RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #32 (Deadline 5:00AM PST on 10/9/23)

[ZeppelinPage]

At face value, it looks like Stockton had trouble more often than Frazier keeping the other PG in check. So was Stockton that much better on offense than Frazier to elevate him higher, even with the longevity advantage? It doesn't seem like their respective prime duration is that much different.

I'm glad you brought this up as I have noticed some performances that PGs were having against the Jazz before.

Terry Porter had his highest scoring playoff series ever against the Jazz in 1992, as well as his 4th highest in 1991.

Kenny Smith had his highest scoring playoff series ever against the Jazz in 1995, as well as his 4th highest in 1994.

1991 Terry Porter vs Utah Jazz:
22 PPG (+5.2 from regular season)
63 TS% (-0.3 from regular season)
50/33/92 shooting splits

1992 Terry Porter vs Utah Jazz:
26 PPG (+7.9 from regular season)
72 TS% (+14.9 from regular season)
55/53/85 shooting splits

----------------------------------------------------

1994 Kenny Smith vs the Utah Jazz:
14.8 PPG (+3.2 from regular season)
67.1 TS% (+9 from regular season)
57/63/100 shooting splits

1995 Kenny Smith vs Utah Jazz:
17 PPG (+7 from regular season)
81 TS% (+17 from regular season) -- Highest TS% in a playoff series in NBA history.
57/63/100 shooting splits

----------------------------------------------------

I watched what available film there is from these years and noticed that Stockton had a tendency to shade off his man and help into the paint, presumably hoping to use his quick hands to force steals and pressure the ball handler, this led to his man being open on the perimeter:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Stockton could get burned for his tendency to ball watch and drift, and the Rockets and Blazers were able to key in on these tendencies and took advantage of his aggressive gambling:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Here Stockton helps in an attempt to block a shot and leaves Kenny Smith wide open:

Spoiler:

He also had some difficulties fighting over screens with his frame:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Upon further research, Rockets coach Rudy Tomjanovich mentioned taking advantage of Stockton sagging off in their 1994 series:

Spoiler:

While I certainly do think Stockton was an active defender that could make plays, I do think its worth noting how teams could take advantage of his more aggressive tendencies to play for steals and roam the floor. Even if out of position, sometimes he was still quick enough to bounce between players and at least close-out on shots. But considering Stockton's small frame and the fact that he isn't as talented of a man defender, especially against bigger guards like Terry Porter, it led to certain guards being able to have success when teams game planned for this and is something to keep in mind.

[iggymcfrack]

How do Stockton and Frazier perform relative (%) on average to the average of their contemporary peers*?

So during the Regular Season, Stockton indeed looks like a Point-God when it comes to generating assists (AST) (for himself):

Code: Select all

===========  ========  ======  =============  ====  =======  ====  =====  =====  =====  =====  =====  =====
PLAYER       Season    Pos     Tm                G  Split      MP    PTS    TSA    TS%    AST    TRB     PF
===========  ========  ======  =============  ====  =======  ====  =====  =====  =====  =====  =====  =====
W. Frazier   '69-78    ['PG']  ['NYK' 'CLE']  73.6  Rel (%)   8.6   18.3   11.9    6.5    2.2   52.7  -10.6
J. Stockton  '88-97    ['PG']  ['UTA']        81.6  Rel (%)   5.1    7.1   -5.3   14.6   75    -12.7   18.1
===========  ========  ======  =============  ====  =======  ====  =====  =====  =====  =====  =====  =====

+75% relative to average, Stockton blows Frazier completely out of the water. His shooting efficiency (TS%) is also notabley better and that also enables him to score above an average rate (PTS) despite taking less true shots (TSA) on average. Frazier is scoring at a respectable efficiency (TS%), and that is more impresseive considering he is doing that on a much higher volume and this results in +18.3% points relative to his peers.

However, I think many would agree that titles are won (mainly) in the Post-Season. This is how the numbers look like per playoff series on average:

Code: Select all

===========  ========  ======  =======  ===  =======  ====  =====  =====  =====  =====  =====  ====
PLAYER       Season    Pos     Tm         G  Split      MP    PTS    TSA    TS%    AST    TRB    PF
===========  ========  ======  =======  ===  =======  ====  =====  =====  =====  =====  =====  ====
W. Frazier   '69-75    ['PG']  ['NYK']  5.6  Rel (%)  17.1   18.7    7.9   10.3    3.8   73.6   2
J. Stockton  '88-97    ['PG']  ['UTA']  5.1  Rel (%)  13.3    8.5    2.4    6.2   64.5    6.1  28.4


