RealGM

This channel uses all possessions in which each player guarded the other one. Some observations:

- I don't see any evidence of this infamous Stockton's passiveness, he attacked Payton consistently with no fear,
- Stockton did very fine job on Payton in that game defensively despite size disadvantage,
- Stockton abused Payton with off-ball movement in this game,
- Payton struggled against Stockton's pressure, but he could take advantage of size difference in the post,
- both had some nice assists in this video.

I know that Stockton didn't play well overall in this series, but he stepped up in deciding game 7. Payton also played well by the way and he outplayed Stockton for the whole series (though I'd give Stockton edge in this game).

I think that Nash comparisons turned Stockton from slightly overrated to criminally underrated offensive player. He was excellent floor general, yet some people talk about him like about Rajon Rondo...

96 was just a great playoff for Gary Payton overall.
On another message board some years ago we voted for him of player of the year because of his playoff performance.

70sFan wrote:

Watch on YouTube

This channel uses all possessions in which each player guarded the other one. Some observations:

- I don't see any evidence of this infamous Stockton's passiveness, he attacked Payton consistently with no fear,
- Stockton did very fine job on Payton in that game defensively despite size disadvantage,
- Stockton abused Payton with off-ball movement in this game,
- Payton struggled against Stockton's pressure, but he could take advantage of size difference in the post,
- both had some nice assists in this video.

I know that Stockton didn't play well overall in this series, but he stepped up in deciding game 7. Payton also played well by the way and he outplayed Stockton for the whole series (though I'd give Stockton edge in this game).

I think that Nash comparisons turned Stockton from slightly overrated to criminally underrated offensive player. He was excellent floor general, yet some people talk about him like about Rajon Rondo...

It was a really hard fought, physical series. Stockton just couldn’t make anything in that series (not even FTs) and has I think his lowest TS% for any playoff series other than one against Phoenix in 1990.

homecourtloss wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Watch on YouTube

This channel uses all possessions in which each player guarded the other one. Some observations:

- I don't see any evidence of this infamous Stockton's passiveness, he attacked Payton consistently with no fear,
- Stockton did very fine job on Payton in that game defensively despite size disadvantage,
- Stockton abused Payton with off-ball movement in this game,
- Payton struggled against Stockton's pressure, but he could take advantage of size difference in the post,
- both had some nice assists in this video.

I know that Stockton didn't play well overall in this series, but he stepped up in deciding game 7. Payton also played well by the way and he outplayed Stockton for the whole series (though I'd give Stockton edge in this game).

I think that Nash comparisons turned Stockton from slightly overrated to criminally underrated offensive player. He was excellent floor general, yet some people talk about him like about Rajon Rondo...

It was a really hard fought, physical series. Stockton just couldn’t make anything in that series (not even FTs) and has I think his lowest TS% for any playoff series other than one against Phoenix in 1990.

True but strangley he played well in game 7.

70sFan wrote:

homecourtloss wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Watch on YouTube

This channel uses all possessions in which each player guarded the other one. Some observations:

- I don't see any evidence of this infamous Stockton's passiveness, he attacked Payton consistently with no fear,
- Stockton did very fine job on Payton in that game defensively despite size disadvantage,
- Stockton abused Payton with off-ball movement in this game,
- Payton struggled against Stockton's pressure, but he could take advantage of size difference in the post,
- both had some nice assists in this video.

I know that Stockton didn't play well overall in this series, but he stepped up in deciding game 7. Payton also played well by the way and he outplayed Stockton for the whole series (though I'd give Stockton edge in this game).

I think that Nash comparisons turned Stockton from slightly overrated to criminally underrated offensive player. He was excellent floor general, yet some people talk about him like about Rajon Rondo...

It was a really hard fought, physical series. Stockton just couldn’t make anything in that series (not even FTs) and has I think his lowest TS% for any playoff series other than one against Phoenix in 1990.

True but strangley he played well in game 7.

Cool channel! Stockton definitely looked aggressive, especially by taking those open 3's early in the shot clock.

That said Stockton logged 10 points on 45.2 TS% and 7.6 assists in this series, whereas Payton had 20 points 57.8% TS, 6 assists, 5 rebounds. Highlighting probably his best game in a, for Stockton's "standards", terrible series looks a bit like cherry-picking to me.
Nevertheless, the Jazz still came close to beating the Sonics, while their "true" (many nowadays are saying Stockton was more impactful than Malone, just check the general board lol) best player only scored 10 points per game, I wonder if Stockton does better in Game 2 and Game 4 do the Jazz actually win the series?

