RealGM

Who was better?

lawlpenguin wrote:Who was better?

It depends on who you ask

Nash isn't done.

it'll be interesting to see the poll results - the last time Stockton won in a blowout. wonder how many people changed their opinions.

Until this season.. Stockton.

This season.. Its close. Nash is proving hes going to have a better longevity then any PG in NBA history (nash is putting up 16/11 and stockton put up something like 12/8.5 at the same age.) Both didn't win championships, Nash won 2 mvps, and he shoulda won the third.

Even with all of this, Stockton played some killer defense, and I think thats puts him on the top.

edit: just saw prime..Nash is still in his so you can't really say

Ouch... another time...
Okay let's go.

Nash is a great player, a great point guard who has played in a system perfec for him in Phoenix.
In Mavs, altough Nelson has an offensive system too, he wasn't so brilliant.
He is a great shooter (better than Stockton) a great passer.
Still he has not played any NBA finals, and he has played with two PF not as good as Malone, but pretty good as Nowitzki and Stoudamire.
He has been:
2001-02 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
2002-03 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
2004-05 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2005-06 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2006-07 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2007-08 NBA All-NBA (2nd)

He missed 2003-04 and 2008-09. Probably he will be in 2nd or 3rd team this year.

He has lead 4 years in assists in totals and averages (05,06,07 and 10)

He has been in 7 all-star games.

His carreer is about 14.6 ppg, 8.3 apg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 spg in 48.9 FG%, 43.1 3PT and 90.3 FT in 14 years


By the other hand Stockton played with Malone, a top 5 player in the league for more of a decade. He played in two finals, 5 WCF.
He always played with great efficiency, he was a great shooter and a fantastic passer. He only missed games in two of his 19 years in the league and he played really hard. Barkley said sometimes nobody (of any size) made screens like Stockton.

John Stockton Awards:
1987-88 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1988-89 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1988-89 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1989-90 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1990-91 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1990-91 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
1991-92 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1991-92 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1992-93 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1993-94 NBA All-NBA (1st)
1994-95 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1994-95 NBA All-NBA (1st)
1995-96 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1996-97 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1996-97 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
1998-99 NBA All-NBA (3rd)

11 times he was nba all-nba only missing from 88 to 99 one year (he was injuried) and 5 times All defensive 2nd

He has lead the league in assists in 9 years (88 to 96) in average and totals
He has lead in steals in two years (89 and 92) in average and totals.

He has been in 10 all-star games

His carreer avg are 13.1 ppg, 10.5 apg, 2.7 rpg, 2.2 spg in 51.5 FG%, 38.4 3pt% and 82.6 FT in 19 years


So Stockton had not the peak Nash has had, but there's a few points to debate.
When Nash played with Nowitzki (not as good as Malone, but one of the best PF in history) he was not considered by MVP voters (he was 14 in 2002 and 11 in 2003) Stockton was voted with a perennial top 5 candidate to MVP 12 times.
Without Dirk Nash have been seen as the most valuable player in his team and he won two mvp with stats who weren't as good as Stockton prime.
Stockton played in his prime with Jordan and Magic Johnson. So in his prime (88-92) he only had a chance to be 1st and he was beaten by Drexler in his only first team selection.
It's no a conincidence his only two 1st team are with Jordan retired in 94 and 95.

I think ive seen this thread before

Nash is a better scorer. Stockton is a better passer.

I'm not a big Stockton lover on D, but there is no doubt he is better than nash over there.

Overall, I think Nash peak is higher, but Stockton had the better career so far. It will change if Nash keeps this form...

Stockton for all around excellence and longevity, unless Nash wins a ring or two.

Stockton I think Nash is great but he is overrated(2 MVP's? crazy that he got 1)

Jimmy76 wrote::uhoh:

I think ive seen this thread before

Its a thread that has earned the greatest hits label on ps2.

Jimmy76 wrote::uhoh:

I think ive seen this thread before

I'm not even going to touch it

lawlpenguin wrote:Who was better?

Stockton. At least he has some records.

Jesus, people on here will make you believe John Stockton is the son of god.

Nah, Wilt's kids are taller and more tanned.

It's easily Stockton. Both are average scorers but great shooters and passers. Nash is better in the open floor, Stockton in the halfcourt game but you can't go wrong with either offensively. Stockton, though, has a strong defensive advantage and his toughness and ironman skills are an undervalued asset. With Stockton, you know he's going to be out there 82 games a year, every year. The picks are nice too, glad someone mentioned them.