It actually looks like Stockton is looking for his shot more, as his relative TSA jumps from -5.3 to +2.4 %, and this leads to a slight increase in PTS (7.1 > 8.5), albeit at a significant cost of his TS%. His AST are also down, but it still looks elite. Frazier, on the other hand, if not maintaining his RS numbers, is elevating them. Marginal increase in PTS, but needs fewer TSA and is more efficient. That's crazy impressive considering how this normally would drop in the playoffs for other players and that he basically was the first option for the Knicks from 1971 onwards. Also notable is the high rate he is rebounding at, which also significantly increased during the PS. Stockton on the other hand doesn't seem to be capable of elevating, or even maintaining, these specific box-score stats.

Of course Frazier looks better in the playoffs than the regular season from '69-'78. His last year as an impact player was '75 and the 3 years where he was in decline, he didn't make the playoffs. If you just compared the 7 years he made the playoffs to regular seasons from the same 7 year stretch, you'd find his numbers to be virtually identical, RS or PS.

[MrLurker]

As far as I know PER essentially comes down to an arbitrary box score formula that basically comes down to “eh well this looks good” so there quite literally is lol reason to use it over looking at box scores yourself and making your own conclusions

As far as you know? Shouldn't you understand it well before dismissing it?

Also, other than a few things here or there, what makes it arbitrary? It's not like it's 5 times points plus 27 times rebounds plus 73 times blocks. It's somewhat straightforward and, if anything, kind of just a possession counter. With the very convenient attribute of adjusting for pace and league environment.

Also, why would your or anyone else's evaluation of a box score be any better? Why not just use the longstanding measure that is widely calculated? And of course there aren't really any non-box score stats to look at from 1970.

PER is a idiotic stat lol, “as far as I know” was because there’s nothing on it that shows it’s not arbitrary lmfao

What ur basically saying is why would this one guys arbitrary box score formula generalized towards every player in history that was slightly adjusted for when inputs in it weren’t available are better than anyone that has the intelligence to actually look at different individuals in context.

Idk why u die on this hill cuz I saw you arguing that it wasn’t a garbage stat awhile back too, it absolutely is. It’s not even like RAPTOR or one of the bad plus minus stuff, PER is one of the few things that anyone with any mild Python or R experience could make something better than in less than a day lol


A stat being listed in an advanced stat category doesn’t mean it’s not garbage. PER is garbage and if u don’t think so then u don’t understand NBA data lol

How do you distinguish between bad stats and good stats?

All-in-ones like PER are pretty commonplace. Popularity does not necessitate quality but if we are bucking what is common then I wonder what would be considered a reasonable alternative and how one determines which alternatives are reasonable

[MyUniBroDavis]

As far as you know? Shouldn't you understand it well before dismissing it?

Also, other than a few things here or there, what makes it arbitrary? It's not like it's 5 times points plus 27 times rebounds plus 73 times blocks. It's somewhat straightforward and, if anything, kind of just a possession counter. With the very convenient attribute of adjusting for pace and league environment.

Also, why would your or anyone else's evaluation of a box score be any better? Why not just use the longstanding measure that is widely calculated? And of course there aren't really any non-box score stats to look at from 1970.

PER is a idiotic stat lol, “as far as I know” was because there’s nothing on it that shows it’s not arbitrary lmfao

What ur basically saying is why would this one guys arbitrary box score formula generalized towards every player in history that was slightly adjusted for when inputs in it weren’t available are better than anyone that has the intelligence to actually look at different individuals in context.

Idk why u die on this hill cuz I saw you arguing that it wasn’t a garbage stat awhile back too, it absolutely is. It’s not even like RAPTOR or one of the bad plus minus stuff, PER is one of the few things that anyone with any mild Python or R experience could make something better than in less than a day lol


A stat being listed in an advanced stat category doesn’t mean it’s not garbage. PER is garbage and if u don’t think so then u don’t understand NBA data lol

How do you distinguish between bad stats and good stats?

