Where would Stockton rank as a point guard today

[MavsDirk41]

Iverson had a style too. So does DeRozan. I don't really care about why they play a certain way, or what their intentions are, I only care about how their style/skillset impacts winning.

Stockton's 'style' was very suited to his times. Some aspects of it (shooting and passing) would continue to be valuable today. Other aspects would be detrimental (lack of ability to create his own shot/get separation/handle/shake, etc). Overall, this and the improved quality of the league would drop Stockton's relative value some for the reasons I have explained.

John Stockton would have no issues creating his own shot in todays nba. His handle was second to none and he had deceptive speed once he got in the open court. He would most certainly be an all star candidate year. Utah made 5 conference finals, 2 finals, and won 50 or more games 12 seasons that Stockton played there. Stockton would most certainly be in the conversation for top 5 point guard in todays nba. Guys like Morant, Ball, and Young are coming off injury plagued seasons. Harden is a chucker who plays no D. Luka, Curry, and Brunson are the only point guards who would definitely be above him. I would take him over Fox, Lilliard, and Maxey. You need to look at the poll and take a hint. At worst he is top 10 top PG.

His handle and separation ability looks like what TJ McConnell could do. It looks nothing like the guys you just named.

Lol im convinced you probably watched a few Jazz games on ESPN Classics or you Youtubed some games. His handing of the basketball, dribbling, change of direction, ability to keep his defender from stealing the ball from him are second to none. He would have no issues scoring in the halfcourt of transition, especially with the paint wide open or being defended by a 6’9” non shot blocker. 16/10 with 2 steals on efficient shooting and he would make his teammates better.

[MavsDirk41]

We just disagree. It's not a trend, it's a feature. You literally can't be a star guard today without scoring creation. There's no archetype for it, and there is no logical way it would work. When star guards like C.Paul lose their ability to create separation, they stop being stars.

Chris Paul lost it because he couldn’t stay healthy anymore and he wasnt nearly efficient shooting the ball like he was in the past.

That's basically what I just said. His body broke down, which caused him to lose his ability to get separation and create offense efficiently.

Well if we are talking about a healthy Stockton he would be able to get enough separation to get shots off and create offense for himself or his teammates effectively. Stockton wasnt a scoring point guard but if his team is a contender and he is leading the league in assist while averaging 16-18 points a game with a couple steals why would he not be considered a top point guard?

[chicago paxsons]

If you aren't giving Stockton new skills then you either:
1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today, or
2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched.

You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal), and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98).

"1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today".

No you're overvaluing scoring guards. Having a scoring guard is valuable, but not essential. Like is said, it's the current trend. Don't confuse a trend with a fundamental requirement.

"2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched."

Good, you've finally caught up.

"You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal)"

Getting to the playoffs isn't a failure, since he never missed the playoffs, and you completely ignore stockton's playoff success to shoehorn in your argument.

"and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98)."

Not "especially in 98", solely in 98. I emphasized 1 appearance where stockton's role was reduced. In 98, when he was injured and missed the only significant time in his career. In 97 stockton was playing at the usual role and minutes that he had in his earlier years to his typically excellent team success.

We just disagree. It's not a trend, it's a feature. You literally can't be a star guard today without scoring creation. There's no archetype for it, and there is no logical way it would work. When star guards like C.Paul lose their ability to create separation, they stop being stars.

"It's not a trend, it's a feature.".

It's completely provable that this is untrue. A trend is something that comes and goes. A feature is consistently true, except throughout nba history it wasn't true. There have been plenty of successful guards who weren't high scorers throughout nba history.

Since the "requirement" that every team needs a scoring guard to succeed is relatively new (historically), then it isn't a feature, but a trend.

[One_and_Done]

"1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today".

No you're overvaluing scoring guards. Having a scoring guard is valuable, but not essential. Like is said, it's the current trend. Don't confuse a trend with a fundamental requirement.

"2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched."

Good, you've finally caught up.

"You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal)"

Getting to the playoffs isn't a failure, since he never missed the playoffs, and you completely ignore stockton's playoff success to shoehorn in your argument.

"and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98)."

Not "especially in 98", solely in 98. I emphasized 1 appearance where stockton's role was reduced. In 98, when he was injured and missed the only significant time in his career. In 97 stockton was playing at the usual role and minutes that he had in his earlier years to his typically excellent team success.

We just disagree. It's not a trend, it's a feature. You literally can't be a star guard today without scoring creation. There's no archetype for it, and there is no logical way it would work. When star guards like C.Paul lose their ability to create separation, they stop being stars.

"It's not a trend, it's a feature.".

It's completely provable that this is untrue. A trend is something that comes and goes. A feature is consistently true, except throughout nba history it wasn't true. There have been plenty of successful guards who weren't high scorers throughout nba history.

