John Stockton vs. David Robinson

[Baller 24]

Now you tell me, which one of these plays would be regarded as clearly ahead of the other one today? MVP voting is a joke, and i dont think your argument helps its case any.

Why not? It clearly shows that elite players are always on top unless a major injury/team problem are conflicted in the way.

[Scoob Seriously]

Is there any chance that a player today could lead the league in assists in consecutive years today ( let alone 7 of the top 10 seasonal apg of all time, and consecutive steal titles), and have them NOT be an elite player? Why was it possible 15 years ago?

Yes, Steve Nash led the league in assist 3 consecutive years with 10+, Chris Paul is on the verge of basically doing it for the next decade and impressively on one of the slowest paced offensive systems in the entire league.

Throw him in the current era and he's not on the level of the elite superstars such as LeBron, Kobe, Dwight, Paul, and Wade.

Either you misunderstood my point or are seriously confused. I said would it be possible for this to happen today and have said player not be an elite player. You say yes, state that Paul is on the verge of doing it, then later go on to say he is an elite superstar.

[ronnymac2]

Why are you Jazz fans getting all mad? Everyone respects Stockton's career. His records are awesome.

What people are saying is that his peak wasn't that special compared to other players. When talking about what happens on the floor and effect on the game, he may not even be top 10 for point guards.

Magic, Frazier, Isiah, and Oscar were clearly better players than Stockton. Kidd and Payton were better. Chris Paul and Deron Williams are better. One could argue Tiny Archibald was better. Possibly K.J. and Nash. If you count Penny as a point guard, he was better than Stockton.

I'm talking about peak play, not career. Obviously Paul and Williams haven't had Stockton's career...yet. Penny didn't have as good a career. But he was a better player.

[carrottop12]

Why are you Jazz fans getting all mad? Everyone respects Stockton's career. His records are awesome.

What people are saying is that his peak wasn't that special compared to other players. When talking about what happens on the floor and effect on the game, he may not even be top 10 for point guards.

Magic, Frazier, Isiah, and Oscar were clearly better players than Stockton. Kidd and Payton were better. Chris Paul and Deron Williams are better. One could argue Tiny Archibald was better. Possibly K.J. and Nash. If you count Penny as a point guard, he was better than Stockton.

I'm talking about peak play, not career. Obviously Paul and Williams haven't had Stockton's career...yet. Penny didn't have as good a career. But he was a better player.

You are right. His record setting peak season of 14.5 assist per game isn't on par with what anything KJ, Nash, Tiny, Paul, Deron, Kidd, Frazier and Penny have done. And it doesn't matter that that same season he averaged 17 ppg, 2.7 SPG, shot 51% from the floor and 41% from the 3 point line.

Pardon me while I grab a flashlight to go search for logic that appears to have completely abandoned this board.

[TrueLAfan]

I posted most of this about two months ago, but it seems to apply (again).

Dikembe Mutombo had a much better career than Bill Walton. He had a peak that was nearly a decade long and was an extremely effective player. He got occasional MVP votes. Mutombo was a great player, but never a superstar.
Bill Walton was a better player than Dikembe Mutombo. When Walton was at his best, even though it wasn't for long, he was one of the two or three best players in the game. He was an MVP. Walton was a superstar. David Robinson was a superstar.

Superstar is about peak, not career length. And having a long career doesn't make your peak higher.

John Stockton was an all-star for an incredibly long time. He was never a top 5 player in the league. The three arguments presented here—all either faulty or mislabeled—are.

Statistics
“Everyone who saw”
“Not much difference between A and B”

In order:

Statistics. Statistics are wonderful tools. And John Stockton, because of his career length, has extraordinary career statistics. That does not, however, make his peak higher. And statistics, on their own, are not a true indicator of value.

On a single season level, John Stockton has great numbers. I mean, a guy who shoots close to 50% and gets over 13 assists and a couple of steals a game and still puts in 15 points per game is a great player. Except that player is Kevin Porter and, no, Kevin Porter was not a great player. Of course Stockton is better than Kevin Porter...but this is an example of how statistics do not accurately reflect peak value. That's why we rely on observation rather that pure statistics (and why John Hollinger is a peckerhead).

“Everyone who saw.” “Everyone who saw Stockton knew...” [fill in argument]. In this case, it's “that he was a superstar.” This is a total fallacy. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of very qualified people who watched John Stockton for two decades judged his value every year in annual voting. He was never a top 5 player. He was a top 10 player for about 3 years.

