RealGM Top 100 List #25

[RayBan-Sematra]

Thoughts on Stocktons scoring ability?

He tended to pass first rather then look to score but I do remember games where he would step up his scoring.
He had many games where he scored only 15-20pts but on really high FG%.
I tend to think he could have upped his scoring volume while still remaining efficient even if perhaps he wasn't in that ideal Utah system.
Stockton was a really great shooter.

I would like to hear others thoughts on his shot creation ability in general and also how good he was taking people off the dribble.

[penbeast0]

My vote: Hondo
...

Pioneered the 6th man role that has become so popular.

....

He didn't; that was Frank Ramsey who created the role before Havlicek came into the league (and was as spectacular in the playoffs as Cousy wasn't).

[Texas Chuck]

My vote: Hondo
...

Pioneered the 6th man role that has become so popular.

....

He didn't; that was Frank Ramsey who created the role before Havlicek came into the league (and was as spectacular in the playoffs as Cousy wasn't).

like I said, he continued in the role of 6th man that Frank Ramsey pioneered.....

[penbeast0]

3 John Stockton - trex_8063, FJS, SactoKingsFan

2 Walt Frazier -- penbeast0, GC Pantalones
2 Steve Nash - RSCD3_, Doctor MJ

1 Kevin Durant - Ryoga Hibiki
1 John Havlicek -- Chuck Texas

[Doctor MJ]

Thoughts on Stocktons scoring ability?

He tended to pass first rather then look to score but I do remember games where he would step up his scoring.
He had many games where he scored only 15-20pts but on really high FG%.
I tend to think he could have upped his scoring volume while still remaining efficient even if perhaps he wasn't in that ideal Utah system.
Stockton was a really great shooter.

I would like to hear others thoughts on his shot creation ability in general and also how good he was taking people off the dribble.

With Stockton I'd say the question is what he could have done not what he would have done. Meaning, it's pretty clear how rigidly he played, and how that kept him from being anywhere near the scary scoring threat that someone like Nash was, it's just a question of whether he could have been comparable to Nash had he played different.

As I and others have said, the frequency of Stockton actually busting out for 30-ish points in a game is extremely low relative to what you'd expect for someone with his PPG. Not only someone like Nash but also a guy like Jason Kidd were much more likely to go off for big numbers than Stockton was. And while you might want to bring up Kidd's inefficiency, understand that when guys like this go off, it's typically because their scoring is unusually successful in that game, and they recognize and capitalize.

Again, none of this means that Stockton necessarily lacked these abilities, it's easy to imagine Sloan's conservative influence here, but the way Stockton actually played is almost defined by a refusal to capitalize at times when his scoring would have been most beneficial. This is why we have playoff trends of Stockton fading more to the background while Malone took lots of shots at poor efficiency.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Led the Pistons to back to back titles in an era that was tough as nails. Had to deal with peak Bird and Magic in the process. Also won finals mvp, lost only 1 series in his career with HCA. Took a franchise from the bottom to the top as well in the process.

[ChiTown6rings]

Neither do I. I've always thought of it in simplistic form: It's easier and better to play defense 5 on 5 than 5 on 4.

You need to start thinking in nuance then, because 5 on 4 doesn't describe the situation in the slightest.

Yes it does. 1 guy not playing defense ala James Harden, can disrupt the entire defensive flow. You may as well not have the guy on the floor at all on defense.

As far as Steve Nash goes, come on now. He was horrible on defense. Most times didn't give the effort to have a positive impact on defense.

[Texas Chuck]

Is anyone else troubled by this almost casual assertion that John Stockton of all people was not an intelligent player? Because the assumption that he should have played like Nash(a flawed assumption to begin with imo) but just chose not to because he was "rigid" is essentially saying he's a dumb player--or at the very least a stubborn one refusing to move outside of what he "wanted" to do.

I just don't buy that at all. I think its great to love what Nash brought offensively. I think we all love what Nash brought offensively. But it rings wrong to penalize Stockton, who by many many measure shows to beat least as effective a player as Steve Nash, because he didn't play the game the same way. Nash isn't nearly the defender John is and it hurts him in a comparison--just like Stockton not being the scorer Nash is hurts him, but I would never accuse Nash of being stupid. I think he was often a lazy defender--his coaches were certainly lazy defensive coaches when he played for them a and he was bad about stopping to argue calls. But I don't really think it would be fair to say he "chose" to be a bad defender because he wasn't the same defender Stockton was.

