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

[TheSeeker]

Again I ask this question.
Will the fact that another Jazz PG under Jerry Sloan ALSO posted really good stats like 19pts/10.5 points helping Utah to post an impressive 53-29 record hurt Stockton's legacy esp with a lesser Caliber Partner in Boozer?
I also try to imagine if they switch places, which player makes his team better overall?

Deron Williams was really good, but he never averaged 19 pts and 10.5 points at the same time.

Utah needed a 4th piece with Stockton and Malone. They had decent players other than Stock/Horny/Malone, but not great. Their owner didn't want to spend, and maybe couldn't afford to. Imagine if Malone took the cut in pay he did with the Lakers (chasing a ring) when he was with the Jazz and allowed them to add a 4th weapon.

ok fine, 18.7/10.5 assissts 09-10 season.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2010.html

I don't think it takes anything away. Prime Deron was very good. He averaged almost 13 assists with the Nets the rest of the season after being traded and close to 9 the next season. Nash was a better shooter but Stockton was better all-around. Both are two of the best ever. Can't fault anyone who picks one over the other.

[Effigy]

I'm too late to vote in the poll (no idea why there was an expiration date on it, lol) but I would have voted Nash. No shade to Stockton though. I just like Nash's shooting more than Stockton's defense. An interesting outlier for Stockton is the 2000-01 season when he shot .462 from the 3 point line. in the 2 years prior he shot .320 and .355 and in the 2 years after he shot .321 and .363. Strange to have one year so much better than the other 4. And this was not during the time when the league shortened the 3 point line.

[Jamaaliver]

Again I ask this question.

Will the fact that another Jazz PG under Jerry Sloan ALSO posted really good stats like 19pts/10.5 points helping Utah to post an impressive 53-29 record hurt Stockton's legacy esp with a lesser Caliber Partner in Boozer?

It does not hurt Stockton's legacy a bit.

This would be like asking if Michael Jordan's legacy is lessened because Kobe Bryant also thrived as a SG under Phil Jackson a decade later.

It's a pretty insane premise...



NOTE: John was avg 13+ apg and leading the NBA in APG before Jerry Sloan was even the Head Coach in Utah.

...when Deron Williams was 3 years old.



Seriously.

Spoiler:

[tamaraw08]

Again I ask this question.

Will the fact that another Jazz PG under Jerry Sloan ALSO posted really good stats like 19pts/10.5 points helping Utah to post an impressive 53-29 record hurt Stockton's legacy esp with a lesser Caliber Partner in Boozer?

It does not hurt Stockton's legacy a bit.

This would be like asking if Michael Jordan's legacy is lessened because Kobe Bryant also thrived as a SG under Phil Jackson a decade later.

It's a pretty insane premise...



NOTE: John was avg 13+ apg and leading the NBA in APG before Jerry Sloan was even the Head Coach in Utah.

...when Deron Williams was 3 years old.



Seriously.

Spoiler:

I'm fine if you say it doesn't hurt his legacy but to call it insane by comparing them to MJ and Kobe?
Let's agree to disagree then.
Kobe was a robin until Shaq left and Jordan who was never a robin, was a much much efficient with his role as a scorer. Kobe easily is top 5 GOAT SG, where do you rank Deron Williams as top PG GOAT?
But yes, I understand that Stockton too was much better with assists but he never averaged more than 17.3 pts in his 19 year career, Deron who probably wont get ranked top 20 PGs in history, accomplished that 8 times.

[Jamaaliver]

But yes, I understand that Stockton too was much better with assists but he never averaged more than 17.3 pts in his 19 year career, Deron who probably wont get ranked top 20 PGs in history, accomplished that 8 times.

In a different era
...under different rules
...against different competition.




Deron Williams grew up shooting the 3-pt shot.
John Stockton never attempted a 3-pointer in HS or college...because it didn't exist back then.

That's how different their eras are.

[JinKaz69]

Again I ask this question.

