John Stockton is underrated here

[Cavsfansince84]

I think Stockton may well have been at that level of impact at that point. But that wouldn’t have really made him a top 3-4 player in the league, because by that age he wasn’t playing high minutes (was typically just below 30 minutes a game). Because of that, his per-game impact would be ranked lower than what he’d be ranked by measures that are looking at impact per possession. By that age, I’m sure he needed to play lower minutes in order to keep having that high level of impact, so if he had scaled up his minutes then presumably the per-possession impact would’ve gone down (or he might’ve needed to skip games to get rest, which wasn’t something he did). But it’s not at all tough to imagine that a guy who could have top 3-4 type of per-possession impact in sub-30-minutes-a-game as an old player would’ve been having that same type of per-possession impact in the higher minutes he played when he was younger. And, of course, as I’ve detailed in the OP, the box data and limited impact data we have from Stockton’s younger years is supportive of that being the case.

Just to be clear on something else, who do you think was better between Stockton and Malone?

[lessthanjake]

I think Stockton may well have been at that level of impact at that point. But that wouldn’t have really made him a top 3-4 player in the league, because by that age he wasn’t playing high minutes (was typically just below 30 minutes a game). Because of that, his per-game impact would be ranked lower than what he’d be ranked by measures that are looking at impact per possession. By that age, I’m sure he needed to play lower minutes in order to keep having that high level of impact, so if he had scaled up his minutes then presumably the per-possession impact would’ve gone down (or he might’ve needed to skip games to get rest, which wasn’t something he did). But it’s not at all tough to imagine that a guy who could have top 3-4 type of per-possession impact in sub-30-minutes-a-game as an old player would’ve been having that same type of per-possession impact in the higher minutes he played when he was younger. And, of course, as I’ve detailed in the OP, the box data and limited impact data we have from Stockton’s younger years is supportive of that being the case.

Just to be clear on something else, who do you think was better between Stockton and Malone?

I think Stockton was probably more impactful, but Malone was really good too and I think there were seasons where Malone was probably better (for instance, 1997 is an example of a year where I feel pretty sure Malone was better). He also was able to maintain a high minutes load in his later years, which makes his overall longevity even more impressive.

[trex_8063]

Well I certainly wouldn’t say I “throw out” “any added context.” Indeed, the post you’re responding to specifically said that there’s people I’d put above Stockton “despite [them] having worse data.” And my posts to start this thread go through a whole host of arguments that people make that either are aimed at asserting that that data is inflated or arguments that go beyond the data. I’ve addressed context at quite a bit of length already in this thread. But that is not mutually exclusive with having a baseline assumption that when RAPM and RAPM-like measures agree with box measures and the various different versions of those data types generally agree with each other, then they’re probably right and that we should have some skepticism of a web of arguments deployed against it all. I’d be the first to say that data is not perfect—I’ve said that countless times on these forums—so it is possible for RAPM and box stats to both be wrong in the same direction. It’s definitely not the most likely thing though. It should be seen as a pretty heavy lift to argue that that’s what’s happening, and I’ve tried to engage in this thread with several of the arguments that are aimed at suggesting that.

Ok but I was mainly referring to how those things see Stockton as what? A top 3-4 player in the league in his late 30's? That's what I am looking for you to tell us what you think this data you listed is saying about him. I'm not here to try and discredit Stockton. I just would like to know how you view this data. Do you think Stockton was a top 5 player in the league in like 98-2001? I just would like to know how much stock you are placing in this data.

Suppose the data is "correct" in positing him roughly top 3-4 in the league in his late 30s......we're still talking about a rate metric, and Stockton is only playing ~29 mpg at that point. So even if he WAS top 3-4 level player in the league when he's on the court, he's simply not on the court enough to actually be top 3-4 (or even 5-6).
Because there would invariably be other guys who were close in terms of impact [or the impact data] per possession who were playing 36-40 mpg.

Just pointing out that even if op IS positing the data as 'correct' or 'accurate', that's not the same thing as saying 'John Stockton was a top 5 player in those years'.


For my part, I think he may have been top 5 in '89. And in some 'quick and dirty' rankings I did for other years, I had him 6th in '88, and #6-8 every year [except one, where I had him 9th] after that until his injury. And even after that, I had him #15-18 in the league for a few years.

