Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton

[Capn'O]

Stockton was probably better but Nash (and Price for that matter) were so much more fun.

[SlimShady83]

Stockton was probably better but Nash (and Price for that matter) were so much more fun.

Just wanted to say I like your sig need bourbon emote

Yep it's that time for me

[NZB2323]

Peak? Nash comfortably, he was able to play on higher volume as a scorer in the playoffs (multiple playoff runs with +20-10-60TS% averages) - he was a better player adjusted to his era - and he generated better offenses in the regular season. This is more important than the advantage that Stockton has on defensive end.

Overall? I'd still go with Nash, but it's closer due to longevity, here, there's a legit argument in favor of Stockton, maybe he's the answer, who knows.

This is actually a pretty tough question. I want to say Stockton because he was a more complete player, with no real weaknesses -- and was actually a plus defender. But the argument for Nash is that he was able to play at an MVP-level as the lead guy. Stockton was never used that way. When Nash played a secondary player to Nowitzki, Stockton was hands down the better player. He out-performed Nash in that type of role. You have to wonder how Stockton would have done if he was asked to be the lead in a D'Antoni-like system, but we never got a chance to see that. So because of that, it's really a close debate, IMO.

Is that a case though? Considering shortcomings of Malone as an offensive player in the playoffs - there was plenty of room for Stockton to 'increase' his ranks as a player, he rarely was willing to play on higher volume as a scorer though.

We have examples here and there (Lakers '89 or Rockets '97), but the overall outlook was that Stockton was fine with his 'regular' contribution even if Jazz badly needed more scoring depth, especially in these series like Blazers '92, Rockets '94, or Bulls '97 - where Jazz were the closest to the realistic contending chances. Sometimes, Hornacek or Jeff Malone in crucial moments played on higher volume as scorers.

So I don't think that Stockton scales that well in 'what if he was a first option' type of situations.

I'd even go further and say Stockton tried at times in the playoffs and failed. He took more shots to average the same amount of points as he did in the regular season.

The argument that Stockton could have scaled up his scoring when he wanted to is kinda unfounded.

Theres a lot of proof of concept there when it comes to nash. Not so much with Stockton.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

1988 playoff Stockton: 20 and 15, 61.8 TS%
1989 playoff Stockton: 27 and 14, 60.1 TS%
1991 playoff Stockton: 18 and 14, 64.4 TS%

2002 playoff Nash: 20 and 9, 58.5 TS%
2003 playoff Nash: 16 and 7, 56.5 TS%
2004 playoff Nash: 14 and 9, 46 TS%

We have more of a proof of concept of Stockton being an effective playoff scorer in his 20s without D’Antoni and the rule changes benefitting offense than we have with Nash in his 20s without D’Antoni and the rule changes benefitting offenses.

97-04 is the lowest scoring era in NBA history with the shot clock. They changed the rules to make it easier to score which the Nash Suns really took advantage of.

I have Nash higher for peak because of the actual impact he had, but Stockton higher for career. Stockton was much better than Nash from ages 22-29, and ages 34-40, and I wouldn’t really put the Jazz playoff failures on Nash. Compare his running mate’s playoff TS% to the guys Nash had:

Malone: 52.6%
Dirk: 57.7%
Amare: 57.9%

Nash also had Finley in Dallas and Marion in Phoenix.

Back then the thought is the point guard is supposed to run the offense and pass to team mates, and not shoot that much. It’s not Nash’s fault Malone missed so many shots, couldn’t deliver on Sundays, and Jordan stole the ball from him. Malone was the guy who won MVP and Malone was supposed to deliver.

[SlimShady83]

You all remember when I did this thread Stockton vs Paul?
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2470826&p=119462314&hilit=all+time+John+Stockton+Chris+Paul#p119462314

Maybe do a goat PG thread incoming? because if some of you saying Stockton better then CP3 and some saying Nash better then Stockton that make Nash all time goat PG? I mean of course behind Magic/Curry.

hmm thread idea incoming.

[cupcakesnake]

Nash is a much better ball handler, a better shooter, and a vastly superior interior scorer. I also think Nash is a pretty big level up on Stockton as a passer. Stockton was the steady playmaker (who could dial up the aggressive playmaking while in transition); prime Nash was a relentless, probing attacker who just constantly ripped up defense and rammed highlight passes down their throat. Stockton was a brilliant, but somewhat simple (brutally effective) pick & roll operator. Nash was a sorceror who made up new passes on the fly.