Will the fact that another Jazz PG under Jerry Sloan ALSO posted really good stats like 19pts/10.5 points helping Utah to post an impressive 53-29 record hurt Stockton's legacy esp with a lesser Caliber Partner in Boozer?

It does not hurt Stockton's legacy a bit.

This would be like asking if Michael Jordan's legacy is lessened because Kobe Bryant also thrived as a SG under Phil Jackson a decade later.

It's a pretty insane premise...



NOTE: John was avg 13+ apg and leading the NBA in APG before Jerry Sloan was even the Head Coach in Utah.

...when Deron Williams was 3 years old.



Seriously.

Spoiler:

I'm fine if you say it doesn't hurt his legacy but to call it insane by comparing them to MJ and Kobe?
Let's agree to disagree then.
Kobe was a robin until Shaq left and Jordan who was never a robin, was a much much efficient with his role as a scorer. Kobe easily is top 5 GOAT SG, where do you rank Deron Williams as top PG GOAT?
But yes, I understand that Stockton too was much better with assists but he never averaged more than 17.3 pts in his 19 year career, Deron who probably wont get ranked top 20 PGs in history, accomplished that 8 times.

Deron was 1A scorer option in his team.
Stockton was the 3rd option for most of his time in Utah.

They didn't have the same tasks.

[HotRocks34]

I respect Nash but I'm going with Stockton.

[Black Jack]

Nash wasn't good enough to be #1 on a title winner and neither was Stockton. So the question is who do you want as #2?

I say the guy who went to 2 finals as #2, not the guy that failed to get out of the West despite playing with Dirk then Amare.

Nash had better scoring skills but Stockton could give you defense.

Seems clear to me that I'd prefer Stockton as my PG overall. Even if post retirement he's lost his mind.

So just jumping back in here. I don't think people are crazy for choosing Stockton, but:

This whole "#1 on a title winner" thing doesn't really make sense.

Was Nash good enough to be the best offensive player on the greatest offensive dynasty in the history of the sport? Yes.

So was offense the problem? No.

Perfectly fine to say you'd like to have an all-around player better than Nash on Nash's team, but not because you need Nash to take on a sidekick's role on offense, but because of defensive concerns.

Hence why it makes sense to favor Stockton because of defense, but when people talk about "#1 on a title winner", they're generally talking about offensive primacy.

As in "DeMar DeRozan is a very skilled volume scorer, but he's not good enough on offense to realistically be the offensive star on an offense good enough to win a title. Hence he would need to take on a lesser primacy to be a champion-worthy player, but because he can't actually do anything else, you can't win a champion with DeRozan in your core."

With Nash, there are absolutely no valid concerns about whether he could lead an offense that would be better than whoever they faced, and so the idea he should consider a lesser offensive role while remaining in your core doesn't make sense. You'd just be making the team offense worse with no benefit.

'Antoni + Nash's run & gun style wasn't fit to win titles. Deep in the playoffs teams will slow you down and you have to score in the halfcourt. So some % of what Nash got the media so excited with wasn't built for ring acquisition.

I saw Nash's Phoenix team live and I appreciate his greatness, just never looked like a team that could win a ring unlike say the Webber/Bibby/Peja Kings who absolutely looked like a title winner potentially.

Nash had Dirk and then Stat. He had title chances and never made the finals. Stockton did, twice, and ran into the GOAT.

We can theorize all we want but in the case of guys with fairly equivalent stats seems like results in the playoffs should matter too.

BTW I don't like Stockton personally whereas Nash is a guy I'd probably enjoy hanging out with. He seems way more personable.

[chudak]

It's close but it's probably Stockton because he's a much better defender.

Defense has arguably the least impact at the PG position. Magic is considered a GOAT pg despite being a just ok defender.

Stockton could never run a whole offense the way prime Nash did.

Magic also defended SFs though as he was a big guy, so its not the best argument. He would not defend PGs usually when it mattered

[Doctor MJ]

Nash wasn't good enough to be #1 on a title winner and neither was Stockton. So the question is who do you want as #2?