[One_and_Done]

No, he's incredibly overrated. He wouldn't even be an all-star today.

Do you ever post non-hyperbolic absolute statements?

The formula is:

1. Post hyperbolic statement.
2. Someone engages the claim.
3. A debate ensues over league quality and cross-era translation.
4. The original topic is lost in the shuffle and the discussion dies.

It's like a thread virus. This subforum would be much healthier if this charade were disallowed, because it is totally contrary and detrimental to actual "player comparison" and individual player analysis.

No, it is 'healthier' only for your favoured narrative. We should be able to use our own criteria, including that era disparity is a real thing.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

I’m interested in a discussion about John Stockton—who I think people on this particular forum underrate.

It seems to me that the data we have on Stockton looks incredible. There’s a lot of arguments made to undercut that data. And while there’s some truth to some of those arguments, I’m not really convinced by it overall.

I've already made my feelings known on Stockton elsewhere so I'll rehash the same posts if you haven't already seen them

I won't really get into these metrics, yadda yadda.

My criticisms of him are chiefly related to the playoffs:

1) He got outperformed in the playoffs by PGs he was rated ahead of. Forget the fact Terry Porter annihilated him in 92. Ok Terry himself was a all star that year. In b2b losses in 94 and 95 as 1st team all NBA PG both years he couldn't score more ppg than Kenny Smith who was ran ragged by the likes of KJ and Derek Harper in the same playoffs.

2) And I guess this is intertwined with number one to a degree. For the most part he never became a legit #2 scoring option to Malone.

[sp6r=underrated]

No, he's incredibly overrated. He wouldn't even be an all-star today.

Why is "How would this player do in 2025 if they played today" the standard for player evaluation?

[OhayoKD]

Didn't spot anything i disagree with the holistic stuff (tbf I've only skimmed). On breaking down defenses...

In terms of passing, I think it is generally correct that Stockton’s passing wouldn’t necessarily grade out at the top of OhayoKD-style “DTO” analysis. But Stockton did actually produce plenty of great looks. To illustrate, courtesy of the NBArapm website, we have data on Stockton’s rim assists per 100 possessions in his last three years in the NBA, and it was sky high—it was 7.7, 7.0, and 6.6 in each year respectively.

A point of DTOs is to approximate how much of a great look an individual is "producing". Assists simply tell us the chronology of when the ball is touched. Regardless of the extent you think DTOs underrate or overrate him, anyone using a low dto+ada+edto combo would essentially be arguing "stockton wasn't producing those assists to the degree you are saying he was". You could say in general, assuming equal "contribution" the higher quality look is better and I'd agree, but anyone skeptical of stockton along these lines is probably disputing that the contribution was comparable.

Meanwhile, making a timely pass to a teammate right in the teammate’s shooting pocket as they get separation is a highly impactful play even if it would not be quantified as a pass with a “DTO.” .

Unless Stockton has no one in front of him it would register a dto.

The "ohayokd style dto tracking" also has an input called adas which would go to Stockton based on his teammate's defender.

The hangup for Stockton with that tracking approach is really the diffentiation of an ADA vs a DTO vs a EDTO.

Whether you think a play like you described is generally as hard to replace or as valuable as the ones that take out multiple defenders (I imagine you would agree that the answer is no in most cases) or if you think the gap in value is smaller than advertised (i'm guessing you would say the answer is yes).

FWIW though Stockton did significantly better with this system than I expected when lebronny used it. Or at least he said he did.

Edit: saw this

The one time Stockton faced Magic Johnson, he outplayed Magic in the series, but Stockton is not a better player than Magic.

Averaging the same amount of assists while creating way less =/ "outplaying" lol.

[OhayoKD]

No, he's incredibly overrated. He wouldn't even be an all-star today.

Why is "How would this player do in 2025 if they played today" the standard for player evaluation?

I prefer "how would this player do on average across time". The answer for both is "direct comparison > indirect comparison"

[One_and_Done]

No, he's incredibly overrated. He wouldn't even be an all-star today.

