Highest reasonable all-time ranking for John Stockton?

[Owly]

. 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.

Nitpicking here but Jeff Malone wasn't really a "good" efficiency scorer. His specialisation in long 2s meant he never got the easy points (didn't have three point range and wasn't making it to the foul line). At best in Utah he was above average, and that was his specialism, contributing little else (nor, in light of the criticism Stockton is faced with here, was he creating off the bounce from broken plays in iso, more likely getting the ball off a pick, perhaps taking a couple of dribbles and firing).

[trex_8063]

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.

I'd like to reply to more aspects, but I don't know that I'll get around to it. Will at least respond to this one.....

The implication seems to be if you get even one or two seasons with Moses and Erving both near peak (or one at his peak and the other still in his prime), you've got a near guarantee on the title; whereas even 8+ seasons of overlapping primes for Stockton/Karl didn't garner one.

Suppose, however, that you fill out your Erving/Moses starting line-up with Howard Eisley at PG, Adam Keefe at PF, Jeff Malone at SG.....do they still win a title?

Or suppose you still allow them someone as good as prime Mo Cheeks at PG, but still Adam Keefe at PF and a small downgrade at SG to Shandon Anderson.......do they still win a title?


Point I'm making is that we can't pretend Moses/Erving carried some mediocre starting cast to a title in '83.
Mo Cheeks is clearly better (and by a good margin) than any third wheel Karl/Stockton had prior to the arrival of Jeff Hornacek----and he's probably (arguably, at least) a little better than Hornacek, too.

Then there's Bobby Jones at 4th-best: far and away better than any 4th-best player on those Stockton/Malone squads.
Then Andrew Toney at 5th-best: far and away better than any 5th-best player on those Stockton/Malone squads (hell, Andrew Toney was probably better than all 3rd-best Jazz players, prior to Hornacek arriving).
Seriously: we're comparing Bobby Jones and Andrew Toney to duo including guys like Greg Ostertag, Shandon Anderson, Felton Spencer, and 33+ year old Antoine Carr.


If I can paint a reasonable comparison using mid-late 90's NBA players......
Suppose in that '95-'98 range (comparable as the four-year range Erving and Moses were together, as it's at least a few years past Stockton's peak, and Stockton is pretty well into his post-prime by '98)----in addition to the trio of Stockton/Malone/Hornacek----the starting SF was '95-'98 versions of Detlef Schrempf, and the starting C was the '95-98 versions of Shawn Bradley. You think that line-up doesn't win a title somewhere in there? Because that's basically a rough equivalent of the supporting cast Moses/Erving/Cheeks had in Philly from '83-'86 (by '86 Bobby Jones was seriously declined and Andrew Toney was injured; but by then they also had 2nd-year Charles Barkley, so.....).

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

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.

I'd like to reply to more aspects, but I don't know that I'll get around to it. Will at least respond to this one.....

The implication seems to be if you get even one or two seasons with Moses and Erving both near peak (or one at his peak and the other still in his prime), you've got a near guarantee on the title; whereas even 8+ seasons of overlapping primes for Stockton/Karl didn't garner one.

Suppose, however, that you fill out your Erving/Moses starting line-up with Howard Eisley at PG, Adam Keefe at PF, Jeff Malone at SG.....do they still win a title?

Or suppose you still allow them someone as good as prime Mo Cheeks at PG, but still Adam Keefe at PF and a small downgrade at SG to Shandon Anderson.......do they still win a title?


Point I'm making is that we can't pretend Moses/Erving carried some mediocre starting cast to a title in '83.
Mo Cheeks is clearly better (and by a good margin) than any third wheel Karl/Stockton had prior to the arrival of Jeff Hornacek----and he's probably (arguably, at least) a little better than Hornacek, too.

Then there's Bobby Jones at 4th-best: far and away better than any 4th-best player on those Stockton/Malone squads.
Then Andrew Toney at 5th-best: far and away better than any 5th-best player on those Stockton/Malone squads (hell, Andrew Toney was probably better than all 3rd-best Jazz players, prior to Hornacek arriving).
Seriously: we're comparing Bobby Jones and Andrew Toney to duo including guys like Greg Ostertag, Shandon Anderson, Felton Spencer, and 33+ year old Antoine Carr.


