Didn't get a chance to reply to this from the last thread until now.
An Unbiased Fan wrote:The context of John Stockton being selected for the Dream Team is VASTLY different from Laettner, who only got in becuase they wanted to pick one college guy. The point is that your earlier comparison of Stockton to Mark Jackson was off base.
Still, although it's respectable and admirable that they are representing our country, it doesn't make him any greater, especially considering it was one of the weakest points in NBA history for point-guards (prior to Payton/Kidd/Hardaway).
MVP =/= Best player
Exactly. Which Stockton never got any acknowledgement for,
I mean really, Nash has more MVPs than Shaq, but his peak was no where comparable. Stockton wasn't going to get high MVP rankings when he teammate is Karl Malone. Nash wouldn't have been getting top MVP votes in the 90's either, so it's a strange point to begin with. Nash wouldn't have been given major MVP votes if he had stayed next to Dirk, who was a better player.
You can nitpick all you want, but we're talking about FACTS that have been DONE. Nash has been there, done that, and did in historic fashion offensively, talk about numbers all you want but production wise Nash was the foundation set around 5 of the greatest offenses ever, and he's done it with different teammates, coaches, and offensive schemes.
Stockton's elite years blow Nash out of the water production-wise. How can you dismiss his utter domination at the PG position?
Yet even then, Stockton was never the best player on any of his teams in any given seasons, while yet even during Utah's peak finals runs, he was going DOWN in production, drastically, and EVEN then there's no correlation to MVP voting impact wise.
1) You're confused why a PG leading the NBA 8 straight years in apg is relevant? Really, why? It shows that Stockton beat Nash's best year in apg...8 straight seasons during his prime. Stockton's production blows Nash out of the water, and he did it for a much longer span of years.
Yet he still didn't anchor one of the finest offense ever, where's the correlation? There is none. Again, production wise he's still not close, therefore making all of this analysis irrelevant.
2) Accolade-wise, Stockton has more All-NBA teams, and 5 All-D teams. Stockton was never high in MVP rankings, but again, that had to do with how people voted in that era, and his star teammate.
Yet, peak still trumps everything. As it clearly determines the better player. I'll say it again, Stockton put up many great seasons, but there were never anywhere close to being elite-superstar caliber seasons. What makes him even greater than Pippen?
Nash's efficiency went up due to rule changes & D'Antoni's schemes.
Yet he continued that in numerous offensive schemes without D'Antoni, AND utilized his style of play to put even more historic seasons offensively speaking under different coaches. Point is moot.
Also, When we talk about all-time greats, longevity factors in, and for most of his career, Nash wasn't a 50/40/90 guy, nor did he top 8.8 apg. Nash's USG% was actually higher than Stockton's, even in Dallas.
No, clearly not. We look at overall skill and how they impact the game of basketball, more realistically speaking who the better basket-ball player is, that's where I'll say it again peak trumps everything.
So when you have a guy like Stockton who did this for 15 years, it's quite striking. Think about this, in 2003 Stock was 40 years old, yet still dishing out 7.7 apg. Nash was 28 and dropped 7.3 apg. Even past his prime, Stockton out-produced Nash every year they were in the league together. In Stock's first 2 years he had 7.4 & 8.2 apg, but in only 23.6 & 22.7 mpg. So even when "he was under utilized", he produced.
I have no idea why total assists averages per season is such a big deal, because it does not automatically determine the greater player. Ex. Look at Mark Jackson.
Considered the 6th greatest offense by whom?? Because I sure don't consider them such. Also, how can Nash get a pass for his lower numbers in Dallas, because "he wasn't utilized enough", yet still get credit for Dallas's offense? Strange.
Objective evidence?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205 Nash was allowed to play with more fluidity, especially after they decided to trade for all of those offensive players in Walker & Jamison. Nash began to handle the offensive load in a different style and scheme, look at quotes from '03 & '04 by Nelson.
In 2005, without Nash.....the Mavs won 6 MORE games, and their ORtg was still 4th in the NBA at 110.3. Funny enough.....their DRtg went from 26th (107.4) with Nash, to 9th (104.1) in 05', hehe.
Yet it still wasn't a historic offense, they dropped notches offensively.
In 2006, Dallas was #1 in ORtg, and #2 in 2007. So no, I don't see much of a drop-off. In fact, it's telling that Dallas had more success once Nash left....
LOL, The Suns had the best statistical offense of all-time in '07, and 10th greatest in '06 (without his most lethal offensive option in Amar'e, Joe Johnson & Richardson gone). Please stop.
No, blaming a lack of utilization for Nash's numbers in Dallas, is an excuse. Saying that Nash has always played on offensively orientated teams is reality. And I can't believe you're arguing that he's been on offensively structured teams. Don Nelson & D'Antoni is all the evidence you need. The guy had Dirk & Finley in Dallas, and then Amare, Marion & Joe in PHX.