All-in-ones like PER are pretty commonplace. Popularity does not necessitate quality but if we are bucking what is common then I wonder what would be considered a reasonable alternative and how one determines which alternatives are reasonable

It’s about knowing the “story behind” and justification/validation of that data and how that is (real bad way to explain it lol) and how to use it

Everyone’s gonna have their opinion I know a lot of people here don’t like all in ones (docs said his stuff about ESPN RPM which isn’t a good all in one anyways with them being weird with their formula but it applies I think) but a lot of them have their uses

PER sucks in the same way skmething like winshares kind of sucks but worse, saying player X had this PER is basically another way to say player X had bad box score data but in a more vague and worse way

[ShaqAttac]

i dont think the 2nd guy on teams that only did something once everyone else was old should be getting voted over 1st guys tbh

Putting aside the question of whether Malone was even better than Stockton (I’d lean no), would it make Stockton any different of a player if Malone was 1 point less valuable per game and the rest of the supporting cast was one point better? Why can only one guy get credit per team?

credit for what. they didnt win anything. getting close a few times when everyones old dont seem like it deserves two top 30 spots. i think fp4 got a point

[iggymcfrack]

i dont think the 2nd guy on teams that only did something once everyone else was old should be getting voted over 1st guys tbh

Putting aside the question of whether Malone was even better than Stockton (I’d lean no), would it make Stockton any different of a player if Malone was 1 point less valuable per game and the rest of the supporting cast was one point better? Why can only one guy get credit per team?

credit for what. they didnt win anything. getting close a few times when everyones old dont seem like it deserves two top 30 spots. i think fp4 got a point

You say “when everyone’s old” like it was a weak point where the league was wide open or something. They lost to a 69 win team with a 10.7 SRS and then “lost” to a 62 win team with a 7.2 SRS where it should have been 3-3 gonna back to the Delta Center if the ref had the balls to blow the whistle to call an obvious push off on St. Michael at the end of the game. The Jazz were the second winningest team of the ‘90s with a large gap between second and third. They had plenty to be proud of.

[ShaqAttac]

Putting aside the question of whether Malone was even better than Stockton (I’d lean no), would it make Stockton any different of a player if Malone was 1 point less valuable per game and the rest of the supporting cast was one point better? Why can only one guy get credit per team?

credit for what. they didnt win anything. getting close a few times when everyones old dont seem like it deserves two top 30 spots. i think fp4 got a point

You say “when everyone’s old” like it was a weak point where the league was wide open or something. They lost to a 69 win team with a 10.7 SRS and then “lost” to a 62 win team with a 7.2 SRS where it should have been 3-3 gonna back to the Delta Center if the ref had the balls to blow the whistle to call an obvious push off on St. Michael at the end of the game. The Jazz were the second winningest team of the ‘90s with a large gap between second and third. They had plenty to be proud of.

srs goin up coz a league got weaker dont mean the league didnt get weaker. fp4 said they were a old-ass barkley away from losing to old-ass hakeem in 98

if getting close is all it takes than pippen got close in 94 and won a bunch as a 2nd option. a bunch of other dudes actually won. youre basically tryna say stockton and malone better coz they lost in the 90s.

[Owly]

At face value, it looks like Stockton had trouble more often than Frazier keeping the other PG in check. So was Stockton that much better on offense than Frazier to elevate him higher, even with the longevity advantage? It doesn't seem like their respective prime duration is that much different.

I'm glad you brought this up as I have noticed some performances that PGs were having against the Jazz before.

Terry Porter had his highest scoring playoff series ever against the Jazz in 1992, as well as his 4th highest in 1991.

Kenny Smith had his highest scoring playoff series ever against the Jazz in 1995, as well as his 4th highest in 1994.

1991 Terry Porter vs Utah Jazz:
22 PPG (+5.2 from regular season)
63 TS% (-0.3 from regular season)
50/33/92 shooting splits

1992 Terry Porter vs Utah Jazz:
26 PPG (+7.9 from regular season)
72 TS% (+14.9 from regular season)
55/53/85 shooting splits

----------------------------------------------------

1994 Kenny Smith vs the Utah Jazz:
14.8 PPG (+3.2 from regular season)
67.1 TS% (+9 from regular season)
57/63/100 shooting splits

1995 Kenny Smith vs Utah Jazz:
17 PPG (+7 from regular season)
81 TS% (+17 from regular season) -- Highest TS% in a playoff series in NBA history.
57/63/100 shooting splits

----------------------------------------------------

I watched what available film there is from these years and noticed that Stockton had a tendency to shade off his man and help into the paint, presumably hoping to use his quick hands to force steals and pressure the ball handler, this led to his man being open on the perimeter:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Stockton could get burned for his tendency to ball watch and drift, and the Rockets and Blazers were able to key in on these tendencies and took advantage of his aggressive gambling:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Here Stockton helps in an attempt to block a shot and leaves Kenny Smith wide open:

Spoiler:

He also had some difficulties fighting over screens with his frame:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Upon further research, Rockets coach Rudy Tomjanovich mentioned taking advantage of Stockton sagging off in their 1994 series:

Spoiler:

While I certainly do think Stockton was an active defender that could make plays, I do think its worth noting how teams could take advantage of his more aggressive tendencies to play for steals and roam the floor. Even if out of position, sometimes he was still quick enough to bounce between players and at least close-out on shots. But considering Stockton's small frame and the fact that he isn't as talented of a man defender, especially against bigger guards like Terry Porter, it led to certain guards being able to have success when teams game planned for this and is something to keep in mind.