I say the guy who went to 2 finals as #2, not the guy that failed to get out of the West despite playing with Dirk then Amare.

Nash had better scoring skills but Stockton could give you defense.

Seems clear to me that I'd prefer Stockton as my PG overall. Even if post retirement he's lost his mind.

So just jumping back in here. I don't think people are crazy for choosing Stockton, but:

This whole "#1 on a title winner" thing doesn't really make sense.

Was Nash good enough to be the best offensive player on the greatest offensive dynasty in the history of the sport? Yes.

So was offense the problem? No.

Perfectly fine to say you'd like to have an all-around player better than Nash on Nash's team, but not because you need Nash to take on a sidekick's role on offense, but because of defensive concerns.

Hence why it makes sense to favor Stockton because of defense, but when people talk about "#1 on a title winner", they're generally talking about offensive primacy.

As in "DeMar DeRozan is a very skilled volume scorer, but he's not good enough on offense to realistically be the offensive star on an offense good enough to win a title. Hence he would need to take on a lesser primacy to be a champion-worthy player, but because he can't actually do anything else, you can't win a champion with DeRozan in your core."

With Nash, there are absolutely no valid concerns about whether he could lead an offense that would be better than whoever they faced, and so the idea he should consider a lesser offensive role while remaining in your core doesn't make sense. You'd just be making the team offense worse with no benefit.

'Antoni + Nash's run & gun style wasn't fit to win titles. Deep in the playoffs teams will slow you down and you have to score in the halfcourt. So some % of what Nash got the media so excited with wasn't built for ring acquisition.

I saw Nash's Phoenix team live and I appreciate his greatness, just never looked like a team that could win a ring unlike say the Webber/Bibby/Peja Kings who absolutely looked like a title winner potentially.

Nash had Dirk and then Stat. He had title chances and never made the finals. Stockton did, twice, and ran into the GOAT.

We can theorize all we want but in the case of guys with fairly equivalent stats seems like results in the playoffs should matter too.

BTW I don't like Stockton personally whereas Nash is a guy I'd probably enjoy hanging out with. He seems way more personable.

Except that's not what happened I'm afraid.

The Suns offense was great in the playoffs, and their performance generally has now been recognized as a more optimal way to play offense than what anyone else was doing at the time, and that's why literally everyone today plays pace & space.

The Suns were weaker on D, but this wasn't a necessity for pace & space, that's just the personnel the Suns had.

[Primedeion]

It's obviously Stockton. Nash is the most overrated player in NBA history.

[Black Jack]

So just jumping back in here. I don't think people are crazy for choosing Stockton, but:

This whole "#1 on a title winner" thing doesn't really make sense.

Was Nash good enough to be the best offensive player on the greatest offensive dynasty in the history of the sport? Yes.

So was offense the problem? No.

Perfectly fine to say you'd like to have an all-around player better than Nash on Nash's team, but not because you need Nash to take on a sidekick's role on offense, but because of defensive concerns.

Hence why it makes sense to favor Stockton because of defense, but when people talk about "#1 on a title winner", they're generally talking about offensive primacy.

As in "DeMar DeRozan is a very skilled volume scorer, but he's not good enough on offense to realistically be the offensive star on an offense good enough to win a title. Hence he would need to take on a lesser primacy to be a champion-worthy player, but because he can't actually do anything else, you can't win a champion with DeRozan in your core."

With Nash, there are absolutely no valid concerns about whether he could lead an offense that would be better than whoever they faced, and so the idea he should consider a lesser offensive role while remaining in your core doesn't make sense. You'd just be making the team offense worse with no benefit.

'Antoni + Nash's run & gun style wasn't fit to win titles. Deep in the playoffs teams will slow you down and you have to score in the halfcourt. So some % of what Nash got the media so excited with wasn't built for ring acquisition.

I saw Nash's Phoenix team live and I appreciate his greatness, just never looked like a team that could win a ring unlike say the Webber/Bibby/Peja Kings who absolutely looked like a title winner potentially.