Since the "requirement" that every team needs a scoring guard to succeed is relatively new (historically), then it isn't a feature, but a trend.

That's like saying the disappearance of bruiser power forwards from the 80s is a 'trend'; no, they basically don't exist anymore because they're borderline unplayable.

I'm not sure if you understand what a trend is. Typewriters were once useful, and technically they still exist, but they are no longer useful. This reality does not mean that typewriters must have never been useful, it's just the game has evolved. Not everything is cyclical.

[MavsDirk41]

We just disagree. It's not a trend, it's a feature. You literally can't be a star guard today without scoring creation. There's no archetype for it, and there is no logical way it would work. When star guards like C.Paul lose their ability to create separation, they stop being stars.

"It's not a trend, it's a feature.".

It's completely provable that this is untrue. A trend is something that comes and goes. A feature is consistently true, except throughout nba history it wasn't true. There have been plenty of successful guards who weren't high scorers throughout nba history.

Since the "requirement" that every team needs a scoring guard to succeed is relatively new (historically), then it isn't a feature, but a trend.

That's like saying the disappearance of bruiser power forwards from the 80s is a 'trend'; no, they basically don't exist anymore because they're borderline unplayable.

I'm not sure if you understand what a trend is. Typewriters were once useful, and technically they still exist, but they are no longer useful. This reality does not mean that typewriters must have never been useful, it's just the game has evolved.

You only respond to about half of the replys to you on here becuase you are just wrong lol. Its hilarious to watch. Look at the poll and give up.

[og15]

John Stockton would have no issues creating his own shot in todays nba. His handle was second to none and he had deceptive speed once he got in the open court. He would most certainly be an all star candidate year. Utah made 5 conference finals, 2 finals, and won 50 or more games 12 seasons that Stockton played there. Stockton would most certainly be in the conversation for top 5 point guard in todays nba. Guys like Morant, Ball, and Young are coming off injury plagued seasons. Harden is a chucker who plays no D. Luka, Curry, and Brunson are the only point guards who would definitely be above him. I would take him over Fox, Lilliard, and Maxey. You need to look at the poll and take a hint. At worst he is top 10 top PG.

His handle and separation ability looks like what TJ McConnell could do. It looks nothing like the guys you just named.

Lol im convinced you probably watched a few Jazz games on ESPN Classics or you Youtubed some games. His handing of the basketball, dribbling, change of direction, ability to keep his defender from stealing the ball from him are second to none. He would have no issues scoring in the halfcourt of transition, especially with the paint wide open or being defended by a 6’9” non shot blocker. 16/10 with 2 steals on efficient shooting and he would make his teammates better.

If TJ McConnell was just a bit more gifted in some physical tools and a better outside shooter (which Stockton was in comparison) he would be a really good player. He's still pretty solid.

McConnell has a career per 36 of 12.5 pts / 8.5 ast / 2 stl on 52/35. Last season he had a wild 20/11 per 36 on 56/41. Carlisle is a point guard whisperer. I'm not sure it's the insult being imagined by comparing to TJ.

If TJ was just a level higher physically, it doesn't take much, he's a high impact starting PG. If we're taking the best version of TJ in this spaced era with a PG centric coach, one is basically calling Stockton a 20/11-ish type player on super efficiency, I mean, is that supposed to be negative?

Some people simply don't understand that there are fairly "basic" moves which if you execute precisely and with the right angles are extremely effective. That's what McConnell does, that's what a Stockton would do.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUMdGogbWNjb25uZWxs

[chicago paxsons]

We just disagree. It's not a trend, it's a feature. You literally can't be a star guard today without scoring creation. There's no archetype for it, and there is no logical way it would work. When star guards like C.Paul lose their ability to create separation, they stop being stars.

"It's not a trend, it's a feature.".

It's completely provable that this is untrue. A trend is something that comes and goes. A feature is consistently true, except throughout nba history it wasn't true. There have been plenty of successful guards who weren't high scorers throughout nba history.

Since the "requirement" that every team needs a scoring guard to succeed is relatively new (historically), then it isn't a feature, but a trend.

That's like saying the disappearance of bruiser power forwards from the 80s is a 'trend'; no, they basically don't exist anymore because they're borderline unplayable.

I'm not sure if you understand what a trend is. Typewriters were once useful, and technically they still exist, but they are no longer useful. This reality does not mean that typewriters must have never been useful, it's just the game has evolved. Not everything is cyclical.

Trend - a current style or preference - merriam-webster dictionary.


"That's like saying the disappearance of bruiser power forwards from the 80s is a 'trend'".

No, the disappearance of the bruiser power forwards isn't a trend. Bruiser power forwards were a trend. There's the difference.

