Stockton Vs Nash vs Kidd

[KayDee35]

If your excuse is to blame Sloan, that's fine, at least it's an excuse. But the blame for the Jazz underachieving this year, like many others, should fall on one (or all) of those three to some extent (Sloan, Malone or Stockton).

PER accounts pretty well for volume. Stockton posted a 25.9 PER in that series, by far his highest playoff PER.

Stockton wasn't flawless and deserves some blame for some of the Jazz's postseason woes. But you picked the wrong series to pick on Stock. Not only did he shine offensively in that series, performing better than Malone. He also had the lowest DRTG on the Jazz in that series!

Listen, I love Nash and think his peak is one of the greatest offensive peaks for a PG. I enjoyed watching those Suns teams immensely. But Nash has flaws too.

Part of the discussion is hampered by the fact that Stockton never got to be the man. For most stars, being the man leads to improved individual production. Nash as the man is vastly superior to Nash as the second-best player on a team. Would Stock be like most stars who performed better as the #1 option? We will never know unfortunately. Despite that, Stockton's stats being the #2 guy are amazing enough that he compares favorably to Nash during his time being the #1 option.

[Owly]

Kevin Porter had Stockton like numbers one year.

Which year?

[Texas Chuck]

he's referring to 79 and he didnt have Stockton numbers and they were a 30 win team with him playing that way.

[Quotatious]

he's referring to 79 and he didnt have Stockton numbers and they were a 30 win team with him playing that way.

Well, to be fair, Porter did have Stockton-like numbers, but only raw numbers - his advanced stats were pretty mediocre. Pistons were a really poor team that season, too, especially with Lanier playing just 53 games. ML Carr was the only really good player on that team except Porter and Lanier (for those 53 games).

[Texas Chuck]

I stand by he didnt have Stock numbers. He had points/assists and that's it. He didnt shoot as well, he turned it over more, didnt create the turnovers and no one would suggest he was John's equal as a defender. John even rebounded better. And this was an outlier career year.

The point is comparing Stockton to even Kevin Porter's best year is a poor comparison and it served no meaningful purpose. A poor attempt to distract from meaningful analysis.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Nash needs to dominate the ball in order to be effective. Just look at what happened when he went to LA and what he did in Dallas.

You just said Nash was an ineffective player in Dallas.
Your argument is invalid.

No where does that say Nash was ineffective in Dallas.

[oaktownwarriors87]

I remember when Shaq started about half the games ant center and Frye started the other half Nash had drastically different numbers. With Shaq his turnovers doubled, his FG% went from 50% to 40%, and his assist and points dropped by 4 and 2. What's crazy is that the team was actually better.

[Baller2014]

he's referring to 79 and he didnt have Stockton numbers and they were a 30 win team with him playing that way.

The point is you're applying context to his raw volume numbers, and one of the bits of context is "how well did his team do?" In the case of the 1989 series (and Stockton in general) that answer is often surprising to his fans. Saying "Kevin Porter's stats were only 90% as good as Stocks" is not a response, unless you think Porter was 90% as good as Stockton that year. Stockton shot 482 and 486 in 92 and 93 btw, while Porter had 481 the year he put up 15.4ppg and 13.4apg, so it's 100% fair to call them "Stockton like numbers". It's not Porter's fault the 3pt shot didn't exist in 1979.

[Texas Chuck]

I think the point is Kevin Porter was never close to the player Stockton was even in Porter's peak year so its a poor comparison.

You are just looking at points/assists and thinking Porter = Stockton. And that's simply poor analysis which is proved by the conclusion you reached.

Now move back to the actual topic and stop trying to make Stockton look worse by comparing him to a far lessor player. It was beyond obvious what you were attempting.

[Baller2014]

I made it clear the whole way through that Stockton is clearly better than Kevin Porter. The point is that raw volume stats are a bad way to assess players, and I noted other egs too (World B. Free, Ricky Davis, etc). Stockton posting "big volume stats" tells us very little about his impact. Your first point of response to my Kevin Porter example was "well, his team sucked". I think that's on the money. I think we should be looking at Stockton's teams too, and whether they met the expectations associated with Stockton's talent and support cast, or (as actually happened) fell short repeatedly.

[Texas Chuck]

Stockton's teams made the playoffs every year of his career which lasted oh 20 years. Did they stumble at time in the playoffs? Sure. Did they exceed expectations at times? Sure. Not sure you want to go down that road knocking Stockton.

But more importantly did Stockton underachieve in the playoffs? No, not really. You have to wait until he's 36 to even find a playoff performance from him thats subpar. And then he came back and had 3 good PS runs after that year.

Sorry you are simply going down the wrong path if you are attempting to claim Stockton's teams weren't good, that they consistently failed to meet expectations, or that when they did the blame should be laid at the feet of Stockton.

You know you can make a really strong argument for NAsh without attempting to minimize John Stockton through your crazy comparisons and narratives. So please do that instead.

[Baller2014]

If Stockton was a Nash like player (i.e. an MVP candidate) then every year from 87 through to 93 was a disappointment, with 94 coming in for considerable scrutiny too).