[Doctor MJ]

Neither do I. I've always thought of it in simplistic form: It's easier and better to play defense 5 on 5 than 5 on 4.

You need to start thinking in nuance then, because 5 on 4 doesn't describe the situation in the slightest.

Yes it does. 1 guy not playing defense ala James Harden, can disrupt the entire defensive flow. You may as well not have the guy on the floor at all on defense.

As far as Steve Nash goes, come on now. He was horrible on defense. Most times didn't give the effort to have a positive impact on defense.

I completely agree that 1 guy not playing defense means it's 5 on 4, but your notion that Nash didn't play defense is just clearly wrong.

Nash was a guy who was "hid" on defense sure, and by definition that means he's not good, but many teams hide an offensive star. It's not uncommon at all. So Nash had an easier defensive assignment than your average guy, but it's still a role to play, and in that role Nash consistently did what was asked of him making extremely few errors. People ask where his BBIQ went on defense, but if you watch him closely, it's obviously there. He makes good decisions, and I've seen him literally win the game with a key play in the clutch on defense.

This is why his regression data on defense typically showed him to be about an average defender - not quite a non-negative guy but nothing drastic. By contrast, James Harden was WAY negative last year, and I say that as a guy who really likes Harden (love the beard, and I have a local connection to him). He was bloody awful on defense and as a result he really shouldn't have been an All-NBA 1st Team guy last year.

[Doctor MJ]

Is anyone else troubled by this almost casual assertion that John Stockton of all people was not an intelligent player? Because the assumption that he should have played like Nash(a flawed assumption to begin with imo) but just chose not to because he was "rigid" is essentially saying he's a dumb player--or at the very least a stubborn one refusing to move outside of what he "wanted" to do.

I just don't buy that at all. I think its great to love what Nash brought offensively. I think we all love what Nash brought offensively. But it rings wrong to penalize Stockton, who by many many measure shows to beat least as effective a player as Steve Nash, because he didn't play the game the same way. Nash isn't nearly the defender John is and it hurts him in a comparison--just like Stockton not being the scorer Nash is hurts him, but I would never accuse Nash of being stupid. I think he was often a lazy defender--his coaches were certainly lazy defensive coaches when he played for them a and he was bad about stopping to argue calls. But I don't really think it would be fair to say he "chose" to be a bad defender because he wasn't the same defender Stockton was.

It's not about penalties, it's about clarifying why it is unreasonable to simply assume that Stockton was having an impact like Nash out there. And the rigidity in question, as I try to make clear, may be solely a Sloan product, so then it's really not about penalizing Stockton but merely recognizing that in the role he played, he wasn't going to affect his team's offense in the same way Nash did. And that could go either way - it's not like we'd simply assume Nash's offense was better based on a description of how he played, and it's not like Stockton doesn't beat the vast majority of floor general at this - but given we know Nash's crazy offensive impact and we know Stockton didn't play the same way, it doesn't make sense to assume any similarity in their quantitative impact.

[Basketballefan]

I don't put much value into 'mvp award shares' whatever that even is, but even if i did there's no way KD was a top 2 player in 2010, he was arguably not even top 10. Now was he the 5th best player in 2011? Possibly, but that is the absolute highest you can place him for that year.

He absolutely was a top 10 player in 2010, probably even top 5 - LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Dwight, Dirk and Duncan are IMO the only guys who have a case over him. I'd probably put him 6th, behind all of these guys except Duncan.

I think you may be overrating 2010 KD a little bit, yeah he probably was top 10 but no case for top 5. His defense and playmaking simply was not there yet. I think Deron Williams was clearly better, probably Nash as well. Melo has a case and there a few other as well. I would put him top 10 but i think one can still make the argument that he wasn't top 10.

[Warspite]

Is anyone else troubled by this almost casual assertion that John Stockton of all people was not an intelligent player? Because the assumption that he should have played like Nash(a flawed assumption to begin with imo) but just chose not to because he was "rigid" is essentially saying he's a dumb player--or at the very least a stubborn one refusing to move outside of what he "wanted" to do.