What happens to TS if we plug in normal FT%s off a larger sample (RS from that year/RS from that year and adjacent years/career). Defensive shooting luck is going to be a significant factor at a single player single series level anyhow (and the sort of sample where what happens when you go to the bench could make a big difference) but FT% fluctuations certainly isn't on the defender.

Also "Highest TS% in a playoff series in NBA history" probably needs a more explicit threshold for or it won't be (people just making one 3 or something similar will be ... just checked e.g. https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/highest-true-shooting-percentage-in-a-playoff-series).

[WestGOAT]

.

Of course Frazier looks better in the playoffs than the regular season from '69-'78. His last year as an impact player was '75 and the 3 years where he was in decline, he didn't make the playoffs.

If you don't make the playoffs you cannot be an impact player? You can actually look at his RS splits from '69-75 vs '76-78*, his box-scores stats are not down across the board at all. Feel free to call it post-prime or whatever, but Frazier was still playing 32+ MPG on average.

.

If you just compared the 7 years he made the playoffs to regular seasons from the same 7 year stretch, you'd find his numbers to be virtually identical, RS or PS.

Not true:

Code: Select all

    PLAYER Season  Pos    Tm    G   Split   MP  PTS  TSA  TS%  AST  TRB    PF
W. Frazier '69-75 [PG] [NYK] 78.6 Rel (%) 10.2 17.2  9.8  7.8  8.5 58.5 -10.6

    PLAYER Season  Pos    Tm   G   Split   MP  PTS  TSA  TS%  AST  TRB  PF
W. Frazier '69-75 [PG] [NYK] 5.6 Rel (%) 17.1 18.7  7.9 10.3  3.8 73.6 2.0

And even if you don't consider it a significant change, even maintaining these stats still impressive since it's well established that these box-score stats go down during the plaoyffs. You clearly saw Stockton's TS% plummet in the PS, especially in season-ending PS series.

*

Code: Select all

    PLAYER Season  Pos    G   Split  MP  PTS  TSA  TS%  AST  TRB    PF         Tm
W. Frazier '69-78 [PG] 73.6 Rel (%) 8.6 18.3 11.9  6.5  2.2 52.7 -10.6 [NYK, CLE]

    PLAYER Season  Pos    G   Split   MP  PTS  TSA  TS%  AST  TRB    PF    Tm
W. Frazier '69-75 [PG] 78.6 Rel (%) 10.2 17.2  9.8  7.8  8.5 58.5 -10.6 [NYK]

    PLAYER Season  Pos    G   Split  MP  PTS  TSA  TS%   AST  TRB    PF         Tm
W. Frazier '76-78 [PG] 62.0 Rel (%) 4.9 20.7 16.9  3.2 -12.7 39.3 -10.7 [NYK, CLE]


[Owly]

.

Of course Frazier looks better in the playoffs than the regular season from '69-'78. His last year as an impact player was '75 and the 3 years where he was in decline, he didn't make the playoffs.

If you don't make the playoffs you cannot be an impact player? You can actually look at his RS splits from '69-75 vs '76-78*, his box-scores stats are not down across the board at all. Feel free to call it post-prime or whatever, but Frazier was still playing 32+ MPG on average.

On average they are somewhat significantly down. I'll use PER just so he isn't getting penalized for worse team performance but other Reference composites show a similar trend ... 69-75 20.1 average, lowest is 18.7. Then the next 3 years is 17.2 average. There is a clear decline (which would boost a career or otherwise including that span "prime" playoff "raiser" comparison). Anecdotally/qualitatively the Hollander books regard him as weaker in this latter era too, and are critical of his D (though they suggest this is overrated by the 1974 published 1975 edition).

Now for the 69-75 era his PER holds steady in the playoffs in terms of the average over the span which given tougher opponents and a higher average standard is a real terms win. In this sense both positions can be true.