Stockton is physically way tougher and stronger than Steve Nash. That strength made him much more competent of an on-ball defender. Stockton was also fierce and dirty on that end. Nash wasn't awful, but aside from charges and not making too many mistakes, there wasn't a lot Nash brought to the table defensively.

[The Master]

1988 playoff Stockton: 20 and 15, 61.8 TS%
1989 playoff Stockton: 27 and 14, 60.1 TS%
1991 playoff Stockton: 18 and 14, 64.4 TS%

2002 playoff Nash: 20 and 9, 58.5 TS%
2003 playoff Nash: 16 and 7, 56.5 TS%
2004 playoff Nash: 14 and 9, 46 TS%
We have more of a proof of concept of Stockton being an effective playoff scorer in his 20s without D’Antoni and the rule changes benefitting offense than we have with Nash in his 20s without D’Antoni and the rule changes benefitting offenses.

Back then the thought is the point guard is supposed to run the offense and pass to team mates, and not shoot that much. It’s not Nash’s fault Malone missed so many shots, couldn’t deliver on Sundays, and Jordan stole the ball from him. Malone was the guy who won MVP and Malone was supposed to deliver.

1.I hope that you are aware that scoring and ORTG in 05-07 seasons was still lower than in Stockton era until 97, so in his last prime season. In other words, Stockton played in more scoring-friendly era.

2. There was a guy named Magic Johnson who at that time was the best point guard in the history of the game and was pass-first playmaker still scoring +20 PPG on regular basis in the playoffs in the latter part of his career. These things aren't and weren't even at that time mutually exclusive.

3. The problem with Stockton is - as great as he was as a player in the broader scheme of things - his scoring skills were always limited. You can find his great series here and there, but I guess there's a reason why you have to refer to him being swept by the Run TMC Warriors as an example of him being capable of great scoring series.

[DaPessimist]

It's close depending on your criteria.

Neither player is good enough to be a #1 option on a title team. If I'm going into a tough playoff series I'm taking Stockton over Nash as my #2/3 option.

[JRoy]

Stockton.

Who talks about Nash’s toughness?

[NZB2323]

1988 playoff Stockton: 20 and 15, 61.8 TS%
1989 playoff Stockton: 27 and 14, 60.1 TS%
1991 playoff Stockton: 18 and 14, 64.4 TS%

2002 playoff Nash: 20 and 9, 58.5 TS%
2003 playoff Nash: 16 and 7, 56.5 TS%
2004 playoff Nash: 14 and 9, 46 TS%
We have more of a proof of concept of Stockton being an effective playoff scorer in his 20s without D’Antoni and the rule changes benefitting offense than we have with Nash in his 20s without D’Antoni and the rule changes benefitting offenses.

Back then the thought is the point guard is supposed to run the offense and pass to team mates, and not shoot that much. It’s not Nash’s fault Malone missed so many shots, couldn’t deliver on Sundays, and Jordan stole the ball from him. Malone was the guy who won MVP and Malone was supposed to deliver.

1.I hope that you are aware that scoring and ORTG in 05-07 seasons was still lower than in Stockton era until 97, so in his last prime season. In other words, Stockton played in more scoring-friendly era.

2. There was a guy named Magic Johnson who at that time was the best point guard in the history of the game and was pass-first playmaker still scoring +20 PPG on regular basis in the playoffs in the latter part of his career. These things aren't and weren't even at that time mutually exclusive.

3. The problem with Stockton is - as great as he was as a player in the broader scheme of things - his scoring skills were always limited. You can find his great series here and there, but I guess there's a reason why you have to refer to him being swept by the Run TMC Warriors as an example of him being capable of great scoring series.

1. I guess it depends what years you compare. 94 was 106.3. 2009 was 108.3. But Nash had a coach in the league who did the best job of taking advantage of the rule changes and this argument is a hypothetical of how Stockton would do in that environment. But I said I rate Nash’s prime higher due to actual output.

2. Stockton outplayed Magic in their 88 matchup. More points, more assists, better TS%. If you look at PPG for Magic and Stockton in the 88-91 playoffs, it’s not like Magic scored a lot more.

Magic: 19.6, 22.5, 22.3, 19.4
Stockton: 19.5, 27.3, 15, 18.2

3. We for sure have more examples of Nash scoring more in the playoffs, but that’s from when he was with D’Antoni.

[threethehardway]

Anybody that thinks John Stockton is better than Steve Nash don't understand what they are watching when watching elite offensive basketball.