Nash had Dirk and then Stat. He had title chances and never made the finals. Stockton did, twice, and ran into the GOAT.

We can theorize all we want but in the case of guys with fairly equivalent stats seems like results in the playoffs should matter too.

BTW I don't like Stockton personally whereas Nash is a guy I'd probably enjoy hanging out with. He seems way more personable.

Except that's not what happened I'm afraid.

The Suns offense was great in the playoffs, and their performance generally has now been recognized as a more optimal way to play offense than what anyone else was doing at the time, and that's why literally everyone today plays pace & space.

The Suns were weaker on D, but this wasn't a necessity for pace & space, that's just the personnel the Suns had.

2 finals trips vs 0 finals trips.

[Yoshun]

This discussion always interests me. 9 out of 10 posters will agree Stockton is the far batter defensive player. The discussion about offense is usually pretty even with maybe a slight edge to Nash. The poll is usually close to 50/50.

The consensus:

- Stockton was the far better defensive player.
- The two were pretty even on offense with a slight edge to Nash.
- 50/50 poll

It's just odd.

[cupcakesnake]

This discussion always interests me. 9 out of 10 posters will agree Stockton is the far batter defensive player. The discussion about offense is usually pretty even with maybe a slight edge to Nash. The poll is usually close to 50/50.

The consensus:

- Stockton was the far better defensive player.
- The two were pretty even on offense with a slight edge to Nash.
- 50/50 poll

It's just odd.

Nash is a LOT better on offense than Stockton.

[Yoshun]

This discussion always interests me. 9 out of 10 posters will agree Stockton is the far batter defensive player. The discussion about offense is usually pretty even with maybe a slight edge to Nash. The poll is usually close to 50/50.

The consensus:

- Stockton was the far better defensive player.
- The two were pretty even on offense with a slight edge to Nash.
- 50/50 poll

It's just odd.

Nash is a LOT better on offense than Stockton.

I disagree and that's not typically the consensus. I think Nash is the better offensive player personally, but it's not "a lot". The gap on offense is no where near the gap on defense.

[cupcakesnake]

This discussion always interests me. 9 out of 10 posters will agree Stockton is the far batter defensive player. The discussion about offense is usually pretty even with maybe a slight edge to Nash. The poll is usually close to 50/50.

The consensus:

- Stockton was the far better defensive player.
- The two were pretty even on offense with a slight edge to Nash.
- 50/50 poll

It's just odd.

Nash is a LOT better on offense than Stockton.

I disagree and that's not typically the consensus. I think Nash is the better offensive player personally, but it's not "a lot". The gap on offense is no where near the gap on defense.

How many people participating in this consensus know Stockton's game though? A lot of people look at the monster assist numbers and make some assumptions that I think are incorrect.

Stockton is a very very good offensive player. Knockdown shooter, pick & roll master, transition hellion, and in his prime: a crunch time assassin. I know some super smart NBA fans that know Stockton well and argue that Stockton "could have been" a Nash-level offensive player if you put him in a better offensive environment. I disagree, I don't think the handles are comparable, I don't think the interior finishing is comparable, I don't think the midrange potency is comparable, and I think Nash is a clear level up as a shooting threat off the dribble and as a passer. However, I think there's a defendable, respectable position that Stockton could have something closer to a Nash-like prime.

More people I know or read, who have watched and studied a ton of Nash and a ton of Stockton, do not hold this view. Stockton is great, but Nash is one of the greatest drivers of great offense of all time. As a 6'3" skinny point guard, I don't think he's Jokic, Magic, Lebron, or Jordan. But after those guys, I look at Nash and Curry as the guys where they were simply impossible for defense in their prime. Stockton was never anything like that. I don't see what people ever mean by asserting Stockton as a similar offensive player.