"they basically don't exist anymore because they're borderline unplayable."

They aren't unplayable. Teams trended towards playing faster, so needing 2 big men was unnecessary for the style of play. Now teams play 1 big man typically. And historically, the power forward was usually the lesser big man (lesser meaning not as good) when it came to roster building.

"Typewriters were once useful, and technically they still exist, but they are no longer useful."

Typewriters were a technological trend that declined as time passed because of better technology.

"This reality does not mean that typewriters must have never been useful, it's just the game has evolved. Not everything is cyclical."

You're confused. Typewriters being a trend doesn't mean they were never useful. That is flawed logic. The game hasn't evolved. Evolution plays no part in basketball except for genetics. That is also flawed logic.

Whether or not everything is cyclical is moot. Trends exist. Trends/Styles come and go, not because they become magically worse or ineffective, but because of other varied factors. The league decided to push to play faster because the league believed it to be more profitable. Then certain player styles fell out of favor to fit the new trend.

Another changing trend was the decline of the post big man, specifically big men being trained in post skills from a young age. Guard skills and fast paced play became more popular and teams believed post play to be incompatible. This wasn't true, but was commonly believed. Jokic is prove of that.

[One_and_Done]

Stockton was very useful when he played. Today he'd be less useful for the reasons articulated. His ability to get separation and create his shot is very TJ McConnel like, for good and bad.

[chicago paxsons]

Stockton was very useful when he played. Today he'd be less useful for the reasons articulated. His ability to get separation and create his shot is very TJ McConnel like, for good and bad.

Stockton was very useful when he played. Today he'd be more useful for the reasons articulated. He knew how to find open teammates at an all-time great level without needing to get good separation for himself, so harping on how much separation he creates for himself is a wasted exercise because it's a moot point. The comparisons between stockton and tj mcconnell are superficial at best.

[One_and_Done]

Stockton was very useful when he played. Today he'd be less useful for the reasons articulated. His ability to get separation and create his shot is very TJ McConnel like, for good and bad.

Stockton was very useful when he played. Today he'd be more useful for the reasons articulated. He knew how to find open teammates at an all-time great level without needing to get good separation for himself, so harping on how much separation he creates for himself is a wasted exercise because it's a moot point. The comparisons between stockton and tj mcconnell are superficial at best.

In today's game that's not enough. You need to be able to create separation to be a star guard.

[chicago paxsons]

Stockton was very useful when he played. Today he'd be less useful for the reasons articulated. His ability to get separation and create his shot is very TJ McConnel like, for good and bad.

Stockton was very useful when he played. Today he'd be more useful for the reasons articulated. He knew how to find open teammates at an all-time great level without needing to get good separation for himself, so harping on how much separation he creates for himself is a wasted exercise because it's a moot point. The comparisons between stockton and tj mcconnell are superficial at best.

In today's game that's not enough. You need to be able to create separation to be a star guard.

No, you want a guard that can do those things because it's beneficial, but success is possible without them.

It's obvious you don't know anything about stockton's strengths or weaknesses, and are confusing a trend with an essential trait.

[One_and_Done]

Stockton was very useful when he played. Today he'd be more useful for the reasons articulated. He knew how to find open teammates at an all-time great level without needing to get good separation for himself, so harping on how much separation he creates for himself is a wasted exercise because it's a moot point. The comparisons between stockton and tj mcconnell are superficial at best.

In today's game that's not enough. You need to be able to create separation to be a star guard.

No, you want a guard that can do those things because it's beneficial, but success is possible without them.

It's obvious you don't know anything about stockton's strengths or weaknesses, and are confusing a trend with an essential trait.

Success yes, greatness no. Stockton would be a fine player today, but without the ability to create separation he wouldn't be a star. That's why there are zero star guards in the modern NBA with this flaw.

[chicago paxsons]

In today's game that's not enough. You need to be able to create separation to be a star guard.

No, you want a guard that can do those things because it's beneficial, but success is possible without them.

It's obvious you don't know anything about stockton's strengths or weaknesses, and are confusing a trend with an essential trait.

Success yes, greatness no. Stockton would be a fine player today, but without the ability to create separation he wouldn't be a star. That's why there are zero star guards in the modern NBA with this flaw.

"That's why there are zero star guards in the modern NBA with this flaw."

You're confused by a trend again.

[One_and_Done]

No, you want a guard that can do those things because it's beneficial, but success is possible without them.

It's obvious you don't know anything about stockton's strengths or weaknesses, and are confusing a trend with an essential trait.

Success yes, greatness no. Stockton would be a fine player today, but without the ability to create separation he wouldn't be a star. That's why there are zero star guards in the modern NBA with this flaw.

"That's why there are zero star guards in the modern NBA with this flaw."

You're confused by a trend again.

