John Stockton vs Chris Paul all time who you voting?

[jfs1000d]

CP3 better, and not gonna apologize for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[falcolombardi]

Not to mention Gary Payton has stated that John Stockton was the hardest player for him to guard.

In the 1996 WCF, Stockton averaged 9.9/7.6 on 40/20/58 shooting splits (14/11 in the regular season). So not that hard to guard apparently.

I love that you, some rando sitting at a computer screen looking at a box score knows more than Gary Payton, who actually played in the game, faced Stockton, and made the comment.

What other NBA players do you more about than the actual NBA player who experienced the game?

Having your own thoughts and opinions about the basketball you watch and talk in a basketbal forum is fun too, would recommend it

[SkyBill40]

Stockton was a total beast in the 97 playoffs and was Utah's best player for their near-title run, but his matchups were pretty weak (Darrick Martin, Nick Van Exel, Matt Maloney, old Ron Harper). In tougher matchups, like against Porter or against Payton in the 96 WCF, Stockton laid some eggs.

Not to mention Gary Payton has stated that John Stockton was the hardest player for him to guard.

In the 1996 WCF, Stockton averaged 9.9/7.6 on 40/20/58 shooting splits (14/11 in the regular season). So not that hard to guard apparently.

There's a hell of a lot more to consider outside of raw numbers. And if Payton, one of the league's best defenders, says that Stockton was his toughest assignment... I'm going on Payton's word.

[ken6199]

CP3's 2018 hamstring is unforgivable.

It altered so many players' careers, and we have to add robustness into the equation when comparing player A vs B.

[dhsilv2]

In terms of all-time Stockton may have the slight edge due to longevity and durability, he never missed a game..

No doubt Stockton was Durable and healthier. But longevity, we should note CP3 has now played 1 more season that Stockton and I assume is going to play year 21 next year.

[TheGeneral99]

In terms of all-time Stockton may have the slight edge due to longevity and durability, he never missed a game..

No doubt Stockton was Durable and healthier. But longevity, we should note CP3 has now played 1 more season that Stockton and I assume is going to play year 21 next year.

Yes you are right, more the durability.

[SkyBill40]

In terms of all-time Stockton may have the slight edge due to longevity and durability, he never missed a game..

No doubt Stockton was Durable and healthier. But longevity, we should note CP3 has now played 1 more season that Stockton and I assume is going to play year 21 next year.

Yes you are right, more the durability.

Stockton did miss games. Not many, but the statement you made is false.

[og15]

Stockton was a total beast in the 97 playoffs and was Utah's best player for their near-title run, but his matchups were pretty weak (Darrick Martin, Nick Van Exel, Matt Maloney, old Ron Harper). In tougher matchups, like against Porter or against Payton in the 96 WCF, Stockton laid some eggs.

Not to mention Gary Payton has stated that John Stockton was the hardest player for him to guard.

In the 1996 WCF, Stockton averaged 9.9/7.6 on 40/20/58 shooting splits (14/11 in the regular season). So not that hard to guard apparently.

Payton didn't mean that in the sense that he "couldn't" guard him, what he was implying is that how Stockton plays was hard to guard for him, he said he sets picks, he plays fundamental, and he also said because he played him a lot, and he's constantly with the ball working with Karl Malone.

In addition he said because Stockton didn't talk back to him, that also played a part.

Payton said Stockton was harder to guard than Jordan, but I don't think we're going to say that means Stockton was better than Jordan.

[Ancalagon]

Not to mention Gary Payton has stated that John Stockton was the hardest player for him to guard.

In the 1996 WCF, Stockton averaged 9.9/7.6 on 40/20/58 shooting splits (14/11 in the regular season). So not that hard to guard apparently.

Payton didn't mean that in the sense that he "couldn't" guard him, what he was implying is that how Stockton plays was hard to guard for him, he said he sets picks, he plays fundamental, and he also said because he played him a lot, and he's constantly with the ball working with Karl Malone.

In addition he said because Stockton didn't talk back to him, that also played a part.

Payton said Stockton was harder to guard than Jordan, but I don't think we're going to say that means Stockton was better than Jordan.

This. We should take this as what it is and not more than what it is - it is a great compliment. Stockton made the game difficult for defenders in many ways, through tough screens, physicality, constant movement. This means he was impacting the game well beyond the box score.

So, to go back to Stockton’s poor box scores in the 1996 WCF, Payton is saying that Stockton was impacting the game in ways beyond the box scores. He isn’t saying he was better than Jordan.

But he was giving Stockton a very high compliment which is worthy of our consideration.

[og15]

In the 1996 WCF, Stockton averaged 9.9/7.6 on 40/20/58 shooting splits (14/11 in the regular season). So not that hard to guard apparently.

Payton didn't mean that in the sense that he "couldn't" guard him, what he was implying is that how Stockton plays was hard to guard for him, he said he sets picks, he plays fundamental, and he also said because he played him a lot, and he's constantly with the ball working with Karl Malone.