On top of this, millions of people paid attention to that voting for close to 20 years. And their response to Stockton's ranking was ...

Nothing.

My question is...where were you people in 1991, when Stockton had one of his best years, and finished one spot ahead of Isiah, who shot under 44% and missed 38 games? In 1994, where Stockton averaged 15 and 13 and shot nearly 53%...and finished tied for 11th with a single vote at 5th place? Those were two of Stockton's best showings. Why didn't people say something? Because the judgments were thought to be accurate. The people who watched John Stockton considered him to be a great, great player...just not a player at an elite level. It is what it is.

“Not much difference between A and B.” The argument here is that there isn't much difference between Stockton and, say, Dominique Wilkins or Charles Barkley or Patrick Ewing. And, truth be told, there isn't a huge difference. But it is the difference between being a great player and a superstar...and that's the question asked here.

On top of that, all of those players had several years where they stepped up and had a stronger peak, and it was recognized. Dominique Wilkins had three years in the top 5 of MVP voting. Ewing was a real handful between 1990 and 1995—top 5 of voting in 5 of 6 years. Barkley won the damn award once and finished in top 6 in six of the seven previous years. Stockton did not have that.

Is it a big difference? In terms of being an elite player...yes. The difference between Joe Dumars--who got MVP votes four times, was a stellar defender, and made some All-NBA teams--and Clyde Drexler is measurable. It's not huge. But Clyde was a superstar. Joe Dumars was terrific...but not a superstar. We're back to the first thing I mentioned again. Peak value trumps career value in terms of being a superstar.

What I object to most in this is people trying to make anyone who says John Stockton was something he wasn't into a hater, and the attempt to ignore what contemporary observers and fans thought/said/did. I liked John Stockton. My personal feelings don't make him a better player. Joe Dumars was one of my favorite players. Doesn't help him either. The idea that a guy who had a long, storied career and was acknowledged as a top 15-20 player for a decade and a top 10 player for a few years is hardly an insult. I don't like being told it is.

And the idea that people today looking at statistics know more about the value of John Stockton—or any player—than contemporary observers who watched the games, voted and ranked players in terms of value peak every year, and saw and read and responded to those results, is beyond hubris.

[Jordan23Forever]

Wow, fantastic post TrueLA.

[tmac4real]

I hope to god Nash dosen't get the stockton treatment when he retires, OMG Nash was by far the greatest PG of the 00 decade, he has TWO Back to back MVP's, he's right up there with Duncan, superior to Kobe and Shaq.

Becauset his is the case people are making with Stockton right now...

[tmac4real]

I posted most of this about two months ago, but it seems to apply (again).

Dikembe Mutombo had a much better career than Bill Walton. He had a peak that was nearly a decade long and was an extremely effective player. He got occasional MVP votes. Mutombo was a great player, but never a superstar.
Bill Walton was a better player than Dikembe Mutombo. When Walton was at his best, even though it wasn't for long, he was one of the two or three best players in the game. He was an MVP. Walton was a superstar. David Robinson was a superstar.

Superstar is about peak, not career length. And having a long career doesn't make your peak higher.

John Stockton was an all-star for an incredibly long time. He was never a top 5 player in the league. The three arguments presented here—all either faulty or mislabeled—are.

Statistics
“Everyone who saw”
“Not much difference between A and B”

In order:

Statistics. Statistics are wonderful tools. And John Stockton, because of his career length, has extraordinary career statistics. That does not, however, make his peak higher. And statistics, on their own, are not a true indicator of value.

On a single season level, John Stockton has great numbers. I mean, a guy who shoots close to 50% and gets over 13 assists and a couple of steals a game and still puts in 15 points per game is a great player. Except that player is Kevin Porter and, no, Kevin Porter was not a great player. Of course Stockton is better than Kevin Porter...but this is an example of how statistics do not accurately reflect peak value. That's why we rely on observation rather that pure statistics (and why John Hollinger is a peckerhead).

“Everyone who saw.” “Everyone who saw Stockton knew...” [fill in argument]. In this case, it's “that he was a superstar.” This is a total fallacy. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of very qualified people who watched John Stockton for two decades judged his value every year in annual voting. He was never a top 5 player. He was a top 10 player for about 3 years.

On top of this, millions of people paid attention to that voting for close to 20 years. And their response to Stockton's ranking was ...

Nothing.

