Highest reasonable all-time ranking for John Stockton?

[Nbafanatic]

John Stockton is my top 2 favorite NBA player of all time, alongside Jordan. I rooted for the Jazz like crazy in the 97 and 98 finals, to the point that I cried after game 6 in 98, even though I am a Houston Rockets fan. I wanted the guy to win a ring super bad. The ultimate professional, super competitive, an example of athlete on every measurament. I started to play basketball because of him, tried to play like him, tried to orchestrate the game like him, even tried to shoot like him, with his unique shooting release and everything. I love the guy. Having said that, let me say why he is super overrated if you think he can be top 25 or around that, all time:

He simply was not an MVP level player. Never was, not even at his peak level. From the top of my head, here are some guys who have won the MVP award or were close to win it at some point in time: Jordan, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt, Russel, Oscar, West, Kobe, Karl Malone, Moses Malone, David Robinson, Duncan, Nash, Iverson, Wade, Lebron, Garnett, Nowitzki, Magic, Bird, Dr. J, Barkley. Even guys like Pippen, Ewing, Jason Kidd and Gary Payton were closer to MVP-level impact during their careers, and all those guys have enough longevity with extended primes to offset any advantage Stockton may have on them in those topics. Tell me why Stockton was never in the conversation, at any point in time, for top 5 player in the league on this very reliable and intelligent list:

http://rpoy.dolem.com/

You know why? Because John was more wired like a super role player than a superstar level one. In the end, in my mind, he was an all star level player with the greatest passing technique for a small point guard of all time. He really earned those NBA live 99 passing ratings. He could do the simple play, play for the team, orchestrate like few guys could, almost never turning the ball over and doing the occasional "threading the needle" spectacular kind of pass. But his assists are inflated a little, to the extent that he was responsible to be with the ball, to start the Jazz pragmatic offense and almost every time to find a guy one pass away for the shot. He did every little thing, intangible things, super well: a very good screener, high IQ guy when he was off the ball with cuts and misdirections, a very good and tenacious defender, both on the ball and on team defense, with great timing for the eventual gamble for a steal, playing passing lanes, shooting gaps, rotating and etc. But he could not take over the game when his team needed the most. He struggled creating one on one against a top defender. He had problems trying to up his volume shooting, being more assertive and agressive scoring when his team needed him to do. He was a safe shot taker almost every time. Yes, he had outlier moments in good circumstances, like against Matt Maloney in the 97 ECF, game 1 against Steve Kerr in 98, or even in the 97 finals, in a grind down, low score affair with the Bulls when his overall great skills in stealing and surgical passing made the difference on that special crunch time moment. His even has a memorable game tying 3 on a game against the bad boys Pistons in 89, over Dennis Rodman, to send the game to overtime. He had moments, but they were exceptions to the rule, and the rule was that he didn't have that extra superstar gear. Nash had that gear. CP3 has this gear, Westbrook has this gear, Stockton did not.

Karl Malone was a superstar level player. He is not a two time league MVP and contender on another years by accident. Yes, he benefited for playing with a great point guard, but most of his baskets were either contested or with the help of simple motion passes, either from Stockton or his backup. Of course, let's say, about 15 to 20% of Stockton assists to him were for point blank range baskets opportunities, but Stockton benefited the most for playing with the Mailman rather than the other way around. Malone gets heat for sometimes coming up short in the playoffs, and that is fair to a certain extent, but his best partner on the team was being outplayed on a regular basis by Kevin Johnson and even Terry Porter, guys who we never seen being talked about in the same regard as Stockton. Again, the guy was great, but maybe his career numbers are a cautionary tale why we cannot be so guided by stats without the proper context of eye test.

So, for the thread, I would say top 30, at best.

[Manuel Calavera]

So, for the thread, I would say top 30, at best.

Can't agree with this post anymore. Accolades do not paint Stockton as a top 30 player and if his impact was as high as the RAPM numbers suggest him and Malone would have done a lot better than they did.

There's just no way you can convince me a team with two top 20-25 players of all-time, including arguably the greatest at his position (if Duncan is counted as a C), whose skillsets match perfectly with a top 10 coach of all-time for 18 healthy years aren't walking away with multiple rings. Somethings gotta give.

On the top 100 list Julius was voted in at 14 and Moses at 19, they were only together for a few years and really Erving had already fallen off, especially compared to his mid 70's peak. Moses also started to fall off pretty quickly after '83. So you get one really strong year where they nearly sweep their way to the title.

Do a thought experiment, say the Jazz draft 21 year old Moses Malone in 1984 and in 1985 they draft 21 year old Julius Erving. In real life Erving was an all-star his first year and the MVP and arguably best player in the world by his third year. Again in real life Moses was an all-star by 22 and the mvp at 23 so it'd be his year here. So by '87 Moses is playing at an MVP level and by '88 they have another MVP in Erving. Give them an inept GM like Rob Babcock and a coach like Billy Cunningham. Do you honestly think by '76 that that team is going to be a favorite for the title? The late 80's is probably the strongest era for teams in league history and I really don't see any of them beating an Erving/Moses tandum even with a weak supporting cast. Kareem had enough trouble guarding Moses in his prime I seriously doubt he's going to be able to contain him at 39 years old and it only gets worse for them later. I doubt the Pistons and maybe even the Bulls give the two of them much trouble in any year they are contending. They probably have a 9 year window where they are the favorites every single year.

What about if the Jazz draft Steve Nash at 28 and DROB at 24 in successive years. Are they not immediately the favorites for 5-6 years? Dirk Nowitzki and Dwyane Wade? Or KG/Dwyane Wade?

