Retro POY '91-92 (Voting Complete)

[JordansBulls]

So according to this project non superstars are:

26. Ben Wallace 0.059
27. Amar'e Stoudemire 0.051
29. Vince Carter 0.042
30. Chris Webber 0.035
32. Ray Allen 0.02
33. Chauncey Billups 0.018
37. Paul Pierce 0.008
39. Carmelo Anthony 0.004
40. Reggie Miller 0.004
41. Tim Hardaway 0.004
42. Shawn Kemp 0.004

I would say Tim Hardaway, Kemp, Melo, and Webber are all superstars.

[lorak]

If we're factoring in everything including playoffs, I'd agree with that.

Rally? So what with for example Carter 2001 or Pierce 2003 and 2002? They were not superstars in that seasons?

Besides, term “superstar” is too subjective and the problem with Stockton always was not about if he was a superstar, but how good as a player he was. This project don’t answers that question, for example because it’s possible that at one point in history there were more better players so it was harder to be in top 5. Late 80s and early 90s are by many consider as the best era in history and that was the time when Stockton had his prime.

[semi-sentient]

Just to throw some numbers out there, here is what Stockton did from 1987-88 to 1990-91:

1987-88
RS: 14.7 pts (.645 TS%), 3.0 reb, 13.8 ast, 3.0 stl, 3.2 tov
PS: 19.5 pts (.618 TS%), 4.1 reb, 14.8 ast, 3.4 stl, 4.4 tov

1988-89
RS: 17.1 pts (.624 TS%), 3.0 reb, 13.6 ast, 3.2 stl, 3.8 tov
PS: 27.3 pts (.601 TS%), 3.3 reb, 13.7 ast, 3.7 stl, 3.7 tov

1989-90
RS: 17.2 pts (.607 TS%), 2.6 reb, 14.5 ast, 2.7 stl, 3.5 tov
PS: 15.0 pts (.482 TS%), 3.2 reb, 15.0 ast, 1.2 stl, 2.8 tov

1990-91
RS: 17.2 pts (.604 TS%), 2.9 reb, 14.2 ast, 2.9 stl, 3.6 tov
PS: 18.2 pts (.644 TS%), 4.7 reb, 13.8 ast, 2.2 stl, 3.6 tov


Those numbers blow away what any other PG is currently putting up (or has put up since that time), yet guys like CP3 and Rondo are getting hyped up like nobodies business and considered superstars or borderline superstars. It's crazy.

[Doctor MJ]

Layden was wrong. It takes him several seasons to realize how good Stockton was, and when he finally realized it, it was too late for him and he was fired at the beginning of the 1988 season. But to be fair to Layden, he doesn’t had much choice, I mean he already had All Star point guard and he have to play him, because that = more fans and money (especially in comparison to some white, skinny guy from no name university).

Unfortunately we haven’t much data from 80s, for example in 1986 Stockton started in +30 games. If only we had game logs from that season, we would be able to estimate his value.

But we could look at other things. For example when Stockton finally became a starter the Jazz improved from +0.4 efficiency differential in 1987 to +3.7 differential in 1988.
In 1988 Stockton played 984 more minutes than in 1987 so it’s possible that 1k minutes from Stockton is worth about +3 efficiency differential. So in normal season, when player is playing about 3k minutes, Stockton value would be about +9, what’s amazing results.

For sure it’s too good to be true, but advanced non box score data we have from 2000-2003, so Winston’s +/- (Stockton had +8.2 so result as amazing as +9) or 82games.com +/- (+7 in his last season in the NBA. So imagine how good he have to be when he was younger), confirms that Stockton’s value was very high, much higher than box score numbers indicate. Well, even in 1998, his value for Jazz was really huge, because in games which he played (64) Utah had the best offensive team of all time (according to ORtg relatively to league average).

Ah yes, that's right, Sloan wasn't coach yet.

As I mentioned before, if you fully embraced "well the coach was totally wrong not to play Stockton" more, you can make a case for Stockton having more of an impact. To me this seems pretty far fetched because literally we're dealing with a team that for 5 straight season won between 41 and 47 games. That's incredible consistency.

