above others because of what a small fraction believe. So for someone like Stockton who wasn't really a Top 5 type guy, All-NBA voting is the better way to rate him imho.

Now though, in making that statement, I'm making the assumption that people agree that Stockton wasn't a Top 5 guy, which I know not everyone agrees with. In arguing with those people I'd totally parrot TrueLA's argument that you better be damn careful going against what people said at the time. Those people were not idiots.

Anyway getting to my opinion of what Stockton's All-NBA's say about him: He basically had 4 years that he was the best point guard not named Magic, and pretty much everyone agrees that Stockton was not a 4-year-peak guy. So what that says was that his peak was pretty comparable to several other guy's in his generation, and he gets the career nod based on longevity. It also says that he shouldn't get a clear peak nod over other guys who were the clear #1 point guard of their era unless you believe Stockton's era was ridiculously stacked at that position.

In terms of where I rate him, after the top 3 (Magic, Oscar, Frazier - I think of West as a SG), it's really, really close between him, Isiah, Kidd, Nash, and Payton. I don't have a real problem with anyone rating him 1st or 5th among those guys. The last time I made an all-time great list I had him below Isiah and Kidd, but I've had others where I had him about both of those guys.

I think it’s very nice summary of everything what we were talking about during last several days. I only don’t agree with what you said about peak, because no other point guard of his generation (and not too many of others generations) was top2-3 during whole decade – and not many all time great point guards played at the same time as Magic (who without doubt is the best PG of all time) - in fact only Isiah was less lucky than Stockton in that regard.

[penbeast0]

In 1996, David Robinson was a better player than Hakeem Olajuwon.

So I guess that Robinson during their primes was better player, what MVP votes and All NBA selections clearly proves:

All NBA Teams
1990 - Hakeem 2nd, Robinson 3rd
1991 - Robinson 1st, Hakeem 3rd
1992 - Robinson 1st, Hakeem not classified
1993 - Hakeem 1st, Robinson 3rd
1994 - Hakeem 1st, Robinson 2nd
1995 - Robinson 1st, Hakeem 3rd
1996 - Robinson 1st, Hakeem 2nd

Average: Robinson 1.7, Hakeem 2.0 (and I don't even count 1992 season)

MVP Voting
1990 - Robinson (rookie!) 6th, Hakeem 7th
1991 - Robinson 3rd, Hakeem 18th
1992 - Robinson 3rd, Hakeem not classified
1993 - Hakeem 2nd, Robinson 6th
1994 - Hakeem 1st, Robinson 2nd
1995 - Robinson 1st, Hakeem 5th
1996 - Robinson 2nd, Hakeem 4th

Average: Robinson 3.3, Hakeem 6.2 (again, I don't count 1992)

Year in and Year out before his injury, David Robinson WAS a better player than Hakeem! And you left out the fact that despite both teams being contenders most of that time, Robinson's teams won 2/3 of the head to head matchups (and 11 straight after adding Tim Duncan for a lifetime record of 30-12. The difference is that both MVP and All-NBA Awards reward regular season play. Hakeem's legacy rests on stepping it up in the playoffs; Robinson was the better regular season player in his prime.

[Laimbeer]

I don't see Isiah as one of those guys particularly either. I see him as a Chauncey Billups who was the face of a superbly coached, well balanced group that played great team ball and won multiple titles doing so. Lots of credit to them both but I don't see them as a Russell who took over a mediocre franchise and made it unbeatable or even a Bill Walton level game changer. Isiah's Pistons were not a team of the ages either like Bird's Celtics or Magic's Lakers. More akin to Elvin Hayes and his one title/3 finals appearances in Washington; in fact Hayes was probably a much bigger piece of the Bullets' success since they didn't have the talent at the all the other positions that Detroit had (C and SF yes, but the Bullets' guards were never that impressive nor their bench).

I wouldn't compare the Chauncey Pistons to the Bad Boys. It is true they both were superbly coached and won largely with team play and defense. But the Bad Boys won multiple titles in a very competitive era and the 1989 Pistons were voted one of the top 10 teams in NBA history. They also were very competitive (and at times defeated) Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers, and I seriously doubt Hayes' Bullets would have been. Hayes and the Bullets won one title in a far less competitive era.

Also, the Pistons were 21-61 the season before Isiah was drafted so they were pretty medicore as well.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Well I'm sure he found it somewhere lol, usually he's dead on.

I checked it – I compared team ortg and player ortg what gives us very valuable information about player impact on offense (on the other hand drtg is almost useless when we want evaluate player defense). In short: the higher + is the bigger player impact on offense was.

