Stockton vs Wade, basic stats comparison

[tsherkin]

Wade had the most help.

What would Stockton do with
Shaq, Zo, Payton, a myriad of fringe all-stars
O

What would he do with a bunch of players way past their prime? Probably lose.

Stockton isn't a primary star, is I think the consensus of assessment of him as a player. He didn't score enough to really support a team that way. He needed a primary scoring dude, and then he could enhance the efficacy of that guy and the peripheral players with high-end execution, maximizing high-quality possessions. And he depended a lot on structure, which was troublesome against teams capable of disrupting gameplan execution. But he was outstanding at helping others, and very good defensively.

Shaq was a little too old to carry things with just Stockton and spare parts/old vets. He needed something more dynamic on the perimeter by that stage of his career. And in truth, that was the best pairing for him all across his career. He had a high-end guard who could score coupled to strong roleplayers who provided good spacing and defense. And boom, contention. Stockton couldn't pressure a defense enough to contend with Shaq the way he did with Penny, Kobe or Wade.

The 2006 Heat needed a LOT of scoring from Wade to get it done against Dallas, even with Dirk struggling. Dude dropped almost 35 ppg in that series and bombed in a pair of 40+-point games along the way. Stockton never averaged 20 ppg on a postseason in which he played more than 3 games, and sometimes, Utah needed that. It just wasn't in his wheelhouse to do that. It's very hard to do that without major physical advantages, which he did not possess. Not that he was unathletic, he just wasn't tall, wasn't super powerful, wasn't explosive, he didn't have elite athleticism/size and that is a major barrier to high-end scoring, which is the major thing missing from his skill profile for inclusion among the upper tier elite.

[SHAQ32]

And he depended a lot on structure, which was troublesome against teams capable of disrupting gameplan execution.

I'm taking a small bit of your post, yes. But I would watch it here because this can be interpreted as Stockton didn't maintain in the playoffs, which wouldn't be true.

[tsherkin]

I'm taking a small bit of your post, yes. But I would watch it here because this can be interpreted as Stockton didn't maintain in the playoffs, which wouldn't be true.

His playmaking maintained. He was a dropper as a scorer, which is mostly what I was talking about. Not in volume so much as efficiency/shooting. And again, that's a simplification. He was a smart player who looked for his moments and had skills. He shot about 4% worse in the playoffs, about 3.5% worse from 3, and overall about -4% TS. A drop of some kind is expected, of course, but it does make a difference, especially when Utah struggled with offense and perimeter scoring deeper in the playoffs and Malone also had issues.

Anyway, sort of my core point was more that Stockton couldn't support a volume scoring approach and he wasn't able to really escalate his scoring in the playoffs, even when Utah needed it. Or at least not regularly. I'm sure if I did a year by year of his first decade, I'd find a couple of hot shooting performances not unlike that 3-game first round series, but it wasn't a thing that patterned out across his postseason career.

[penbeast0]

Wade had the most help.

What would Stockton do with
Shaq, Zo, Payton, a myriad of fringe all-stars
O

What would he do with a bunch of players way past their prime? Probably lose.

Stockton isn't a primary star, is I think the consensus of assessment of him as a player. He didn't score enough to really support a team that way. He needed a primary scoring dude, and then he could enhance the efficacy of that guy and the peripheral players with high-end execution, maximizing high-quality possessions. And he depended a lot on structure, which was troublesome against teams capable of disrupting gameplan execution. But he was outstanding at helping others, and very good defensively.

Shaq was a little too old to carry things with just Stockton and spare parts/old vets. He needed something more dynamic on the perimeter by that stage of his career. And in truth, that was the best pairing for him all across his career. He had a high-end guard who could score coupled to strong roleplayers who provided good spacing and defense. And boom, contention. Stockton couldn't pressure a defense enough to contend with Shaq the way he did with Penny, Kobe or Wade.