[Texas Chuck]

If Stockton was a Nash like player (i.e. an MVP candidate) then every year from 87 through to 93 was a disappointment, with 94 coming in for considerable scrutiny too).

so in 1987 when he wasnt a starter you think he was supposed to be an MVP candidate and you claim disappointment because he wasnt?

Fine then let's look at the first 3 or 4 years of Nash's career. Oh wait he wasnt actually a good player then. I guess I should claim to be disappointed.....

[Baller2014]

He played starter minutes in the playoffs and was 25 years old. I'd certainly want to look at that years playoffs, losing to a garbage team, real closely. It's not the same as 88 or 89, but it's still a failure.

[KayDee35]

You know you can make a really strong argument for NAsh without attempting to minimize John Stockton through your crazy comparisons and narratives. So please do that instead.

I think this sums up much of this thread.

It's hard to take anyone seriously when they go after an all-time great like Stockton with vague and ever-changing arguments.

[ElGee]

It's funny how Stockton can look all world doing regular point guard things....but Nash can't.

I suppose I'll break in here since you broke in:

He said: Box Nash in and he doesn't look like an MVP.
You said: But Stockton did when he did those things!
I say: No one ever thought Stockton was anything close to being the MVP though.

And this is the real point. Saying "Well if you forced Nash to play Stockton's role, he wouldn't do it as well" isn't crazy, but to what end? Why would you insist on judging players by how they look when underutilized?

Right -- Stockton never looked all-worldly. I'll take it one step further than Doc -- no player in NBA history can look all-worldly doing what you described. Throwing entry passes and standing in the corner? You're describing Rajon Rondo or Brevin Knight. There's essentially no way anyone could impact a basketball game strongly by doing that. "Point guard" things is like a 1950's pre-Oscar concept. "Lead guards" or "ball-dominant" guards are offensive Kings in the NBA -- Oscar, West, Magic, Jordan, LeBron, Wade, Kobe, etc.

Really, if I'm being frank, Stockton vs. Nash offense peak to peak is the most lopsided argument I see on real gm. It's the easiest comparison to juxtapose: Nash just started playing like a supercharged, unleashed John Stockton. Constant PnR action, amazing reads, great passes to the roller and skip passes, and he just buried you every time if you left him alone to shoot, and he was better and craftier at finishing himself in the lane. And he was a better shooter. From a completely non-analytical, non-statistical perspective -- just going on "game" or eye test -- it's so weird to me that this is even a debate for some people. I'm open to that being refuted, I've just never even seen anyone even attempt it.

[Baller2014]

How about we judge guys off the careers they actually had, and not based on "how Stockton might have played, if he had been utilised better".

[ElGee]

If you agree he's the whole Suns offense, how would you respond if I told you the Suns are like half of the all-time top ten list in playoff teams by offense? I'm trying to find a link, but I know the Nash-Suns dominated on offense, even though they faced teams like the Spurs.

Here is a key point...I DO NOT THINK NASH IS THE SUNS ENTIRE OFFENSE....that is what his supporters think. They are the ones that say the Suns become garbage when Nash is not on the floor. That he made Marion, Amare, Diaw, Bell, Barbosa.

What I feel is Nash supporters speak from both sides of their mouth

"Nash ran the best offenses all time and he was the offense, Nash was the system, no one else could duplicate what Nash did."

Ok but then you hear this:

"Amare can't create his own shot, Marion can't create his own shot, the offense went to crap without Nash. It's the coach, the GM, the owner, every other player on the roster who underperformed."

Essentially anything good that happened was due to Nash.....any failures was someone else's fault. Nash is the only player in history that has this narrative.....

I don't think that's what is happening. I think the people who champion Nash don't write a lot of narratives. I think you are in a group more prone to a "narrative." As a result, you attribute your differences in the player evaluation to a narrative. When asking people to why they champion Nash, you hear stuff like "he ran the best offenses ever." When you also ask people to explain something away in your narrative -- how to explain the Suns not winning a title -- you hear "Nash played great, they didn't lose on his shoulders." You see this as being a narrative where "anything good that happened was due to Nash...any failures was someone else's fault."

I don't think I've seen anyone ever actually say that. But keep in mind -- and I can't speak for others -- I don't see basketball as being a "blame" or "credit" game. I see gravity-like evidence that the game is determined by the net score, and that players make a contribution to that score, and when we talk about good player's, it's never really negative. It's always a matter of the degree of positive contribution, and when we check the team scoreboard, the result is always a function of all of the other players in the game + the positive contribution of the star. Sometimes it's a win, sometimes it's a loss. Nothing needs to be "blamed" or "credited" to stars in that case. We just need to analyze how well they played.

[Ancalagon]

It's funny how Stockton can look all world doing regular point guard things....but Nash can't.

I suppose I'll break in here since you broke in:

He said: Box Nash in and he doesn't look like an MVP.
You said: But Stockton did when he did those things!
I say: No one ever thought Stockton was anything close to being the MVP though.

