John Stockton vs Chris Paul all time who you voting?

[SlimShady83]

No this is not a comparison as there was some confusion to my other thread, I'm simply asking who's better all time in your own opinion

John Stockton

- all time leader in steals
- all time leader in assists
2 times final appearences, lost to the real goat vs Jordan oof
1 team 19 seasons = respect

Watch on YouTube

;t=107s

Chris Paul

- 2nd in assists
- 2nd in steals
1 finals appearence in 2021 lost to Bucks 4-2 oof
6 teams currently played for Clippers soon to be 2nd time

Watch on YouTube

Simple enough question or is it?

Many have CP3 ahead of voting all time, so let's see the real results shall we .

[bonita_the_frog]

John Stockton because he does everything better than Chris Paul, except for rebounding and scoring.

[alex85]

Stockton and not really close.

[Maxthirty]

Prime Chris Paul is better than prime Stockton.

[SlimShady83]

Stockton and not really close.

We'll have to wait and see, I feel favortism may come into play here.

I've seen many polls on this forum and many place CP3 ahead of Stockton.

Edit: thread only been up for an hour or so atm.

[alex85]

Stockton and not really close.

We'll have to wait and see, I feel favortism my come into play here.

I've seen many polls on this forum and many place CP3 ahead of Stockton.

Edit: thread only been up for an hour or so atm.

Yeah and I don't get it. Some even have him Top15.

[og15]

John Stockton because he does everything better than Chris Paul, except for rebounding (but Stockton didn't play in the 3-pointers era so didn't get long rebounds) and scoring (but Stockton was more of a pass-first PG, and could have scored more).

This is an oversimplification and also not accurate.

Chris Paul played his first 10 seasons with 3PA under 23 attempts. For example, the NBA in 05-06, 06-07 and 07-08 took 16, 16.9 and 18.1 3PA. The NBA in 94-95, 95-96 and 96-97 took 15.3, 16.0 and 16.8 3PA, Paul outrebounded Stockton all those season, so your hypothesis of 3PA doesn't actually work.

Chris Paul shoots better from everywhere while scoring more points, and pretty decidedly so in the post-season. And FT line is not affected by defense. He's certainly the better shooter on the floor, and Stockton was good too.

Playoffs:
Stockton: 13.4 ppg, 50.7 2PT%, 32.7 3PT%, 81.0 FT%

Paul: 20.0 ppg, 52.8 2PT%, 37.3 3PT%, 85.4 FT%

The Jazz needed him to score more many times and he wasn't able to come through, so I'm not sure this is a positive thing to say, "well he could have scored more, but just didn't". With shooting, Stockton also got 3 seasons with a shorter 3PT to boost percentages.

[SlimShady83]

John Stockton because he does everything better than Chris Paul, except for rebounding (but Stockton didn't play in the 3-pointers era so didn't get long rebounds) and scoring (but Stockton was more of a pass-first PG, and could have scored more).

This is an oversimplification and also not accurate.

didn't want to quote your entire post, but different era's etc, put Stockton in the same time frame as CP3, you think Stockton would be scoring more? just curious.

[og15]

John Stockton because he does everything better than Chris Paul, except for rebounding (but Stockton didn't play in the 3-pointers era so didn't get long rebounds) and scoring (but Stockton was more of a pass-first PG, and could have scored more).

This is an oversimplification and also not accurate.

didn't want to quote your entire post, but different era's etc, put Stockton in the same time frame as CP3, you think Stockton would be scoring more? just curious.

Chris Paul started his career in 05-06 not 15-16, I think due to longevity you guys are acting like he's from this era, and similarly acting like Stockton didn't start his career in the 80's and didn't play through the faster 80's and early 90's.

Stockton's team needed scoring from him many times and he didn't score more. Since when do we give a player a pass for that because he's trying to be pass first? We can only go by what he did, and while we can say he could score more, we can't make him a better scorer than someone who scores 7+ ppg in the playoffs on better shooting. Should we not say if Paul started his career in 19-20 he would be a better scorer than Luka? Of course not, it's dumb.

It's different if the team didn't need the scoring and he was facilitating. Look at the critiques of Paul at times for playoff lack of success, people will say he wasn't scoring enough, but now for Stockton, that's not even a consideration, and it's, "he was pass first".


Paul's first 10 seasons, pace was 90.5 to 93.9, Stockton's first 10 seasons, pace was 102.1 to 95.1. In is first 10 seasons, Stockton played in a league with pace under 96.8 once, the first season Paul played with 96+ was season 12. Stockton is not a late 90's / early 00's player.

[DimesandKnicks]

Paul is the superior talent but availability is the best ability

[UcanUwill]

I imagine it has to be Chris Paul, but not like I have seen much of Stockton.

[JRoy]

Spockton.

Always made the logical play.

[bstein14]

Statistically Stockton has the career numbers to put him ahead when comparing the two... but if you're taking one player in their peak/prime for one 7 game playoff series with early 2000s NBA rules I'd take CP3.

You see this a lot for guys who played long NBA careers they have the numbers to say they had the better NBA career but they don't always have as high of peaks as guys. Its also in part because younger players are more skilled overall in shooting and understanding the game (so much knowledge coming from film breakdown and they have 24/7 access on tablets, etc) that the newer guys have an advantage here.