I just don't buy that at all. I think its great to love what Nash brought offensively. I think we all love what Nash brought offensively. But it rings wrong to penalize Stockton, who by many many measure shows to beat least as effective a player as Steve Nash, because he didn't play the game the same way. Nash isn't nearly the defender John is and it hurts him in a comparison--just like Stockton not being the scorer Nash is hurts him, but I would never accuse Nash of being stupid. I think he was often a lazy defender--his coaches were certainly lazy defensive coaches when he played for them a and he was bad about stopping to argue calls. But I don't really think it would be fair to say he "chose" to be a bad defender because he wasn't the same defender Stockton was.

Stockton didnt score like Nash because the Jazz didnt spread the floor and they didnt play a fast pace. Nash and Stockton had trouble creating space to be legit +20ppg scorers. They both needed to stretch defenses the maximum in order to score in volume.

Stockton in Sloans system was just not athletic enough to get off enough shots. I doubt Nash is either in Sloans system. I like to think that Stockton would put up similar stats as Nash in D Antonis offense. Of course I think Frazier, Isiah and a few others could have put up better stats than Nash.

What somehow bothers me is how we hate on Wilt and Moses for there "stat padding" and then not much later you want to vote in a player who puts up those shinny stats and cant win. Winning is the point of the game and stats show you how you won or lose but they are not achievements in themselves.

[ceiling raiser]

snipped

Just wondering...

I know you said it's time for some wings to come off the board, and I might agree with that. But who would your next five big men be in order?

[RayBan-Sematra]

With Stockton I'd say the question is what he could have done not what he would have done. Meaning, it's pretty clear how rigidly he played, and how that kept him from being anywhere near the scary scoring threat that someone like Nash was, it's just a question of whether he could have been comparable to Nash had he played different.

Yeah but I am not sure how many more "high scoring games" a guy like Nash really has over stockton.
I remember someone posted how many 30+pt playoff games they had.
Nash had like 9 / 110+ while Stock had 2 / 110+.
Yeah Nash has a much higher % of 30pt games but he still has an extremely tiny amount with most of them probably coming from one playoff series so I don't think that data alone makes me feel that Nash was better at raising his volume when needed.

I am sure that Nash overall has a much higher number of volume scoring games (regardless of what cutoff we use) but the difference is perhaps overstated by some?

Stocktons Top 3 playoff runs in terms of ppg.
89 : 27ppg on 60%TS (3g)
88 : 20ppg on 62%TS (11g)
91 : 18ppg on 64%TS (9g)

Nash
05 : 24ppg on 60%TS (15g)
06 : 20ppg on 62%TS (20g)
03 : 20ppg on 59%TS (8g)

Again, none of this means that Stockton necessarily lacked these abilities, it's easy to imagine Sloan's conservative influence here, but the way Stockton actually played is almost defined by a refusal to capitalize at times when his scoring would have been most beneficial.

How would you rate Stocktons ability to create shots in the hc compared to Nash.
Let us say Nash is an 8/10 where would Stockton be in your book?

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Steve Nash

Nash is one of the 7 greatest offensive players in NBA history. Perhaps the GOAT shooter, passer, and ball-handler.

It appears that Stockton and Nash are the frontrunners in this thread. Basically my reasoning behind Nash over Stockton is that I'd take Nash from 2002-2012 (11 years) over Stockton from 1988-1998 (11 years). It's a considerable margin to me at this point. Nash is clearly the superior offensive player because he's bigger, a better shooter, and a more reliable option in the playoffs. Stockton after 1998 was still a very good player, much better than non-prime Nash, but that's not enough to give him the edge.

The kicker for me is that Stockton's defense is supposed to put him over Nash. Yet Utah was hurt badly by Terry Porter, Gary Payton, Kevin Johnson, and Kenny "The Jet" Smith in the playoffs. And it's not like Stockton ever took any tough non-point guards. Utah was torched by Drexler and Pippen, too (Going to ignore Jordan since that wouldn't be fair for anybody).

When did Stockton's superior defense ever matter in a major way in the playoffs? Honest question.

Drza's monster post about Jason Kidd puts the Bucks coach in contention for me. I've got Kidd over Stockton, btw. Not sure about Kidd vs. Frazier or Isiah Thomas. Isiah is one of the more underrated players on this board in my opinion.