Not sure about the significance above others of run ending series. That would make it better to go out earlier in a strong series than advance and risk a tough opponent that will likely make you look worse.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Pippen - 4 (AEnigma, trelos, ShaqA, ZPage)
Stockton - 6 (trex, Samurai, beast, iggy, Clyde, Rishkar)
Kawhi - 3 (ltj, HBK, Dutchball)
Miller - 1 (rk)
Frazier - 1 (Doc)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Stockton & Pippen:

Pippen - 2 (ltj, rk)
Stockton - 0 (none)
neither - 3 (HBK, Dutchball, Doc)

Stockton 6, Pippen 6. Wow, looks like we have an extended runoff.

Nomination Vote 2:

Havlicek - 6 (AEnigma, Samurai, trelos, Dutchball, Doc, ZPage)
Baylor - 1 (trex)
Artis - 1 (beast)
Barry - 2 (ltj, Clyde)
Davis - 2 (HBK, iggy)
Kidd - 2 (Rishkar, rk)
Butler - 1 (ShaqA)

No majority. Going to Vote 2 between Havlicek, Barry, Davis & Kidd.

Havlicek - 0 (none)
Barry - 0 (none)
Davis - 0 (none)
Kidd - 1 (trex)
none - 2 (beast, ShaqA)

Kidd grabs 2nd place by himself, continuing runoff Havlicek vs Kidd:

Havlicek - 2 (ltj, Clyde)
Kidd - 1 (iggy)
neither - 1 (HBK)

Havlicek 8, Kidd 4.

John Havlicek will be added to Nominee list.

[Doctor MJ]

Break the tie: John Stockton vs Scottie Pippen

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Also, those who already voted but didn't choose a preference between Stockton & Pippen are requested to vote to help break the tie. That is:

HeartBreakKid
Dutchball
Doc (me)

[falcolombardi]

My vote

Reggie miller- all time scoring force in the playoffs, great portability, leader of a great offensive team for a long time, probably a neutral-ish defenfer for his position in my view. Strong longevity and offensive portability with his spacing

Some questions about his on ball game and ability to create for others. albeit he makes up for them with working perfectly with ball dominant guards like mark jackson showing his teams didnt need a first rate on ball player when having him

His team offense results as a offense anchor are up there with historically much higher regarded players already voted in (charles barkley or james harden for exanple) while arguably being much easier to build around in defense (specially sir charles)...food for thought, hell, his overall team results in indiana dont look too different to those of barkley in sixers or suns in my view

Alternate-scottie pippen

Not only did he have all time success playing as a second star alongside the highest volume player ever or thereabouts showing his portability to impact the game with relatively few shots who could fit around a guy like jordan seamlessly

He also showed impressive results in his short stint as a team main star. One of the few guys i think accomplished all-nba defense while holding up their team offense.

Edit: this is already a run-off? Then pippen for me

[WestGOAT]

Not sure about the significance above others of run ending series. That would make it better to go out earlier in a strong series than advance and risk a tough opponent that will likely make you look worse.

Not sure if I fully understand, but if anything, Frazier only had one season-ending series that was in the 1st round of the PS, whereas Stockton had 4 of those (GSW, PHO, SEA, HOU). So if anything Stockton is not getting penalized for not going out more often in later rounds (compared to Frazier). That said, I would be the first one to admit, besides GSW, the Jazz faced tougher than usual opposition that you'd normally expect in the first round.

Code: Select all

===========  ========  =====  ====  =====  ===  =============
PLAYER         Season  Pos    Tm    Opp      G  Round
===========  ========  =====  ====  =====  ===  =============
W. Frazier       1969  PG     NYK   BOS      6  E.D.Finals
W. Frazier       1970  PG     NYK   LAL      7  Finals
W. Frazier       1971  PG     NYK   BAL      7  E.C.Finals
W. Frazier       1972  PG     NYK   LAL      5  Finals
W. Frazier       1973  PG     NYK   LAL      5  Finals
W. Frazier       1974  PG     NYK   BOS      5  E.C.Finals
W. Frazier       1975  PG     NYK   HOU      3  E.C.1st Round
J. Stockton      1988  PG     UTA   LAL      7  W.C.Semis
J. Stockton      1989  PG     UTA   GSW      3  W.C.1st Round
J. Stockton      1990  PG     UTA   PHO      5  W.C.1st Round
J. Stockton      1991  PG     UTA   POR      5  W.C.Semis
J. Stockton      1992  PG     UTA   POR      6  W.C.Finals
J. Stockton      1993  PG     UTA   SEA      5  W.C.1st Round
J. Stockton      1994  PG     UTA   HOU      5  W.C.Finals
J. Stockton      1995  PG     UTA   HOU      5  W.C.1st Round
J. Stockton      1996  PG     UTA   SEA      7  W.C.Finals
J. Stockton      1997  PG     UTA   CHI      6  Finals
===========  ========  =====  ====  =====  ===  =============

[Djoker]

Even though I'm not an official voter here, I would go Pippen over Stockton. I just think at their best, Pippen was clearly the better player and no amount of longevity can compensate for it. That's what it comes down to for me.