Getting back to Winston's Stockton +/-, it is a reasonable thing to keep bringing up with regards to Stockton. If you look at Rosenbaum's APM for 2002-2004, Stockton's got about the same number their that Winston has for him, and you see that lots of guys in that two year span surpassed it - meaning Stockton's not scoring that HIGH, he's just winning out due to consistency. What do we know about the consistency? Well, Stockton had played the same role in the most stable coaching system in the league for quite a while - kinda makes sense that there wouldn't be huge differences from year to year there. The fact that we're only seeing 4 years of Stockton compared to 10 of most others helps makes consistency a bit easier too.

So, the +/- is a good thing, but it's not otherworldly impressive.

[Sedale Threatt]

I'm probably selling him way, way short, and succumbing to subjectivity, but I just never got the sense that Stockton was more than a complementary player. An absolutely phenomenal one, but a secondary type player nonetheless.

Again, this is just personal impression, the bulk of which was formed 20 years ago or so. But as somebody already noted -- Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, his own teammate Malone...how does he edge any of those guys, outstanding numbers or not?

He just wasn't as good as those guys were, IMO.

[Doctor MJ]

Just to throw some numbers out there, here is what Stockton did from 1987-88 to 1990-91:

1987-88
RS: 14.7 pts (.645 TS%), 3.0 reb, 13.8 ast, 3.0 stl, 3.2 tov
PS: 19.5 pts (.618 TS%), 4.1 reb, 14.8 ast, 3.4 stl, 4.4 tov

1988-89
RS: 17.1 pts (.624 TS%), 3.0 reb, 13.6 ast, 3.2 stl, 3.8 tov
PS: 27.3 pts (.601 TS%), 3.3 reb, 13.7 ast, 3.7 stl, 3.7 tov

1989-90
RS: 17.2 pts (.607 TS%), 2.6 reb, 14.5 ast, 2.7 stl, 3.5 tov
PS: 15.0 pts (.482 TS%), 3.2 reb, 15.0 ast, 1.2 stl, 2.8 tov

1990-91
RS: 17.2 pts (.604 TS%), 2.9 reb, 14.2 ast, 2.9 stl, 3.6 tov
PS: 18.2 pts (.644 TS%), 4.7 reb, 13.8 ast, 2.2 stl, 3.6 tov


Those numbers blow away what any other PG is currently putting up (or has put up since that time), yet guys like CP3 and Rondo are getting hyped up like nobodies business and considered superstars or borderline superstars. It's crazy.

Hmm, well a few things:

-Stockton's stats certainly don't "blow away" Chris Paul's - I imagine that didn't come out quite the way you meant it.

-You're right that Rondo's getting a ridiculous amount of hype relative to his stats, but keep in mind that that's not a reflection of the current environment's view of stats - other guys with that level of stats are not getting any where near that kind of love.

-Stockton's assists are very much inflated. I'm not saying he's not a great passer, but the Jazz racked up assists in Stockton's early years like nobody's business, even when Stockton wasn't playing much, and even when the offense wasn't very effective.

-Regarding Stockton's post-season's numbers it's worth spending some time on his one big year ('89 playoffs). Stockton's career is notable for his seeming inability or unwillingness to take over games. In that post-season, he doesn't seem to have that issue. This would be clearly a big deal, if it had happened in a post-season where the Jazz accomplished something. Instead if happened in a post-season where the Jazz got swept with ease in the first round by a team with a much worse record. Very strange.

[kaima]

Just to throw some numbers out there, here is what Stockton did from 1987-88 to 1990-91:

1987-88
RS: 14.7 pts (.645 TS%), 3.0 reb, 13.8 ast, 3.0 stl, 3.2 tov
PS: 19.5 pts (.618 TS%), 4.1 reb, 14.8 ast, 3.4 stl, 4.4 tov

1988-89
RS: 17.1 pts (.624 TS%), 3.0 reb, 13.6 ast, 3.2 stl, 3.8 tov
PS: 27.3 pts (.601 TS%), 3.3 reb, 13.7 ast, 3.7 stl, 3.7 tov

1989-90
RS: 17.2 pts (.607 TS%), 2.6 reb, 14.5 ast, 2.7 stl, 3.5 tov
PS: 15.0 pts (.482 TS%), 3.2 reb, 15.0 ast, 1.2 stl, 2.8 tov

1990-91
RS: 17.2 pts (.604 TS%), 2.9 reb, 14.2 ast, 2.9 stl, 3.6 tov
PS: 18.2 pts (.644 TS%), 4.7 reb, 13.8 ast, 2.2 stl, 3.6 tov


Those numbers blow away what any other PG is currently putting up (or has put up since that time), yet guys like CP3 and Rondo are getting hyped up like nobodies business and considered superstars or borderline superstars. It's crazy.