I don't care that much about "consensus" when it comes to historical player analysis, because consensus includes a bunch of opinions that are based on very little. I am more interested in reading the opinions of people who have watched both players, are aware of the broader analysis, stats, etc. Consensus will always include a bunch of people who are operating off almost no information, but like to participate in sports talk. That's fine, I love that people want to talk sports because I do too. I'm happy to be aware of the consensus, but I'm not taking it as the truth or even as a useful insight.

[JinKaz69]

So just jumping back in here. I don't think people are crazy for choosing Stockton, but:

This whole "#1 on a title winner" thing doesn't really make sense.

Was Nash good enough to be the best offensive player on the greatest offensive dynasty in the history of the sport? Yes.

So was offense the problem? No.

Perfectly fine to say you'd like to have an all-around player better than Nash on Nash's team, but not because you need Nash to take on a sidekick's role on offense, but because of defensive concerns.

Hence why it makes sense to favor Stockton because of defense, but when people talk about "#1 on a title winner", they're generally talking about offensive primacy.

As in "DeMar DeRozan is a very skilled volume scorer, but he's not good enough on offense to realistically be the offensive star on an offense good enough to win a title. Hence he would need to take on a lesser primacy to be a champion-worthy player, but because he can't actually do anything else, you can't win a champion with DeRozan in your core."

With Nash, there are absolutely no valid concerns about whether he could lead an offense that would be better than whoever they faced, and so the idea he should consider a lesser offensive role while remaining in your core doesn't make sense. You'd just be making the team offense worse with no benefit.

'Antoni + Nash's run & gun style wasn't fit to win titles. Deep in the playoffs teams will slow you down and you have to score in the halfcourt. So some % of what Nash got the media so excited with wasn't built for ring acquisition.

I saw Nash's Phoenix team live and I appreciate his greatness, just never looked like a team that could win a ring unlike say the Webber/Bibby/Peja Kings who absolutely looked like a title winner potentially.

Nash had Dirk and then Stat. He had title chances and never made the finals. Stockton did, twice, and ran into the GOAT.

We can theorize all we want but in the case of guys with fairly equivalent stats seems like results in the playoffs should matter too.

BTW I don't like Stockton personally whereas Nash is a guy I'd probably enjoy hanging out with. He seems way more personable.

Except that's not what happened I'm afraid.

The Suns offense was great in the playoffs, and their performance generally has now been recognized as a more optimal way to play offense than what anyone else was doing at the time, and that's why literally everyone today plays pace & space.

The Suns were weaker on D, but this wasn't a necessity for pace & space, that's just the personnel the Suns had.

The Suns had some good defenders (Hill, Diaw) and even great ones (Bell, Marion).

The problem was D'Antoni was too much focused on offense and Nash and Stoudemire were very weak on this side of the court.

[JinKaz69]

Nash wasn't good enough to be #1 on a title winner and neither was Stockton. So the question is who do you want as #2?

I say the guy who went to 2 finals as #2, not the guy that failed to get out of the West despite playing with Dirk then Amare.

Nash had better scoring skills but Stockton could give you defense.

Seems clear to me that I'd prefer Stockton as my PG overall. Even if post retirement he's lost his mind.

So just jumping back in here. I don't think people are crazy for choosing Stockton, but:

This whole "#1 on a title winner" thing doesn't really make sense.

Was Nash good enough to be the best offensive player on the greatest offensive dynasty in the history of the sport? Yes.

So was offense the problem? No.

Perfectly fine to say you'd like to have an all-around player better than Nash on Nash's team, but not because you need Nash to take on a sidekick's role on offense, but because of defensive concerns.

Hence why it makes sense to favor Stockton because of defense, but when people talk about "#1 on a title winner", they're generally talking about offensive primacy.

As in "DeMar DeRozan is a very skilled volume scorer, but he's not good enough on offense to realistically be the offensive star on an offense good enough to win a title. Hence he would need to take on a lesser primacy to be a champion-worthy player, but because he can't actually do anything else, you can't win a champion with DeRozan in your core."

