Where would Stockton rank as a point guard today

[SelfishPlayer]

Perhaps you aren't qualified to know. This is foundational basketball talk. I didn't make it this way. I hated watching Jeff Malone play, but this is commonly accepted about him.

No, it isn't commonly accepted about him at all. You made that right up.

This is like a conversation I had on here recently where someone called Iverson a ball hog that didn't move without the ball just like Russell Westbrook. Okay...

[tsherkin]

This is like a conversation I had on here recently where someone called Iverson a ball hog that didn't move without the ball just like Russell Westbrook. Okay...

No, it's not. I'm not denying that Jeff Malone moved without the ball, or that he was decent at it. I'm contesting that he was "among the best ever" at this skill. Because he wasn't.

Calling AI a "ball hog" is an antiquated and well-disproven notion as well. He shot a lot, but he didn't generally have offensive players around him when he did. He seemed to coexist reasonably well with Melo for a while in Denver. He had his dust-ups with, like, Jerry Stackhouse and Derrick Coleman and such early in his career, but that wasn't about shooting volume. Westbrook also isn't a ball-hog, he's just only so useful without the ball because he's such a piss-poor shooter and he is quite adept at creating shots for others with a live dribble.

So yeah, very, very different scenarios.

This Jeff Malone stuff is wild. The jazz offense dropped in the first year with Malone and then started to improve the next year though I'm going to assume it's from Eaton playing less. But I'm open to other options. But don't see any argument that Malone used this skill to make an offense better. So at that point...the rest of the discussion is kinda going nowhere, right?

I'm fairly certain we're both aware of this... situation.

[SelfishPlayer]

This is like a conversation I had on here recently where someone called Iverson a ball hog that didn't move without the ball just like Russell Westbrook. Okay...

No, it's not. I'm not denying that Jeff Malone moved without the ball, or that he was decent at it. I'm contesting that he was "among the best ever" at this skill. Because he wasn't.

Calling AI a "ball hog" is an antiquated and well-disproven notion as well. He shot a lot, but he didn't generally have offensive players around him when he did. He seemed to coexist reasonably well with Melo for a while in Denver. He had his dust-ups with, like, Jerry Stackhouse and Derrick Coleman and such early in his career, but that wasn't about shooting volume. Westbrook also isn't a ball-hog, he's just only so useful without the ball because he's such a piss-poor shooter and he is quite adept at creating shots for others with a live dribble.

So yeah, very, very different scenarios.

This Jeff Malone stuff is wild. The jazz offense dropped in the first year with Malone and then started to improve the next year though I'm going to assume it's from Eaton playing less. But I'm open to other options. But don't see any argument that Malone used this skill to make an offense better. So at that point...the rest of the discussion is kinda going nowhere, right?

I'm fairly certain we're both aware of this... situation.

Name me the 10 beat off ball screen moving shooters that entered the NBA before 1990.

[tsherkin]

Name me the 10 beat off ball screen moving shooters that entered the NBA before 1990.

Ah, now we're playing the "shift the goalposts" game.

I'm out, man. I'm not doing this dance with you this time.

[SelfishPlayer]

Name me the 10 beat off ball screen moving shooters that entered the NBA before 1990.

Ah, now we're playing the "shift the goalposts" game.

I'm out, man. I'm not doing this dance with you this time.

You can't participate because you aren't qualified.

[jojo4341]

This is like a conversation I had on here recently where someone called Iverson a ball hog that didn't move without the ball just like Russell Westbrook. Okay...

No, it's not. I'm not denying that Jeff Malone moved without the ball, or that he was decent at it. I'm contesting that he was "among the best ever" at this skill. Because he wasn't.

Calling AI a "ball hog" is an antiquated and well-disproven notion as well. He shot a lot, but he didn't generally have offensive players around him when he did. He seemed to coexist reasonably well with Melo for a while in Denver. He had his dust-ups with, like, Jerry Stackhouse and Derrick Coleman and such early in his career, but that wasn't about shooting volume. Westbrook also isn't a ball-hog, he's just only so useful without the ball because he's such a piss-poor shooter and he is quite adept at creating shots for others with a live dribble.

So yeah, very, very different scenarios.

This Jeff Malone stuff is wild. The jazz offense dropped in the first year with Malone and then started to improve the next year though I'm going to assume it's from Eaton playing less. But I'm open to other options. But don't see any argument that Malone used this skill to make an offense better. So at that point...the rest of the discussion is kinda going nowhere, right?

I'm fairly certain we're both aware of this... situation.

Name me the 10 beat off ball screen moving shooters that entered the NBA before 1990.