Nash 12 (I don’t count his first two years when he was Suns reserve) seasons average +7.03 per season.
Best years: 2009/10 +10.2, 2006/07 +10.2, 2005/06 +9.5

So his impact is clearly huge.
But look at Stockton’s impact Baller:
Stockton 19 (19!) seasons average: 11.22
Best years: 1987/88 +18.2, 1988/89 +15.4, 2001/02 +14.5
He also had 10 more years with +10

I don’t know how you feel about this, but I’m impressed.

And I agree he was definitely a top 3 PG, and probably top 2 during that nine year stretch, but I just don't think he was a superstar caliber player.

I think that only Magic was superstar point guard. And of course Cousy, West or Robertson, but if we talking about modern basketball Magic is the only one. Sure, some point guards had one or two great season, but nobody was at the top for so long to be called a superstar. Only Magic.

Great post

[Dr Positivity]

Guys above Stockton IMO:

Magic
Robertson
West
Frazier
Nash
Cousy
Payton


I can see the Kidd vs Isiah vs Stockton argument. I have it as 8. Kidd 9. Stockton 10. Isiah

[Dr Positivity]

Here are the All-NBA votes. Remember they vote for 2 Gs, 2 Fs, 1 C. No differentiating between PG and SG. So this had some impact on Stockton:

88 - 1st team: Magic, Jordan 2nd team: Stockton, Drexler
89 - 1st team: Magic, Jordan 2nd team: Stockton, Kevin Johnson 3rd team: Mark Price, Dale Ellis
90 - 1st team: Magic, Jordan, 2nd team: Stockton, Kevin Johnson 3rd team: Drexler, Dumars
91 - 1st team: Magic, Jordan, 2nd team: Kevin Johnson, Drexler 3rd team: Stockton, Dumars
92 - 1st team: Jordan, Drexler 2nd team: Tim Hardaway, Stockton, 3rd team: Kevin Johnson, Price
93 - 1st team: Jordan, Price 2nd team: Dumars, Stockton, 3rd team: Tim Hardaway, Petrovic
94 - 1st team: Stockton, Spreewell 2nd team: Kevin Johnson, Richmond, 3rd team: Payton, Price
95 - 1st team: Stockton, Penny 2nd team: Payton, Richmond, 3rd team: Drexler, Miller
96 - 1st team: Jordan, Penny 2nd team: Stockton, Payton 3rd team: Richmond, Miller
97 - 1st team: Jordan, Tim Hardaway, 2nd team: Payton, Richmond 3rd team: Stockton, Penny

Kevin Johnson had 4 healthy peak years (89-92). First two years he and Stockton both made 2nd team. Next year KJ beat him. Year after that Stockton beat KJ. So even split.

Stockton beats Hardaway in 91 and matches him in 92. I am not counting 93 because Hardaway only plays 66 games and makes 3rd team anyways

Stockton beats Drexler in 89 and 90. He beat him in MVP votes those years too (Drexler finished N/A in 89 and 12th in 90). Drexler peaks in everything (hype, MVP votes, All-NBA) the next 2 years and beats Stockton

Stockton beats Price in 89, 90, and 92 (Price is injured in 91). Price gets him in 93.

In 94 Stockton makes 1st team. However it's a very weak year with no MJ, a declined/injured Drexler, KJ only playing 67 games and still making 2nd team. Spreewell is 1st team this year

In 94 and 95 Stockton impressively beats Payton who finishes 6th and 9th in MVP voting those years. 94 indicates rough love for Payton more than strength from Stockton, with Spree making 1st team, KJ making 2nd team in 67 games, Richmond making 2nd team.

In 96 Penny finishes ahead of him, otherwise not much to draw from

In 97 Stockton is clearly declining but still a 14/10 with d guy. He finishes behind Timbug and Richmond.

All this proves Stockton was without a doubt an elite guard. However so were Price, Kevin Johnson, Penny and they beat him on occasions. Stockton finishes ahead of a 6th place (Payton), 7th place (Price), 9th place (Payton again). This fits in with Stockton getting 7th and 8th place in MVP at his peak

The result is the same really. Stockton was an excellent guard a great Pippen to Malone's Jordan, but he was never a dominate or top 5 player. He never had as high a peak as Nash, Kidd, Cousy, or Payton who were considered and recognized as top 3-5 players at one point

[carrottop12]

His numbers are too large to be appreciated. It's similar to grabbing 55 rebounds or scoring 100 points in one game. The sheer idea of it is so far beyond what people view as being in the realm of possibilities that they feel the need to belittle it or dismiss it all together.