[tsherkin]

I think Paul was the better player. Better peak. Better impact on winning because he was a better scorer, better possession-control guy despite volume, etc.

I think that from an all-time perspective, though, Stockton's got a bunch of records and what-not which give some shape to career value of a different sort. His durability comes into play. I think it's reasonably close in that context, but I can see the pro-Stockton argument all-time.

[MavsDirk41]

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.

[Joao Saraiva]

I got Stockton. His longevity is superb, impact on both ends, great impact even very late in his career. Peak I lean towards CP3 but it's close. Let's not forget that peak Stockton was actually outplaying Magic in 88 in a tight series, altough Stokcton never mounted a true MVP case like 08 CP3.

[tsherkin]

I got Stockton. His longevity is superb, impact on both ends, great impact even very late in his career. Peak I lean towards CP3 but it's close. Let's not forget that peak Stockton was actually outplaying Magic in 88 in a tight series, altough Stokcton never mounted a true MVP case like 08 CP3.

Well, he had a really nice game 7. Prior to that, he was averaging 17.7 / 3.8 / 15.8 on 47.5 / 20.0 / 78.4 (55.0% TS).

Over the first 6 games, Magic averaged 18.0 / 3.8 / 9.3 on 48.2 / 0.0 / 87.5 (55.6% TS) with his weak game 6. He'd dropped a 3/12 stinker in Game 6 (which Utah won), only managing 10 points. The whole Lakers team came out and laid an egg in that one.

In Game 7, LA won pretty handily. Stockton had a 29/20 game, which was remarkable. Malone had a huge game. Thurl Bailey had a huge game off the bench. But Magic himself had a 23/9/16 game on 9/15 shooting and Byron Scott lit it up, then Mychal Thompson and Coop were solid off the bench. Everyone was clicking.

I don't know that it's right to say Stockton was outplaying Magic in the series. He was playing well, and he had a huge Game 7 that wasn't enough. LA got more out of its bench and beat the snot out of Utah on the offensive glass (Magic himself had 4 offensive rebounds that game; Utah as a team had 6).

Hell of a series, though.

[dhsilv2]

This is an oversimplification and also not accurate.

didn't want to quote your entire post, but different era's etc, put Stockton in the same time frame as CP3, you think Stockton would be scoring more? just curious.

Chris Paul started his career in 05-06 not 15-16, I think due to longevity you guys are acting like he's from this era, and similarly acting like Stockton didn't start his career in the 80's and didn't play through the faster 80's and early 90's.

Stockton's team needed scoring from him many times and he didn't score more. Since when do we give a player a pass for that because he's trying to be pass first? We can only go by what he did, and while we can say he could score more, we can't make him a better scorer than someone who scores 7+ ppg in the playoffs on better shooting. Should we not say if Paul started his career in 19-20 he would be a better scorer than Luka? Of course not, it's dumb.

It's different if the team didn't need the scoring and he was facilitating. Look at the critiques of Paul at times for playoff lack of success, people will say he wasn't scoring enough, but now for Stockton, that's not even a consideration, and it's, "he was pass first".


Paul's first 10 seasons, pace was 90.5 to 93.9, Stockton's first 10 seasons, pace was 102.1 to 95.1. In is first 10 seasons, Stockton played in a league with pace under 96.8 once, the first season Paul played with 96+ was season 12. Stockton is not a late 90's / early 00's player.

Just to piggy back here. There's really nothing I can think of with either player that made them, in terms of just scoring, especially era driven. Both are very good shooters from anywhere and their game really dictated shot choices or lack their of. The pace as you covered was faster for Stockton early and slower for CP3 early. But over their careers I doubt the pace differences are huge.

CP3's greatest strength over Stockton from scoring was he's just built stronger with powerful gluts and legs allowing him to get off those mid range curls and take contact. And that works in the 80's or 20's just the same. And Stockton's lack of that would make him more an off the dribble jump shooter like he was in the 80's play similarly today. Sure more 3's, but I'm not sure that would change as drastically as people might envision.

[dhsilv2]

Statistically Stockton has the career numbers to put him ahead when comparing the two... but if you're taking one player in their peak/prime for one 7 game playoff series with early 2000s NBA rules I'd take CP3.

You see this a lot for guys who played long NBA careers they have the numbers to say they had the better NBA career but they don't always have as high of peaks as guys. Its also in part because younger players are more skilled overall in shooting and understanding the game (so much knowledge coming from film breakdown and they have 24/7 access on tablets, etc) that the newer guys have an advantage here.

Not really.

CP3 is at 215.13 WS for 5th all time while Stockton is at 207.7 for 7th all time. They're 22 and 23 all time in the playoffs, stockton ahead but we're talking by decimal points here.

PER (my least favorite box all in on) has Paul at 23.53 for 21st all time. Stockton at 21.83 for 41st. Paul remains at 23 but 23.18 in the playoffs while stockton drops to 19.84 which drops him to 62nd all time in the playoffs.

VORP flips this with Stockton 3rd at 106.53 vs Paul at 98.92 good for 3rd and 5th all time. And this trend stands with Stockton at 12.93 in the playoffs at 14 and Paul at 11.86 good for 19th

So you can take this and build a case for either guy, but there's no clear better guy here from a box score/stats perspective.

[dhsilv2]

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.