The 2006 Heat needed a LOT of scoring from Wade to get it done against Dallas, even with Dirk struggling. Dude dropped almost 35 ppg in that series and bombed in a pair of 40+-point games along the way. Stockton never averaged 20 ppg on a postseason in which he played more than 3 games, and sometimes, Utah needed that. It just wasn't in his wheelhouse to do that. It's very hard to do that without major physical advantages, which he did not possess. Not that he was unathletic, he just wasn't tall, wasn't super powerful, wasn't explosive, he didn't have elite athleticism/size and that is a major barrier to high-end scoring, which is the major thing missing from his skill profile for inclusion among the upper tier elite.

And Utah needed a lot of playmaking. Until Hornacek, their two guards (mainly Darrell Griffith and Jeff Malone) were not playmakers, their 3's were neither playmakers nor scorers, and their 5's generally couldn't pass. Karl Malone improved his passing over his career but he wasn't what you really think of as a secondary playmaker. Trying to use Wade as a primary playmaker is possible, but not really in his wheelhouse; nor is using him as a PnR generator. He didn't have the mindset or the passing chops. Even Hornacek was not strong as a primary playmaker when they tried that in Philly though he had a career high 6.9 assists/game; his team finished in the bottom 5 in the league in offense (Hersey Hawkins, Clarence Weatherspoon, Tim Perry, and Andrew Lang doesn't scream scary of course). And Utah's backup PGs (mainly John Crotty) weren't that great either. Wade would provide more scoring lift but Karl Malone's skills as half of the greatest PnR team of all time would suffer and his numbers would sag. More than Wade provided in terms of individual offense? That's where we differ.

I'm sure I could point to years where Miami would have been improved, both RS and playoffs, with one of the league's all-time great PGs rather than the collection of meh PGs that Wade generally played with, even if you are replacing Wade with that PG or a reserve wing. That doesn't mean Wade isn't a great player, it just means that you are comparing two different players with two different strengths and ignoring (in this post) the fact that Stockton has amazing skills that Wade doesn't. That's why both are going to be in the 50 greatest players of all time once we vote Stockton in.

[tsherkin]

And Utah needed a lot of playmaking.

Absolutely. And Stockton was quite good at it.

Karl Malone improved his passing over his career but he wasn't what you really think of as a secondary playmaker.

Agreed again. It's hard to be a volume passer from the post, so we also saw his opportunities to have more of an impact as he drifted more towards the perimeter later on in his career, but again, he was no Jokic for sure.

Trying to use Wade as a primary playmaker is possible, but not really in his wheelhouse; nor is using him as a PnR generator. He didn't have the mindset or the passing chops.

Mmm. I don't really agree with that. Unless you really believe Damon Jones was the primary playmaker on the 05 Heat, then it was Wade driving things... with a lot of isolations and PnR attacks, as it happens. To the 5th best offense in the league, at that. A year later, he had more support at the PG position with Jason Williams and the remains of Gary Payton, for sure. They were actually worse on offense, by rank and raw ORTG, though of course Shaq only played 59 games, as did Williams. They also had Antoine Walker and his TS Add of -22 playing the 4th-most minutes on the team, to be fair.

Either way, Wade was a pretty good primary playmaker. He certainly wasn't a savant or an especially advanced playmaker, though. He was a penetrate-and-pitch passer who saw the corners well and also knew how to feed the post and throw the ball ahead in transition and it worked out just fine. He was a very effective source of primary offense.

Wade would provide more scoring lift but Karl Malone's skills as half of the greatest PnR team of all time would suffer and his numbers would sag. More than Wade provided in terms of individual offense? That's where we differ.

Honestly, I think they'd do better. I don't know if their RS offense would look as good as it did in 98, but they'd be far more dangerous in the playoffs, particularly if you took Wade into the 90s. I don't know how fast it would take for Sloan to blow an aneurysm playing with a high-volume wing scorer who loved iso ball, of course, so there's that to consider, but I think Wade pairs better with Malone for the sake of playoff success than does Stockton, who seemed better suited to high-end RS offense than deep postseason success at the highest of levels. Utah's biggest flaw always seemed to be, IMHO, that they just didn't have a dynamic wing scorer to drive them forward, particularly since Malone struggled to summon it against really good defenses (and sometimes just under pressure in general).

That's why both are going to be in the 50 greatest players of all time once we vote Stockton in.