Which leads me to this:

70sFan wrote:I don't see any evidence of this infamous Stockton's passiveness

That's the thing, Stockton was crazy efficient (high TS%) compared to his PG peers, but that was on lower volume. His team would have definitely benefited more if he continued his trend of efficient scoring, but on higher volume. Call it passiveness, or call it lacking shot-creation ability, they go hand in hand.

That said what people tend to rave about here is early career Stockton, anything beyond 1995 is used as a (convenient) excuse for Stockton not being in his true prime/peak anymore.

The problem is that Stockton wasn't that low volume compared to someone like Nash. Look at this:

1988-97 Stockton: 16.1 points per75 on 57.4 TS% in playoffs
2001-10 Nash: 18.8 points per75 on 58.7 TS% in playoffs

Sure, Nash was better offensive player (and clearly so) but people act like Stockton was Rondo and Nash was Curry - that's not the case.

Stockton is the only elite PG that people count discredit because he didn't average 20 ppg. Kidd had worse scoring averages for example - both in terms of volume and efficiency.

I don't know, I think that people start to criticize Stockton because he wasn't GOAT-level playmaker and now it reached the point that he's seen as nothing special, second tier player who only ranks high because of longevity...

70sFan wrote:The problem is that Stockton wasn't that low volume compared to someone like Nash. Look at this:

1988-97 Stockton: 16.1 points per75 on 57.4 TS% in playoffs
2001-10 Nash: 18.8 points per75 on 58.7 TS% in playoffs

Sure, Nash was better offensive player (and clearly so) but people act like Stockton was Rondo and Nash was Curry - that's not the case.

Stockton is the only elite PG that people count discredit because he didn't average 20 ppg. Kidd had worse scoring averages for example - both in terms of volume and efficiency.

I don't know, I think that people start to criticize Stockton because he wasn't GOAT-level playmaker and now it reached the point that he's seen as nothing special, second tier player who only ranks high because of longevity...

Over that specific time frame (1988-97 Stockton vs. 2001-10 Nash), I’m not sure you can argue that Nash is a clearly better offensive player, especially with Stockton averaging more than 3 APG more than Nash during that timeframe.

70sFan wrote:The problem is that Stockton wasn't that low volume compared to someone like Nash. Look at this:

1988-97 Stockton: 16.1 points per75 on 57.4 TS% in playoffs
2001-10 Nash: 18.8 points per75 on 58.7 TS% in playoffs

Sure, Nash was better offensive player (and clearly so) but people act like Stockton was Rondo and Nash was Curry - that's not the case.

Stockton is the only elite PG that people count discredit because he didn't average 20 ppg. Kidd had worse scoring averages for example - both in terms of volume and efficiency.

I don't know, I think that people start to criticize Stockton because he wasn't GOAT-level playmaker and now it reached the point that he's seen as nothing special, second tier player who only ranks high because of longevity...

Well it's not only longevity, but it does play a major part in Stockton doing well in All-Time rankings. Understandably so since some people place more emphasis on longevity than peaks/primes.

So when it comes to looking at the difference in scoring aggression I think it's a more fair comparison to look at their peaks/prime and not include Nash's years at Dallas in the statistical analyses, and conversely Stockton when he was at his peak (so probably 1988-1993 or something, but I don't have the time to crunch the numbers). It's widely acknowledged that Nash played at another level in Phoenix, and if you focus on those years you can really note the difference of scoring proficiency/potential between him and Stockton; this is the best what I could find on short notice, credit to Elgee's backpicks top40:

RS = Regular season
PS = Post season
PTS = Points
TSA = True Shots attempt



Ofc 30 points is very arbitrary but the True Shots attempts says a lot about how aggressive they were, and how they elevate their scoring game in the playoffs. And it begs the question, while Stockton really has nice efficiency stats (high TS%) what does it matter if it's on lower volume while your teammates are struggling to make a bucket?

Also I do believe that 2.7 points per 75 possessions (based on your analysis) is quite a difference, that's around 3.2 points if you consider an average game has 90 possessions. This is especially relevant since Utah often came up short and lost a lot of close series/play-off games in 1988-1995 when Stockton was considered to be closer to his peak (free of age-related injuries etc).