My question is...where were you people in 1991, when Stockton had one of his best years, and finished one spot ahead of Isiah, who shot under 44% and missed 38 games? In 1994, where Stockton averaged 15 and 13 and shot nearly 53%...and finished tied for 11th with a single vote at 5th place? Those were two of Stockton's best showings. Why didn't people say something? Because the judgments were thought to be accurate. The people who watched John Stockton considered him to be a great, great player...just not a player at an elite level. It is what it is.

“Not much difference between A and B.” The argument here is that there isn't much difference between Stockton and, say, Dominique Wilkins or Charles Barkley or Patrick Ewing. And, truth be told, there isn't a huge difference. But it is the difference between being a great player and a superstar...and that's the question asked here.

On top of that, all of those players had several years where they stepped up and had a stronger peak, and it was recognized. Dominique Wilkins had three years in the top 5 of MVP voting. Ewing was a real handful between 1990 and 1995—top 5 of voting in 5 of 6 years. Barkley won the damn award once and finished in top 6 in six of the seven previous years. Stockton did not have that.

Is it a big difference? In terms of being an elite player...yes. The difference between Joe Dumars--who got MVP votes four times, was a stellar defender, and made some All-NBA teams--and Clyde Drexler is measurable. It's not huge. But Clyde was a superstar. Joe Dumars was terrific...but not a superstar. We're back to the first thing I mentioned again. Peak value trumps career value in terms of being a superstar.

What I object to most in this is people trying to make anyone who says John Stockton was something he wasn't into a hater, and the attempt to ignore what contemporary observers and fans thought/said/did. I liked John Stockton. My personal feelings don't make him a better player. Joe Dumars was one of my favorite players. Doesn't help him either. The idea that a guy who had a long, storied career and was acknowledged as a top 15-20 player for a decade and a top 10 player for a few years is hardly an insult. I don't like being told it is.

And the idea that people today looking at statistics know more about the value of John Stockton—or any player—than contemporary observers who watched the games, voted and ranked players in terms of value peak every year, and saw and read and responded to those results, is beyond hubris.

Good post, and it makes me feel better about McGrady lol.

[shawngoat23]

I'd like to add that I think David Robinson is definitely the superior player, but I think it's very well possible the Hall-of-Fame voters might think otherwise, his two rings to the contrary. I can easily see them putting disproportionate weight on something like "career leader in assists" or "career leader in steals", whereas I do not see them comparing MVP shares (or PER, or Win Shares, or whatever metric a given poster might prefer on RealGM that makes his favorite player look good).

[carrottop12]

Here is what I am going to say, and I am going to try to stop posting in this thread because it's a horrible discussion.

But imagine if this year, Chris Paul posted a season where he averaged 14.6 assists per game and broke the record, scored 17 ppg, 2.7 SPG, shot over 50% from the floor and 40% from the 3 point line.

Everyone on this board would be calling for him to be put in the hall of fame, he'd be a lock for the MVP, and writers around the league would be putting up with Magic as the greatest PG of all time.

Tell me I'm wrong, and show me how it's any different from what John Stockton did regularly during the prime of his career.

[Mufasa_Reloaded]

TrueLAfan ftw

Stockton doesn't deserve any less credit for his longevity and consistency. But David Robinson was clearly better. It's been mentioned a hundred times by now but you can't ignore either the MVP/All-NBA rankings or maybe more importantly, the people watching at the time who could regard his status in comparison to the other stars and PGs in the league.

Assists can be misleading, there's a lot of factors that go into them. Calderon has averaged over 9 a game this year, good for 3rd in the league, and is probably sitting around 20th on my list of starting PGs performance (last year he was top 7 or 8 during his January-February stretch but he's declined much, much more this year than his stats have shown, whether it's due to his hamstring injury or just showing his true colors). Now I'm not saying Stockton isn't continents ahead of Calderon, but the point remains, watching the games holds much more truth than looking at the stats, as always. The Porter example has also been shown, same with Brevin Knight.

[Baller 24]

Here is what I am going to say, and I am going to try to stop posting in this thread because it's a horrible discussion.

But imagine if this year, Chris Paul posted a season where he averaged 14.6 assists per game and broke the record, scored 17 ppg, 2.7 SPG, shot over 50% from the floor and 40% from the 3 point line.

Everyone on this board would be calling for him to be put in the hall of fame, he'd be a lock for the MVP, and writers around the league would be putting up with Magic as the greatest PG of all time.