And this is the real point. Saying "Well if you forced Nash to play Stockton's role, he wouldn't do it as well" isn't crazy, but to what end? Why would you insist on judging players by how they look when underutilized?

Right -- Stockton never looked all-worldly. I'll take it one step further than Doc -- no player in NBA history can look all-worldly doing what you described. Throwing entry passes and standing in the corner? You're describing Rajon Rondo or Brevin Knight. There's essentially no way anyone could impact a basketball game strongly by doing that. "Point guard" things is like a 1950's pre-Oscar concept. "Lead guards" or "ball-dominant" guards are offensive Kings in the NBA -- Oscar, West, Magic, Jordan, LeBron, Wade, Kobe, etc.

Really, if I'm being frank, Stockton vs. Nash offense peak to peak is the most lopsided argument I see on real gm. It's the easiest comparison to juxtapose: Nash just started playing like a supercharged, unleashed John Stockton. Constant PnR action, amazing reads, great passes to the roller and skip passes, and he just buried you every time if you left him alone to shoot, and he was better and craftier at finishing himself in the lane. And he was a better shooter. From a completely non-analytical, non-statistical perspective -- just going on "game" or eye test -- it's so weird to me that this is even a debate for some people. I'm open to that being refuted, I've just never even seen anyone even attempt it.

It sounds like you didn't see early Stockton (or even pre-Sloan Stockton). It was Nash unleashed and the statistics- particularly the advanced ones- bear that out. And you also appear to be talking about just OFFENSIVE peak. What about a little thing called defense?

[G35]

If you agree he's the whole Suns offense, how would you respond if I told you the Suns are like half of the all-time top ten list in playoff teams by offense? I'm trying to find a link, but I know the Nash-Suns dominated on offense, even though they faced teams like the Spurs.

Here is a key point...I DO NOT THINK NASH IS THE SUNS ENTIRE OFFENSE....that is what his supporters think. They are the ones that say the Suns become garbage when Nash is not on the floor. That he made Marion, Amare, Diaw, Bell, Barbosa.

What I feel is Nash supporters speak from both sides of their mouth

"Nash ran the best offenses all time and he was the offense, Nash was the system, no one else could duplicate what Nash did."

Ok but then you hear this:

"Amare can't create his own shot, Marion can't create his own shot, the offense went to crap without Nash. It's the coach, the GM, the owner, every other player on the roster who underperformed."

Essentially anything good that happened was due to Nash.....any failures was someone else's fault. Nash is the only player in history that has this narrative.....

I don't think that's what is happening. I think the people who champion Nash don't write a lot of narratives. I think you are in a group more prone to a "narrative." As a result, you attribute your differences in the player evaluation to a narrative. When asking people to why they champion Nash, you hear stuff like "he ran the best offenses ever." When you also ask people to explain something away in your narrative -- how to explain the Suns not winning a title -- you hear "Nash played great, they didn't lose on his shoulders." You see this as being a narrative where "anything good that happened was due to Nash...any failures was someone else's fault."

I don't think I've seen anyone ever actually say that. But keep in mind -- and I can't speak for others -- I don't see basketball as being a "blame" or "credit" game. I see gravity-like evidence that the game is determined by the net score, and that players make a contribution to that score, and when we talk about good player's, it's never really negative. It's always a matter of the degree of positive contribution, and when we check the team scoreboard, the result is always a function of all of the other players in the game + the positive contribution of the star. Sometimes it's a win, sometimes it's a loss. Nothing needs to be "blamed" or "credited" to stars in that case. We just need to analyze how well they played.

Of course, it's a lil hyperbole to say every Nash supporter has the same argument but it definitely feels that way a lot of times. I agree with everything you said and want to focus on the highlighted part. It's become en vogue to say it's "about how well they played".

I think what people don't realize is just because Nash played well does not mean he played well enough. A lot of players play well, that's the fallacy of statistics. What is the standard for playing well? Is it a minimum amount of pts/asts/rebs/stls/blks/TS%/PER/WS/RAPM?

How do we blend an individual playing well vs their team winning? This is also the fallacy of just looking at the individual playing well....basketball is not an individual sport. And the PG position is the barometer for how well the team is playing. Every time a team's offense is not playing well, for example the Thunder this year, the PG is blamed. Russell Westbrook played tremendous basketball, but that doesn't mean it's a winning type of basketball. Then we get into, well it does not matter to a players evaluation if a team wins or not..............................whew, that's a concept hard for me to understand when the majority of player peaks on this board coincide with them doing their most winning or won awards. For example Hakeem's peak is when he won back to back titles, KG's best season is in 2004 when his Wolves wen the furthest. Nash's peak is when he won MVP's. A curious example is Kobe who has one of the more unusual career arcs, he didn't win titles when he was at his physical peak, his winning was at the beginning and ends of his career. But I think his best play was from 2003-2007; the problem is it was marred with team turnover and off-court controversy. So I think it's not quite accurate to only base player analysis on how they play individually.

Furthermore, certain players have a ceiling or a cap on how "well" they can play. Nash is only effective on one side of the ball. He contributes very little, if any on defense, those Suns teams were happy when he wasn't a negative.....