Why is "How would this player do in 2025 if they played today" the standard for player evaluation?

viewtopic.php?t=2456428&start=120#p118601078

[JRoy]

If stockton (peak) is underated what about guys like kevin johnson or terry porter who arguably had comparable value and may have outplayed him in head to head series?

Stockton is a very good player but the raw assist/steals records overstate his impact im both ends if anythingh.

Both PHX and POR had much better supporting players than UTA.

[eminence]

To a point I agree, he finished #33 in the most recent Top 100 and I'd have him a bit higher than that and in the late 20s (some difference in philosophy on how to rank mid career guys like Giannis/Jokic, and then just a couple of other guys - Pettit/Ewing/Barkley/Wade, so #27 on first pass). Mostly a preference for longevity vs the average forum poster.

But you can't really do a big post like this and not actually put out how where you rate Stockton/which guys are being rated over him that you feel shouldn't be.

[GSP]

Read on Twitter

Came across this clip of Stockton. Seeing Haliburton defensive leap these playoffs and top offenses like Cleveland and Ny not being able to completely hunt him and his play in general I think prime Stockton would have a similar impact if not higher he was def another level of defender at least than Tyrese. And seeing how Stockton produced in w/ Layden as his coach outscoring and out assisting prime Magic while being defended by Dpoy Michael Cooper he would do just fine in an increased role where his offense wasn't shackled and limited like it was w/ Sloan and Malone

[migya]

Stockton is the most stealth good player likely in history. He was incredibly effective but went under the radar mostly. Perfect PG to have to maximise winning. Byron Russell wouldn't have started on any other team in the mid 90s, except small chance for the worst teams. Same for Ostertag, perhaps moreso. The Jazz bench was most likely the worst among playoff teams during Stockton's career. Stockton and Malone must get close to all the credit and therefore they are both reasonably seen as top 20 players ever.

[tsherkin]

I think most of what needs to be said to describe Stockton has been done. He had strengths, he had weaknesses. He was never tier-1, but damn was he a fine complementary player, especially for a PnR big. Very effective at getting the ball where it needed to go. A little overrated by raw volume output, as is commonly the case with players in general.

Knew his role, played it exceptionally well. Jazz definitely suffered for lack of depth, and for the quality of their second scorers over the years. They seemed to do their best with Hornacek later on, but he struggled against higher-end defenses in the playoffs, and they were all old by the time they started making the Finals. And then of course Stockton was injured in 98 and never fully the same after that.

Not the guy you wanted as the focus of your franchise; I think the RAPM numbers overstate things a little... but like top 25 to top 35, somewhere in that space? That makes plenty of sense to me. All-time, I mean, not in any given season, obviously.

[lessthanjake]

Didn't spot anything i disagree with the holistic stuff (tbf I've only skimmed). On breaking down defenses...

In terms of passing, I think it is generally correct that Stockton’s passing wouldn’t necessarily grade out at the top of OhayoKD-style “DTO” analysis. But Stockton did actually produce plenty of great looks. To illustrate, courtesy of the NBArapm website, we have data on Stockton’s rim assists per 100 possessions in his last three years in the NBA, and it was sky high—it was 7.7, 7.0, and 6.6 in each year respectively.

A point of DTOs is to approximate how much of a great look an individual is "producing". Assists simply tell us the chronology of when the ball is touched. Regardless of the extent you think DTOs underrate or overrate him, anyone using a low dto+ada+edto combo would essentially be arguing "stockton wasn't producing those assists to the degree you are saying he was". You could say in general, assuming equal "contribution" the higher quality look is better and I'd agree, but anyone skeptical of stockton along these lines is probably disputing that the contribution was comparable.

Meanwhile, making a timely pass to a teammate right in the teammate’s shooting pocket as they get separation is a highly impactful play even if it would not be quantified as a pass with a “DTO.” .

Unless Stockton has no one in front of him it would register a dto.

The "ohayokd style dto tracking" also has an input called adas which would go to Stockton based on his teammate's defender.

The hangup for Stockton with that tracking approach is really the diffentiation of an ADA vs a DTO vs a EDTO.

Whether you think a play like you described is generally as hard to replace or as valuable as the ones that take out multiple defenders (I imagine you would agree that the answer is no in most cases) or if you think the gap in value is smaller than advertised (i'm guessing you would say the answer is yes).