[colts18]

Stockton ranks high if you value the following things

-Big RS sample size over Playoff sample size
-Longevity
-Efficiency
-Consistency and Durability
-RAPM impact numbers
-Believe that PG are key to the offense

Based on that, #10 all-time is reasonable.

There is nothing reasonable about Stockton being ranked 10th all time. Even if he excels in those categories you named, he still falls short in others like dominant peak, accolades for example no mvp, no championships, played nearly 2 decades with Malone and only has 2 finals appearences to show for it.

Your post has no relevance to what I posted. I posted a few criteria which could be used to rank Stockton at #10 if you valued that criteria. You disagree with that ranking based on criteria that is completely different to what I posted. Accolades is not relevant at all to the criteria in my post.

[LakersLegacy]

So, for the thread, I would say top 30, at best.

Can't agree with this post anymore. Accolades do not paint Stockton as a top 30 player and if his impact was as high as the RAPM numbers suggest him and Malone would have done a lot better than they did.

There's just no way you can convince me a team with two top 20-25 players of all-time, including arguably the greatest at his position (if Duncan is counted as a C), whose skillsets match perfectly with a top 10 coach of all-time for 18 healthy years aren't walking away with multiple rings. Somethings gotta give.

On the top 100 list Julius was voted in at 14 and Moses at 19, they were only together for a few years and really Erving had already fallen off, especially compared to his mid 70's peak. Moses also started to fall off pretty quickly after '83. So you get one really strong year where they nearly sweep their way to the title.

Do a thought experiment, say the Jazz draft 21 year old Moses Malone in 1984 and in 1985 they draft 21 year old Julius Erving. In real life Erving was an all-star his first year and the MVP and arguably best player in the world by his third year. Again in real life Moses was an all-star by 22 and the mvp at 23 so it'd be his year here. So by '87 Moses is playing at an MVP level and by '88 they have another MVP in Erving. Give them an inept GM like Rob Babcock and a coach like Billy Cunningham. Do you honestly think by '76 that that team is going to be a favorite for the title? The late 80's is probably the strongest era for teams in league history and I really don't see any of them beating an Erving/Moses tandum even with a weak supporting cast. Kareem had enough trouble guarding Moses in his prime I seriously doubt he's going to be able to contain him at 39 years old and it only gets worse for them later. I doubt the Pistons and maybe even the Bulls give the two of them much trouble in any year they are contending. They probably have a 9 year window where they are the favorites every single year.

What about if the Jazz draft Steve Nash at 28 and DROB at 24 in successive years. Are they not immediately the favorites for 5-6 years? Dirk Nowitzki and Dwyane Wade? Or KG/Dwyane Wade?

I'm under the impression that Stockton's #s are inflated as well. Didn't the scorers admit to giving Stockton extra assists? I don't remember the source but I remember something like that.

There were a lot of great gaurds Stockton played against in his career. Some of them are all-timers like Magic 5x champ, Thomas 2x champ, Jordan 6x champ, Drexler 1x champ, Kidd 1x champ, Kobe 5x champ, Jesus 2x champ, Nash.

13 and 10 career stats and 2 NBA 1st teams is impressive. Stockton did more w/ a modest 6-1 frame than many players could do. His heart is top 20 for sure, but I'm sorry he is not.

[Manuel Calavera]

FYI the only two years he made the all-nba first team was when Jordan was retired. One of the years the other guard on the list was Latrell Sprewell, indicating a very weak field. I honestly doubt he makes the Western all-stars this year if he's on the Jazz.

[dhsilv2]

I always with Stockton come back to what he did and didn't do in the playoffs. While I generally find some of this unfair the breadth of it seems meaningful.

2 30 point playoff games in 182 games played.
29 20 point games in 182 games played.
Best GmSc (not a fan of the stats but just for comparison) 37.3
10th best GmSc 25.4

Now certainly the assist numbers are mind blowing. 78 games with 10 or more, 26 games with 15 or more (just wow). But at some point to be in that top 20, I feel like a player needs to be able to take over a playoff series in different ways. He wasn't a big man who could dominate the game defensively. He never had the scoring to take over a series, perhaps a game, but not a series. Sure assists are meaningful but perhaps his were inflated by a system more so than the average player?

As another posted point out, if we're to assume Malone and Stockton are in the top 30 (or higher) something feels off about their playoff resume. Did they really have such awful teammates that they couldn't overcome that?

The only reason I can see him being say as high as 25 is due to his longevity which was simply amazing and durability. But for me at least once you're talking top 50, I start to focus a bit more on peak play as there are just too many great players.

[mischievous]

Stockton ranks high if you value the following things

-Big RS sample size over Playoff sample size
-Longevity
-Efficiency
-Consistency and Durability
-RAPM impact numbers
-Believe that PG are key to the offense

Based on that, #10 all-time is reasonable.

There is nothing reasonable about Stockton being ranked 10th all time. Even if he excels in those categories you named, he still falls short in others like dominant peak, accolades for example no mvp, no championships, played nearly 2 decades with Malone and only has 2 finals appearences to show for it.

Your post has no relevance to what I posted. I posted a few criteria which could be used to rank Stockton at #10 if you valued that criteria. You disagree with that ranking based on criteria that is completely different to what I posted. Accolades is not relevant at all to the criteria in my post.

Maybw i'll rephrase this as a question then. Why should stockton have a reasonable case for 10th all time when, a) his peak is nowhere near that type of caliber?, b) he's way behind the usual suspects for top 10 as far as statistically dominant seasons go? and c) his team success and accolades collection is well behind those candidates?