[Texas Chuck]

It's not about penalties, it's about clarifying why it is unreasonable to simply assume that Stockton was having an impact like Nash out there. And the rigidity in question, as I try to make clear, may be solely a Sloan product, so then it's really not about penalizing Stockton but merely recognizing that in the role he played, he wasn't going to affect his team's offense in the same way Nash did. And that could go either way - it's not like we'd simply assume Nash's offense was better based on a description of how he played, and it's not like Stockton doesn't beat the vast majority of floor general at this - but given we know Nash's crazy offensive impact and we know Stockton didn't play the same way, it doesn't make sense to assume any similarity in their quantitative impact.

I agree we shouldn't assume Stockton was having an impact like Nash. But we have lots of hard statistical data that suggests he was having a high level of impact just like Nash. Some metrics seems to prefer Nash. Others Stock. And clearly he is doing it in a different manner. But different /= worse automatically which is what seems to be being implied by Nash supporters itt.

No one can argue that Nash turned up the volume more frequently than Stockton. The record is right in front of us. And I personally would never argue that Stockton has the same scoring capabilities as Nash. I think Nash is a superior scorer. But I think we should really examine that closer and see if its really some massive edge as as being postulated.

And when we examine it, the numbers really aren't all that different in terms of volume. And while you and I watched Stockton play, pretty much everyone watched Nash play(sadly not enough in Dallas). And what you see over and over again in Phoenix and in Dallas is how the defense almost never converges on Nash. Because you can't. Both the Mavs and the Suns put 4 quality offensive options on the floor with Nash for the vast majority of his minutes. And when you watch the film, you can see how the defense stays home. And Nash is an offensive genius who makes the right decision almost every single time. He finds the right guy at the right time with the right pass(sound like somebody else in this discussion?) or if given the opportunity he takes a quality shot on his own. And he does this as well, if not better, than anyone else ever has.

But when you watch Stockton, you see something different. You see more teams blitz the PNR, because there are one or two guys you can leave without fear and you trust your rotations can catch up to the guys you have to and you are willing to let certain guys shoot. You see the defense converge more when he penetrates. And what does Stockton do. He makes that same correct pass at the same correct time to the same correct guy or he takes a high percentage shot. The difference is that he doesn't have quite the same opportunity as Nash because while he's not quite the scorer Nash is, neither are his teammates in comparison with Steve's.

Please don't mistake this as me crediting Nash's teammates with making him great. They do not. He is great. Again maybe the best ever offensive PG and I'm including Magic in this. But when we talk about this relatively small gap in scoring, we should look at the context in which he is doing it.

[Doctor MJ]

With Stockton I'd say the question is what he could have done not what he would have done. Meaning, it's pretty clear how rigidly he played, and how that kept him from being anywhere near the scary scoring threat that someone like Nash was, it's just a question of whether he could have been comparable to Nash had he played different.

Yeah but I am not sure how many more "high scoring games" a guy like Nash really has over stockton.
I remember someone posted how many 30+pt playoff games they had.
Nash had like 9 / 110+ while Stock had 2 / 110+.
Yeah Nash has a much higher % of 30pt games but he still has an extremely tiny amount with most of them probably coming from one playoff series so I don't think that data alone makes me feel that Nash was better at raising his volume when needed.

I am sure that Nash overall has a much higher number of volume scoring games (regardless of what cutoff we use) but the difference is perhaps overstated by some?

Stocktons Top 3 playoff runs in terms of ppg.
89 : 27ppg on 60%TS (3g)
88 : 20ppg on 62%TS (11g)
91 : 18ppg on 64%TS (9g)

Nash
05 : 24ppg on 60%TS (15g)
06 : 20ppg on 62%TS (20g)
03 : 20ppg on 59%TS (8g)

Again, none of this means that Stockton necessarily lacked these abilities, it's easy to imagine Sloan's conservative influence here, but the way Stockton actually played is almost defined by a refusal to capitalize at times when his scoring would have been most beneficial.

How would you rate Stocktons ability to create shots in the hc compared to Nash.
Let us say Nash is an 8/10 where would Stockton be in your book?

You should do some data searches on b-r. Let me know if you need some pointers.

In the regular season Nash had 39 30+ point games, Stockton had 11.
25+? Nash 116, Stockton 63

Playoffs?
30+? Nash 9, Stockton 2
25+? Nash 23, Stockton 7

So yeah, it's absolutely clear who was more likely to go big in scoring volume, and the trend continues even up to some pretty big numbers.