Heck, I missed the "prime only" part of the OP. Nash's offensive prime was definitely higher though Stock's career is clearly superior. I'm not sure the defensive and durability difference are enough if we are just talking peak performance over a 1-3 year period. Nash probably does win this then. Sorry.

penbeast0 wrote:Nah, Wilt's kids are taller and more tanned.

o.o

Actually it's funny, because Wilt's heart rate was measured at 60 something back in 1965, which means he was in great shape....he had to run 1-2 miles to get his heart to beat a normal rate.

But Stockton's was at something crazy like 38...which meant that he would only need a 30 seconds to a minute of rest after running so many miles to get his heartrate back down....which is insane.

Their peaks were decently similar (maybe slight edge to Stockton for his superior defense), but Nash has had only 5 really great seasons (04/05 through 07/08, and 09/10), while Stockton had about 10 straight seasons at that same level. So Stockton easily for his career. Also, Stockton has b2b finals appearances (losing in 6 to MJ's Bulls each time), while Nash has never made the finals.

Stockton though was never a superstar in the league at any point during his career, Nash was. Stockton was also the 2nd banana on his team playing next to what's considering the most efficient and effective offensive weapon at the forward position -- Karl Malone, Steve Nash was the leader of his teams, it showed when Nash's best and most effective interior offensive weapon Amar'e was out for the entire season in '06. Nash's teammates come and go, and you know what else? They peak TS% wise. Bring in accolades? We can discuss Stockton's poor placement in the MVP voting panel, while even during his best seasons, players like Terry Porter, Kevin Johnson, and Mark Price were higher in MVP voting than Johnny, all point-guards, that obviously says something.

Nash is a great player, a great point guard who has played in a system perfec for him in Phoenix.
In Mavs, altough Nelson has an offensive system too, he wasn't so brilliant.
[...]
When Nash played with Nowitzki (not as good as Malone, but one of the best PF in history) he was not considered by MVP voters (he was 14 in 2002 and 11 in 2003) Stockton was voted with a perennial top 5 candidate to MVP 12 times.

that's because in Dallas Nash was a role player in their offense. once you put the ball in his hands he can play with whatever type of player he has alongside. he played with Shaq-Barnes - best offense ever. he played with Amare-Marion - TOP5 offense ever. he played with Diaw-Marion - TOP2 offense in 06. he played with Lopez-Amare - TOP1 offense of 2010. simply, Nash's offensive excellence is versatile enough to make impact regardless of the type of player he plays with. bringing up the system is ridiculous because of that, not to mention that system changed numerous times during Nash's tenure in Phoenix, but they struggled only when Nash's role was limited or while he was sitting out with injuries. Nash's role matters, system or another great player alongisde him are irrelevant factors.

Without Dirk Nash have been seen as the most valuable player in his team and he won two mvp with stats who weren't as good as Stockton prime.

if Stockton's value was as high as boxscore stats indicate then he'd be in Magic Johnson ballpark. if that was the case, Stockton and Malone would NEVER have 40-50W seasons. two players of that caliber will always give you 60 wins, especially when their supporting cast is well balanced and fits within team concept.

so either Stockton's or Malone's stats overrate their value. my pick is Stockton. I think Malone would be more or less the same player in any system, because of his post scoring, an excellent jumper, good passing/rebounding and great physical attributes. I believe it's Stockton who's overrated by boxscore stats, because there's no way IMO that PG who doesn't demand double teams and can't create spontanously could average 14-15 APG. I've showed in the past that Utah system inflated assist totals and never heard a counterargument. my argument was based on:

1) Rickey Green improving his assist averages in Utah and pretty much drastically regressing outside of Utah.
2) Jazz system always being on top of the league in assists, regardless of whether Stockton was starting.
3) Jazz system being consistently higher in ast totals than in ORtg (which means that their assists never translated into impact/wins)

Stockton played in his prime with Jordan and Magic Johnson. So in his prime (88-92) he only had a chance to be 1st and he was beaten by Drexler in his only first team selection.
It's no a conincidence his only two 1st team are with Jordan retired in 94 and 95.

that's wrong.

TrueLAfan wrote:tsherkin is doing his usual thorough and complete job here. I'm just chiming in to support with some thoughts.