If I can paint a reasonable comparison using mid-late 90's NBA players......
Suppose in that '95-'98 range (comparable as the four-year range Erving and Moses were together, as it's at least a few years past Stockton's peak, and Stockton is pretty well into his post-prime by '98)----in addition to the trio of Stockton/Malone/Hornacek----the starting SF was '95-'98 versions of Detlef Schrempf, and the starting C was the '95-98 versions of Shawn Bradley. You think that line-up doesn't win a title somewhere in there? Because that's basically a rough equivalent of the supporting cast Moses/Erving/Cheeks had in Philly from '83-'86 (by '86 Bobby Jones was seriously declined and Andrew Toney was injured; but by then they also had 2nd-year Charles Barkley, so.....).

Beat me to it. There's a reason the 83 sixers are widely considered a top 10 team of all time. It was far from a 2 man show in moses and erving that year. Also a strange disconnect made by Manuel Calavera with the implication that erving was well past his prime relative to his peak. He was still an elite player in 83. His playoffs weren't as consistent as reg season, but he stepped it up in the finals nonetheless.

[Nbafanatic]

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]

I give you the point about "scoring from the backcourt" - yes, scoring from any position would help, no doubt. Maybe it was my desire to see John having a more scoring-oriented approach back in the day, talking. That said, don't you think is fair to expect the second best player of the team to make more of a impact on crucial situations? Is not fair to expect more scoring punch from Stockton than Bryon Russel, Mark Eaton, Thurl Bailey? Of course I know that are a whole variety of things that can be done to be impactful, but being able to create something out of nothing and scoring the ball are the most precious ones, offensively. Every other great point guard did more on this regard than John: Magic, Oscar, Nash, CP3, Payton, even Isiah.

In your comparison down there with Isiah, yeah, you explain very clearly from a mathematical standpoint why we cannot use Stockton's lack of volume scoring against him, but, can we measure the impact that Isiah's agressiveness had on the opponent? That's a intangible thing that matters. Isiah tried and did take over games, yes, maybe mostly by trial and error, but he did not ommit hymself from the duty, as one of the best guys on that Pistons team. Those Jazz teams were in dogfights a lot, they almost always had enough to be in close games down the end. I always had that feeling wanting John to be more agressive on some possessions. That's something that is very hard to explain only with numbers.

[Clyde Frazier]

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.

Let's put it this way: I don’t think stockton ever visibly “shied away from the moment” by passing up shots that he should’ve been taking over other teammates. From 94-97 in the playoffs, hornacek put up 15.6 PPG on 60.5% TS (10.9 FGAs per game). You could make the argument that hornacek could’ve been taking a few more shots per game when scoring at reasonable volume on such high efficiency, too.

Paul is someone i’ve always defended against the weak “still hasn’t made it to the conf finals” criticism, yet I think with his scoring ability he actually could’ve “taken over” more games over the years. He’s a legitimate 30 pt threat as a scorer with his skillset, and I don’t think we’ve seen it as often as necessary.

[Owly]

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.

I'd like to reply to more aspects, but I don't know that I'll get around to it. Will at least respond to this one.....

The implication seems to be if you get even one or two seasons with Moses and Erving both near peak (or one at his peak and the other still in his prime), you've got a near guarantee on the title; whereas even 8+ seasons of overlapping primes for Stockton/Karl didn't garner one.

Suppose, however, that you fill out your Erving/Moses starting line-up with Howard Eisley at PG, Adam Keefe at PF, Jeff Malone at SG.....do they still win a title?

Or suppose you still allow them someone as good as prime Mo Cheeks at PG, but still Adam Keefe at PF and a small downgrade at SG to Shandon Anderson.......do they still win a title?


Point I'm making is that we can't pretend Moses/Erving carried some mediocre starting cast to a title in '83.
Mo Cheeks is clearly better (and by a good margin) than any third wheel Karl/Stockton had prior to the arrival of Jeff Hornacek----and he's probably (arguably, at least) a little better than Hornacek, too.

Then there's Bobby Jones at 4th-best: far and away better than any 4th-best player on those Stockton/Malone squads.
Then Andrew Toney at 5th-best: far and away better than any 5th-best player on those Stockton/Malone squads (hell, Andrew Toney was probably better than all 3rd-best Jazz players, prior to Hornacek arriving).
Seriously: we're comparing Bobby Jones and Andrew Toney to duo including guys like Greg Ostertag, Shandon Anderson, Felton Spencer, and 33+ year old Antoine Carr.