FWIW though Stockton did significantly better with this system than I expected when lebronny used it. Or at least he said he did.

So I think this goes to what I’ve said in the past about that “DTO” analysis involving vague definitions and being very subjective, because even after having read the definitions you’ve given for those terms, it sounds to me like you definitely have a different interpretation than I do regarding how that would be applied in the kinds of circumstances we’re talking about. That said, for purposes of this thread, I don’t think it really matters. If your view is that Stockton actually does surprisingly well under this analysis (as you say Lebronny reports), then that’s just another reason why this sort of analysis doesn’t really weigh against Stockton. It seems to me that I interpret these terms a bit more strictly when it comes to certain things I think Stockton did a lot, so Stockton might actually have substantially fewer “DTOs” and whatnot if I tallied it, but I wouldn’t find that to be very meaningful, for the reasons I set forth in my post. Either way, that potential counterargument against Stockton wouldn’t hold much weight. For purposes of this thread at least, that’s what I care about.

Edit: saw this

The one time Stockton faced Magic Johnson, he outplayed Magic in the series, but Stockton is not a better player than Magic.

Averaging the same amount of assists while creating way less =/ "outplaying" lol.

Not sure what stats you’re looking at, but this is wrong. Magic definitely did not “averag[e] the same amount of assists” as Stockton in that series. Stockton had 6.1 more assists per game than Magic did! Stockton also scored a bit more (albeit with more minutes played), while being more efficient and having slightly fewer turnovers. And Stockton was a defensive menace in the series. He also did this with an inferior team, and while often having Michael Cooper guarding him. I actually just recently watched one of the later games in the series, and the commentators kept talking about Stockton being the dominant player in the series—and it was basically in a “I’ve never seen anything like this” kind of way. Magic had a good series—this is not a knock on him at all. Stockton just was better. That doesn’t mean Stockton actually was a better player than Magic. He wasn’t, and that was my point. Outplaying another player in the small sample size of a single series isn’t all that meaningful.

[sp6r=underrated]

This is a good thread. I'm confident of the following:

1. Stockton was underrated in his prime by most, including me.
2. Some of the credit that went to Malone in the 88-99 period should have gone to Stockton.
3. Stockton held up much better in the 2000s than Malone

I'm not confident:

1. He's a top 5-7 player from 88 on, which is what he is based on the box score/plus-minus data.
2. The Jazz's success from 88-94 is due to a dreadful supporting cast or Karl Malone being substantially overrated. One or a combination of those things must be true if the argument put forth for Stockton here is correct and I haven't been persuaded.

But again this is a really good thread. Thank you Lessthanjake.

[lessthanjake]

I’m interested in a discussion about John Stockton—who I think people on this particular forum underrate.

It seems to me that the data we have on Stockton looks incredible. There’s a lot of arguments made to undercut that data. And while there’s some truth to some of those arguments, I’m not really convinced by it overall.

I've already made my feelings known on Stockton elsewhere so I'll rehash the same posts if you haven't already seen them

I won't really get into these metrics, yadda yadda.

My criticisms of him are chiefly related to the playoffs:

1) He got outperformed in the playoffs by PGs he was rated ahead of. Forget the fact Terry Porter annihilated him in 92. Ok Terry himself was an all star that year. In b2b losses in 94 and 95 as 1st team all NBA PG both years he couldn't score more ppg than Kenny Smith who was ran ragged by the likes of KJ and Derek Harper in the same playoffs.

My view of this is that it’s largely just indexing heavily on small samples, where larger samples say something different. As I’ve noted here, Stockton also outplayed Magic Johnson in the one playoff series they played against each other. There’s just a lot of randomness in how well someone plays in a small number of games.

I also think it’s reductionist to blame one player for an opposing player going off. Between switches, transition, and players’ minutes not entirely overlapping, a player’s opposing number is actually guarded by someone else quite a lot. Moreover, how well an opposing player does is affected a lot by the scheme and game plan of both teams. Often the interplay of different game plans ends up resulting in one player getting lots of easy looks (for instance, that might happen if the Jazz are doubling Hakeem and the Rockets are spacing to try to get Kenny Smith open off those doubles). And that’s not really on any individual player, as much as it’s a coaching decision regarding what they decide to live with.