I can see the sense behind Stockton in the top 50. In the current project, I'm running out of primary stars I'd look at as better/more accomplished overall players before considering Stockton myself (not that I'm a voting member, but for context).

[OhayoKD]

Wade had the most help.

What would Stockton do with
Shaq, Zo, Payton, a myriad of fringe all-stars
O

What would he do with a bunch of players way past their prime? Probably lose.

i didn't even realize payton was on the team lol

[tsherkin]

i didn't even realize payton was on the team lol

Payton started 25 games and played 81 total, playing 28.5 mpg for the 06 Heat in the RS. He started none and played in 24.1 mpg during the postseason, and played 22.3 mpg in the Finals. He was, as expected, absolute dogcrap. 39.4% TS, shot 7/19, 1/3 at the line and 1/7 from 3. He averaged about a steal, a turnover and 2 assists per game. HE was a -1.4 OBPM guy in the RS and -1.7 in the playoffs.

Between him, Antoine Walker, Jason Williams and Haslem that series, man... And even Shaq was mortal at 53.2% TS on his 13.7 ppg. The Heat were truly trash in the Finals, Wade notwithstanding. They are very lucky Dirk struggled, and also that Stackhouse, Josh Howard and Devin Harris were also all horrible, and Terry wasn't hitting from 3.

[SHAQ32]

I agree with the comment regarding Wade's playmaking ability. He has too much of a scoring mentality and doesn't have the court vision to rely on for a consistently good team offense. It's interesting that he chose Iverson to be inducted into the hall because you can definitely see the influence on his game. Wade's the more efficient and fundamentally sound version though.

[Cavsfansince84]

I agree with the comment regarding Wade's playmaking ability. He has too much of a scoring mentality and doesn't have the court vision to rely on for a consistently good team offense. It's interesting that he chose Iverson to be inducted into the hall because you can definitely see the influence on his game. Wade's the more efficient and fundamentally sound version though.

I will say I've seen a lot of talk about the idea of a guy being a primary star(almost slang for scorer) in this thread when I think there's a lot to be said for complimentary value in terms of building a contending if not championship team. A guy who can put up 25ppg and be the primary star on a 40 win team for instance isn't necessarily better than a guy who puts up 14ppg but fits better on a 60 win team. Which isn't just about pgs but can also be a guy like 13-15 Kawhi. I think narratives about being primary stars might be less relevant than people want to admit. Just as Russell may have been the most impactful player of all time without being much of a scorer.

[SHAQ32]

I agree with the comment regarding Wade's playmaking ability. He has too much of a scoring mentality and doesn't have the court vision to rely on for a consistently good team offense. It's interesting that he chose Iverson to be inducted into the hall because you can definitely see the influence on his game. Wade's the more efficient and fundamentally sound version though.

I will say I've seen a lot of talk about the idea of a guy being a primary star(almost slang for scorer) in this thread when I think there's a lot to be said for complimentary value in terms of building a contending if not championship team. A guy who can put up 25ppg and be the primary star on a 40 win team for instance isn't necessarily better than a guy pg who puts 14ppg but fits better on a 60 win team. Which isn't just about pgs but can also be a guy like 13-15 Kawhi. I think narratives about being primary stars might be less relevant than people want to admit. Just as Russell may have been the most impactful player of all time without being much of a scorer.

Oh, yeah. Definitely. Especially when said primary star can't space the floor and dribbles with his head down, and said PG can give you 17 and 13 on relatively low usage and space the floor.

[ShotCreator]

A 450 basketball games played gap.

And Wade was not a good NBA player for the last 300 games of his career. Stockton was All-league caliber from 88 until retirement.

Wade has a peak play gap and that counts for at least the 2006 title and how he carried a pretty mediocre cast overall, but I think a functional basketball team like Pop’s Spurs would get much more value out of Stockton’s career than Wade’s.

[OhayoKD]

I agree with the comment regarding Wade's playmaking ability. He has too much of a scoring mentality and doesn't have the court vision to rely on for a consistently good team offense. It's interesting that he chose Iverson to be inducted into the hall because you can definitely see the influence on his game. Wade's the more efficient and fundamentally sound version though.

iverson was a very good playmaker though(better than he was a scorer)

[tsherkin]

I agree with the comment regarding Wade's playmaking ability. He has too much of a scoring mentality and doesn't have the court vision to rely on for a consistently good team offense. It's interesting that he chose Iverson to be inducted into the hall because you can definitely see the influence on his game. Wade's the more efficient and fundamentally sound version though.