His assist/TO ratio is pretty damned amazing as well. I compared Stockton at his peak to Kidd, and Stockton was averaging about five more assists with fewer TOs peak vs peak. Just outrageous.

Consider Stockton's numbers above, then consider that Nash won an MVP on about 15 and 11. If you say that he was more than that, I might agree -- but Stockton, while putting up stats that have never been matched at the PG position, was more than his numbers as well.

Why did he not get more MVP consideration? I tend to think it's the symbiosis of his partnership with Malone, wherein both are attacked to an extent because of that yin/yang issue -- Stockton, as far as media votes, more (and, honestly, Malone V Stockton is tough for Stockton; but I don't see how Payton, Kidd, et cetera wouldn't be overshadowed if they played with Malone, as well) -- as well as era (Magic, MJ, Barkley, Karl, Hakeem, etc.) and the carry-through on Utah's mediocrity during Stockton's peak.

An example would be Mark Price making the All-NBA team over Stockton in 93. To me, that's ridiculous, and shows how bad the media can be as far as popularity contests rather than real analysis of value and skill -- yet, to others, I'm sure it proves something negative about Stockton.

From my perspective, Stockton being dissed in such a way has about as much credibility as Shaq losing an MVP to Iverson.

Also, despite what's been said about guys "connecting" with Stockton, he was not very nice to the media generally, and not very liked; his hideout personality was not doing him any favors as far as promotion, which is a big part of superstar recognition.

People say that Malone was better than Stockton. But Malone was better than every modern superstar PG except Magic.

If you just look at Stocton's five year peak on stats, that is a superstar. If it's not, then the PG position -- again, outside Magic -- simply does not produce such creatures.

[Sedale Threatt]

Good post.

[lorak]

Getting back to Winston's Stockton +/-, it is a reasonable thing to keep bringing up with regards to Stockton. If you look at Rosenbaum's APM for 2002-2004, Stockton's got about the same number their that Winston has for him, and you see that lots of guys in that two year span surpassed it

Well, Rosenbaum’s list is about only one Stockton’s season, his last, when he was 40 years old and still only 17 players were better than him. So I think it’s rational to assume that prime Stockton had bigger impact. Winston’s list in some way confirms that assumption because several earlier Stockton’s seasons are included (2000, 2001, 2002 and of course 2003), so when he was better his position is also better – 8th place.

Another point to consideration – Stockton never was a scorer and people always look at points. That’s not always accurate way to evaluate player’s value and in Stockton’s case relatively low amount of points hurts his reputation. He wasn’t selfish enough, he was ultimate team player and maybe – ironically, because it's team game – that’s part of the problem with him.

[Doctor MJ]

Well, Rosenbaum’s list is about only one Stockton’s season, his last, when he was 40 years old and still only 17 players were better than him. So I think it’s rational to assume that prime Stockton had bigger impact. Winston’s list in some way confirms that assumption because several earlier Stockton’s seasons are included (2000, 2001, 2002 and of course 2003), so when he was better his position is also better – 8th place.

Another point to consideration – Stockton never was a scorer and people always look at points. That’s not always accurate way to evaluate player’s value and in Stockton’s case relatively low amount of points hurts his reputation. He wasn’t selfish enough, he was ultimate team player and maybe – ironically, because it's team game – that’s part of the problem with him.

First off, I certainly agree he had greater impact in his prime than at age 40. So, yes, prime Stockton was better than 17th.