Relatedly, Stockton’s role in the Jazz’s defensive game plan was typically to be a disruptor. That was generally very effective (both in terms of forcing turnovers, but also just deterring high-value actions because people are worried about Stockton forcing a turnover), but obviously the downside of playing a disruptor role is that you’ll inevitably be leaving your man a fair bit. So I think we’d actually expect Stockton’s opposing number to do relatively well on average, even if the net result of Stockton’s disruption is positively impactful. Of course, if we drill down into small samples, we will always be able to come up with instances where a normally-good trade-off didn’t work out because someone happened to unexpectedly punish the game plan, and I think this is probably at least in part an example of that.

2) And I guess this is intertwined with number one to a degree. For the most part he never became a legit #2 scoring option to Malone.

That is generally true. I think that’s mostly addressed in one of my OPs. I think Stockton could’ve been even more impactful if he’d aimed to be more of a scorer. He had the shooting ability to do it, IMO. But the fact that he didn’t often scale up his scoring is more an argument that he left some impact on the table than it is that he wasn’t great anyways. After all, he accrued all the impact that he had even despite not being a major scoring option.

[lessthanjake]

To a point I agree, he finished #33 in the most recent Top 100 and I'd have him a bit higher than that and in the late 20s (some difference in philosophy on how to rank mid career guys like Giannis/Jokic, and then just a couple of other guys - Pettit/Ewing/Barkley/Wade, so #27 on first pass). Mostly a preference for longevity vs the average forum poster.

But you can't really do a big post like this and not actually put out how where you rate Stockton/which guys are being rated over him that you feel shouldn't be.

I’m not inclined to set forth exactly where I’d rate Stockton or exactly what guys I think he should be rated above, because I think that’d inevitably lead down rabbit holes about my evaluations of those other specific players. After all, if I say I think Stockton is better than someone else, one counterargument could just be that I’m wrong about how good that other player is—at which point the discussion will be about that other player. For instance, let’s say I posit that I think Stockton is better than Oscar Robertson (not saying I think that—this is just for example purposes). We’d inevitably end up with some discussion about whether Oscar Robertson’s era was terrible or not, and at that point we wouldn’t really be talking about Stockton. I get the point that it can be hard to talk about one player’s greatness (or whether they’re underrated) in a vacuum. But I think with Stockton it’s kind of self-evident that he is underrated if we actually put real credence on his impact and box data. And I think there’s a very healthy debate to be had on that. So I think we can discuss whether he’s underrated without it needing to be specifically anchored in a “He definitely should be ranked above these specific guys” discussion. The other thing is that my ranking of players is really fluid, so if I put down now where I’d put Stockton, I might not even agree 100% with that exact ranking in a week.

All that said, I have implied in responses in this thread already that I think Stockton could reasonably be put in the top 20, but that I personally wouldn’t put him there because I don’t value longevity as much as some people and value titles more than some people. He was ranked #33 in the recent Top 100, and I do think that’s too low, so I’d say that puts him around the ~#25 spot for me—with the caveat again that I think others who weigh certain things differently than I do could definitely have Stockton in the top 20 if they put as much credence on his impact and box data as I do. I think one can look at the Top 100 list and generally see from that who that’d have Stockton leapfrog.

[tsherkin]

Not sure what stats you’re looking at, but this is wrong. Magic definitely did not “averag[e] the same amount of assists” as Stockton in that series. Stockton had 6.1 more assists per game than Magic did!

He also played six more minutes per game.

PER36, Stockton averaged 2 fewer FGA and about 3.5 more assists, which is a little over half the gap you're trying to outline. Stockton had a great series, but he basically didn't shoot (which was sort of his custom) and the offense ran through him.

Stockton had two big assist-output performances in losses that series which really skew the averages, as well, both in games where he played 48 minutes. Also a bit of a difference in time-of-possession between the two guys based on team strategy. Stockton didn't dump it into guys for isos basically ever; it was pretty well always an immediate jumper or hook, or trailing dunk. It was not the same for Worthy, Kareem or Scott all the time.

