RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #26 (John Stockton)

[trex_8063]

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
17. David Robinson
18. Julius Erving
19. George Mikan
20. Moses Malone
21. Charles Barkley
22. Kevin Durant
23. Chris Paul
24. Stephen Curry
25. Bob Pettit
26. ???

Target stop time around 6pm EST on Saturday. Don't leave it to the last second....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

Nothing's changed for me; I've been voting Stockton [at least as 2nd vote] for like 5 or so threads. Only thing different is more and more potential competitors are off the table [making this easier for me]. I could potentially switch my 3rd vote (Nash or Pippen would be the biggest competitors), but that's about it.

1st vote: John Stockton
Again: meaningful longevity matters to me; and Stockton's got that in spades. He was valuable (almost a borderline All-Star calibre player) even in his 19th and final season (every metric, including the impact variety, bare this to be true); and imo was roughly a top 6-8 player in the league during two or three of his best years (fwiw, box-based metrics typically peg him even HIGHER than this many years, and impact data we have from '97 [or '94] on also frequently places him among the league's elite).

He was so clever (and dirty), particularly defensively, as well as being an excellent shooter, fantastic [if a touch overly "safe"] passer; and bloody tough as nails. There's some value to having a guy you can count on being there EVERY night. He's also a teammate that no one ever did [no one ever would, I suspect] say something bad about. Just a humble, hard-working class act; though still tough as anyone (someone who Chris Webber once referred to as "the baddest man in the NBA").

While I don't think he attained the offensive heights of Steve Nash, he so thoroughly trumps Nash as a defender AND in terms of longevity that I have him comfortably ahead in an all-time sense.

I'll also refer to post 33 from the #23 thread regarding some of the usual criticisms he endures in these discussions.

Specifically on Stockton vs Nash.....
Again, I'm not going to try to convince you that Stockton was Nash's equal as an offensive engine, because I don't think that's true. I also don't think the offensive comparison is like comparing Steph Curry to Rajon Rondo--->not that anyone has suggested it is, that's just my sarcastic way of saying I don't think there's an ocean of difference between them on offense; it's more like a pond [some might even say a koi pond, but I'll hedge off of that].

But defensively there's probably [on average in respective primes] around 2 pts/100 poss difference between them; maybe more.
Stockton didn't have remarkable lateral quickness, but it was better than Nash's (as well as having terrific anticipation and footwork). And whereas Nash might die on a screen, Stockton would give someone a shove [or a hold, or an elbow], and a purple nurple, and tear their shorts as he either fought around the screen or tried to impede his man from effectively using it. That physicality sometimes got him inside opponents’ heads, or under their skin, **as I’ll point out in the following video. He also had ultra-quick hands and is in an all-time tier as a weak-side sniper and post help defender from the PG position (part of why he’s the steals leader by a truly silly margin).

Just as a bit of an example of what he brings defensively, I’ll just point to ONE game I happened to have been watching recently:

Watch on YouTube

48:40 - notice how he recognizes the shooter the very moment Jay Humphries goes to double-team, and the nice close-out to make a good contest [he is NOT the closest Jazz player to the play, btw].

49:12 - the very next defensive possession, he makes the aggressive double [working those quick hands] contributing to a bad pass toward the weak-side that nearly turns it over. And who recovers the ball-handler on that weak-side? John Stockton, even though he was the FARTHEST Jazz player from the play. Stith goes dribble-drive baseline, and Stockton pokes the ball loose from behind, generating the turnover. All this on ONE possession!

51:12 - THE VERY NEXT defensive possession (Robert Pack has just made 2 FT’s after an intentional foul by Humphries, Denver is inbounding).....Stockton denies the entry pass to Pack [ball goes to Brian Williams] as Stockton has a little shove/flop exchange with Pack, who then gets the ball. Stockton then cuts off Pack’s dribble-drive so effectively, Pack falls down and nearly loses the ball (while also nearly charging [could have been called a charge, frankly]), though ultimately manages to get it to Reggie Williams. Stockton then denies the pass back to Pack, so the ball goes to Brian Williams on the baseline, who drives around an utterly stationary Tom Chambers, falls down, but gets the foul call (they show a slo-mo replay: Chambers made virtually NO contact, so…..bad call). When Williams lost the ball, who recovered it? Stockton.

**52:25 - As Brian Williams shoots the 2nd FT [that he didn’t deserve] from the play above, Stockton is getting physical with Robert Pack, who responds in frustration [**remember I said he’d get under opponents’ skin?] and throws Stockton to the floor, and is called for a foul.