WestGOAT wrote:

70sFan wrote:The problem is that Stockton wasn't that low volume compared to someone like Nash. Look at this:

1988-97 Stockton: 16.1 points per75 on 57.4 TS% in playoffs
2001-10 Nash: 18.8 points per75 on 58.7 TS% in playoffs

Sure, Nash was better offensive player (and clearly so) but people act like Stockton was Rondo and Nash was Curry - that's not the case.

Stockton is the only elite PG that people count discredit because he didn't average 20 ppg. Kidd had worse scoring averages for example - both in terms of volume and efficiency.

I don't know, I think that people start to criticize Stockton because he wasn't GOAT-level playmaker and now it reached the point that he's seen as nothing special, second tier player who only ranks high because of longevity...

Well it's not only longevity, but it does play a major part in Stockton doing well in All-Time rankings. Understandably so since some people place more emphasis on longevity than peaks/primes.

So when it comes to looking at the difference in scoring aggression I think it's a more fair comparison to look at their peaks/prime and not include Nash's years at Dallas in the statistical analyses, and conversely Stockton when he was at his peak (so probably 1988-1993 or something, but I don't have the time to crunch the numbers). It's widely acknowledged that Nash played at another level in Phoenix, and if you focus on those years you can really note the difference of scoring proficiency/potential between him and Stockton; this is the best what I could find on short notice, credit to Elgee's backpicks top40:

RS = Regular season
PS = Post season
PTS = Points
TSA = True Shots attempt



Ofc 30 points is very arbitrary but the True Shots attempts says a lot about how aggressive they were, and how they elevate their scoring game in the playoffs. And it begs the question, while Stockton really has nice efficiency stats (high TS%) what does it matter if it's on lower volume while your teammates are struggling to make a bucket?

This is all legit criticism if you compare Stockton to Magic or Nash who are GOAT-level offensive players. People use the same reasoning to have Stockton lower than second tier stars though...

Also I do believe that 2.7 points per 75 possessions (based on your analysis) is quite a difference, that's around 3.2 points if you consider an average game has 90 possessions. This is especially relevant since Utah often came up short and lost a lot of close series/play-off games in 1988-1995 when Stockton was considered to be closer to his peak (free of age-related injuries etc).

For most of the time, Jazz offense was excellent (or at least good) in playoffs:

1988: +1.6
1989: -1.6
1990: +2.1
1991: +5.3
1992: +8.4
1993: -2.5
1994: +4.8
1995: +9.0
1996: +7.2
1997: +6.9
1998: +2.5

70sFan wrote:

WestGOAT wrote:

70sFan wrote:The problem is that Stockton wasn't that low volume compared to someone like Nash. Look at this:

1988-97 Stockton: 16.1 points per75 on 57.4 TS% in playoffs
2001-10 Nash: 18.8 points per75 on 58.7 TS% in playoffs

Sure, Nash was better offensive player (and clearly so) but people act like Stockton was Rondo and Nash was Curry - that's not the case.

Stockton is the only elite PG that people count discredit because he didn't average 20 ppg. Kidd had worse scoring averages for example - both in terms of volume and efficiency.

I don't know, I think that people start to criticize Stockton because he wasn't GOAT-level playmaker and now it reached the point that he's seen as nothing special, second tier player who only ranks high because of longevity...

Well it's not only longevity, but it does play a major part in Stockton doing well in All-Time rankings. Understandably so since some people place more emphasis on longevity than peaks/primes.

So when it comes to looking at the difference in scoring aggression I think it's a more fair comparison to look at their peaks/prime and not include Nash's years at Dallas in the statistical analyses, and conversely Stockton when he was at his peak (so probably 1988-1993 or something, but I don't have the time to crunch the numbers). It's widely acknowledged that Nash played at another level in Phoenix, and if you focus on those years you can really note the difference of scoring proficiency/potential between him and Stockton; this is the best what I could find on short notice, credit to Elgee's backpicks top40:

RS = Regular season
PS = Post season
PTS = Points
TSA = True Shots attempt



Ofc 30 points is very arbitrary but the True Shots attempts says a lot about how aggressive they were, and how they elevate their scoring game in the playoffs. And it begs the question, while Stockton really has nice efficiency stats (high TS%) what does it matter if it's on lower volume while your teammates are struggling to make a bucket?

This is all legit criticism if you compare Stockton to Magic or Nash who are GOAT-level offensive players. People use the same reasoning to have Stockton lower than second tier stars though...