[LA Bird]

Because John was more wired like a super role player than a superstar level one. In the end, in my mind, he was an all star level player with the greatest passing technique for a small point guard of all time ... He did every little thing, intangible things, super well: a very good screener, high IQ guy when he was off the ball with cuts and misdirections, a very good and tenacious defender, both on the ball and on team defense, with great timing for the eventual gamble for a steal, playing passing lanes, shooting gaps, rotating and etc. But he could not take over the game when his team needed the most. He struggled creating one on one against a top defender. He had problems trying to up his volume shooting, being more assertive and agressive scoring when his team needed him to do.

Stockton can be among the best in terms of intangibles, defense and passing but he is only a "role player" unless he scores more? What's the baseline for being an assertive, aggressive scorer? If he keeps shooting irresponsibly like a low IQ chucker and goes for 23ppg on 48% TS, does that make Stockton a superstar instead of just a super role player?

his best partner on the team was being outplayed on a regular basis by Kevin Johnson and even Terry Porter, guys who we never seen being talked about in the same regard as Stockton.

Because they lack longevity. If Porter played like he did from 90~92 for 18 full seasons, he would be top 20 as well.

[Nbafanatic]

Because John was more wired like a super role player than a superstar level one. In the end, in my mind, he was an all star level player with the greatest passing technique for a small point guard of all time ... He did every little thing, intangible things, super well: a very good screener, high IQ guy when he was off the ball with cuts and misdirections, a very good and tenacious defender, both on the ball and on team defense, with great timing for the eventual gamble for a steal, playing passing lanes, shooting gaps, rotating and etc. But he could not take over the game when his team needed the most. He struggled creating one on one against a top defender. He had problems trying to up his volume shooting, being more assertive and agressive scoring when his team needed him to do.

Stockton can be among the best in terms of intangibles, defense and passing but he is only a "role player" unless he scores more? What's the baseline for being an assertive, aggressive scorer? If he keeps shooting irresponsibly like a low IQ chucker and goes for 23ppg on 48% TS, does that make Stockton a superstar instead of just a super role player?

his best partner on the team was being outplayed on a regular basis by Kevin Johnson and even Terry Porter, guys who we never seen being talked about in the same regard as Stockton.

Because they lack longevity. If Porter played like he did from 90~92 for 18 full seasons, he would be top 20 as well.

Stockton is indeed, one of the greatest in terms of intangible impact, I agree. No, he didn't need to be a 22+ volume scorer with bad TS. But shooting efficiency overal decreases for everyone in the playoffs as teams only see the greater defenses, and the game becomes slower as well, as we know. So, I would trade great efficiency with low volume for good efficiency with higher volume. Let's take Lebron, for instance: I prefer him playing balls to the wall basketball shooting 56-58% TS, rather than when he's protecting his field goal with 66% TS, with lower volume, looking passive sometimes. So, there's really no baseline for that. There were multiple games when the Jazz needed more scoring punch from their 1-3 positions, and Stockton, as the team's clear cut second best player could not deliver, just as simple as that. I mentioned Johnson and Porter more to show the somewhat low ceiling(for a superstar perceived player), that John had in the playoffs, as he was outplayed by those guys while still being in his prime. Of course that Johnson and Porter lack career wise to Stockton to be talked on the same sentence, it was just to show that Stockton got outplayed by inferior players.

[theonlyclutch]

I always with Stockton come back to what he did and didn't do in the playoffs. While I generally find some of this unfair the breadth of it seems meaningful.

2 30 point playoff games in 182 games played.
29 20 point games in 182 games played.
Best GmSc (not a fan of the stats but just for comparison) 37.3
10th best GmSc 25.4

Compare this to Chris Paul:
11 30 point playoff games in 65 games played.
37 20 point games in 65 games played.
Best GmSc 37.5
10th best GmSc 28.2

Steve Nash:
9 30 point playoff games in 120 games played.
48 20 point games in 120 games played.
Best GmSc 35.6
10th best GmSc 26.0

Chauncey Billups:
10 30 point playoff games in 146 games played.
57 20 point games in 146 games played.
Best GmSc 37.0
10th best GmSc 25.5

None of these are what people would call "chuckers" or "Low-IQ" by any sense of the word, and yet all of them are able to relay significantly more scoring impact than Stockton....

[Clyde Frazier]

I always with Stockton come back to what he did and didn't do in the playoffs. While I generally find some of this unfair the breadth of it seems meaningful.

2 30 point playoff games in 182 games played.
29 20 point games in 182 games played.
Best GmSc (not a fan of the stats but just for comparison) 37.3
10th best GmSc 25.4

Compare this to Chris Paul:
11 30 point playoff games in 65 games played.
37 20 point games in 65 games played.
Best GmSc 37.5
10th best GmSc 28.2

Steve Nash:
9 30 point playoff games in 120 games played.
48 20 point games in 120 games played.
Best GmSc 35.6
10th best GmSc 26.0

Chauncey Billups:
10 30 point playoff games in 146 games played.
57 20 point games in 146 games played.
Best GmSc 37.0
10th best GmSc 25.5

None of these are what people would call "chuckers" or "Low-IQ" by any sense of the word, and yet all of them are able to relay significantly more scoring impact than Stockton....

From a game plan standpoint, stockton played with a guy who averaged 27 PPG on 59% TS over a span of 13 seasons. I just don't know that stockton was ever asked to step up his game scoring-wise in the playoffs (even throwing out sloan's rigid system).

He spent his time facilitating to an elite volume scorer and scoring when the opportunities presented themselves. At the very least, it seems logical, especially for the time. And that isn't to say he would have equaled nash in scoring output in the playoffs, but I think he'd come closer if the situation was different. Paul and billups were inherently closer to being scorers than nash and stockton, too.