I mean, there^^^^ is a sequence of four CONSECUTIVE possessions in the same game. But truly this kind of tactic and effort is not at all out of the ordinary for Stockton (perhaps obviously, when I can find four plays IN A ROW like that).

Other plays to look at (this is just from a brief re-watch of part of this game):

30:44 - Simple play, nothing fancy. But note the ball-pressure on the perimeter, forcing Rauf to give up the ball. Then he shows the double, prompting Ellis to quickly get rid of the ball, still recovering to make a nice contest on the shot by Rauf.

31:40 - Very next defensive possession. The physical on-ball pressure by Stockton, perhaps contributing to a bad pass that nearly turns it over (ball tipped out of bounds). On the following inbound play, physical ball-denial leads to Stockton drawing an offensive foul [moving screen by Mutombo]; could also have been a shove by Rauf.

35:12 - Stockton ties up Williams. Doesn’t get the call, but you can see in the replay it’s a mis-call. It’s GOT to be either an jump-ball or a travel on Williams.

Seriously, this didn’t take exhaustive scouting to find these plays; this was a lazy man’s 12-minute scouting of a SINGLE GAME. But any game with Stockton is peppered with plays like this.

So whatever margin you feel exists between Stockton and Nash offensive, it is pure denial to, well……deny that Stockton isn’t making up at least a big chunk of that margin defensively.
And then he’s got the superior longevity besides….

EDIT: I also note the "no rings despite Karl" narrative haunts Stockton. However, I've previously stated my thoughts regarding '98 (I think it's in that linked post); and while I'm not sure [haven't tracked to play the "Gotcha!" game], I suspect there may be one or two who use that argument against Stockton while ignoring it where Nash is concerned (who fwiw, not only doesn't have a ring, but never made a trip to the finals [despite Marion, Stoudemire, excellent depth, lauded coach who "unleashed" Nash's offensive brilliance]).


2nd vote: Dwyane Wade
I'll try to add some more substantial arguments at a later time. For now I'll state I think Wade is arguably the best peak left on the table save maybe Bill Walton. His longevity is lacking [durability was oft an issue], which is the only reason I've not supported him earlier.
But Wade was a crazy good slashing/finishing guard, understated playmaker, and in the GOAT-tier of help defenders from the SG position. Box-based metrics put him at an MVP tier during his very best seasons, and he held up well in the playoffs before his body began breaking down (like around '13 and after).
He's in the company of players like Dirk and Chris Paul, and just barely behind Duncan [all of these guys already voted in] in terms of his multi-year impact measures, which would certainly seem to suggest he deserves some traction, even with longevity that is lacking relative to the rest. His peak RAPM rivals basically anyone not named Lebron.


3rd vote: Patrick Ewing
I worry I'm going to be on an island promoting this pick for awhile before he has traction, but I do think he deserves some consideration.
Overshadowed in terms of DPOY and/or All-Defensive accolades because his career almost exactly overlaps with those of Hakeem, DRob, and Dikembe......I'm willing to bet Dwight Howard does no better on this front if his career overlapped with these guys.

But Ewing anchored [or at worst "co-anchored"] TWO of the greatest defensive squads in NBA history (two of the top 3-4 defenses of the last 30 years), while simultaneously being the 1st option on offense [even if he wasn't terrifically suited to that role]. There are not a lot of guys who can anchor an elite defense AND score 23-27 ppg [even if it is on average(ish) efficiency].

And Ewing had more than respectable longevity as well.
I really want to make a big post about Ewing, who I think belongs in the conversation at this point. I know there isn’t a mainstream list that has Ewing in the top 30, though I think that’s because they’re all too often based heavily on media accolades [which he just misses out on by having career overlap with Hakeem, Robinson, and Mutombo] and rings.

I’m out of time/energy tonight. Will try to get to it soon, though.

[Odinn21]

26. Dwyane Wade
We're at a point, we've run out of players with 7+ seasons of prime. So, I can not knock Wade for not having an extended prime. His postseason resilience, especially against the toughest defenses, is the main reason I have him over anyone else left on the board.
I'd like to see Wade in the top 25. Personally I have him over Durant, Curry and Paul and my desire to see him in the top 25 could lead me to change my vote but I should stick my initial ranking.

Coming from the #25 thread about how hard Wade carried the Heat in 2006;

Spoiler:

I ran some simple numbers in the last half hour or so.
It was about vorp share on a team. Looking at vorp share is more about to see how hard a player carried his team, instead of making a claim about saying directly "he's the best since he has the highest numbers".