Tell me I'm wrong, and show me how it's any different from what John Stockton did regularly during the prime of his career.

Chris Paul is the best player on his team and the primary leader on all terms for his team to succeed. Not saying the Jazz would be a great team without Stockton, but I'm just saying a 6'9 power forward says otherwise. Right now, Chris Paul is on pace to become the 2nd best point guard in NBA History if he got some relative success, he's already put up historic NBA seasons, back to back. You said 17/14.6/2.7 right? Well right now he's averaging 21.3/5.3/10.8/2.7/50%/36% and he's on pace to have basically one of the best seasons for a point guard in league history. It's different to say this because Paul's significance to his team is greater than Stockton's, there is no way that team wins 25 games without Paul, while I'm sure a team led by arguably the 2nd greatest power forward ever could at least win over 25 games.

[carrottop12]

Here is what I am going to say, and I am going to try to stop posting in this thread because it's a horrible discussion.

But imagine if this year, Chris Paul posted a season where he averaged 14.6 assists per game and broke the record, scored 17 ppg, 2.7 SPG, shot over 50% from the floor and 40% from the 3 point line.

Everyone on this board would be calling for him to be put in the hall of fame, he'd be a lock for the MVP, and writers around the league would be putting up with Magic as the greatest PG of all time.

Tell me I'm wrong, and show me how it's any different from what John Stockton did regularly during the prime of his career.

Chris Paul is the best player on his team and the primary leader on all terms for his team to succeed. Not saying the Jazz would be a great team without Stockton, but I'm just saying a 6'9 power forward says otherwise. Right now, Chris Paul is on pace to become the 2nd best point guard in NBA History if he got some relative success, he's already put up historic NBA seasons, back to back. You said 17/14.6/2.7 right? Well right now he's averaging 21.3/5.3/10.8/2.7/50%/36% and he's on pace to have basically one of the best seasons for a point guard in league history. It's different to say this because Paul's significance to his team is greater than Stockton's, there is no way that team wins 25 games without Paul, while I'm sure a team led by arguably the 2nd greatest power forward ever could at least win over 25 games.

Yet Magic is unquestioned as the GOAT PG, even though he played with multiple all-stars and a legit GOAT candidate in KAJ?

The arguments here are hypocritical and mostly baseless. And most are backed by people who never saw Stockton play more then 8-12 times a year at best.

Also, the idea of the fact that one player was lucky enough to have another superstar on his team for most of his career lessens his achievements is completely ludicrous. Take Chris Paul and add Dwight Howard to his team, does that make his accomplishments and records and less significant? Of course not, but that's how Stockton is always looked at.

Stockton is regularly punished for playing with Karl Malone which makes literally 0 sense.

[kooldude]

^where exactly do you rank Stockton in the 90s or his prime?

[microfib4thewin]

Not winning a title will forever blemish Stockton's career. Yes, Bird played with a juggernaut of a frontcourt, and Magic played with the second best center in history, the difference is they have won multiple titles. Had Stockton been a more prolific scorer instead of just efficient who can provide the extra scoring punch in the playoffs maybe they could have won it all. Thing is, he had plenty of chances with Malone and all they had to show for it was two finals appearance. For many players, that is considered a grand accomplishment, for guys that have won titles, that's not saying much.

[carrottop12]

^where exactly do you rank Stockton in the 90s or his prime?

In Stockton's prime he was clearly behind the Jordan's, the Bird's, the Magic's, and most likely the Hakeem Olajuwon's.

Then there are guys who had amazing season's like Isiah's run's to the Championships that you have to put him in front of John Stockton.

Then there is a second tier of guys like Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Pippen, Drexler, Ewing, and Stockton pretty squarely fits in with those guys. 9 consecutive All-Star, and a 10th later in his career, 11 time All-NBA player, 2 time All NBA first team, 5 time All-NBA defensive team. Then mix in the endless single season awards, and consecutive season awards, and finally the career awards and you have to be lying to yourself to say he's any lower then any of them.

No, he never won the MVP award, but when playing with Jordan (who should have won it every year from the first year he won it in 88 through the last year he won it in 98, with the exception of those two years he was out of the game in which Olajwon should have won them both) which would completely taken away one of Malone's awards, and the two Barkley and Robinson had.

I know everyone clamors over MVP awards, but looking at the history of the game you can see that they aren't by any means a scientific measure of the game. If Steve Nash has twice as many as Shaq, you can see that, if you deny it you are lying to youself.