[theonlyclutch]

I always with Stockton come back to what he did and didn't do in the playoffs. While I generally find some of this unfair the breadth of it seems meaningful.

2 30 point playoff games in 182 games played.
29 20 point games in 182 games played.
Best GmSc (not a fan of the stats but just for comparison) 37.3
10th best GmSc 25.4

Compare this to Chris Paul:
11 30 point playoff games in 65 games played.
37 20 point games in 65 games played.
Best GmSc 37.5
10th best GmSc 28.2

Steve Nash:
9 30 point playoff games in 120 games played.
48 20 point games in 120 games played.
Best GmSc 35.6
10th best GmSc 26.0

Chauncey Billups:
10 30 point playoff games in 146 games played.
57 20 point games in 146 games played.
Best GmSc 37.0
10th best GmSc 25.5

None of these are what people would call "chuckers" or "Low-IQ" by any sense of the word, and yet all of them are able to relay significantly more scoring impact than Stockton....

From a game plan standpoint, stockton played with a guy who averaged 27 PPG on 59% TS over a span of 13 seasons. I just don't know that stockton was ever asked to step up his game scoring-wise in the playoffs (even throwing out sloan's rigid system).

He spent his time facilitating to an elite volume scorer and scoring when the opportunities presented themselves. At the very least, it seems logical, especially for the time. And that isn't to say he would have equaled nash in scoring output in the playoffs, but I think he'd come closer if the situation was different. Paul and billups were inherently closer to being scorers than nash and stockton, too.

But Stockton was already less efficient than the others with his lower volume, what indication is there that he could score at the sort of higher volumes that the others can?

Stockton ('88-'00)
19.8% USG, 116 ORTG, 56.6% TS

Nash ('02-'10)
23.2% USG, 117 ORTG, 58.9% TS

Paul ('08-'15)
25.1% USG, 119 ORTG, 58.4% TS

Billups ('02-'10)
22.5% USG, 119 ORTG, 58.2% TS

Note that both Billups and Nash played in worse offensive environments (early '00s) than Stockton.

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

Compare this to Chris Paul:
11 30 point playoff games in 65 games played.
37 20 point games in 65 games played.
Best GmSc 37.5
10th best GmSc 28.2

Steve Nash:
9 30 point playoff games in 120 games played.
48 20 point games in 120 games played.
Best GmSc 35.6
10th best GmSc 26.0

Chauncey Billups:
10 30 point playoff games in 146 games played.
57 20 point games in 146 games played.
Best GmSc 37.0
10th best GmSc 25.5

None of these are what people would call "chuckers" or "Low-IQ" by any sense of the word, and yet all of them are able to relay significantly more scoring impact than Stockton....

From a game plan standpoint, stockton played with a guy who averaged 27 PPG on 59% TS over a span of 13 seasons. I just don't know that stockton was ever asked to step up his game scoring-wise in the playoffs (even throwing out sloan's rigid system).

He spent his time facilitating to an elite volume scorer and scoring when the opportunities presented themselves. At the very least, it seems logical, especially for the time. And that isn't to say he would have equaled nash in scoring output in the playoffs, but I think he'd come closer if the situation was different. Paul and billups were inherently closer to being scorers than nash and stockton, too.

But Stockton was already less efficient than the others with his lower volume, what indication is there that he could score at the sort of higher volumes that the others can?

Stockton ('88-'00)
19.8% USG, 116 ORTG, 56.6% TS

Nash ('02-'10)
23.2% USG, 117 ORTG, 58.9% TS

Paul ('08-'15)
25.1% USG, 119 ORTG, 58.4% TS

Billups ('02-'10)
22.5% USG, 119 ORTG, 58.2% TS

Note that both Billups and Nash played in worse offensive environments (early '00s) than Stockton.

I literally just said it: he played with an elite volume scorer his entire career, and his main role was to be a facilitator to that scorer and the rest of the team. Scoring was secondary for him. I just can't see sloan going to stockton on a regularly basis and saying, "stop feeding malone, we need you to put up 25-30 tonight". In the context of that team, it wasn't going to happen.

And it's not as if he was drastically less efficient in the playoffs than the other 3 PGs you referenced. We're not talking about rod strickland or something.

[G35]

I always with Stockton come back to what he did and didn't do in the playoffs. While I generally find some of this unfair the breadth of it seems meaningful.

2 30 point playoff games in 182 games played.
29 20 point games in 182 games played.
Best GmSc (not a fan of the stats but just for comparison) 37.3
10th best GmSc 25.4

Now certainly the assist numbers are mind blowing. 78 games with 10 or more, 26 games with 15 or more (just wow). But at some point to be in that top 20, I feel like a player needs to be able to take over a playoff series in different ways. He wasn't a big man who could dominate the game defensively. He never had the scoring to take over a series, perhaps a game, but not a series. Sure assists are meaningful but perhaps his were inflated by a system more so than the average player?

As another posted point out, if we're to assume Malone and Stockton are in the top 30 (or higher) something feels off about their playoff resume. Did they really have such awful teammates that they couldn't overcome that?

The only reason I can see him being say as high as 25 is due to his longevity which was simply amazing and durability. But for me at least once you're talking top 50, I start to focus a bit more on peak play as there are just too many great players.

So if Durant/WB continue as they have been, never get past SA/GSW/CLE that they could not be top 25 players?

What if Lebron did not get Bosh to come to MIA? Do the Heat win any titles?

Also I love Jerry Sloan as a coach but on the offensive side of the ball he was not very imaginative. Are you telling me there are any two other players in the league that could take the pick and roll as their primary offense and make it to b2b finals? That not having a legit 3pt threat would not hamper the offense? I suppose when Hornacek arrived that the offense did not significantly improve is flying right over everyone's head?