Just imagine over the next 15 years Chris Paul becomes the all time assist leader, and all time steals leader, while shooting 50%+ the entire time, even though he never wins an MVP or an NBA title he'd still cement himself as a top 3 PG of all time no if's and's or but's.

[ronnymac2]

John Stockton? Never thought he'd be such a hot topic on this forum.....

I have to call myself out here. I think I've been a bit too hard on Stockton in the past. There were games where teams would trap him out at halfcourt to get the ball out of his hands because his playmaking/initiating of the offense was so deadly. That's something I like. I don't give a **** about his assists records or his all-nba teams; I care about the player's effect on a real, live game. That's how I judge players. The fact that teams did that tells me that this guy is dangerous. He effects a defense.

I also like his physical/dirty play. He wants to win the game, and he'll literally scratch and claw his way to victory if need be. That's admirable, in its own ironic, twisted way.

I've taken his passing for granted. Again, I'm not talking about assists per game averages. I'm talking about watching the game. He was really an excellent passer. Left hand, right hand. Masterful on the pick-n-roll. Very good on the baseline, understood when to use the ever-effective cross-court pass, knew where players wanted the ball. I used to think Nash was a tad better ito of passing/playmaking due to creativity, but I'm not sure if that's the case anymore. I think they're dead even, on the second tier (first tier is reserved for Magic, Larry, and J-Kidd).

Though I have and will continue to dock Stockton points for his inability to constantly create a shot for himself, I must give him points for his foul-drawing ability. He's pretty crafty at that and doesn't shy away from contact.

I think he can manage an offense all by himself (meaning no Malone....as the best offensive player) like Paul and Nash and Williams can, and he is a better passer/playmaker than Deron or Paul (by a little bit). I still think Paul would be better than Stockton simply because he's the better scorer (iso scorer) and rebounder while having some of Stockton's toughness.


How would I rank Stockton all-time? Well, I'm not going to rank Paul and Williams right now, I don't know how to rank Bob Cousy, and imo, Jerry West and Pete Maravich were shooting guards. So:

Magic
Oscar
Frazier
Isiah
Kidd
Payton
Nash
Stockton

5-8 are pretty damn close though. I think Stockton would be closer to Kidd's spot than whoever is in 9th. I just prefer Kidd over him because I like his defense, rebounding, versatility, slightly better passing/playmkaing, and athleticism. In his prime, he never had anybody close to Karl Malone, yet led teams very far when he shouldn't be a number 1 player on a team. I like Payton largely for the same reasons I like Kidd over Stockton. If prime GP had a player clearly better than himself...damn. Nash...it's Stockton's much better defense vs. Nash's superior ability to create for himself. I'll take the offense. Personal preference.

It's more a case of, well, a bunch of personal prefences. Stockton was a great player. Now that I think about it, if I'm lumping him with Nash, Kidd, and Payton, then he might be a top 30 player ever since they are all borderline, too. That's pretty impressive.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Oh yeah, at the end of the day, this is how it goes down in my head
1st: Osacar, Magic, Paul, West
2nd: Stockton, Payton
3rd: Nash, Kidd, Isiah, Williams, Frazier

[lorak]

I have to call myself out here. I think I've been a bit too hard on Stockton in the past. There were games where teams would trap him out at halfcourt to get the ball out of his hands because his playmaking/initiating of the offense was so deadly. That's something I like.

LOL at myself - I’m one of the Stockton’s supporters and I forget to mention about that. Really guys, I don’t know how many of you remember that but what ronnymac just said is true. The best example of that is 1996 WCF. Imagine, Stockton was 33 years old, Sonics had DPOTY at point guard (Payton in his absolute prime) and they STILL DOUBLE TEAMING (TRAPING) STOCKTON AT HALFCOURT! Sure, he played bad series when we look at the numbers, but how many point guards were so dangerous that teams were taping them at half court whole series?

[bastillon]

^
at using series where he was DOMINATED by his peer from the same position, that sure proves a thing

[TrueLAfan]

My file of pre-1995 All-NBA voting totals is a word file (copy and paste job). I suggest going to APBR and checking through the archives for specifics. (And, frankly DavidStern, just looking over what you have...you have John Stockton with 3 #1 years, 4 #2 years, and 3 #3 years in his best ten years...a difference of one year from the MVP and All-NBA teams.)