In addition he said because Stockton didn't talk back to him, that also played a part.

Payton said Stockton was harder to guard than Jordan, but I don't think we're going to say that means Stockton was better than Jordan.

This. We should take this as what it is and not more than what it is - it is a great compliment. Stockton made the game difficult for defenders in many ways, through tough screens, physicality, constant movement. This means he was impacting the game well beyond the box score.

So, to go back to Stockton’s poor box scores in the 1996 WCF, Payton is saying that Stockton was impacting the game in ways beyond the box scores. He isn’t saying he was better than Jordan.

But he was giving Stockton a very high compliment which is worthy of our consideration.

Yes, both these guys being talked about impact the game far more than their stats. Now, where we shouldn't overstate it and sometimes people will do so depending on how much they favor a player is to make it seem like their stats then don't matter and their impact is the same regardless, no, it is not. 33 year old Stockton who averaged 15/11 on 54/42 going down to 10/8 on 40/20 shooting was absolutely a factor in who won the series.

They impact even more when their stats are also good while they are doing all those others things, and their impact is decreased when they are struggling to make shots or put pressure on the defense or whatever else, but they differ from some players who if they don't put up a specific basic box score stat are not really having any impact.

Voted Stockton.

I'll start off by saying if I was to rate them in say NBA2k, Paul would be rated higher. On an individual scale only taking into account of 1 vs.1, Paul would come out on top.

But basketball is a team sport. Stockton made his teammates better more than Paul did. To me, a PG's primary duty is running the offense, breaking down defenses, and getting your teammates opportunities of success. Not necessarily being the best player by the numbers every night. Paul, the better player, Stockton team player. In other words, the more talent you put around Paul, would make his impact diminish. Stockton would get better the better his team got I believe.

Piggybacking from the above

I agree that Stockton made his team better, and Stockton also played with the same main guy in the same system with the same coach his whole career.

Paul probably has a better argument for what you are saying because he had winning impact on many different teams with many different systems, teammates, coaches and in differing roles. Paul was both a floor raiser and ceiling raiser, he made mediocre teams better and made above average to good teams even better.

It actually seems like you're describing more of a Westbrook player than Paul, as Westbrook's skillset and style can limit the upper limit of the team when paired up with other good players (depending on fit).

Paul has shown he can be your best guy, co-best player, second best guy, third guy, role player, all these roles. One of the biggest positive skills Paul has had is that ability.

The more talent you had around him, the better his teams performed, hence Harden and Paul winning 65 games or the Suns winning 64 games, and we can surmise that this would be similar for Stockton too, though we didn't necessarily see him in as many situations.

[ShootersShoot]

In terms of all-time Stockton may have the slight edge due to longevity and durability, he never missed a game..

No doubt Stockton was Durable and healthier. But longevity, we should note CP3 has now played 1 more season that Stockton and I assume is going to play year 21 next year.

Stockton has 150 more rs games played and over 30 more po games. Cp3 would have to play two full seasons to surpass.

If I were to pick one to play a decade for my team..knowing cp3s injury history I take stockton every time.

[dballislife]

its very close imo i want to say stockton by a tiny bit, but if you stack up their top PER seasons, cp3 has stockton by quite a bit

[f4p]

If Chris paul has been the 2nd best player on his team for 18 straight seasons, without ever being hurt, and without the best player ever being hurt, he would have like 8 championships.

[JN61]

Chris Paul might be the all time overrated PG. He got schooled in playoffs by every great PG of his era. Standards which are seemingly held against every other superstar doesn't seem to held with him.

[JN61]

Its close but ill take Stockton. Guy played all 82 16 seasons which is amazing. I also factor in the amount of success he had with Malone in Utah for over a decade. They had 11 seasons winning 50 plus games while Paul has bounced around the league. Paul might have a smal advantage in peak but ill still take Stockton.

About 150 games more played by stockton.

Regular season records:
Stockton 953-551 63.4%
Paul 861-493 63.6%

Playoff
Paul - 12-15 in series. 81-68 54.4%
Stockton 17-19 in series 89-93 48.9%

Weird to see Paul with the better playoff record. Also worth noting Stockton played a LOT of game 5's in the first round...like a LOT (11 in total).

So from a team success...honestly you could take either. Especially depending if you've taken the more modern view on some of the play by play data of old stockton and think perhaps he was more of the engine of the jazz than the popular opinion of the 90's and early 00's. If you're still a huge believer it was Malone driving it...I think you'd need to lean more to Paul.

Perfect example of posting random statistics without understanding random statistics.

[theonlyclutch]

Chris Paul might be the all time overrated PG. He got schooled in playoffs by every great PG of his era. Standards which are seemingly held against every other superstar doesn't seem to held with him.