So between that and it being literally one series, it's hard to draw a lot of useful information. Especially since Kareem was flaming ass in that series, which cut into Magic's assist production. The series before, when Magic was averaging almost 15 apg, Kareem shot 55% from the floor and averaged 17 ppg. Against Mark Eaton, 40 yo Kareem shot 38.9% FG and posted 12.4 ppg. That had nothing to do with Stockton, but definitely impacted this APG gap. Meantime, in for example the deciding game 7, Karl Malone was 14/21 from the field and Kareem was 4/10. A great many of Stockton's assists were relatively basic passes into Malone, who then turned and hit a fadeaway or a hook or something. So the bread and butter play was working for one guy, and not so much for the other guy. And in that particular game, Byron Scott was doing great and Worthy was getting to the line well, but not getting tons of three-point plays. So, excellent end result to the play, but not so hot for Magic's assist totals.

Worth thinking about.

Stockton was excellent in that series, of course; there's no question of that. He played great. It was also a good series for people who only remember him from 97 and onward to remind themselves of exactly how fast end-to-end Stockton was when he was a younger guy. When you play that long, it's easy to forget what a guy looked like in his athletic prime, but there? He was at his best, no doubt. And as you say, his defense was excellent in that series.

But just some things to consider when we're strictly comparing APG.

[lessthanjake]

Not sure what stats you’re looking at, but this is wrong. Magic definitely did not “averag[e] the same amount of assists” as Stockton in that series. Stockton had 6.1 more assists per game than Magic did!

He also played six more minutes per game.

PER36, Stockton averaged 2 fewer FGA and about 3.5 more assists, which is a little over half the gap you're trying to outline. Stockton had a great series, but he basically didn't shoot (which was sort of his custom) and the offense ran through him.

Stockton had two big assist-output performances in losses that series which really skew the averages, as well, both in games where he played 48 minutes. Also a bit of a difference in time-of-possession between the two guys based on team strategy. Stockton didn't dump it into guys for isos basically ever; it was pretty well always an immediate jumper or hook, or trailing dunk. It was not the same for Worthy, Kareem or Scott all the time.

So between that and it being literally one series, it's hard to draw a lot of useful information. Especially since Kareem was flaming ass in that series, which cut into Magic's assist production. The series before, when Magic was averaging almost 15 apg, Kareem shot 55% from the floor and averaged 17 ppg. Against Mark Eaton, 40 yo Kareem shot 38.9% FG and posted 12.4 ppg. That had nothing to do with Stockton, but definitely impacted this APG gap. Meantime, in for example the deciding game 7, Karl Malone was 14/21 from the field and Kareem was 4/10. A great many of Stockton's assists were relatively basic passes into Malone, who then turned and hit a fadeaway or a hook or something. So the bread and butter play was working for one guy, and not so much for the other guy. And in that particular game, Byron Scott was doing great and Worthy was getting to the line well, but not getting tons of three-point plays. So, excellent end result to the play, but not so hot for Magic's assist totals.

Worth thinking about.

Stockton was excellent in that series, of course; there's no question of that. He played great. It was also a good series for people who only remember him from 97 and onward to remind themselves of exactly how fast end-to-end Stockton was when he was a younger guy. When you play that long, it's easy to forget what a guy looked like in his athletic prime, but there? He was at his best, no doubt. And as you say, his defense was excellent in that series.

But just some things to consider when we're strictly comparing APG.

These are generally fair points. I will note, though, that I did watch a game from that series in the last few weeks, and was highly impressed by Stockton. It’s one of the things that spawned me writing up this thread. It was one of the losses too, but Stockton was incredible. I feel confident that he was better than Magic in that game I watched recently, and the commentators (who I *think* were actually the LAL commentators in the version I watched) were definitely talking about him like he had been playing the best of anyone in the series. Magic was good too, though. In any event, you mention some context that might’ve helped Stockton or hurt Magic, but I think we could probably pore through the series’s being talked about against Stockton and make similar contextual points about them too. My point with this 1988 series definitely isn’t to say Stockton was a better player than Magic—but rather to say that whether a player “outplays” their opposing number in a given playoff series is pretty random and depends on a lot of factors that go beyond how good those individual players are.