Also I do believe that 2.7 points per 75 possessions (based on your analysis) is quite a difference, that's around 3.2 points if you consider an average game has 90 possessions. This is especially relevant since Utah often came up short and lost a lot of close series/play-off games in 1988-1995 when Stockton was considered to be closer to his peak (free of age-related injuries etc).

For most of the time, Jazz offense was excellent (or at least good) in playoffs:

1988: +1.6
1989: -1.6
1990: +2.1
1991: +5.3
1992: +8.4
1993: -2.5
1994: +4.8
1995: +9.0
1996: +7.2
1997: +6.9
1998: +2.5

Fair play on the last numbers, but a few questions, what is the source for these numbers?
Is this ORTG stat (I assume), relative to other teams in the playoffs that year?

Also how much credit do you give Stockton for a team stat versus Malone?

I just find it telling that the Jazz especially started doing better from 1993 onwards once it became less Stockton-centric (wasn't Stockton's peak more like 1988-1993?), if you accept that AST% is an okay measure to estimate how much the offense is being run by Stockton, and the addition of Hornacek(?). Yet Malone's offensive burden remained heavy as ever. In particular, the 1988-1993 numbers don't look that impressive, with 1992 being the exception.

WestGOAT wrote:

70sFan wrote:

WestGOAT wrote:
Well it's not only longevity, but it does play a major part in Stockton doing well in All-Time rankings. Understandably so since some people place more emphasis on longevity than peaks/primes.

So when it comes to looking at the difference in scoring aggression I think it's a more fair comparison to look at their peaks/prime and not include Nash's years at Dallas in the statistical analyses, and conversely Stockton when he was at his peak (so probably 1988-1993 or something, but I don't have the time to crunch the numbers). It's widely acknowledged that Nash played at another level in Phoenix, and if you focus on those years you can really note the difference of scoring proficiency/potential between him and Stockton; this is the best what I could find on short notice, credit to Elgee's backpicks top40:

RS = Regular season
PS = Post season
PTS = Points
TSA = True Shots attempt



Ofc 30 points is very arbitrary but the True Shots attempts says a lot about how aggressive they were, and how they elevate their scoring game in the playoffs. And it begs the question, while Stockton really has nice efficiency stats (high TS%) what does it matter if it's on lower volume while your teammates are struggling to make a bucket?

This is all legit criticism if you compare Stockton to Magic or Nash who are GOAT-level offensive players. People use the same reasoning to have Stockton lower than second tier stars though...

Also I do believe that 2.7 points per 75 possessions (based on your analysis) is quite a difference, that's around 3.2 points if you consider an average game has 90 possessions. This is especially relevant since Utah often came up short and lost a lot of close series/play-off games in 1988-1995 when Stockton was considered to be closer to his peak (free of age-related injuries etc).

For most of the time, Jazz offense was excellent (or at least good) in playoffs:

1988: +1.6
1989: -1.6
1990: +2.1
1991: +5.3
1992: +8.4
1993: -2.5
1994: +4.8
1995: +9.0
1996: +7.2
1997: +6.9
1998: +2.5

Fair play on the last numbers, but a few questions, what is the source for these numbers?
Is this ORTG stat (I assume), relative to other teams in the playoffs that year?

Also how much credit do you give Stockton for a team stat versus Malone?

I just find it telling that the Jazz especially started doing better from 1993 onwards once it became less Stockton-centric (wasn't Stockton's peak more like 1988-1993?), if you accept that AST% is an okay measure to estimate how much the offense is being run by Stockton, and the addition of Hornacek(?). Yet Malone's offensive burden remained heavy as ever. In particular, the 1988-1993 numbers don't look that impressive, with 1992 being the exception.

Yeah, it's relative to faced competition. The source is from backpicks.com

I don't know how much credit should we give to Malone and how much to Stockton, I'm just against the notion that Jazz underperformed offensively in playoffs.

Jazz did better after 1993 because they became better team, not because Stockton became less relevant. They started with Mark Eaton at center and he's one of my favorites ever but he's absolutely terrible offensive player. They also replaced Jeff Malone with Jeff Hornacek in 1994 and I find it to be a clear improvement.

Even if you only take 1988-93 numbers, Jazz didn't look bad offensively at all. It doesn't look worse than Thomas teams results in playoffs for example.

Again - I don't support the idea that Stockton was GOAT-level offensive player because he definitely wasn't. That's why comparing him to Magic or Nash could hurt his image. I don't see any reason to believe that someone like Thomas is much better offensive player than him though.