I will say I've seen a lot of talk about the idea of a guy being a primary star(almost slang for scorer) in this thread when I think there's a lot to be said for complimentary value in terms of building a contending if not championship team. A guy who can put up 25ppg and be the primary star on a 40 win team for instance isn't necessarily better than a guy pg who puts 14ppg but fits better on a 60 win team. Which isn't just about pgs but can also be a guy like 13-15 Kawhi. I think narratives about being primary stars might be less relevant than people want to admit. Just as Russell may have been the most impactful player of all time without being much of a scorer.

Oh, yeah. Definitely. Especially when said primary star can't space the floor and dribbles with his head down, and said PG can give you 17 and 13 on relatively low usage and space the floor.

The point of the primary star isn't to space the floor, though. Like, it's a nice to have, but it was certainly irrelevant in-era


As to Cavsfan's remark about Russell... he was an ATG defensive anchor. THE ATG defensive anchor, in a now-impossible-to-replicate fashion. He got away with lesser offense because offense wasn't the point of his game. That doesn't really apply to someone like Stockton.

[SHAQ32]

I will say I've seen a lot of talk about the idea of a guy being a primary star(almost slang for scorer) in this thread when I think there's a lot to be said for complimentary value in terms of building a contending if not championship team. A guy who can put up 25ppg and be the primary star on a 40 win team for instance isn't necessarily better than a guy pg who puts 14ppg but fits better on a 60 win team. Which isn't just about pgs but can also be a guy like 13-15 Kawhi. I think narratives about being primary stars might be less relevant than people want to admit. Just as Russell may have been the most impactful player of all time without being much of a scorer.

Oh, yeah. Definitely. Especially when said primary star can't space the floor and dribbles with his head down, and said PG can give you 17 and 13 on relatively low usage and space the floor.

The point of the primary star isn't to space the floor, though. Like, it's a nice to have, but it was certainly irrelevant in-era

It's relevant when my initial point was focused on team offense. How great can your team offense be, in-era or all-time, if your primary usage player can't also space the floor? For example, the 2009 and 2010 Miami Heat were 20th and 19th offensively. I picked those two seasons because those were the healthy Wade years that were also between the Shaq and LeBron eras.

As to Cavsfan's remark about Russell... he was an ATG defensive anchor. THE ATG defensive anchor, in a now-impossible-to-replicate fashion. He got away with lesser offense because offense wasn't the point of his game. That doesn't really apply to someone like Stockton.

Stockton isn't an ATG defender at his position?

[tsherkin]

It's relevant when my initial point was focused on team offense. How great can your team offense be, in-era or all-time, if your primary usage player can't also space the floor? For example, the 2009 and 2010 Miami Heat were 20th and 19th offensively. I picked those two seasons because those were the healthy Wade years that were also between the Shaq and LeBron eras.

The 09 Heat, who were a 99.4 ORTG team when Wade was off the floor, but 110.5 with him on? Half a season of Marion, he had Haslem and Mo Chalmers, quarter seasons of JO and Jamario Moon, a season where Michael Beasley started 21 games. What did you want him to do with that roster? Daequan Cook was their best bench player, there's only so much anyone can do with that sort of setup.

A year later, they had Beasley and JO starting all year, instantly tanking their offense. That wasn't on Wade, that was on roster issues. Wade was a high-end offensive player wasted on bad rosters in those seasons. This isn't news.

As to Cavsfan's remark about Russell... he was an ATG defensive anchor. THE ATG defensive anchor, in a now-impossible-to-replicate fashion. He got away with lesser offense because offense wasn't the point of his game. That doesn't really apply to someone like Stockton.

Stockton isn't an ATG defender at his position?[/quote]

Immaterial, he's a PG. He cannot exert enough of a defensive impact from that spot to matter to the same degree that a high-end big does. Certainly not compared to Russell.