So basically to answer your question, during Stockton's time I look at it this way.

1. Jordan
2. Bird/Magic
3. Isiah/Olajuwon
4. Malone/Barkley/Stockton/Drexler/Robinson/Ewing on any given season, or on any given night, or playoff series, or amount of measurement you want.

[carrottop12]

Not winning a title will forever blemish Stockton's career. Yes, Bird played with a juggernaut of a frontcourt, and Magic played with the second best center in history, the difference is they have won multiple titles. Had Stockton been a more prolific scorer instead of just efficient who can provide the extra scoring punch in the playoffs maybe they could have won it all. Thing is, he had plenty of chances with Malone and all they had to show for it was two finals appearance. For many players, that is considered a grand accomplishment, for guys that have won titles, that's not saying much.

So throw out Barkley's career then, and throw out Ewing's career. Throw out Payton's career before he coattailed his way to a championship with Shaq and D-Wade when he was just a shell of himself, throw out Robinson's career until he got on the greatest PF of all time's team when his numbers had completely dropped off, meaning throw out his MVP season, throw out J-Kidd's career.

Yes, not winning a championship is a big deal, but how many of these guys that you are mentioning won a championship as the #1 option on a team, does that make their career worthless? You know, Barkley played with Dr. J, Barkley played with KJ who people are rating above Stockton. Was Barkley not in the running for top 5 during his career in the league? Same goes for Malone? Was he not in the running.

Again, you are using arguments against Stockton that you aren't using against other players.

[Baller 24]

No, he never won the MVP award, but when playing with Jordan (who should have won it every year from the first year he won it in 88 through the last year he won it in 98, with the exception of those two years he was out of the game in which Olajwon should have won them both) which would completely taken away one of Malone's awards, and the two Barkley and Robinson had.

So basically to answer your question, during Stockton's time I look at it this way.

1. Jordan
2. Bird/Magic
3. Isiah/Olajuwon
4. Malone/Barkley/Stockton/Drexler/Robinson/Ewing on any given season, or on any given night, or playoff series, or amount of measurement you want.

Isiah is a little too high IMO, he clearly belongs on a lower level, he had a fantastic team, those Pistons were stacked on both ends of the ball, and even though Isiah was the leader, everyone else on that team was very talented. The elite players in the league (superstars) at the time were Magic/Bird/Jordan during the early time of Stockton's career, but in the early 90s when his team started to make big runs he was clearly behind Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Malone, Barkley, and Drexler. Remember Drexler led his team to the finals twice and was playing at an ultimately all time high level from himself in his 2nd tittle run (2nd in MVP voting), even Jordan said Drexler was playing amazing that year, and he wanted the competition of facing Clyde. Stockton put up great numbers for a long time, but when you talk about clearly BETTER players at peak form, you can name a lot ahead of Stockton (and it's obviously not a shot at him).

I know everyone clamors over MVP awards, but looking at the history of the game you can see that they aren't by any means a scientific measure of the game. If Steve Nash has twice as many as Shaq, you can see that, if you deny it you are lying to youself.

Though it's very arguable and debatable to see why Steve Nash won them both years, he did do some pretty amazing things, and if we knew Dirk was going to choke the way he did in the first round in '07, he'd have 3 straight since he came in 2nd that year.

[Time for Change]

Magic, Frazier, Isiah, and Oscar were clearly better players than Stockton. Kidd and Payton were better. Chris Paul and Deron Williams are better. One could argue Tiny Archibald was better. Possibly K.J. and Nash. If you count Penny as a point guard, he was better than Stockton.

This is why Stockton is the most underrated player on this board. Isiah clearly better? LOL! Magic and Oscar I'll give you. But for the rest, Stockton beats out Kidd, Payton, Deron, Nash, and K.J. Paul is fantastic and may surpass Stockton in time. Frazier and Archibald I can't speak from personal experience, but from the stats Stockton is better.

That said, for this poll, I have to vote Robinson as the winner.

[carrottop12]

To tell you the truth, honestly if I had to start a team I would probably take Robinson over Stockton.

I don't think Robinson was the better player, but I do think it's easier to win with a freak athlete who is 7'0 tall. The NBA has proven that talented Seven Footers win championships easier then average athletes who are 6'2.

But there is the real question, does that make him a better player then Stockton, being more naturally gifted with height.