The problem with looking at players that have been top 3 at a position for a decade is that player value has much less to do with career length and almost totally deals with absolute peak. A player that has been a really good for a decade or more is never going to be considered as good in terms of player value as a player that has been elite, even if the second player was only elite for a few years. Dan Issel averaged over 20 points and 8.5 rebounds a game for 10 seasons. He never missed games, was a tough competitor, and a good locker room guy. But Bill Walton was a better player. You can say Dan Issel had a better career than Bill Walton, but Issel's career longetivity and terrific numbers don't mean a whole lot in terms of, for instance, where Issel would rank in a given year (or period of years) as a player. Dan Issel scored over 27000 points and grabbed over 11000 rebounds. He had a great college career at legendary school. Walton grabbed less than half as many rebounds in the pros; he scored only 25% of what Issel scored. Guess which player made the 50 greatest list?

As noted by others, John Stockton's peak is equal to players like Kevin Johnson and Mark Price and Tim Hardaway. (Which is terrific, by the way.) With those players, it's a case where having a superlong career elevates Stockton in terms of player value...tie goes to the player with the longer period of time spent at the equal peak. But when you get to players that have had higher peaks, it's more of a problem. Walt Frazier "only" had about a 600 game peak. Stockton's is considerably longer. But Clyde was a better player at his peak than Stockton ever was. If you're trying to stir up controversy or sell magazines, you can go with Stockton. In the real world and in terms of basketball analysis, you go with the better player. The logic is simple; choose the player that is most likely to get you over the top. Choose the better player. A team would much rather have one title with a guy who was great for only five seasons than 15 years of coming close with a different player. You take the peak.

And Walton is an extreme example. By the time you've had a career peak of 4 or 5 seasons--enough for players like Billy Cunningham and Nate Archibald--you've established enough of a career base. Ten years as a top 7-12 player isn't nearly as good as 6 years in the top 6.

So the question we really want to ask is, "What was John Stockton's peak value as a player?" And, if other PGs were higher in this respect, was it for only one year (a fluke), or was it for several years? I can't see a way of distinguishing the peak of Stockton vs. Price, KJ, or Bug. So Stockton would trump them because of career length. Kidd and Isiah are more problematic. Isiah has the great postseason performances and intangibles; Kidd has a couple of years that were somewhat better. Payton was a top 6 player for half a decade that had similar team success; I have to rank him above Stockton. Frazier is the same way, but even more clearly (IMO) ahead. Same with Nash...look, we can talk all we want about statistics. People that watch games felt that Steve Nash had more impact--and value--on his teams than Stockton did. If you want to rate Nash below Stockton, that's your right. But I very strongly think that Steve Nash has been better in most all of the last five years than John Stockton ever was. MVP voters agree with me. CP3? Deron Williams? Too soon. You could pull a Walton and say CP3 is better, and have some basis. I think we should wait until he's had 4 or 5 seasons at his higher level.

Magic is, IMO, on an island as a PG. Oscar has great raw numbers, but suffers a bit for playoffs and leadership. After that, you've got Frazier. IMO, Nash and Payton have much better argument for four and five than Stockton do. But, as others have noted, the Nash/Payton/Stock/Isiah/Kidd is not clear cut. I put Stockton pretty much in the middle. (I very strongly feel Jerry West is a PG too, so I'd actually have those players at 5-9 at the position.)

p.s. With regard to Hakeem/Robinson...two things. DoctorMJ noted it, but I'll say it again. During the regular season, from the time when David Robinson entered the league until he had his back injury, the jury was out on who was the better C between Drob and Hakeem. Hakeem surpassed David Robinson with two epic years of playoff performances...which, again points to the "peak trumps longetivity" argument.

And also that brings us to...the playoffs. Stockton simply did not do anything to upgrade his legacy there. The long ball didn't work for him very well. He didn't pick up his passing or scoring overall, or on a regular basis. For a player that had over 180 playoff games, he had few big series or, relatively speaking, games. His finals performances were not good. If there was ever a time for him to distinguish himself, that was it, and he did not.

[lorak]

My file of pre-1995 All-NBA voting totals is a word file (copy and paste job). I suggest going to APBR and checking through the archives for specifics.

I can’t find it here: http://www.apbr.org/.
Could you create a thread with voting pre 1995 and past all the results? I think it would be very informative not only for me, but for all realGM forum. I would really appreciate it.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Super clutch game by Nash tonight... to bad he had that "bag of bones" Hill and the "dumb as box of nails" Barbosa chocking it up out there.

[erudite23]

#1