If I can paint a reasonable comparison using mid-late 90's NBA players......
Suppose in that '95-'98 range (comparable as the four-year range Erving and Moses were together, as it's at least a few years past Stockton's peak, and Stockton is pretty well into his post-prime by '98)----in addition to the trio of Stockton/Malone/Hornacek----the starting SF was '95-'98 versions of Detlef Schrempf, and the starting C was the '95-98 versions of Shawn Bradley. You think that line-up doesn't win a title somewhere in there? Because that's basically a rough equivalent of the supporting cast Moses/Erving/Cheeks had in Philly from '83-'86 (by '86 Bobby Jones was seriously declined and Andrew Toney was injured; but by then they also had 2nd-year Charles Barkley, so.....).

The other thing I was considering adding to this, along somewhat similar lines (in terms of having relevance to Utah's "supporting cast") is even if you accept the broad argument that other (reasonable synergy) pairings give a better downside in terms of "guaranteed titles" that doesn't in and of itself make them better. Stockton and Malone with a Hornacek calibre player (less if bench, SF, C are better ie a few more players clearly above replacement level) for their whole career give you a good shot at a title (say, totally plucking numbers out of the air here, 2nd favourites 20% ish chance of winning, higher once at the playoffs healthy). And that's not their upside. Give them a Bobby Jones, give them a Cheeks equivalent SG (Dumars?) and they provide the consistency to give you a dynasty (they don't suddenly age as Erving and Malone did, nor do you get the dip Erving had from 77-79, whatever it's causes).

[Nbafanatic]

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.

Let's put it this way: I don’t think stockton ever visibly “shied away from the moment” by passing up shots that he should’ve been taking over other teammates. From 94-97 in the playoffs, hornacek put up 15.6 PPG on 60.5% TS (10.9 FGAs per game). You could make the argument that hornacek could’ve been taking a few more shots per game when scoring at reasonable volume on such high efficiency, too.

Paul is someone i’ve always defended against the weak “still hasn’t made it to the conf finals” criticism, yet I think with his scoring ability he actually could’ve “taken over” more games over the years. He’s a legitimate 30 pt threat as a scorer with his skillset, and I don’t think we’ve seen it as often as necessary.

Understood, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Just curious, based on your opinion about Chris Paul, do you agree that he already peaked higher than Stockton, anyway?

[DavidThompson34]

The guy did average basically 16 and 14 for about 4 seasons there of his prime. With leading the league in Steals or close to it. Don't know too many point guards that put up 16 and 14 while leading the league in steals in their prime.

Then factor in that he played 19 seasons at a high level and his prime lasted a very long time. I think he had about 10 seasons of averaging a double double. Most of his seasons had him around 13 and 11 on very high efficieny and one of the best defensive players and competitors in the NBA. 13 and 11, 14 and 12 somewhere around there.

No other pg other than Magic, Isiah, and Oscar had better career stats.

KJ had a comparable prime.

[PDX MM]

If I had the chance to pick any point guard in history to run my team the only one I would pick over Stockton is Magic. This does assume that Oscar isn't listed as a point which isn't unreal as I have seen him listed as a 2 and even a 3 before and Jerry West was a 2. I find it is such a shame how quickly people disregard what he did in his career.

[G35]

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.

Before I rant, I do like the premise of your post. Stockton is not someone you look at and fear, he is not even someone you watch play and you fear. He is someone you play against and the more times you play against him the more you are like damn, this dude is killing me softly and I don't even know how he does it.

Yes WB makes you fear him...individually. You don't fear that he is going to lead a tidal wave of offense against you i.e. teams fear WB not his teammates (albiet Durant).

I think great players all have a way of intimidating you but in different ways. Imo, Stockton is the Tim Duncan of PG's. He just keeps grinding and grinding no matter what the situation is, he's like that old group of guys at the gym that beat you with back cuts, bank shots, and picks (no one sets picks in pick up ball!). He can do more things than I think he showed, in fact if you really think about it, many players in the NBA can do more but they don't. They have to compromise their skills/abilities for the sake of making the team, team goals, or because there is someone better on the team at making shots. Why should Stockton try to go one on one when he has Karl Malone? Isn't that the complaint about WB that he doesn't put Durant's skill set to better use? Believe me, if Stockton was on the Thunder, Durant would be winning multiple MVP's.