I have no horse in this discussion, I'm just attempting this for fun. I'm gonna assume beside Jeff Malone and I can for sure name at least 3:

1. Reggie Miller (obvious)
2. Byron Scott - I grew up in LA, and he was extremely good at catch-n-shoot from the elbow.
3. Jeff Hornacek - same with Scott

There's more but I need to do research. Those are the obvious ones off the top of my head.

Edit:
4. John Paxson
5. Craig Ehlo
6. Danny Ainge
7. Dale Ellis

[tsherkin]

Name me the 10 beat off ball screen moving shooters that entered the NBA before 1990.

Ah, now we're playing the "shift the goalposts" game.

I'm out, man. I'm not doing this dance with you this time.

You can't participate because you aren't qualified.

[One_and_Done]

Selfish went from arguing Jeff Malone sucked, to 'he's the best off ball shooter of all-time'. That's how hard it is to rebut my arguments. I literally broke him.

[MavsDirk41]

Selfish went from arguing Jeff Malone sucked, to 'he's the best off ball shooter of all-time'. That's how hard it is to rebut my arguments. I literally broke him.

Were you not just on here the other day claiming guys like Zion and Rudy Gobert along with some others are better players than HOF point guard John Stockton? Lol you give alot of good laughs on here ill tell you that.

[One_and_Done]

Selfish went from arguing Jeff Malone sucked, to 'he's the best off ball shooter of all-time'. That's how hard it is to rebut my arguments. I literally broke him.

Were you not just on here the other day claiming guys like Zion and Rudy Gobert along with some others are better players than HOF point guard John Stockton? Lol you give alot of good laughs on here ill tell you that.

I didn't say that. I would probably lean to taking Gobert over him though. You don't think 4 time DPOY Gobert is making the pitiful HoF?

[MavsDirk41]

Selfish went from arguing Jeff Malone sucked, to 'he's the best off ball shooter of all-time'. That's how hard it is to rebut my arguments. I literally broke him.

Were you not just on here the other day claiming guys like Zion and Rudy Gobert along with some others are better players than HOF point guard John Stockton? Lol you give alot of good laughs on here ill tell you that.

I didn't say that. I would probably lean to taking Gobert over him though.

Please just stop commenting on players from the 90s because you are embarrassing yourself on here. Can you imagine posing that question to current scouts and GMs lol? Who would you draft for your organization knowing before hand how their careers turned out, Stockton or Gobert? And then telling them you would lean towards Gobert. Lol horrible

[One_and_Done]

Were you not just on here the other day claiming guys like Zion and Rudy Gobert along with some others are better players than HOF point guard John Stockton? Lol you give alot of good laughs on here ill tell you that.

I didn't say that. I would probably lean to taking Gobert over him though.

Please just stop commenting on players from the 90s because you are embarrassing yourself on here. Can you imagine posing that question to current scouts and GMs lol? Who would you draft for your organization knowing before hand how their careers turned out, Stockton or Gobert? And then telling them you would lean towards Gobert. Lol horrible

Gobert has the greater impact on winning probably, we'll see how much longevity he accumulates though. Gobert could easily finish with the better career.

[MavsDirk41]

Selfish went from arguing Jeff Malone sucked, to 'he's the best off ball shooter of all-time'. That's how hard it is to rebut my arguments. I literally broke him.

Were you not just on here the other day claiming guys like Zion and Rudy Gobert along with some others are better players than HOF point guard John Stockton? Lol you give alot of good laughs on here ill tell you that.

I didn't say that. I would probably lean to taking Gobert over him though. You don't think 4 time DPOY Gobert is making the pitiful HoF?

And also, you say 4x DPOY, do you want me to post Stocktons accolades on here? Also, pretty sure Stockton was never taken out of the game numerous times because he was a Liability on the court.

[MavsDirk41]

I didn't say that. I would probably lean to taking Gobert over him though.

Please just stop commenting on players from the 90s because you are embarrassing yourself on here. Can you imagine posing that question to current scouts and GMs lol? Who would you draft for your organization knowing before hand how their careers turned out, Stockton or Gobert? And then telling them you would lean towards Gobert. Lol horrible

Gobert has the greater impact on winning probably, we'll see how much longevity he accumulates though. Gobert could easily finish with the better career.

No he does not have a greater impact on winning. And no he is not going to finish with the better career. Compare Stockton and Goberts accolades……its not even close.

[One_and_Done]

Please just stop commenting on players from the 90s because you are embarrassing yourself on here. Can you imagine posing that question to current scouts and GMs lol? Who would you draft for your organization knowing before hand how their careers turned out, Stockton or Gobert? And then telling them you would lean towards Gobert. Lol horrible

Gobert has the greater impact on winning probably, we'll see how much longevity he accumulates though. Gobert could easily finish with the better career.