[Owly]

Not sure about the significance above others of run ending series. That would make it better to go out earlier in a strong series than advance and risk a tough opponent that will likely make you look worse.

Not sure if I fully understand, but if anything, Frazier only had one season-ending series that was in the 1st round of the PS, whereas Stockton had 4 of those (GSW, PHO, SEA, HOU). So if anything Stockton is not getting penalized for not going out more often in later rounds (compared to Frazier). That said, I would be the first one to admit, besides GSW, the Jazz faced tougher than usual opposition that you'd normally expect in the first round.

Code: Select all

===========  ========  =====  ====  =====  ===  =============
PLAYER         Season  Pos    Tm    Opp      G  Round
===========  ========  =====  ====  =====  ===  =============
W. Frazier       1969  PG     NYK   BOS      6  E.D.Finals
W. Frazier       1970  PG     NYK   LAL      7  Finals
W. Frazier       1971  PG     NYK   BAL      7  E.C.Finals
W. Frazier       1972  PG     NYK   LAL      5  Finals
W. Frazier       1973  PG     NYK   LAL      5  Finals
W. Frazier       1974  PG     NYK   BOS      5  E.C.Finals
W. Frazier       1975  PG     NYK   HOU      3  E.C.1st Round
J. Stockton      1988  PG     UTA   LAL      7  W.C.Semis
J. Stockton      1989  PG     UTA   GSW      3  W.C.1st Round
J. Stockton      1990  PG     UTA   PHO      5  W.C.1st Round
J. Stockton      1991  PG     UTA   POR      5  W.C.Semis
J. Stockton      1992  PG     UTA   POR      6  W.C.Finals
J. Stockton      1993  PG     UTA   SEA      5  W.C.1st Round
J. Stockton      1994  PG     UTA   HOU      5  W.C.Finals
J. Stockton      1995  PG     UTA   HOU      5  W.C.1st Round
J. Stockton      1996  PG     UTA   SEA      7  W.C.Finals
J. Stockton      1997  PG     UTA   CHI      6  Finals
===========  ========  =====  ====  =====  ===  =============

It was more a criticism of the perverse incentives within the system in general a comment on how it plays out in this particular scenario. As you somewhat allude to specific competition balance would be better looked at by the specific competition of the individuals (team and particularly matchup) rather than the round.

I would say 2000 to 2002 Stockton's RS box composites and most of his playoff box composites are ...
- above his career averages (BPM very slightly below)
- above Frazier's career averages so far as they exist (BPM not really available).
I guess I think sometimes these "prime" measures shaft Stockton of significant high quality years.

[DraymondGold]

Tiebreak vote: Stockton.

From a career value perspective, it's hard for me to see an argument against Stockton at #32. A lot of box stats portray him as in contention for Top 10 ever in 'career totals' (including the most accurate stat, Backpicks BPM), and while box stats may overrate him slightly -- his assists numbers may slightly overrate his playmaking, his efficiency may underrate his passivity from shooting, plain career totals don't give extra weighting to peaks, regular season totals may miss some lack of resilience -- it's hard for all these factors to make up enough of the difference between Stockton and Pippen. Stockton was just adding valuable seasons for so much longer than Pippen, and it's not like impact metrics are lower on him. Now our WOWY data also has limitations (basically no missed games from Stockton, which is a good thing!... but increases WOWY uncertainty), as does our plus minus data (I'm told the Utah Jazz kept their starters rotations in sync to an unusual amount, which would cause unusually high collinearity). But again, all the information we have for Stockton puts him so much higher than Pippen from a career total value perspective. It's hard to overcome all that.

With the various Stockton vs Malone discussion that's happened over the past few threads, I think it's worth mentioning that there is a case for Stockton over Malone statistically. Raw plus minus may favor Malone during the Jazz' more successful years, and AuPM certainly favors Malone. But! RAPM pretty consistently favors Stockton.