In Hornaceks first full season from 1995 the Jazz' ORTG:

1995 4th
1996 2nd
1997 2nd
1998 1st

For comparison's sake here is the Jazz offense starting in 1985 Malone's rookie year:

1986 20th
1987 21st
1988 16th
1989 17th
1990 10th
1991 11th
1992 4th
1993 11th
1994 7th (Hornacek traded to Utah)

Even then Hornacek wasn't a star, he was I would say a semi-All-Star level player at that point. Perhaps like less athletic Klay Thompson with less 3pt shooting and less defensive ability but still a good scorer.

If people don't believe that you can stick any 3 other players next to two 25 players then you really don't understand how basketball works and you are just using name recognition and unrealistic expectations.

Jordan and Pippen had Rodman, Grant, Armstrong, Kukoc and good role players like Ron Harper, Craig Hodges, Steve Kerr, Cartwright to fill out those rosters.

Even now look at the Spurs and Warriors who have loaded rosters. Now loaded is relative in that many of the Warriors players are castoffs that are now being put in roles they excel in. Iguodola is in the perfect 6th man/defensive stopper/energy player, Livingston had a devastating knee injury but he was always talented and now he is great change of pace for the Warriors offense, Harrison Barnes is a regular swing man who would be Marvin Lewis on another team, but on the Warriors he fits perfectly; good attitude, doesn't try to do too much, stays in his role. But if you asked him to be the #2 or #3 option and he would struggle.

The Jazz never had that other scorer to open things up. It would be like the Warriors without Klay Thompson; they would still be good, possible contender but they would not be the favorite and likely be a 2nd round loser many years. Shoot if you gave Stockton and Malone, Klay Thompson they would have been in a few more finals.......

[penbeast0]

I'm under the impression that Stockton's #s are inflated as well. Didn't the scorers admit to giving Stockton extra assists? I don't remember the source but I remember something like that.

There were a lot of great gaurds Stockton played against in his career. Some of them are all-timers like Magic 5x champ, Thomas 2x champ, Jordan 6x champ, Drexler 1x champ, Kidd 1x champ, Kobe 5x champ, Jesus 2x champ, Nash.

13 and 10 career stats and 2 NBA 1st teams is impressive. Stockton did more w/ a modest 6-1 frame than many players could do. His heart is top 20 for sure, but I'm sorry he is not.

Interesting that the comment about Stockton's assist #s being inflated comes from someone with the nickname LakersLegacy. We had a poster here actually look at home/away splits on assists and found that while there was some degree of advantage for Stockton playing at home, the clear home/away advantage on assists among top 10 PGs was Magic Johnson in Los Angeles.

Is Stockton a top 20 player all-time? I have him behind Magic (top 10), Oscar and West (probably top 15) and Frazier (top 25) among PGs so for me, no. Top 30 maybe, top 50 yes. Highest I could see him is in that 20-30 tier and that's not certain.

[G35]

Compare this to Chris Paul:
11 30 point playoff games in 65 games played.
37 20 point games in 65 games played.
Best GmSc 37.5
10th best GmSc 28.2

Steve Nash:
9 30 point playoff games in 120 games played.
48 20 point games in 120 games played.
Best GmSc 35.6
10th best GmSc 26.0

Chauncey Billups:
10 30 point playoff games in 146 games played.
57 20 point games in 146 games played.
Best GmSc 37.0
10th best GmSc 25.5

None of these are what people would call "chuckers" or "Low-IQ" by any sense of the word, and yet all of them are able to relay significantly more scoring impact than Stockton....

From a game plan standpoint, stockton played with a guy who averaged 27 PPG on 59% TS over a span of 13 seasons. I just don't know that stockton was ever asked to step up his game scoring-wise in the playoffs (even throwing out sloan's rigid system).

He spent his time facilitating to an elite volume scorer and scoring when the opportunities presented themselves. At the very least, it seems logical, especially for the time. And that isn't to say he would have equaled nash in scoring output in the playoffs, but I think he'd come closer if the situation was different. Paul and billups were inherently closer to being scorers than nash and stockton, too.

But Stockton was already less efficient than the others with his lower volume, what indication is there that he could score at the sort of higher volumes that the others can?

Stockton ('88-'00)
19.8% USG, 116 ORTG, 56.6% TS

Nash ('02-'10)
23.2% USG, 117 ORTG, 58.9% TS

Paul ('08-'15)
25.1% USG, 119 ORTG, 58.4% TS

Billups ('02-'10)
22.5% USG, 119 ORTG, 58.2% TS

Note that both Billups and Nash played in worse offensive environments (early '00s) than Stockton.

Note that Billups went to 2 different teams before finally settling in Detroit. Nash took two stops to get to his higher level. Stockton was seen as elite and stuck with some really bad offenses in the 80's, people must forget he was part of the 1984 draft class. What I think many people do not understand is not only Sloan and his offense but Utah itself; its not exactly a FA destination....ever. I can't remember the last time they had the #1 pick. Does anyone think that the thought of going to Utah ever crossed Sheed's mind when he was traded to ATL?

The Jazz were fortunate enough to draft two all time greats back to back but Stockton was like a walk-on, when nobody knew where Gonzaga was. Even Karl Malone was from Louisiana Tech University. Here is the summary of players that went to Louisiana Tech:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/colleges.cgi?college=latech

PJ Brown
Mike Green
Karl Malone
Paul Milsap
Jackie Moreland
Rich Peek
Randy White

That's it, seven players, and two of the best players were drafted by Utah! I think Utah drafts a specific personality type. They not only have to determine talent/ability but also whether that player is a good fit for the Utah lifestyle. I think those are considerations for Jazz management and it hampers their overall ability to bring in talent.......