Looking at your method, well there's one outlier there, right? Take the '89 post-season away, and Stockton's quite clearly below Nash there too.

And did you look at the '89 post-season? The Jazz played only 3 games because they lost in a sweep as a #2 seed playing a #7 seed. Malone & Stockton's stats were huge in the series, but on the whole the Jazz offense wasn't very successful. It's a perfect example of a playoff series where you can't look at the individual numbers as if they mean anything.

Re: X/10. I never know how to answer these things. What's the scale even? If it's a linear percentile scale, then anyone in the top 10 percentile would be a 10/10. And so both Nash & Stockton would be 10s.

Here's what I will say though: While I do think Sloan held Stockton back a bit, and that Stockton could have gone off in volume more often, I actually think Nash could have been an excellent volume scorer. As in, game in, game out, scoring at volume. As you know, I don't hold volume scoring as the ultimate goal of the offensive player, but I think Nash could have done it very well if he were asked to do it.

[Doctor MJ]

I agree we shouldn't assume Stockton was having an impact like Nash. But we have lots of hard statistical data that suggests he was having a high level of impact just like Nash. Some metrics seems to prefer Nash. Others Stock. And clearly he is doing it in a different manner. But different /= worse automatically which is what seems to be being implied by Nash supporters itt.

No one can argue that Nash turned up the volume more frequently than Stockton. The record is right in front of us. And I personally would never argue that Stockton has the same scoring capabilities as Nash. I think Nash is a superior scorer. But I think we should really examine that closer and see if its really some massive edge as as being postulated.

And when we examine it, the numbers really aren't all that different in terms of volume. And while you and I watched Stockton play, pretty much everyone watched Nash play(sadly not enough in Dallas). And what you see over and over again in Phoenix and in Dallas is how the defense almost never converges on Nash. Because you can't. Both the Mavs and the Suns put 4 quality offensive options on the floor with Nash for the vast majority of his minutes. And when you watch the film, you can see how the defense stays home. And Nash is an offensive genius who makes the right decision almost every single time. He finds the right guy at the right time with the right pass(sound like somebody else in this discussion?) or if given the opportunity he takes a quality shot on his own. And he does this as well, if not better, than anyone else ever has.

But when you watch Stockton, you see something different. You see more teams blitz the PNR, because there are one or two guys you can leave without fear and you trust your rotations can catch up to the guys you have to and you are willing to let certain guys shoot. You see the defense converge more when he penetrates. And what does Stockton do. He makes that same correct pass at the same correct time to the same correct guy or he takes a high percentage shot. The difference is that he doesn't have quite the same opportunity as Nash because while he's not quite the scorer Nash is, neither are his teammates in comparison with Steve's.

Please don't mistake this as me crediting Nash's teammates with making him great. They do not. He is great. Again maybe the best ever offensive PG and I'm including Magic in this. But when we talk about this relatively small gap in scoring, we should look at the context in which he is doing it.

Re: Some impact metrics. Well in terms of impact metrics meeting +/-, all the stuff pertaining to offense goes toward Nash easily. I realize there's defense to consider too, and that's on Stockton's side, but there's still no real dispute about things by these metrics other than whether the offensive or defensive edge wins out.

The rest of your stuff though absolutely makes sense.

[lorak]

The kicker for me is that Stockton's defense is supposed to put him over Nash. Yet Utah was hurt badly by Terry Porter, Gary Payton, Kevin Johnson, and Kenny "The Jet" Smith in the playoffs. And it's not like Stockton ever took any tough non-point guards. Utah was torched by Drexler and Pippen, too (Going to ignore Jordan since that wouldn't be fair for anybody).

Team defense >>>> man to man D.

[lorak]

With Stockton I'd say the question is what he could have done not what he would have done. Meaning, it's pretty clear how rigidly he played, and how that kept him from being anywhere near the scary scoring threat that someone like Nash was, it's just a question of whether he could have been comparable to Nash had he played different.

Of course he could. Look at his playoff series before Sloan's system was fully implemented.

People also have to remember that Stockton played in enviroment more difficult for perimeter players than Nash since '05. That matters a lot and it's reason why it's quite silly to just compare number of +30 or +25 games and come to conclusion who was better scorer.