Seems like I didn't properly communicate the consistency angle. If you're consistently having about the 15th best season in the league, and other guys are less consistent, your cumulative ranking can rise up a good deal. A good bet that that's what happened with Stockton since his rating for his last year looks pretty close to the rating over 4 years. (Caveat, these numbers come from two different sources, so it's a little dangerous to equate them, but since the numbers look similar, are trying to accomplish the same thing, Rosenbaum did this immediately after Winston, and both guys are academics, seems like pretty decent approximation)

I'll explain a little bit further about the scoring: People look at Stockton's scoring relative to Nash and some others and say "Not that much smaller, and great efficiency, I'm sure he was as good of a scorer as them". Sometimes though, when you're a talented distributor and scorer, your team needs you to take over and score. Stockton track record show he was incredibly unlikely to put up a big scoring game, and that taints him as a scorer a good deal. Now if you want to say "Agree with you, but his distribution is what makes him the best", you can disregard my point about scoring.

[kaima]

Hmm, well a few things:

-Stockton's stats certainly don't "blow away" Chris Paul's - I imagine that didn't come out quite the way you meant it.

Depends. What Stockton did was never done before and has not been accomplished since. 5 years of 13+/14+ assists (Paul's high is under 12), typically over 50% shooting (including a season where he shot 58%, which is obscene) with about 3 steals (Chris Paul's never done this) per and 15-17 points for good measure.

-Stockton's assists are very much inflated. I'm not saying he's not a great passer, but the Jazz racked up assists in Stockton's early years like nobody's business, even when Stockton wasn't playing much, and even when the offense wasn't very effective.

Isn't this, honestly, a bit of a circular argument? It's like saying Malone's PPG doesn't carry the weight because the offense, likewise, wanted him to have as many shots as possible.

Further, I'm not seeing all that much evidence of across the board inflation. Rickey Green's high was 9.2 per. You could say that was relative to his skill, but the fact is that his assist rate appears about the same even after he left Utah.

For instance, in 85-86 Rickey Green played 25.8 minutes per and averaged 5.1 assists with 11.7 points per, while in 90-91 on the Sixers he averaged 28.5 minutes, 5.2 assists and 10 points. Considering age between stanzas, especially for a guard, and slightly lowered offense/shots per, it doesn't appear that Utah's system was doing much inflating in that case.

Meanwhile, Stockton was putting up about 8 assists -- again, this could be certain seasons from a prime Kidd -- while playing barely over 20 minutes per game his first three seasons.

And, looking at the Lakers team stats, the same overall argument could be made about them. LA, in 87-88, had an aggregate of 2347 assists. Utah comes in at 2407.

Do I think Magic's assist numbers are inflated by LA's pace and 'system' under Riley? Not really. But I also don't think it's that fair to consider Stockton in that context, then, especially when he was playing with a much less talented squad night to night.

And, consider, Stockton's numbers didn't change from Layden to Sloan, even though the latter transmogrified Utah from a fastbreak team to a halfcourt unit.

Also, consider that Stockton has the highest, I believe, assist percentage in history, as well as one of the best A/TO rates I've ever seen ( 3.75 over 19 years), which means he has not only a super prodigious output but that this was added to because of his rare accuracy in general and under pressure. He created more opportunities, then, than even the normal superstar PG.

-Regarding Stockton's post-season's numbers it's worth spending some time on his one big year ('89 playoffs). Stockton's career is notable for his seeming inability or unwillingness to take over games. In that post-season, he doesn't seem to have that issue. This would be clearly a big deal, if it had happened in a post-season where the Jazz accomplished something. Instead if happened in a post-season where the Jazz got swept with ease in the first round by a team with a much worse record. Very strange.

This might just prove that, despite all the criticism (and I've been critical of him here), Stockton was deadlier when facilitated Utah's offense than scoring a large sum.

I need to look more closely at the series (not now), but I think Nellie pace-controlled Utah. Usually Stockton was doing that to the other team.

Sorry to anybody that came in here looking for a debate on 91-92. I'm going to try and stay away from this (I know, I know) and focus on Drexler-Malone, Drexler-Jordan, and Knicks-Bulls.

[semi-sentient]

-Stockton's stats certainly don't "blow away" Chris Paul's - I imagine that didn't come out quite the way you meant it.