[Nbafanatic]

I always with Stockton come back to what he did and didn't do in the playoffs. While I generally find some of this unfair the breadth of it seems meaningful.

2 30 point playoff games in 182 games played.
29 20 point games in 182 games played.
Best GmSc (not a fan of the stats but just for comparison) 37.3
10th best GmSc 25.4

Compare this to Chris Paul:
11 30 point playoff games in 65 games played.
37 20 point games in 65 games played.
Best GmSc 37.5
10th best GmSc 28.2

Steve Nash:
9 30 point playoff games in 120 games played.
48 20 point games in 120 games played.
Best GmSc 35.6
10th best GmSc 26.0

Chauncey Billups:
10 30 point playoff games in 146 games played.
57 20 point games in 146 games played.
Best GmSc 37.0
10th best GmSc 25.5

None of these are what people would call "chuckers" or "Low-IQ" by any sense of the word, and yet all of them are able to relay significantly more scoring impact than Stockton....

From a game plan standpoint, stockton played with a guy who averaged 27 PPG on 59% TS over a span of 13 seasons. I just don't know that stockton was ever asked to step up his game scoring-wise in the playoffs (even throwing out sloan's rigid system).

He spent his time facilitating to an elite volume scorer and scoring when the opportunities presented themselves. At the very least, it seems logical, especially for the time. And that isn't to say he would have equaled nash in scoring output in the playoffs, but I think he'd come closer if the situation was different. Paul and billups were inherently closer to being scorers than nash and stockton, too.

But Clyde, we all know that, especially in the playoffs, you gotta be able to, sometimes, create something out of nothing against tough defense situations, broken plays and that kind of stuff. Every now and then, you gotta deviate from team play and try to create something for you or for your teammates. Stockton is the anti-Kobe on this regard. Kobe deviated way too much from team play, trying way too hard at times, therefore hurting his case against the few very best ever players. Stockton was the exact opposite: He stood way too much within the system, when the team was desperately needing more punch from the backcourt. Even with Hornacek, the team would have benefited more had Stockton traded 2 or 3 assists attempts for 5 or 6 points more on the scoreboard. Malone was a great 1st option, but he needed more help from his friends. Now, note that Billups, CP3 and Nash, all had a better balance to know when to stay within the system, and when to try and dominate.

[Nbafanatic]

I always with Stockton come back to what he did and didn't do in the playoffs. While I generally find some of this unfair the breadth of it seems meaningful.

2 30 point playoff games in 182 games played.
29 20 point games in 182 games played.
Best GmSc (not a fan of the stats but just for comparison) 37.3
10th best GmSc 25.4

Now certainly the assist numbers are mind blowing. 78 games with 10 or more, 26 games with 15 or more (just wow). But at some point to be in that top 20, I feel like a player needs to be able to take over a playoff series in different ways. He wasn't a big man who could dominate the game defensively. He never had the scoring to take over a series, perhaps a game, but not a series. Sure assists are meaningful but perhaps his were inflated by a system more so than the average player?

As another posted point out, if we're to assume Malone and Stockton are in the top 30 (or higher) something feels off about their playoff resume. Did they really have such awful teammates that they couldn't overcome that?

The only reason I can see him being say as high as 25 is due to his longevity which was simply amazing and durability. But for me at least once you're talking top 50, I start to focus a bit more on peak play as there are just too many great players.

So if Durant/WB continue as they have been, never get past SA/GSW/CLE that they could not be top 25 players?

What if Lebron did not get Bosh to come to MIA? Do the Heat win any titles?

Also I love Jerry Sloan as a coach but on the offensive side of the ball he was not very imaginative. Are you telling me there are any two other players in the league that could take the pick and roll as their primary offense and make it to b2b finals? That not having a legit 3pt threat would not hamper the offense? I suppose when Hornacek arrived that the offense did not significantly improve is flying right over everyone's head?

In Hornaceks first full season from 1995 the Jazz' ORTG:

1995 4th
1996 2nd
1997 2nd
1998 1st

For comparison's sake here is the Jazz offense starting in 1985 Malone's rookie year:

1986 20th
1987 21st
1988 16th
1989 17th
1990 10th
1991 11th
1992 4th
1993 11th
1994 7th (Hornacek traded to Utah)

Even then Hornacek wasn't a star, he was I would say a semi-All-Star level player at that point. Perhaps like less athletic Klay Thompson with less 3pt shooting and less defensive ability but still a good scorer.

If people don't believe that you can stick any 3 other players next to two 25 players then you really don't understand how basketball works and you are just using name recognition and unrealistic expectations.

Jordan and Pippen had Rodman, Grant, Armstrong, Kukoc and good role players like Ron Harper, Craig Hodges, Steve Kerr, Cartwright to fill out those rosters.

Even now look at the Spurs and Warriors who have loaded rosters. Now loaded is relative in that many of the Warriors players are castoffs that are now being put in roles they excel in. Iguodola is in the perfect 6th man/defensive stopper/energy player, Livingston had a devastating knee injury but he was always talented and now he is great change of pace for the Warriors offense, Harrison Barnes is a regular swing man who would be Marvin Lewis on another team, but on the Warriors he fits perfectly; good attitude, doesn't try to do too much, stays in his role. But if you asked him to be the #2 or #3 option and he would struggle.

The Jazz never had that other scorer to open things up. It would be like the Warriors without Klay Thompson; they would still be good, possible contender but they would not be the favorite and likely be a 2nd round loser many years. Shoot if you gave Stockton and Malone, Klay Thompson they would have been in a few more finals.......