I think the reason why Stockton is underrated and not looked on favorably is because he put the team first; he didn't call his number because he felt his job was to help the offense score, not score points himself. Plus he just doesn't look the part. Similar to Steph Curry many people (myself included) have a hard time getting over his look. But now we have accepted that he is unreal. Stockton would have been even better in this era where PG's own the offense. Perhaps he could have played for a Kerr, D'Antoni and he could have highlighted himself.

Stockton's strength is he could play in any style. He could play like Nash or Curry in an uptempo offense, or he could play like Rondo/Billups in the half court. There are few other PG's that are that truly versatile......

[Manuel Calavera]

Suppose, however, that you fill out your Erving/Moses starting line-up with Howard Eisley at PG, Adam Keefe at PF, Jeff Malone at SG.....do they still win a title?

Or suppose you still allow them someone as good as prime Mo Cheeks at PG, but still Adam Keefe at PF and a small downgrade at SG to Shandon Anderson.......do they still win a title?

Point I'm making is that we can't pretend Moses/Erving carried some mediocre starting cast to a title in '83.
Mo Cheeks is clearly better (and by a good margin) than any third wheel Karl/Stockton had prior to the arrival of Jeff Hornacek----and he's probably (arguably, at least) a little better than Hornacek, too.

Then there's Bobby Jones at 4th-best: far and away better than any 4th-best player on those Stockton/Malone squads.
Then Andrew Toney at 5th-best: far and away better than any 5th-best player on those Stockton/Malone squads (hell, Andrew Toney was probably better than all 3rd-best Jazz players, prior to Hornacek arriving).
Seriously: we're comparing Bobby Jones and Andrew Toney to duo including guys like Greg Ostertag, Shandon Anderson, Felton Spencer, and 33+ year old Antoine Carr.

I would say in both cases they are still the favorites in all of the late 80's and early 90's. And we're talking about a league that is much stronger than it was in the late 90's. There's no one in the league that could contain Moses and Erving was playing about as well as anyone in the leagues history at that point. The supporting case can't be d-league level but as long as they are not comically inept they are going to be the favorites. I mean, how many times has a team had 2 guys even playing at that level on the same team before? Durant/Westbrook might be a good comparison except they don't fit together nearly as well as Malone/Erving and they are still winning >60 games whenever the two of them are healthy.

If I can paint a reasonable comparison using mid-late 90's NBA players......
Suppose in that '95-'98 range (comparable as the four-year range Erving and Moses were together, as it's at least a few years past Stockton's peak, and Stockton is pretty well into his post-prime by '98)----in addition to the trio of Stockton/Malone/Hornacek----the starting SF was '95-'98 versions of Detlef Schrempf, and the starting C was the '95-98 versions of Shawn Bradley. You think that line-up doesn't win a title somewhere in there? Because that's basically a rough equivalent of the supporting cast Moses/Erving/Cheeks had in Philly from '83-'86 (by '86 Bobby Jones was seriously declined and Andrew Toney was injured; but by then they also had 2nd-year Charles Barkley, so.....).

They still probably get beat by the Bulls every year, while the '83 76ers nearly swept their way to the title against imo better quality teams. Their best chance is in '95 with Detlef covering some of the deficiencies, but they still lack the interior defense to deal with DRob/Shaq/Hakeem.

[Nbafanatic]

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.

Before I rant, I do like the premise of your post. Stockton is not someone you look at and fear, he is not even someone you watch play and you fear. He is someone you play against and the more times you play against him the more you are like damn, this dude is killing me softly and I don't even know how he does it.

Yes WB makes you fear him...individually. You don't fear that he is going to lead a tidal wave of offense against you i.e. teams fear WB not his teammates (albiet Durant).