As opposed to Stockton, who in the playoffs repeatedly got his butt handed to him by Kenny Smith and Terry Porter? Who literally has ATG luck in supporting cast health (even Pippen missed games with bad back FFS) + longevity and achieved nothing?

[Lockdown504090]

cp has a higher peak. has WAY more mvp votes thaan stockton.

[Saberestar]

The poll results say a lot about the average age of the people around here. Nostalgia.

[MalonesElbows]

Paul is closer to Deron Williams than he is John Stockton. That's not meant to be a slight (Williams was great).

[og15]

Paul is closer to Deron Williams than he is John Stockton. That's not meant to be a slight (Williams was great).

Paul and Stockton are at the same level of player, Deron doesn't come close to Paul (or Stock) in peak performance and doesn't come close to Paul (or Stock) in longevity, he's very far away and there's really no debate here.

Here's one of the issues we run into, Paul was actually an MVP level player for some seasons and in the other years of his prime, just below that level.

If Stockton is a level above Paul, then he was a constant MVP level player, that's the next level of player and impact from Paul, so he should therefore be judged as such. If Stockton is an MVP level player and played with another MVP level player in Malone his whole career, while both were consistently healthy, then the results of that combination is not THAT positive for him. That's the discussion we would now have to explain if we say Stockton is another level.

If Paul was an Ironman and played with James Harden (and this is not even an ideal fit) his whole career and they had Stockton and Malone's results, I don't see people saying that was great, so if that's great for Stockton, then he can't be a different level player. If he is, then that's not that very good, is it?

A poster earlier said this:

Chris Paul might be the all time overrated PG. He got schooled in playoffs by every great PG of his era. Standards which are seemingly held against every other superstar doesn't seem to held with him.

Maybe that's true, maybe it is not, but in the specific comparison, if Stockton is being claimed to be better, even much better, we're calling Stockton a consistent MVP level player, and if that's the case, since when do we say for those level of players, "he averaged 10/8 on poor shooting in a series loss, but it's okay because he has other impact".

Even the schooled by other great PG's part, whether true or not, Stockton was "schooled" by some of his contemporaries too. I mean let's look at it:

Spoiler:

Paul "won" the individual battle vs Tony in 2008, Tony got defensive help from Bowen and Paul was the defensive focus while Tony wasn't. Paul got beat bad by Chauncey in the sense of their production, but they weren't really guarding each other. Dahntay Jones did a lot of the defending and Paul was loaded up on, Nuggets blitzed and trapped all pick and rolls, rightly so, and the Hornets had no secondary playmaking or ball handling (Pargo was the guy before, that's how bad it was) to counter and didn't have enough shooting either. Billups didn't get two on the ball and got a lot of open looks too, very different situations just due to team make up, talent and role.

Paul won the battles vs Conley, Conley got some defensive help from Tony Allen too, but they were not playing the same role for their teams either. Paul and Parker both had a tough series shooting wise in 2012, Parker just shot more and had the better and healthoer team and Paul like always did get injured in the Memphis series and was hobbled, but since that's part the course for him, if he's on the floor, it is what it is. There was no schooling though, Parker shot 36/17, but Clippers with a hobbled Paul and Griffin and a weak team that first year had no chance anyways.

Paul vs Curry 2014, hacked Curry a lot, but overall very good defense, made him feel him and not be comfortable, didn't let him get as many shots off and kept him below his averages. Paul was guarded mostly by Klay and Iguodala, so nice break for Curry in that one. Curry is better and that was very close unless we just think most ppg wins.

Paul vs Westbrook, a guy like Westbrook is a tougher matchup for him as a big athletic PG. Both performed well and had their moments, if they switch primary teammates, Paul's team does not lose the matchup. Categorizing him as being schooled in that series doesn't make sense.

2015, obviously outplayed 32 year old Parker pretty massively, and again saw a lot of Danny Green and some Kawhi.

2016, was out playing Dame until he got injured.

Not even sure where the schooling is really coming from. If one means his size had some limitations in guarding some guys 1v1 in some possessions, I mean, that's why basketball is 5v5, but looking at it, not even really seeing what the poster means here by schooling

.

Certainly if we're just looking at basic box score and focus on like who had more PPG, and maybe that's what JN61 is considering, then you can get a certain conclusion.

It's already a given that most MVP level players have impact outside of their stats, then they need their production in addition. Is Stockton regularly criticized by many (or most) for his individual production or lack thereof, I don't actually see that much, though Paul seems to get that, especially about scoring or shooting more, even though he still scores quite well.

How would an MVP guy get evaluated for a whole career with another MVP guy where they are both healthy and the results the Jazz had? I don't know, but based on what I see here and other places, not that favorably, so certainly people are not viewing Stockton that way if that is the case.

If Stockton is truly on a different level, then the results Stockton and Malone got based on how many prime years they had together and how healthy they were becomes an area of critique.