An exaggeration on my part. CP3 and Nash are both pretty phenomenal and probably the closest, but they still fall shot IMO. I think I looked this up a while ago, but the only PG in the history of the game that's more efficient than Stockton (scoring-wise) is Magic Johnson (.610 career TS%). I guess that's what stands out to me the most (in addition to his assists and steals, of course). I just think that if those guys are considered superstars, then so should Stockton.

Oh, and sorry for getting things off track... lol. None of this particularly matters in this thread since Stockton won't be getting my vote for top 5 this year or even the next (90-91). Not sure how he'll do beyond that because I haven't looked at things too closely.

[lorak]

Seems like I didn't properly communicate the consistency angle. If you're consistently having about the 15th best season in the league, and other guys are less consistent, your cumulative ranking can rise up a good deal.

Yes, but in this case (Winston’s list) we are comparing Stockton to pretty consistent players: KG, Duncan, LJ, Dirk, Wade, Paul and Kobe. All of them from 2000 to 2009 were in the prime or approach that level (LJ, Wade, Paul). So Stockton was so high (8th place) not because he was consistent and others not, but because Stockton was as consistent as several superstars in their primes in that decade.

[Doctor MJ]

Depends. What Stockton did was never done before and has not been accomplished since. 5 years of 13+/14+ assists (Paul's high is under 12), typically over 50% shooting (including a season where he shot 58%, which is obscene) with about 3 steals (Chris Paul's never done this) per and 15-17 points for good measure.

Chris Paul's PER flirts with 30, Stockton's best is south of 24. If you want to argue that Paul's stats don't blow away Stockton's, I'll listen - but the idea that anyone's stats "blow away" Paul's is comical.

Isn't this, honestly, a bit of a circular argument? It's like saying Malone's PPG doesn't carry the weight because the offense, likewise, wanted him to have as many shots as possible.

Further, I'm not seeing all that much evidence of across the board inflation. Rickey Green's high was 9.2 per. You could say that was relative to his skill, but the fact is that his assist rate appears about the same even after he left Utah.

For instance, in 85-86 Rickey Green played 25.8 minutes per and averaged 5.1 assists with 11.7 points per, while in 90-91 on the Sixers he averaged 28.5 minutes, 5.2 assists and 10 points. Considering age between stanzas, especially for a guard, and slightly lowered offense/shots per, it doesn't appear that Utah's system was doing much inflating in that case.

Meanwhile, Stockton was putting up about 8 assists -- again, this could be certain seasons from a prime Kidd -- while playing barely over 20 minutes per game his first three seasons.

And, looking at the Lakers team stats, the same overall argument could be made about them. LA, in 87-88, had an aggregate of 2347 assists. Utah comes in at 2407.

Do I think Magic's assist numbers are inflated by LA's pace and 'system' under Riley? Not really. But I also don't think it's that fair to consider Stockton in that context, then, especially when he was playing with a much less talented squad night to night.

And, consider, Stockton's numbers didn't change from Layden to Sloan, even though the latter transmogrified Utah from a fastbreak team to a halfcourt unit.

Also, consider that Stockton has the highest, I believe, assist percentage in history, as well as one of the best A/TO rates I've ever seen ( 3.75 over 19 years), which means he has not only a super prodigious output but that this was added to because of his rare accuracy in general and under pressure. He created more opportunities, then, than even the normal superstar PG.

Circular? Not at all.

I'm not saying Stockton's are inflated because the Jazz are inflated because Stockton got a lot. I'm specifically bringing up time when he wasn't putting up big numbers but the team still was.

And to make clear: I'm also saying that a team that racks up assists without racking up efficiency makes clear that the two don't necessarily correlate that well - and efficiency is the only one of the two that really matters. That the Jazz put up big assists in a season where the offense was a clear failure means that you can't look at their assists to assess whether they were successful.

This might just prove that, despite all the criticism (and I've been critical of him here), Stockton was deadlier when facilitated Utah's offense than scoring a large sum.

I need to look more closely at the series (not now), but I think Nellie pace-controlled Utah. Usually Stockton was doing that to the other team.

Sorry to anybody that came in here looking for a debate on 91-92. I'm going to try and stay away from this (I know, I know) and focus on Drexler-Malone, Drexler-Jordan, and Knicks-Bulls.

I'm honestly not decided on what it means.