I think great players all have a way of intimidating you but in different ways. Imo, Stockton is the Tim Duncan of PG's. He just keeps grinding and grinding no matter what the situation is, he's like that old group of guys at the gym that beat you with back cuts, bank shots, and picks (no one sets picks in pick up ball!). He can do more things than I think he showed, in fact if you really think about it, many players in the NBA can do more but they don't. They have to compromise their skills/abilities for the sake of making the team, team goals, or because there is someone better on the team at making shots. Why should Stockton try to go one on one when he has Karl Malone? Isn't that the complaint about WB that he doesn't put Durant's skill set to better use? Believe me, if Stockton was on the Thunder, Durant would be winning multiple MVP's.

I think the reason why Stockton is underrated and not looked on favorably is because he put the team first; he didn't call his number because he felt his job was to help the offense score, not score points himself. Plus he just doesn't look the part. Similar to Steph Curry many people (myself included) have a hard time getting over his look. But now we have accepted that he is unreal. Stockton would have been even better in this era where PG's own the offense. Perhaps he could have played for a Kerr, D'Antoni and he could have highlighted himself.

Stockton's strength is he could play in any style. He could play like Nash or Curry in an uptempo offense, or he could play like Rondo/Billups in the half court. There are few other PG's that are that truly versatile......

But that's the thing: I think it is not a given that he could do the same things like Nash and Curry are doing. To be able to do that, you gotta be able to shoot sometimes on your opponents face to make the defense honest. Stockton could not do that. He was not as good as a shooter as those guys. Of course he had great shooting efficiency, but the devastating majority of his shots were when he was wide open, he very seldom took contested shots, you know that. Even because of his low release point, slightly above his shoulder, he had to have space to let it fly.

[Clyde Frazier]

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.

Let's put it this way: I don’t think stockton ever visibly “shied away from the moment” by passing up shots that he should’ve been taking over other teammates. From 94-97 in the playoffs, hornacek put up 15.6 PPG on 60.5% TS (10.9 FGAs per game). You could make the argument that hornacek could’ve been taking a few more shots per game when scoring at reasonable volume on such high efficiency, too.

Paul is someone i’ve always defended against the weak “still hasn’t made it to the conf finals” criticism, yet I think with his scoring ability he actually could’ve “taken over” more games over the years. He’s a legitimate 30 pt threat as a scorer with his skillset, and I don’t think we’ve seen it as often as necessary.

Understood, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Just curious, based on your opinion about Chris Paul, do you agree that he already peaked higher than Stockton, anyway?

No argument there. I've been discussing all time career ranking for stockton in this thread, just to be clear.

[Nbafanatic]

Let's put it this way: I don’t think stockton ever visibly “shied away from the moment” by passing up shots that he should’ve been taking over other teammates. From 94-97 in the playoffs, hornacek put up 15.6 PPG on 60.5% TS (10.9 FGAs per game). You could make the argument that hornacek could’ve been taking a few more shots per game when scoring at reasonable volume on such high efficiency, too.

Paul is someone i’ve always defended against the weak “still hasn’t made it to the conf finals” criticism, yet I think with his scoring ability he actually could’ve “taken over” more games over the years. He’s a legitimate 30 pt threat as a scorer with his skillset, and I don’t think we’ve seen it as often as necessary.

Understood, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Just curious, based on your opinion about Chris Paul, do you agree that he already peaked higher than Stockton, anyway?

No argument there. I've been discussing all time career ranking for stockton in this thread, just to be clear.

Sure. That's why I asked about peak.

[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.

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.......

I was really going for a simpler approach. I think stockton is an all time great, and like all point guards I'm sure he's under valued. I'm not sure we'll ever find a way to factor in the value of a guy who makes others enjoy playing more. That is a value add that lasts even when said player is on the bench. I also was not claiming the Jazz had a loaded team, but just that for you to tell me two top 25 all time guys (and top 25 all times today, meaning they were what top 15 all time when they were playing?) weren't able to accomplish more surprises me.

My issue with Stockton is that, I just don't have evidence of him going the extra mile, breaking out of the system to take over a moment or a quarter like I'd want to have seen. I normally don't go here. You'll never hear me complain about Duncan not scoring more or KG. But I dunno, for a top 25 guy I just wish he had a few games where he showed more to his game. He was perfect at what he did, I just wanted to see him step into another role.

Clearly this might be terrible and wrong. I might be a darn fool, but I want a bit more from a guy that highly regarded. I guess I question if he knew when to stop up and by not knowing that it left him just short of where I'd want a top 25 guy. Or maybe I should marvel at his ability to master his role and play it as well as it can be.