No he does not have a greater impact on winning. And no he is not going to finish with the better career. Compare Stockton and Goberts accolades……its not even close.

Clearly I disagree. It's also just weird to flex that Stockton is in the HoF, like Gobert isn't easily making it.

[tsherkin]

No he does not have a greater impact on winning. And no he is not going to finish with the better career. Compare Stockton and Goberts accolades……its not even close.

If you're looking to make an argument here, look at MVP voting. Gobert has registered in the vote twice, at 10th and 11th. He's a 3x All-Star and 4x DPOY. He never made it out of the second round with Utah and this year was his first with Minny advancing past the first round. He has evident defensive impact, but is shockingly limited on offense. He has a rebounding title, a BPG title (and also led in total BLK 2x), 3 FG% titles, and that's about the scope of his accolades and achievements.

Stockton, by contrast, led the league in APG in 9 straight seasonss. He led the league in SPG twice. He DIDN'T play 82 games in 3 seasons, and one of those was due to it only being 50 games long (he played all 50). He was a 10-time All-Star. He registered in the MVP vote 12 times, top-10 5 times. 7th, 8th and 9th were his highest rankings. He was All-NBA 3rd Team as late as 1999 (his 5th-last season). He was All-NBA 2nd Team 6x and 1st team in 94 and 95. He made it out of the first round 9 times, made it to the WCFs or later 5 times and made the Finals in 97 and 98.

So Stock has a little more going on for him than Gobert as a secondary player behind a focal star. And of course he has that absurd longevity. You can make arguments about style impact ported into different eras and all that stuff, but Stockton was a pretty useful player. His greatest sin seems to be that he couldn't score more and Utah languished for lack of that dynamic perimeter creation. But for a 6'1 dude without S-tier fast-twitch athleticism, he did remarkable things, even as an old guy.

I think the sense that Gobert is a higher-impact guy smells off to me a little, particularly since he's so one-dimensional.

[One_and_Done]

No he does not have a greater impact on winning. And no he is not going to finish with the better career. Compare Stockton and Goberts accolades……its not even close.

If you're looking to make an argument here, look at MVP voting. Gobert has registered in the vote twice, at 10th and 11th. He's a 3x All-Star and 4x DPOY. He never made it out of the second round with Utah and this year was his first with Minny advancing past the first round. He has evident defensive impact, but is shockingly limited on offense. He has a rebounding title, a BPG title (and also led in total BLK 2x), 3 FG% titles, and that's about the scope of his accolades and achievements.

Stockton, by contrast, led the league in APG in 9 straight seasonss. He led the league in SPG twice. He DIDN'T play 82 games in 3 seasons, and one of those was due to it only being 50 games long (he played all 50). He was a 10-time All-Star. He registered in the MVP vote 12 times, top-10 5 times. 7th, 8th and 9th were his highest rankings. He was All-NBA 3rd Team as late as 1999 (his 5th-last season). He was All-NBA 2nd Team 6x and 1st team in 94 and 95. He made it out of the first round 9 times, made it to the WCFs or later 5 times and made the Finals in 97 and 98.

So Stock has a little more going on for him than Gobert as a secondary player behind a focal star. And of course he has that absurd longevity. You can make arguments about style impact ported into different eras and all that stuff, but Stockton was a pretty useful player. His greatest sin seems to be that he couldn't score more and Utah languished for lack of that dynamic perimeter creation. But for a 6'1 dude without S-tier fast-twitch athleticism, he did remarkable things, even as an old guy.

I think the sense that Gobert is a higher-impact guy smells off to me a little, particularly since he's so one-dimensional.

Except if Stockton played today his resume would look similar to Gobert.

[tsherkin]

Except if Stockton played today his resume would look similar to Gobert.

That's an interesting assumption. Rajon Rondo was 8th and 10th in MVP votes during his career, you know what I'm saying? And Stockton was a lot better than Rondo.

Surely the team stuff is context-dependent, of course. Stockton played with Karl Malone, and they stayed together for a long time. They had ups and downs in terms of team success over that stretch, and put together their best stretch late, with Hornacek. But the team stuff was more for context as to why people are looking at Stockton, right? Fantastic longevity, strong prime, etc, etc. And more versatile than Gobert.

You diminish Stockton, often due to the style which he played, but I think you ultimately underrate his ability to play in this environment.

[One_and_Done]

You lost me at 'he's better than Ja Morant and Wemby'

[tsherkin]

You lost me at 'he's better than Ja Morant and Wemby'

I'm waiting to see second-year Wemby, but rookie year Wemby, I am comfortable with saying Stockton was better.

Ja... is solid, but like, not that remarkable compared to someone like Stockton.