[drza]

Thoughts on '92:

Weird year. This was officially the end of the Magic/Bird era, with Magic's sudden retirement in the offseason and Bird struggling through 45 games before retiring at season's end. This left a vacuum among the "top" players.

Also, we had 3 players that easily could have been in the top-5 all miss the playoffs (2 with terrible teams, 2 with injury issues). Based off of their performances, I would likely have Hakeem, Robinson, and Barkley all in (or strongly considered) for top-5 consideraton if not for team result. And since I don't let team result stop me when a player is obviously performing, I likely will have at least some of them in my top-5 anyway. I'm seriously bemoaning the lack of +/- data here, as those stats would really help me separate between player and team performance.

The putative top-3 seem to be Jordan then Drexler and Malone in some order. The problem is that I definitely didn't think they were #2 and 3 in the NBA at the time, and the issues with the above-mentioned 5 players that all could have been better make it hard to gauge.

I'm high on Pippen, and this year seems like a year I'd like to rank him. No idea how to value him with respect to the stories above, though. Ewing seems like he should figure into the mix somewhere as well.

All in all, I hope the discussion picks up more before tomorrow because I have no idea where to go with this one. I'm especially interested in people's relative valuations for Hakeem, Robinson, Malone, Drexler, Ewing and Pippen. Not so much based on their team's success or their numbers, but based upon their on-court play and how much their teams relied upon them. We're approaching 20 years ago now and the League Pass didn't exist, so I'm hoping for some of the individual fans and/or film watchers to help me put my own memories in perspective.

[Doctor MJ]

I think I looked this up a while ago, but the only PG in the history of the game that's more efficient than Stockton (scoring-wise) is Magic Johnson (.610 career TS%). I guess that's what stands out to me the most (in addition to his assists and steals, of course). I just think that if those guys are considered superstars, then so should Stockton.

Oh, and sorry for getting things off track... lol. None of this particularly matters in this thread since Stockton won't be getting my vote for top 5 this year or even the next (90-91). Not sure how he'll do beyond that because I haven't looked at things too closely.

The TS efficiency is why I brought up scoring volume. When a guy takes it upon himself to become a "the scorer" (for however much time), it means he faces more defensive pressure, and can't be content simply with the shots that are in his comfort zone. You expect his efficiency to go down some, and as long as he's taking on this role wisely and he doesn't fall of the map, you don't dock him for it.

Stockton playing his career with such incredibly consistency as a non-volume scorer is indicative of a guy who shoots when he gets an opportunity that's in his comfort zone more than typical. I'm not saying this on the whole a bad thing. I'd love to have a guy like that on my team - but if I'm comparing him to a guy who has comparable efficiency when he shoots at the same volume, and who rises to a much higher volume when needed with only a modest drop off in efficiency, it's pretty clear who I want as a scorer.

[Doctor MJ]

Seems like I didn't properly communicate the consistency angle. If you're consistently having about the 15th best season in the league, and other guys are less consistent, your cumulative ranking can rise up a good deal.

Yes, but in this case (Winston’s list) we are comparing Stockton to pretty consistent players: KG, Duncan, LJ, Dirk, Wade, Paul and Kobe. All of them from 2000 to 2009 were in the prime or approach that level (LJ, Wade, Paul). So Stockton was so high (8th place) not because he was consistent and others not, but because Stockton was as consistent as several superstars in their primes in that decade.

Stockton not in 8th place because of how he stacks up compared to the guys you mention - they all beat him. The question is about the guys he beat.

Also has to be noted that the 3 young guys you mention are clearly hurt by their early years (rookies do terrible in +/-, so don't read anything into Stockton being close to them.

The fact that Kobe's barely ahead of Stockton though is telling. Undoubtedly partly influenced by Shaq and turmoil the early years, but even in later years, Kobe's lagged a bit behind his reputation with this stat.