As had been noted, Stockton was far from being the best consensus PG of the 1990s. If you look at how observers saw things through All-NBA and MVP voting, that player would actually be Gary Payton. Stockton is a fairly close second (with respectful nods to Tim Hardaway and Mark Price). While he was at his peak and removing Magic Johnson from the equation, here is how people who watched the games at the time rated John Stockton relative to other PGs in MVP voting (with the players he was behind).

1990 -- 1
1991 -- 3 (KJ, Porter)
1992 -- 3 (Price, Bug)
1993 -- 2 (Price)
1994 -- 3 (Payton, Price)
1995 -- 1
1996 -- 3 (Penny, Payton)
1997 -- 4 (Penny, Bug, Payton)
1998 -- 5 (Payton, Bug, Kidd)
1999 -- 4, at least (Kidd, Bug, Penny)

When Mark Price was healthy, he was generally considered to be on the level (at least) of John Stockton. Tim Hardaway, is, obviously, not far off. Are they, also, today going to be "the best PG in the league," as people are claiming Stockton would be?

Keep in mind that Stockton's ranking among PGs in MVP voting is pretty much directly commensurate with his All-NBA voting...two All-NBA first teams, 6 All-NBA second teams. If you add in 1988 and 1989, when Stockton was also very good..but still was never the best (or second best) PG in the league in MVP voting, it comes out like this. John Stockton was the best or second best guard in the league once. He was the third or fourth best guard in the league six times. This seems to correlate pretty directly with the MVP voting. Two different, substantial groups of qualified voters, watching the player at the time. Same result.

My feeling? John Stockton would be a great PG today. He'd usually be in the mix for the #2 or, more often, #3 PG in the league. If players got injured or retired or had off years, he might have a year or two as the top PG in the league. Today, Stockton would be one of the top 10-15 players in the league most years. Sometimes, he might crack the top 10. He would not be a top 5 player.

This is how Stockton was rated when he was an active player as well. The people that watched the games--not the "game tape"--placed him at that high level. His raw numbers, both in individual seasons and over his career, overstate his value to a degree.

Stockton's lack of recognition was never about playing with superior competition. it was about never seperating himself from other all-star point guards of the 90s...unlike Nash who clearly seperated himself from his peers at his position.

It's easily Stockton. Both are average scorers but great shooters and passers. Nash is better in the open floor, Stockton in the halfcourt game but you can't go wrong with either offensively. Stockton, though, has a strong defensive advantage and his toughness and ironman skills are an undervalued asset. With Stockton, you know he's going to be out there 82 games a year, every year. The picks are nice too, glad someone mentioned them.

the notion that Stockton is better in the halfcourt game is supported by nothing. when Nash AND Stockton played at about 95 poss/game, Suns teams were (far) more effective in comparison to league average.

Nash is just flat out better offensively in pretty much EVERY aspect. pick and rolls, pick and pops, penetration, 1on1 play, iso scoring, transition, shooting (not even close), creating off the dribble, anchoring the offense. no way Stockton is at the same level as Nash offensively.

Their peaks were decently similar (maybe slight edge to Stockton for his superior defense), but Nash has had only 5 really great seasons (04/05 through 07/08, and 09/10), while Stockton had about 10 straight seasons at that same level.

this is true except for the "decently similar" part. Nash is a legit TOP5 player of 05-10 whereas Stockton never approached that level. he was TOP10-15 player in the 90s and more of a Pau Gasol level rather than MVP caliber player.

Also, Stockton has b2b finals appearances (losing in 6 to MJ's Bulls each time), while Nash has never made the finals.

b2b finals apperances as #2 (arguably #3) is significantly less than 2 WCFs and 1 WCSF (but as 2nd best team that year) as #1. otherwise you can argue that Pierce's ring puts him above Barkley. that logic is flawed.

For peak, this is Nash somewhat easy for me. Nash proved that he is capable leading the Suns deep into the playoffs as the best player on his team, and had the Suns not a a bunch of bad luck,(Injuries, suspensions) and competent management not trading picks away that turned out to be all-stars in some cases, I think the Suns would have won a title or two, and the general view of Nash would have changed drastically. For all the great numbers Stockton put up, Malone was the best player on that team. I don't think Stockton could carry a team like Nash did. Nash was only a couple of games away from the NBA Finals with Boris Diaw as a second option, that f'n impressive.

For longevity, you have to go with Stockton, although if Nash can play at this level for another 4-6 seasons, that could change. And I'm not putting it past Nash. The guy transformed into an all-star in his late 20s, in to a superstar and MVP in his early 30s, and is still doing the damn thing in his mid 30s. Anything he does for here on in will not surprise me.