Steve Nash over Stockton is an easy choice.

[JRoy]

Anybody that thinks John Stockton is better than Steve Nash don't understand what they are watching when watching elite offensive basketball.

Steve Nash over Stockton is an easy choice.

I dissent.

[threethehardway]

I dissent.

You can take the player that ushered in modern offensive basketball or the player that wasn't even the best player on his team.

It's an easy choice.

People that don't think it is an easy choice are just looking at numbers and nostalgia.

[JRoy]

I dissent.

You can take the player that ushered in modern offensive basketball or the player that wasn't even the best player on his team.

It's an easy choice.

People that don't think it is an easy choice are just looking at numbers and nostalgia.

Nash couldn’t win a title with Kobe, Dwight Howard, Ron Artest and Pau Gasol.

Stockton never had a team with half that talent.

Stockton was an iron man and a winner, and better than Nash.

[Maxthirty]

I dissent.

You can take the player that ushered in modern offensive basketball or the player that wasn't even the best player on his team.

It's an easy choice.

People that don't think it is an easy choice are just looking at numbers and nostalgia.

Nash couldn’t win a title with Kobe, Dwight Howard, Ron Artest and Pau Gasol.

Stockton never had a team with half that talent.

Stockton was an iron man and a winner, and better than Nash.

*James Harden eye roll*

[threethehardway]

I dissent.

You can take the player that ushered in modern offensive basketball or the player that wasn't even the best player on his team.

It's an easy choice.

People that don't think it is an easy choice are just looking at numbers and nostalgia.

Nash couldn’t win a title with Kobe, Dwight Howard, Ron Artest and Pau Gasol.

Stockton never had a team with half that talent.

Stockton was an iron man and a winner, and better than Nash.

Only on RealGM, fans mention MVP caliber players playss with when they are no longer MVP caliber as a diss.

And like I said, numbers and nostalgia have players everyone knows isn't better than more modern players taking up space.

A 2 Time MVP, offensive juggernaut isn't better than a sidekick to the 3rd All-Time leading scorer?

Steve Nash was pulling transition 3s off the break, nutmegs, no-look wrap around pocket passes and John Stockton couldn't even do a basic hesi-cross over.

John Stockton could only really shoot from the elbow.

[JRoy]

You can take the player that ushered in modern offensive basketball or the player that wasn't even the best player on his team.

It's an easy choice.

People that don't think it is an easy choice are just looking at numbers and nostalgia.

Nash couldn’t win a title with Kobe, Dwight Howard, Ron Artest and Pau Gasol.

Stockton never had a team with half that talent.

Stockton was an iron man and a winner, and better than Nash.

Only on RealGM, fans mention MVP caliber players playss with when they are no longer MVP caliber as a diss.

And like I said, numbers and nostalgia have players everyone knows isn't better than more modern players taking up space.

A 2 Time MVP, offensive juggernaut isn't better than a sidekick to the 3rd All-Time leading scorer?

Steve Nash was pulling transition 3s off the break, nutmegs, no-look wrap around pocket passes and John Stockton couldn't even do a basic hesi-cross over.

John Stockton could only really shoot from the elbow.

Most steals and assists in league history a sidekick?

Which category is Nash all time leader?

[ImmortalD24]

Considering Nash was allowed by the league to carry the basketball every play down with total impunity, it’s Stockton without question.

[JinKaz69]

Nash during the 90s under the old rules was pretty average and not that great unlike Stockton.

Sure Phoenix was stacked at the point guard position with Kidd and KJ (although he played a lot at SG position) but Dallas wasn't.

Like I said I consider they are about the same level but it's good to know.

[-Luke-]

If we rank players one a scale from 1 to 10, Stockton was about an 8 for more than a decade. Nash was about a 9 for four straight years and lower than Stockton for the rest. Not an easy question.

[Tottery]

This is tough and I say that as a big Nash fan. Nash had better ball handling skills and shooting, but Stockton was the better defender. However, Stockton could still give you 17 pts or more in his prime with solid shooting.

It's difficult not to be bias. Nash was the reason I started watching again in '01. He was fun to watch, even as a Maverick and shaped the future of the game as a Sun. Last NBA game I watched before then was the 98 Finals and Stockton was past his prime at that point. I'll just say stalemate.