RAPM: Stockton > Malone
Squared2020 RAPM
1988: Stockton +3.49 (14th), Malone +1.07 (64th, 4th on Jazz below Eaton)
[18 game sample, Jazz severely underperformed)
1989: N/A
1990: N/A
1991: Stockton 4.03 (9th in NBA), Malone -0.83 (258th in NBA, 8th! On Jazz)
[19 game sample, Jazz severely underperformed]
1992: N/A
1993: Stockton -0.07 (192nd), Malone -0.80 (278th)
[3 game sample, unusably small]
1994: N/A
1995: N/A
1996: Stockton +2.1 (49th in NBA), Malone 0.3 (162nd, 8th! on Jazz)
[10 game sample, Jazz severely underperformed]

Goldstein RS + PS RAPM:
1997: Malone +4.42, Stockton +3.88
1998: Stockton +5.32, Malone +5.31
1999: Stockton +5.14, Malone +4.58
2000: Stockton +6.18, Malone +4.12

So... Malone's ahead in 1997, but Stocktons ahead in *every other sample*, including in 1996 and 1998–1999 when they were still in championship contention. Now there are limits to all this data. Squared2020's samples are small and the Jazz underperformed in them. I would absolutely expect Malone in particular to improve above a ranking of 64th/258th/278th in the NBA if we had full season data. But when you combine Stockton's consistent superiority to Malone in the earlier 90s samples, along with his superiority in full-season samples in 1998 (they're basically tied) and 1999 when the Jazz were in contention, it's hard to come away with the picture that Malone was *that* more valuable than Stockton, even if Malone's higher minutes ends up making you prefer him.

We also have Moonbeam's RWOWY, where Stockton > Malone.
Stockton: 0 touching 100th percentile line, 1 over 97th percentile, 9 over 90th percentile, 16 over 75th percentile, 22 over 50th percentile
Karl: 0 samples touching 100th percentile, 0 over 97th percentile, 6 over 90th, 15 over 75th percentile, 20 over 50th percentile

Again, there's limitations with this data. The actual number of missed games is very minimal for these players, making it hard to trust the data (Stockton missed 4 games in 1990, 18 games in 1998, Malone missed 1 game in 1992, 1 game in 1998, 1 game in 1999). But it's still another point where, at a minimum, the data is painting Stockton as comparable to Malone (and even actually having Stockton over Malone).

Given how much higher Malone went in this list, I can see similar arguments that went for Malone also favoring Stockton here over Pippen.

[Dutchball97]

Runoff Vote: John Stockton I said in my voting post I was close to including Stockton on my ballot, while I'm a bit lower on Pippen. I get the criticism that Stockton is probably the least likely among the nominees to lead a team to a ring but unlike Kawhi and Frazier, I'm not entirely convinced Pippen at his best gives you a big enough difference to Stockton to overcome Pippen's relatively short prime. We saw Pippen leading a team in 94 and while he was definitely one of the best players in the league, he didn't particularly rise to the occasion in the post-season.

[Clyde Frazier]

Some more support for Stockton:

He played in 82 games or equivalent in 17 of his 19 seasons. In the other 2 he played in 78 ('90) and 64 ('98). That's just absurd. And he wasn't just a role player who showed up to work. He was a star player with a long and consistent prime. From '88-'97 he put up the following:

15.6 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 12.8 APG, 2.6 SPG on 52.4% FG, 39.2% 3PT, 82.9% FT, 61.9% TS, +8.49 rTS

Malone attempted 19.1 FGAs and 9.8 FTAs per game in those seasons with 30.2% USG. With Sloan coaching the team in 9 of those 10 seasons, it seems clear Stockton never had the opportunity to increase his volume as a scorer. The gameplan of Stockton to Malone was clear.

Stockton in series clinchers during this period (all deep playoff runs)

'92 vs SEA - 18 PTS, 6 REB, 17 AST, 5 STL, 1 BLK, 3 TO, 52% TS, 132 ORtg

'94 vs SAS - 13 PTS, 18 AST, 3 STL, 1 BLK, 2 TO, 70% TS, 145 ORtg

'96 vs POR - 21 PTS, 4 REB, 11 AST, 2 STL, 4 TO, 80% TS, 137 ORtg

'97 vs. LAL - 24 PTS, 1 REB, 10 AST, 1 STL, 4 TO, 70% TS, 138 ORtg

In the final season of his career he *still* scored at +5.8 rTS. Yes it was in reduced volume and minutes (10.8 PPG / 27.7 MPG) but he started all 82 games and the jazz won 47 with an on/off of +6.9. Being a positive impact player as a starter at 40 years old isn't normal. He deserves credit for this impressive extended play past his prime.