[Dr Positivity]

1. Jordan - Easy choice.
2. Drexler - Even though I think his team was better than Malone's, I think Drexler was in the clear bridesmaid position this year. A month before the finals SI published a Drexler/Jordan cover listing Drexler as his biggest rival and creating a closer comparison than Drex probably deserved. Jordan used this to amp him up to destroy Drexler in Game 1 and on, and then carried it over to the Olympics where he ate Clyde's soul
3. Karl Malone - 28/11 .60 TS%, good playoffs, made the WCF. All around one of his best years.
4. Patrick Ewing - Really solid year for Pat. 24/11 and anchored a great d. Also his Game 1 in the Chicago series wins a vote for one of the more underrated games around. He dropped 34/16/5 and 6 blocks and the Knicks took Game 1 on the road against one of the best teams statistically of all time. The Knicks pushed the Bulls hard that year.

Drob would ordinarily be the easy 5 choice, but he missed the playoffs so he's out. So that leaves a handul of names. Barkley, Pippen, Daughtery, KJ, Mullin, and, Isiah, who was still putting around the same numbers as the 5 years before this.

It's tempting to take Barkley just because he's ordinarily on just another level than these guys, but taking him this year brings enough baggage to wreck it. So it came down to Pippen and KJ. I went with Pippen. 20/7/7 and a 21.5 PER is pretty nice for a guy who doesn't rely on stats for impact. Helped anchor one of the best teams ever and the title winner. I like Pippen here.

5. Pippen

[kaima]

A comment on Stockton that's at least On-Topic:

Another long-time Jazz assistant, Gordon Chiesa, recalled an incident during the 1992 Western Conference finals against Portland when Stockton exhibited his ferocity and Sloan demonstrated his trust.

"We ran a played called 'fist one,' where our point guard screens the other team's four-man," Chiesa said.

Stockton's job? Set a pick on the Trail Blazers' Buck Williams.

"Buck is a man," Chiesa said. "I mean, he's big and strong and he takes pride in guarding people. So John sets a screen and Buck takes his head off -- I mean, just takes his head off. He looks like a bobblehead."

A foul was called on Williams and a TV timeout sent both teams to their benches.

Said Chiesa: "John comes over, looks Jerry in the eye and yells, 'Don't even think about not calling that play again.' John thinks for a second, looks at Jerry again and says, 'Call it again. Right now.' So Jerry did."

On the Jazz's next possession, Chiesa said, "John sets a screen, stands Buck Williams straight up and Karl Malone gets a [three-point play]. Amazing."

[ronnymac2]

The TS efficiency is why I brought up scoring volume. When a guy takes it upon himself to become a "the scorer" (for however much time), it means he faces more defensive pressure, and can't be content simply with the shots that are in his comfort zone. You expect his efficiency to go down some, and as long as he's taking on this role wisely and he doesn't fall of the map, you don't dock him for it.

Stockton playing his career with such incredibly consistency as a non-volume scorer is indicative of a guy who shoots when he gets an opportunity that's in his comfort zone more than typical. I'm not saying this on the whole a bad thing. I'd love to have a guy like that on my team - but if I'm comparing him to a guy who has comparable efficiency when he shoots at the same volume, and who rises to a much higher volume when needed with only a modest drop off in efficiency, it's pretty clear who I want as a scorer.

This is why I'm not a Stockton fan. He's the David Robinson of point guards in the sense that he'll never take the chance. You could watch the game at times, and if you didn't know who the players were or what the teams but still understood the game of basketball, you'd be sure the 6'1 guy on the Jazz was just a very good role player.

Steve Nash showed me this year that he is the type of player that will put his ass on the line in the big games. I mean, he's done this his whole career in PHX, but I appreciated it more- possibly because he did it to my team. He scared the **** out of me. I respect him. I'll take him over Stockton and his stats. I'd take Chris Paul and Deron Williams over John Stockton, too. I'd even think about taking prime Chauncey Billups over him.



I watched game 5 of the WCF yesterday. Karl Malone didn't have his star pg in the second half, yet he scored 28 points in that half and didn't have much of a problem in iso situations despite being defended by all-league defender Buck Williams and the tough Blazer frontline. He did that without spacing, too. He rebounded well.

Malone played fantastic all playoffs long. I think people need to re-think Drexler vs. Malone. Drexler was great and all, but is his slightly greater team success, hyped matchup with MJ, and number two finish is MVP voting really all it takes to put him ahead of a superior player with no black marks against him for the season?

I actually feel bad for Robinson. I can't put him in if I'm going to be consistent about things, but his defensive stats are just sick this year.