Some fair points here. Just to give a bit different perspective: Stockton-Malone had about as greatest fit that you can get as far as chemistry and style of play, you really can get any better than that. Westbrook-Durant, even having more star power ceiling on them together, they overlap quite a bit on their skills and style of play. Lebron and Wade even more, but they had another all star sacrificing in Chris Bosh and were able to be good enough to make it work.

I agree with you about supporting casts and the difficulty that Utah had and have in acquiring good players, but: Even though my favorite Jazz team from the 90's is the 97 version(better chemistry, Hornacek and Stockton already with good time playing together, a fair enough bench play, Russel being able to space the floor better than previous SFs and Ostertag doing a good job defensively, with good mobility, and rebounding the ball well), the league was a bit weaker than it was in the late 80's and early 90's. The Jazz had Jeff Malone in 92, a still 20 point scorer with good efficiency along Stockton-Malone in their primes, as they reached the WCF against the Blazers.

[mikejames23]

I agree with NBAFanatic's basic premise: You just gotta be drawing defensive attention. When Westbrook walks up the court, there's fear in the opponent. He can throw the defense into chaos at any given second. I don't get that same vibe from Stockton. You can say he shoots less like Nash, but Nash is just as terrifying as a shooter. Suffice to say, I see defenses having more of a headache dealing with Nash, Westbrook, Paul, etc. than they have to while dealing with Stockton.

I don't want to cal Stockton a Sloan Product, as to me he's more of that. He's been an All NBA PG for a really, really, long time. I suppose if I placed him high on my list, I would have to value longevity a great deal. So I'd have to say I'll take the longevity of the All NBA type player over the MVP/True Superstar type player. If I did that, Karl Malone would be as high as #10 and Kareem #1 quite possibly.

On that sort of list, I'd rate him higher than Pippen, Kidd, etc. Basically he's in the same territory, but his epic longevity would edge these guys out. I haven't done a list in a long time but i'd imagine that's in mid twenties territory with an emphasis on longevity.

[Owly]

Compare this to Chris Paul:
11 30 point playoff games in 65 games played.
37 20 point games in 65 games played.
Best GmSc 37.5
10th best GmSc 28.2

Steve Nash:
9 30 point playoff games in 120 games played.
48 20 point games in 120 games played.
Best GmSc 35.6
10th best GmSc 26.0

Chauncey Billups:
10 30 point playoff games in 146 games played.
57 20 point games in 146 games played.
Best GmSc 37.0
10th best GmSc 25.5

None of these are what people would call "chuckers" or "Low-IQ" by any sense of the word, and yet all of them are able to relay significantly more scoring impact than Stockton....

From a game plan standpoint, stockton played with a guy who averaged 27 PPG on 59% TS over a span of 13 seasons. I just don't know that stockton was ever asked to step up his game scoring-wise in the playoffs (even throwing out sloan's rigid system).

He spent his time facilitating to an elite volume scorer and scoring when the opportunities presented themselves. At the very least, it seems logical, especially for the time. And that isn't to say he would have equaled nash in scoring output in the playoffs, but I think he'd come closer if the situation was different. Paul and billups were inherently closer to being scorers than nash and stockton, too.

But Clyde, we all know that, especially in the playoffs, you gotta be able to, sometimes, create something out of nothing against tough defense situations, broken plays and that kind of stuff. Every now and then, you gotta deviate from team play and try to create something for you or for your teammates. Stockton is the anti-Kobe on this regard. Kobe deviated way too much from team play, trying way too hard at times, therefore hurting his case against the few very best ever players. Stockton was the exact opposite: He stood way too much within the system, when the team was desperately needing more punch from the backcourt. Even with Hornacek, the team would have benefited more had Stockton traded 2 or 3 assists attempts for 5 or 6 points more on the scoreboard. Malone was a great 1st option, but he needed more help from his friends. Now, note that Billups, CP3 and Nash, all had a better balance to know when to stay within the system, and when to try and dominate.

Seems like truisms here. 2 or three assist attempts for 5 or 6 points? Sure, because two or three assist attempts aren't sure things and 5 or 6 points are. But that isn't the marginal tradeoff Stockton would need to be percieved by many as creator not that I'm assuming you have the same stance as the person argued against below. But assists and points are just different ways of getting the same thing done and I think we have to think about what rate of tradeoff would be beneficial.

Spoiler:

Stockton is massively overrated, unless longevity carries more weight than peak, and with Steph Curry at #3 that is obviously not the case. I can't give Stockton a pass that the Jazz's biggest team success came after his prime. The 88-95 Jazz had 4 1st Round exits in 8 years and only made it twice to the WCF. And this with playing with prime Malone.

I guess if you are making a list about pass-first point guards, which this list is also clearly not about, Stockton will rank very high, probably shared #1 with Nash, but when it comes to actual player ranking he is a let down. Replace him with Isiah during the Piston's bad boys era and they do not win any championship. As a player he is too one-dimensional. His lack of scoring prowess compared to other point guards is big back breaker. It made his team too dependent on Malone, before Jeff Hornacek showed up.

And please do not use scoring efficiency as an counter-argument, because Kyle Korver is probably GOAT at that, but to similar degree as Stockton, they lack the skills to score at a decent volume. If Stockton would be forced to shoot more his efficiency would have plummeted.

Crude (non-era adjusted, based on 1 d.p. per 100 possession career numbers) look at the marginal ts%-points tradeoff between Stockton and Isiah.

Isiah's career:.516 TS%; 25.7 points per 100 possessions

Stockton career: .608 TS%; 21.0 points per 100 possessions

Stockton needs to make up 4.7 points per 100 possessions. His TS% can fall by .108 in total (not on those specific possessions).