Yet in '04 with Amar'e, Marion, & Joe all fully healthy the Suns went 10-30, and with the simple modifications and additions of Nash & Richardson in the lineup had statistically and historically the 2nd greatest offense of all-time. What about Chris Duhon or Billups, why haven't they replicated his offensive numbers then? Offensively structured yes, but Nash even under Gentry had statistically the 4th greatest offense ever, while even under Porter had the 11th greatest. Not sure if you're seeing the correlation but these are different players, schemes, and coaches.
Compare that to the list of guys Stockton turned into 10+ ppg scorers in Utah...
Karl Malone
Thurl Bailey
Darrell Griffith
Jeff Malone
Blue Edwards
Tyrone Corbin
Hornacek
David Benoit
Chris Morris
Byron Russell
^
He put up way better numbers passing to these guys.
?
You reference Amar'e, Bell, Shaq, Marion, Barbosa, Johnson, as having their highs in efficiency with Nash, but that's a bit of a red herring. Shaq's best year didn't come with Nash, nor did JJ's. Amare & Marion's primes both overlap with Nash, so it's hardly surprising that they had their most efficient years next to him.
Umm, Joe Johnson was pre-prime before entering prime when he played next to Nash, Marion DEMANDED a trade at the midst prime of his career because he wanted to have more attention on the team, while Amar'e just a season ago was putting up numbers on ridiculous efficiency, yet for them all they take a drastic and significant dip playing without him. Stop with the excuses.
Conversely, Dirk had his best years post-Nash, so again the point is mute.
This has been beaten to death, Nash with the Mavs was clearly not used in the same style or context, Don Nelson in 2003 mentioned in an interview that he liked resting Nash and letting him take less loads offensively because he wanted him utilized to his fullest come playoff time because he KNEW of Nash's clear abilities as a point-guard.
What various times are you referring to? Nash has had offensive teams in PHX. The whole system he ran is vastly different from what Sloan ran in Utah. Even still Stockton's production dwarfed Nash's.
Yet Stockton was never elite, never correlated with MVP voting, and he never came close to putting up a historic offense.
Except Stockton has a higher career TS%, so where do you get the idea that Nash is more efficient at scoring???
Peak/prime yes, TS% favors Nash. If we're talking about strictly being the better basketball player, peak trumps everything. Peak gives you the chance to contend, Stockton was clearly nowhere near the peak levels of Nash. If you say so then where's the MVP voting correlation OR the objective statistical evidence you speak so "highly" of. All you've done is point of assist numbers, yet those assist numbers have never led to anything statistically large in a team concept.
And I never said Stockton was a lockdown defender, his strength lies in team defense. He was tremendous at disrupting passing lanes, and perhaps the best PG at stripping bigs of the ball(which is why he's the all-time steals leader).
Okay?
Again, what are you basing the "5 of the top 11 greatest offensives ever" claim on? I hope it's not ORtg.
Oh its not, I know you're just going to completely dismantle every statistic because it's somehow immune to "your" player, or even flip-flop arguments when it doesn't support "your" player.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205And I guess we're counting the Dallas years again, when Nash "wasn't utilized enough", and giving him credit for those team offensive numbers..
Never said that, you look at the clear increase in '04 where Nelson let Nash handle the offense more fluidity, the statistics speak for themselves, at the time recording a career high for himself in assists.
Stockton's best year > Nash's best year. Stockton's elite years >>> Nash's.
Where is the MVP voting correlating this? Where is the statistical evidence suggesting this? Why is it that during Stockton's best years the Jazz were consistently getting toasted in the playoffs, yet during the seasons where Malone is still playing at a close-to-peak level and Stockton's production goes down, the Jazz somehow are playing at peak dominating form? Just because UAF writes ">>>" doesn't mean anything, considering you're just basing this off of biased nitpicking, flip-flopping opinions that have still yet to be backed up by objective evidence, you have yet to STILL answer any of my questions.
Nash got 2 narrative based MVPs, but it's not like he was a consensus Top 5 player during those years either.
Consensus? I like this one considering a majority of documented articles, even the RPOY project, and objective evidence correlated with MVP voting states this. He was the foundation of numerous offensive schemes that were historically and statistically RECORD BREAKING.
Was he better than Kobe, Bron, Wade, Dirk, Duncan, KG, Paul, etc.?
Yeah, he's on par with them, and vastly ahead of Paul in '05, '06 & '07.
Stockton's production on both sides of the court is higher than Nash at their respective peaks. And it's not even close when you look at their careers.
*yawn*
MVP correlation
statistical evidence
peak team dominance
championship contender
*yawn*
And I like how you bring only Nash into this. My main arguments are centered around Nash, Payton, Isiah, & Kidd.
(Down by 27 when LBJ checked out in the 4th) LeBron would have had to have made Cleveland 33 points better that day, all things being equal.