With Nash, there are absolutely no valid concerns about whether he could lead an offense that would be better than whoever they faced, and so the idea he should consider a lesser offensive role while remaining in your core doesn't make sense. You'd just be making the team offense worse with no benefit.

'Antoni + Nash's run & gun style wasn't fit to win titles. Deep in the playoffs teams will slow you down and you have to score in the halfcourt. So some % of what Nash got the media so excited with wasn't built for ring acquisition.

I saw Nash's Phoenix team live and I appreciate his greatness, just never looked like a team that could win a ring unlike say the Webber/Bibby/Peja Kings who absolutely looked like a title winner potentially.

Nash had Dirk and then Stat. He had title chances and never made the finals. Stockton did, twice, and ran into the GOAT.

We can theorize all we want but in the case of guys with fairly equivalent stats seems like results in the playoffs should matter too.

BTW I don't like Stockton personally whereas Nash is a guy I'd probably enjoy hanging out with. He seems way more personable.

This.
Perfect post.

[Doctor MJ]

'Antoni + Nash's run & gun style wasn't fit to win titles. Deep in the playoffs teams will slow you down and you have to score in the halfcourt. So some % of what Nash got the media so excited with wasn't built for ring acquisition.

I saw Nash's Phoenix team live and I appreciate his greatness, just never looked like a team that could win a ring unlike say the Webber/Bibby/Peja Kings who absolutely looked like a title winner potentially.

Nash had Dirk and then Stat. He had title chances and never made the finals. Stockton did, twice, and ran into the GOAT.

We can theorize all we want but in the case of guys with fairly equivalent stats seems like results in the playoffs should matter too.

BTW I don't like Stockton personally whereas Nash is a guy I'd probably enjoy hanging out with. He seems way more personable.

Except that's not what happened I'm afraid.

The Suns offense was great in the playoffs, and their performance generally has now been recognized as a more optimal way to play offense than what anyone else was doing at the time, and that's why literally everyone today plays pace & space.

The Suns were weaker on D, but this wasn't a necessity for pace & space, that's just the personnel the Suns had.

2 finals trips vs 0 finals trips.

You're responding to my nuance with over-simplistic thought as if that rebuts me. It doesn't. It wouldn't even if it were a statement that fully encapsulated team success, but your statement doesn't do that either, as Nash's teams multiple times were arguably the best team other than the champ, it's just the champ was in their conference.

[Doctor MJ]

'Antoni + Nash's run & gun style wasn't fit to win titles. Deep in the playoffs teams will slow you down and you have to score in the halfcourt. So some % of what Nash got the media so excited with wasn't built for ring acquisition.

I saw Nash's Phoenix team live and I appreciate his greatness, just never looked like a team that could win a ring unlike say the Webber/Bibby/Peja Kings who absolutely looked like a title winner potentially.

Nash had Dirk and then Stat. He had title chances and never made the finals. Stockton did, twice, and ran into the GOAT.

We can theorize all we want but in the case of guys with fairly equivalent stats seems like results in the playoffs should matter too.

BTW I don't like Stockton personally whereas Nash is a guy I'd probably enjoy hanging out with. He seems way more personable.

Except that's not what happened I'm afraid.

The Suns offense was great in the playoffs, and their performance generally has now been recognized as a more optimal way to play offense than what anyone else was doing at the time, and that's why literally everyone today plays pace & space.

The Suns were weaker on D, but this wasn't a necessity for pace & space, that's just the personnel the Suns had.

The Suns had some good defenders (Hill, Diaw) and even great ones (Bell, Marion).

The problem was D'Antoni was too much focused on offense and Nash and Stoudemire were very weak on this side of the court.

So the problem with the Suns is that Nash, Stoudemire & D'Antoni were holding back Marion, Bell & Diaw from greatness? That really makes no sense.

Look the Suns didn't win a title and it is what it is, but this tendency for basketball fans to think that teams that didn't win the title means they couldn't is backward thinking, and anyone running a team who thought/thinks like this really shouldn't be running a team.