To illustrate that trade off lets put it in terms of two point field goals.

To get those 4.7 point Stockton needs to make an extra 2.35 of them per 100 possessions. With that increase in makes, to drop to an equivalent TS% (without anything else changing like fouls) would require shooting an extra 7.7 attempts. The TS% (and in this instance, with no extra free throws, FG%) on those marginal extra attempts, just to equal Isiah, would be .305194805.

Neither volume nor efficiency should be looked at in isolation, as without knowing the other the stat is useless.

Crude workings below

pts fga 3fgm 2fgm fta ftm tsa ts%
21 14.5 0.9 6.6 6.2 5.1 17.228 0.609472951
25.7 22.2 0.9 8.95 6.2 5.1 24.928 0.515484596
4.7 7.7 0 2.35 0 0 7.7 0.305194805
1st row JS per 100 possessions, 2nd row JS with 2.35 extra fgm, on IT TS% (by increasing FGA), third row the difference and marginal TS%

-en
The assertion that John Stockton, rather than every teammate other than Hornacek through their primes, and particularly the average and cumulative production thereof was what "made his team too dependent on Malone" is laughable (cf: http://bkref.com/tiny/hEBbX; one could perhaps add Marshall, Kirilenko, Harpring if considering their primes as extending to '03), and suppositions on Stockton with the Pistons conjecture rather than evidence.

Your extrapolation of data is laughable, at best.

No it isn't. It's 100% accurate. Where are the errors?

Why are you comparing career TS%?

Because all of careers matter.

It places too much emphasis on longevity.

For your tastes. You'd need to justify why some years don't matter though.

And for what it's worth it places zero weight on longevity. It just includes all data available. It actually punishes a player for playing beyond their prime. Stockton played far longer. So either Stockton is penalised, or Thomas in a lot shorter career, had a much larger portion that was non-productive.

Let me word it simply for you, Isiah at his peak lead the Pistons to the championship. Stockton would have never been able to carry the scoring load, which was main factors of the Jazz faltering in the post-season during his prime.

You consider '89, '90 Isiah's peak?

Isiah .514 TS%; 25.2 points per 100 poss
Stockton say '95-'96 .647; 22 points per 100 poss

Stockton needs 3.2 points per 100 poss; that's 1.6 two-point fgm (a smaller gap); and a 0.133 TS% difference (a larger gap).

To make up the points deficit if done on 2-pointers he'd need to make an extra 1.6 on 7.55 attempts. A marginal ts% (and in this instance fg%) of 0.21192053. 21.1%. He'd need to shoot 21.1% on those extra 7.55 attempts to match that valuable extra volume.

Working below

pts fga 3fgm 2fgm fta ftm tsa ts%
22 14.6 1.8 6.1 5.3 4.4 16.932 0.649657453
25.2 22.15 1.8 7.7 5.3 4.4 24.482 0.514663835
3.2 7.55 0 1.6 0 0 7.55 0.21192053

And you could pick other years with Stockton and get great results.

Oh you meant peak playoff production. Stockton's playoff peak years aren't consecutive and some of his better years aren't huge samples. Even just taking Utah's finals runs though - whilst the tradeoff becomes less, well, embarassing, is still very clearly in Stockton's favour.

Isiah .523 TS%, 27.3
Stockton (in a lower ts% era) .602, 22.7

TS% dif .079; pp100 difference 4.6

For that Stockton would require and extra 2.3 two point fgm, on 7.25 extra attempts. Or TS% (and in this instance fg%) of 0.317241379 on those marginal extra attempts, too equal Isiah's precious volume.

pts fga 3fgm 2fgm fta ftm tsa ts%
22.7 15.9 1.2 6.9 6.7 5.3 18.848 0.602185908
27.3 23.15 1.2 9.2 6.7 5.3 26.098 0.523028585
4.6 7.25 0 2.3 0 0 7.25 0.317241379

Also Stockton was a better passer (especially over full careers), less turnover prone (when factoring in that extra passing volume, way less turnovers per assist, albeit Thomas has a narrow advantage in turnovers per point scored), was a better defender and spaced the floor better.

FWIW more punch "from the backcourt" specifically? Not at C and SF then? I'm not sure it matters where the points come from, but it's hard to second guess Stockton's decision making. Whether you think it's couldn't, wouldn't or wasn't allowed to (given you do think he should have created more) and Stockton was around 22 points per hundred possessions throughout his prime (and doing so at the efficiency and turnovers and passing he did, i.e. enough to get him 1st in WARP; 5th in Win Shares) isn't it incumbent on the franchise to get a center who can catch and finish, maybe convert an offensive rebound (cf: http://bkref.com/tiny/TXPow).

I get that at as high as Stockton is discussed there has to be what might seem like nit-picking (feels like too much focus on what he couldn't/didn't do, ignoring the huge amount he did - but as I say thats just a feeling - at this level detailed critical analysis is fair). I get that there's times when you look at a Jazz boxscore and think why has Shandon Anderson got almost as many shots as Stockton. Still as I say an assist still leads to points (legit questions overall about general value of contribution within any assist; though I don't think specifically the case for Stockton moreso than others), Stockton's metrics bear out pretty good decision making, if he couldn't/wouldn't score more and one believes that did cost the Jazz, it's hard not to say "Maybe get one more guy that can score (rather than offensive non-factors at two positions)" and scoring/shot creation isn't the be all or end all of having an impact and where we're critical of the efficiency-volume balance we probably need to be clear what tradeoff is beneficial, where the break even point is.

[post edited to clarify format]