[Owly]

Tiebreak vote: Stockton.

From a career value perspective, it's hard for me to see an argument against Stockton at #32. A lot of box stats portray him as in contention for Top 10 ever in 'career totals' (including the most accurate stat, Backpicks BPM), and while box stats may overrate him slightly -- his assists numbers may slightly overrate his playmaking, his efficiency may underrate his passivity from shooting, plain career totals don't give extra weighting to peaks, regular season totals may miss some lack of resilience -- it's hard for all these factors to make up enough of the difference between Stockton and Pippen. Stockton was just adding valuable seasons for so much longer than Pippen, and it's not like impact metrics are lower on him. Now our WOWY data also has limitations (basically no missed games from Stockton, which is a good thing!... but increases WOWY uncertainty), as does our plus minus data (I'm told the Utah Jazz kept their starters rotations in sync to an unusual amount, which would cause unusually high collinearity). But again, all the information we have for Stockton puts him so much higher than Pippen from a career total value perspective. It's hard to overcome all that.

With the various Stockton vs Malone discussion that's happened over the past few threads, I think it's worth mentioning that there is a case for Stockton over Malone statistically. Raw plus minus may favor Malone during the Jazz' more successful years, and AuPM certainly favors Malone. But! RAPM pretty consistently favors Stockton.

RAPM: Stockton > Malone
Squared2020 RAPM
1988: Stockton +3.49 (14th), Malone +1.07 (64th, 4th on Jazz below Eaton)
[18 game sample, Jazz severely underperformed)
1989: N/A
1990: N/A
1991: Stockton 4.03 (9th in NBA), Malone -0.83 (258th in NBA, 8th! On Jazz)
[19 game sample, Jazz severely underperformed]
1992: N/A
1993: Stockton -0.07 (192nd), Malone -0.80 (278th)
[3 game sample, unusably small]
1994: N/A
1995: N/A
1996: Stockton +2.1 (49th in NBA), Malone 0.3 (162nd, 8th! on Jazz)
[10 game sample, Jazz severely underperformed]

Goldstein RS + PS RAPM:
1997: Malone +4.42, Stockton +3.88
1998: Stockton +5.32, Malone +5.31
1999: Stockton +5.14, Malone +4.58
2000: Stockton +6.18, Malone +4.12

So... Malone's ahead in 1997, but Stocktons ahead in *every other sample*, including in 1996 and 1998–1999 when they were still in championship contention. Now there are limits to all this data. Squared2020's samples are small and the Jazz underperformed in them. I would absolutely expect Malone in particular to improve above a ranking of 64th/258th/278th in the NBA if we had full season data. But when you combine Stockton's consistent superiority to Malone in the earlier 90s samples, along with his superiority in full-season samples in 1998 (they're basically tied) and 1999 when the Jazz were in contention, it's hard to come away with the picture that Malone was *that* more valuable than Stockton, even if Malone's higher minutes ends up making you prefer him.

We also have Moonbeam's RWOWY, where Stockton > Malone.
Stockton: 0 touching 100th percentile line, 1 over 97th percentile, 9 over 90th percentile, 16 over 75th percentile, 22 over 50th percentile
Karl: 0 samples touching 100th percentile, 0 over 97th percentile, 6 over 90th, 15 over 75th percentile, 20 over 50th percentile

Again, there's limitations with this data. The actual number of missed games is very minimal for these players, making it hard to trust the data (Stockton missed 4 games in 1990, 18 games in 1998, Malone missed 1 game in 1992, 1 game in 1998, 1 game in 1999). But it's still another point where, at a minimum, the data is painting Stockton as comparable to Malone (and even actually having Stockton over Malone).

Given how much higher Malone went in this list, I can see similar arguments that went for Malone also favoring Stockton here over Pippen.

In defense of '96 Malone he's at a +593 plus minus for the season 7th (3rd non-Bull to Robinson [+624] and Stockton [+606]) and his approx netrtg (assuming constant pace) is 7th at +13.5 (Stockton +14.5). And Malone "wins" (versus Stockton) these stats in 94 and 95 with 94 a particularly strong showing in that they really struggle in the limited time he's on the bench.

And, as you kind of note, I don't think Stockton and Malone are really the type of guys you can do WOWY stuff with.

Very small samples (games versus 76ers) do chime with Stockton as a clear Jazz leader (seeming outstanding in general) earlier (through to '93) and Malone not showing evidence of standing out versus other Jazz players.