[G35]

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.

Before I rant, I do like the premise of your post. Stockton is not someone you look at and fear, he is not even someone you watch play and you fear. He is someone you play against and the more times you play against him the more you are like damn, this dude is killing me softly and I don't even know how he does it.

Yes WB makes you fear him...individually. You don't fear that he is going to lead a tidal wave of offense against you i.e. teams fear WB not his teammates (albiet Durant).

I think great players all have a way of intimidating you but in different ways. Imo, Stockton is the Tim Duncan of PG's. He just keeps grinding and grinding no matter what the situation is, he's like that old group of guys at the gym that beat you with back cuts, bank shots, and picks (no one sets picks in pick up ball!). He can do more things than I think he showed, in fact if you really think about it, many players in the NBA can do more but they don't. They have to compromise their skills/abilities for the sake of making the team, team goals, or because there is someone better on the team at making shots. Why should Stockton try to go one on one when he has Karl Malone? Isn't that the complaint about WB that he doesn't put Durant's skill set to better use? Believe me, if Stockton was on the Thunder, Durant would be winning multiple MVP's.

I think the reason why Stockton is underrated and not looked on favorably is because he put the team first; he didn't call his number because he felt his job was to help the offense score, not score points himself. Plus he just doesn't look the part. Similar to Steph Curry many people (myself included) have a hard time getting over his look. But now we have accepted that he is unreal. Stockton would have been even better in this era where PG's own the offense. Perhaps he could have played for a Kerr, D'Antoni and he could have highlighted himself.

Stockton's strength is he could play in any style. He could play like Nash or Curry in an uptempo offense, or he could play like Rondo/Billups in the half court. There are few other PG's that are that truly versatile......

But that's the thing: I think it is not a given that he could do the same things like Nash and Curry are doing. To be able to do that, you gotta be able to shoot sometimes on your opponents face to make the defense honest. Stockton could not do that. He was not as good as a shooter as those guys. Of course he had great shooting efficiency, but the devastating majority of his shots were when he was wide open, he very seldom took contested shots, you know that. Even because of his low release point, slightly above his shoulder, he had to have space to let it fly.

No I don't think Stockton can do what Curry is doing, however, we have to remember, no one is doing what Curry is doing. Curry is in the perfect storm:

- right era
- right coach
- in his prime
- perfect teammates: great SG complement CHECK, great passing forward CHECK, rim protector/post defender CHECK, great 6th man CHECK,great utility man CHECK, change of pace backup PG CHECK

You could not ask for any more than what Curry is working with. He gets to do what he does best and that's shoot the 3 ball, he doesn't have to extend himself. That's what every superstar would want is a roster that complements their abilities. Stockton did not have that at all, he never had a great 3pt shooter on his team, he never had another great passer on his team, he did not have a coach who pushed the boundaries on offense. Stockton had an all time great PF who could run the floor and could play off the pick and roll like no one else. He had a conservative coach, and played in a conservative city, for a conservative owner.

Now I don't know why people act like Nash is some type of volume scorer. When was this? You mean a series here or there?

Nash's career numbers:

PPG 14.3 (peak 18.8)
FGA 10.6 (peak 13.4)

PER 36 Nash's peak PPG is 19.2/13.6 FGA

Nash's scoring is also capped because he never was a big minutes guy; he maxed out 35.4 MPG in 2006 and 35.3 in 2007 and for majority of his prime he is in the 33-34 MPG. Stockton maxed out at 38.7 MPG and fluctuated between 36-7 MPG which is a significant difference. Stockton was just more durable and contributed more because he was on the court more. I don't think Nash would be able to sustain any sort of primary scoring for a significant amount of games.

There is one particular reason why I don't look at Nash and Stockton's scoring equally is because the teams Nash played for were primarily offensive-centric teams. Nash never played on any elite defensive teams. Which is important when you consider that defense is more taxing to play than offense, every player perks up when they switch from defense to offense and you can tell the players who are bringing energy when it means getting back in transition defense and playing half court defense. The Jazz were heavy into controlling the pace of the game, they slowed the pace and forced teams to play in the half court. Nash teams were uptempo which allowed for more scoring opportunities; the Jazz essentially maximized each scoring possession.