You're confusing a trend with a new paradigm. The NBA has evolved. A guard with such a flaw holds you back.

[chicago paxsons]

Success yes, greatness no. Stockton would be a fine player today, but without the ability to create separation he wouldn't be a star. That's why there are zero star guards in the modern NBA with this flaw.

"That's why there are zero star guards in the modern NBA with this flaw."

You're confused by a trend again.

You're confusing a trend with a new paradigm. The NBA has evolved. A guard with such a flaw holds you back.

Paradigm, archetype, tomato, tomahto. The presence of a new state doesn't suggest that it isn't temporary, which is a defining characteristic of a trend.

The nba doesn't evolve. It shifts trends.

A guard with such a flaw doesn't hold a team back, it just means that team won't build their roster the same as every other team that follows the current trend. The team just needs to think outside of the box in roster construction, which is easier for some people than others.

In this case, eventually, a team that thinks outside the box successfully will create a new trend and in classic nba fashion, teams will then copycat that team. This pattern of teams copycatting new trends will continue ad nauseum.

The end.

[ShootersShoot]

The guy led the league in assists over magic freaking johnson multiple times and he is being compared to tj mcconell. Should be ashamed of yourself for such a horrid take.

Also, bruiser pfs were never perennial all stars in any era. Bringing them up to compare against hof level talent is just nonsensical and quite frankly an argument in bad faith. Leading the league in assists, scoring mid to high teens at 60% TS, while needing to be challenged out to 3 point line will never go extinct in any level of basketball and will always be a highly desirable and impactful player. Its honestly that simple.

[One_and_Done]

The guy led the league in assists over magic freaking johnson multiple times and he is being compared to tj mcconell. Should be ashamed of yourself for such a horrid take.

Also, bruiser pfs were never perennial all stars in any era. Bringing them up to compare against hof level talent is just nonsensical and quite frankly an argument in bad faith. Leading the league in assists, scoring mid to high teens at 60% TS, while needing to be challenged out to 3 point line will never go extinct in any level of basketball and will always be a highly desirable and impactful player. Its honestly that simple.

Volume assists are not a measure of how good you are. Ask Kevin Porter.

[One_and_Done]

"That's why there are zero star guards in the modern NBA with this flaw."

You're confused by a trend again.

You're confusing a trend with a new paradigm. The NBA has evolved. A guard with such a flaw holds you back.

Paradigm, archetype, tomato, tomahto. The presence of a new state doesn't suggest that it isn't temporary, which is a defining characteristic of a trend.

The nba doesn't evolve. It shifts trends.

A guard with such a flaw doesn't hold a team back, it just means that team won't build their roster the same as every other team that follows the current trend. The team just needs to think outside of the box in roster construction, which is easier for some people than others.

In this case, eventually, a team that thinks outside the box successfully will create a new trend and in classic nba fashion, teams will then copycat that team. This pattern of teams copycatting new trends will continue ad nauseum.

The end.

If Stockton can't create shots then someone else on the team has to. So you're basically saying Stockton would be good in a secondary (or tertiary) role on offense. That's not a top 5 point guard. That's a different version of Derrick White.

[SlimShady83]

[chicago paxsons]

You're confusing a trend with a new paradigm. The NBA has evolved. A guard with such a flaw holds you back.

Paradigm, archetype, tomato, tomahto. The presence of a new state doesn't suggest that it isn't temporary, which is a defining characteristic of a trend.

The nba doesn't evolve. It shifts trends.

A guard with such a flaw doesn't hold a team back, it just means that team won't build their roster the same as every other team that follows the current trend. The team just needs to think outside of the box in roster construction, which is easier for some people than others.

In this case, eventually, a team that thinks outside the box successfully will create a new trend and in classic nba fashion, teams will then copycat that team. This pattern of teams copycatting new trends will continue ad nauseum.

The end.

If Stockton can't create shots then someone else on the team has to. So you're basically saying Stockton would be good in a secondary (or tertiary) role on offense. That's not a top 5 point guard. That's a different version of Derrick White.

"So you're basically saying Stockton would be good in a secondary (or tertiary) role on offense."

Incorrect. Stockton would have a secondary or tertiary role as a scorer. He has the primary role as the offensive engine. He's the one that makes sure the offense is running as it's supposed to.

"That's a different version of Derrick White."

No. In this case, stockton is more like rajon rondo, running the offense as smoothly as possible, making sure everyone plays their role as effectively as possible. The difference between stockton and rondo is that stockton is a far superior playmaker, brings efficient shooting, is able to get to the line (and make his free throws) and is able to play effectively off-ball.

Stockton is essentially rondo without rondo's weaknesses offensively and with rondo's strengths at a level above. That is easily a top 5 point guard even if he doesn't score in high volume.