Jose Calderon vs. Steve Nash' early career

[easyflow]

Look, I'm not saying Calderon can't be or isn't a great point guard.

He is.

He's just not "John Stockton" great.

Not yet.

All I'm saying is that I would compare him at this stage in his career to the early stockton days, if anyone here is old enough to remember watching him in those days - i know you are Hank, so, are you really going to tell me Calderon doesn't remind you of the way that stockton played?

And the defense, will come as well. It's not like Calderon doesn't posses any of the physical attributes that Stockton had. I would say athletically they are very comparable. Stockton learned to work his butt off on defense and do all the "little things" that make the difference in close games.

[etopn23]

Have people already forgotten about Michael Finley?

[Hank_Scorpio]

-= original quote snipped =-



Not yet.

All I'm saying is that I would compare him at this stage in his career to the early stockton days, if anyone here is old enough to remember watching him in those days - i know you are Hank, so, are you really going to tell me Calderon doesn't remind you of the way that stockton played?

Perhaps a little, but not really. Stockton was REALLY quick. If anything, I would say Ford is more like Stockton than Calderon is. And Calderon is A LOT bigger - as in 4 inches taller and about 30 pounds heavier.

And Stockton was just a GREAT defender - its not something that can come along later - that's talent - and Stockton had it.

I think the Nash comparison is probably more accurate - though Calderon is a more conservative version of Nash and not quite as quick.

[easyflow]

-= original quote snipped =-



Perhaps a little, but not really. Stockton was REALLY quick. If anything, I would say Ford is more like Stockton than Calderon is. And Calderon is A LOT bigger - as in 4 inches taller and about 30 pounds heavier.

And Stockton was just a GREAT defender - its not something that can come along later - that's talent - and Stockton had it.

I think the Nash comparison is probably more accurate - though Calderon is a more conservative version of Nash and not quite as quick.

I don't agree. If you look back at vintage stockton video you'll see what I mean. His mechanics and style of play is so similar to Jose. I'll agree with you about Calderon's defense not being great right now - but defense is something that can be improved if the effort is there. Take Bruce Bowen as a prime example -- was he always a defensive specialist? No. Go back and take a look. Jose's defensive ability will improve with each game.

Jose is nothing like Nash, he doesn't play like him at all. I'm sticking with my Stockton comparison and hoping that Calderon can continue down the path that he's currently on.

[Raps-ody]

I'm finding all this interesting (and I have to admit that usually my eyes glaze over at stat comparisons)

I think it's interesting to say that he *could* aim to become a defensive specialist as well, as that is something that learning and hard work can help with and we know he's a hard worker. We can see that he must have been working on his shot, as he has become a truly solid shooter. Speed, on the other hand isn't something you learn, so if he's slower than Nash, I don't think that's going to change much.

I don't remember Stockton's early days, as I didn't start following NBA utnil around 94. When people say he was fast are you talking about fast getting down the court or lateral quickness too? (which helps defensively of course)

I think Jose is a 'heady' point guard with great potential and we're seeing this year just how good he can become.

[bill russell]

Just strictly comparing numbers here.

Jose Calderon (as a starter):

14.5 ppg
10.0 apg
55% shooting
48% 3pt
92% ft
3.5 rpg
1.2 spg
36 min/game

Steve Nash (04/05 mvp season):

15.5 ppg
11.5 apg
50.2% shooting
43% 3pt
88.7% ft
3.6 rpg
1.3 spg
34 min/game

Nash barely scored more, averaged a dime more a game, Jose's shooting a lot better, rebounding and steals rates are almost identical, but Jose plays 2 more minutes a game.

These stats are fascinating. I'm not sure how much they mean, but they are indeed fascinating. of course, the biggest difference between jose and nash in this comparison would be in the win column. that said, nash (like stockton) was surrounded by finishers. especially guys who finish at the rim. the raptors will eventually get a finisher. and bargnani will get better at reaching the basket. and when jose has guys who can shoot AND finish around him, there's no reason to expect that his numbers won't improve.

finally, i agree that nash and jose are different types of players but this is how they are similar: they both work really hard on their game, they both improve. nash was a shooter out of santa clara; he learned to distribute and run a team. jose has always been a floor general; he's since learned to shoot. i have no doubt jose's got another level ahead of him, just like nash had as he approached the age of 30.

[CB4-TJ11-AB7]

Read the first page of the thread so forgive me if other have said this. But no disrespect to Caldy, he's been great but to compare him even statistically to Nash and Stockton is absolute disrespect to those 2 guys. I mean Stockton played in an era where an assist wasn't just handed out and he impacted every single game and changed every game he played. You put Stockton on this team instead of Calderon even at the point you're comparing them and we are winning at least 10 more games than we have right now. That's how GREAT Stockton was. He changed the game defensively and he made every single player on the court an offensive juggernaut. You put Caldy on those Jazz teams and they don't come close to what they were. Same with Nash, you take the Nash from the days you're comparing and we're a much better team. I mean much better, but no way does Caldy make Dallas a better team or even close to where they were.

It's simply about impact, how do you dictate a game. How do you change a game, how do you make the defense react. Watch Chris Paul now that's someone you can even dare to compare to Nash and Stockton. He makes the game his game, you don't ever forget that Chris Paul is on the floor. On defense and offense you remember that he's there. There's no ups and downs its 100% impact.

Stats don't make or even tell the story of a player. I'm pretty sure some useless players have put up stats. But how you impact winning is what makes great players. And putting up players like Nash and Stockton against Caldy no matter how great he's been is a disrespect to those guys. I mean watch an old Utah game and tell me you wouldn't sell your insides to get even a young Stockton here. Even when he didn't have the flashy stats he had the impact. He was the one driving the gut of the D, he was the one grabbing the steals. The one finding guys.

I'm not saying Calderon will never be in their category but that comparing him to them right now is very very premature and wrong. If he has a quarter of the impact Stockton had on games, I'll be happy.

[Profanity]

Another way to spin Calderon's assist numbers is that he has nobody aside from Bosh or Delfino that is capable of creating his own shot. So any baskets that Moon, Parker, Bargnani etc. get are going to be off passes from teammates, and will thus lead to a high percentage of assisted baskets and possibly an inflate assist total.

Errr... welll... Care to explain how can I mix those thoughts and conclude Calderon assits are not worth? I mean... Don't you realize it's contradictory?

How is that a ball dished to Malone 12 feet away from the rim, that he still had to save the center's help, is rated as a "worthier" assist?

[RapTelligence]

No point comparing him to all the greats and not so greats.

All that matters is he is improving every year and at the end of his career will be a pretty damn good PG.