So when the Jazz called a play it generally was for Karl Malone to get the ball in an advantageous position. Stockton generally did not isolate and score in a one on one, nor was he like Curry where he was allowed to pull up for 3PA whenever he felt like it. That was not considered smart basketball in the 80's and 90's...no one did that.

Honestly, I think Stockton was a better athlete than Nash, I think he had a quicker first step, absorbed contact better, more creative finishing and the thing is, is he had to be. The spacing that Nash had with all those shooters allowed for more creases, the Jazz offense was not about creating creases in an isolation situation......

[Warspite]

1 spot lower than Isiah Thomas.

So many posters value Stocktons defense yet several PGs career or season high scoring game was against the Jazz. In Johns defense Sloan refused to alter his defense or offense very much and Stockton was left on an island to get destroyed. Johns best defensive move was his ability to smash your testicles with either the outside or inside of his hand once you get past him.

During the Dream Team practices/scrimmages Stockton was beaten so badly by Bobby Hurley that he was benched. Charles suggested they had the wrong PG on the team.

Stockton might be the best passer of all time. Even with his system and score keeper inflated assist totals he had the ability to put the ball in a scoring position better than just about anyone I have seen. He was a great shooter as well and his willingness to get in the paint and deal with the trees is impressive (even if he was cheap shot/dirty player).

I wish he had a good coach and played in a better system so we could have seen what he could have done. Yet he had great regular season results running a 30yr old offense and playing in a defense that was already obsolete. IMHO that is what is so impressive about Stockton. Can you imagine one of todays PGs playing in a 80s offense and a 90s defense that totally ignores todays rules and still be a all star?

[G35]

1 spot lower than Isiah Thomas.

So many posters value Stocktons defense yet several PGs career or season high scoring game was against the Jazz. In Johns defense Sloan refused to alter his defense or offense very much and Stockton was left on an island to get destroyed. Johns best defensive move was his ability to smash your testicles with either the outside or inside of his hand once you get past him.

During the Dream Team practices/scrimmages Stockton was beaten so badly by Bobby Hurley that he was benched. Charles suggested they had the wrong PG on the team.

Stockton might be the best passer of all time. Even with his system and score keeper inflated assist totals he had the ability to put the ball in a scoring position better than just about anyone I have seen. He was a great shooter as well and his willingness to get in the paint and deal with the trees is impressive (even if he was cheap shot/dirty player).

I wish he had a good coach and played in a better system so we could have seen what he could have done. Yet he had great regular season results running a 30yr old offense and playing in a defense that was already obsolete. IMHO that is what is so impressive about Stockton. Can you imagine one of todays PGs playing in a 80s offense and a 90s defense that totally ignores todays rules and still be a all star?

My issue with Stockton is that, I just don't have evidence of him going the extra mile, breaking out of the system to take over a moment or a quarter like I'd want to have seen. I normally don't go here. You'll never hear me complain about Duncan not scoring more or KG. But I dunno, for a top 25 guy I just wish he had a few games where he showed more to his game. He was perfect at what he did, I just wanted to see him step into another role.

Clearly this might be terrible and wrong. I might be a darn fool, but I want a bit more from a guy that highly regarded. I guess I question if he knew when to stop up and by not knowing that it left him just short of where I'd want a top 25 guy. Or maybe I should marvel at his ability to master his role and play it as well as it can be.

I actually agree with both of these posts, they make legitimate points. Stockton rarely ever broke away from the Jazz system which is a strength and a weakness. The Jazz knew what they did best and stuck to it, however, when what they did best did not work they rarely adapted.

I can actually put Isiah above Stockton because he was the type to take over, he did break away from the system and do whatever it took to win. I think Stockton was capable of that but due to whatever reasons (personality, Sloan) he did not do those things. I think he could have because when Stockton was forced to take the shot he did have some signature moments, he probably should have been more selfish which is a rare thing to say......

[trex_8063]

1 spot lower than Isiah Thomas.

So many posters value Stocktons defense yet several PGs career or season high scoring game was against the Jazz.

Not saying it's untrue ('cause I don't know), but can you at least substantiate this? I know Isiah has a good record of individual success and had two season highs while facing Stockton (and I further know you're a Pistons fan); just wondering if this trend is consistent across several pg's, or if you're basing this on Isiah's track record against him.