And I also looked at a small pool of title winning runs.

(vorp share in regular season / vorp share in playoffs / vorp share in total / season, player)

46.50% / 44.74% / 46.15% / 1980 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
43.20% / 55.56% / 46.19% / 1984 Larry Bird
41.67% / 39.58% / 41.25% / 1987 Magic Johnson
54.27% / 52.73% / 53.94% / 1991 Michael Jordan
58.29% / 51.92% / 56.83% / 1993 Michael Jordan
48.34% / 50.98% / 49.01% / 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon
45.23% / 42.62% / 44.62% / 2000 Shaquille O'Neal
45.56% / 50.82% / 46.96% / 2003 Tim Duncan
48.97% / 49.09% / 49.00% / 2006 Dwyane Wade
31.72% / 41.27% / 34.14% / 2009 Kobe Bryant
55.07% / 43.66% / 51.20% / 2012 LeBron James
52.66% / 46.88% / 51.19% / 2013 LeBron James
37.09% / 34.92% / 36.59% / 2015 Stephen Curry

I wanted to have no duplicates on the list but couldn't deny Jordan's and James' multiple 50+ seasons.
Nowitzki's 2011 run is not on there because BPM (thus VORP) design doesn't like off-ball oriented Nowitzki. 2019 Leonard did not match my 30+% share requirement (his regular season share was 29.19%).

As you can see, Wade is the only player that performed a very significant carry job and is yet to make our list. Personally, I hadn't realized Wade's regular season also being a top notch carry job. His numbers are on the same level as 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon and only third to Jordan and James.

Wade was able to carry his team like a top 10 player ever (maybe even top 5), shame that his prime was hampered by many injuries and got cut short with another injury...

---

Some other notes about what I did; winning has its unique impact on these numbers, that's why I looked at only title winning runs and did not include runs like 1977 Abdul-Jabbar, 1990 Jordan or 2009 James. Being a one-man army as it can get while winning and being an entire one-man army are different things.

27. Patrick Ewing
I think his defense, performance/quality/impact wise, a bit underrated. With Riley, he was the centre piece of one of the best defensive teams ever. I don't have the exact numbers as of now but when I compared Nash led offense in playoffs in Phoenix and Ewing led defense in playoffs from '92 to '96, they were pretty much on par. And we all know how great that Phoenix offense was. We just do not acknowledge the defensive quality of the NY team enough. Ewing was not entirely suitable to carry an offense, similar to Robinson. But he was still productive and his offensive production was resilient enough.

28. Elgin Baylor
This may seem too old school. And I'd already concede that Baylor was not the highest impact player. But he still had pretty good impact and his on court production was great. I think it's quite forgotten that Baylor had a 41/18/4 series against the Celtics in '62. Bill Russell had to play arguably the best game 7 in the game history to deny Baylor and the Lakers. It's kind of unfair to Baylor, thinking that West gets so much love for '69 Finals but Baylor doesn't for '62 Finals.
Had he not gotten injured in '65, I think he'd be higher on this list.

[Dr Positivity]

No idea how to choose between Wade and Stockton, strictly a prime vs longevity thing

[Jordan Syndrome]

No idea how to choose between Wade and Stockton, strictly a prime vs longevity thing

Nash--the best of both worlds.

[Dr Positivity]

No idea how to choose between Wade and Stockton, strictly a prime vs longevity thing

Nash--the best of both worlds.

In my opinion Wade should be over Nash, since I don't value Mavs Nash nearly as high as Suns, I don't think his longevity is all that much better than Wade's.

[Jordan Syndrome]

No idea how to choose between Wade and Stockton, strictly a prime vs longevity thing

Nash--the best of both worlds.

In my opinion Wade should be over Nash, since I don't value Mavs Nash nearly as high as Suns, I don't think his longevity is all that much better than Wade's.

What do you mean by "I don't value Mavs Nash very high"?

From 2002-2004 Nash was the 1B offensive player on the best offense in the NBA.

Nash has 6 superstar seasons if you don't like 2003 and 2004 Nash (though if you could explain why you are not high on him that would be great) from 2005-2010, Wade has ~5 Superstar seasons (06, 09, 10, 11, 12). Nash has 5 more seasons as a high impact, all-star player (02, 03, 04, 11, 12) while Wade 5-6 (05, 07, 08, 13, 15, 16) but was injury plagued in over half of them.

[Dr Positivity]

Nash--the best of both worlds.

In my opinion Wade should be over Nash, since I don't value Mavs Nash nearly as high as Suns, I don't think his longevity is all that much better than Wade's.

What do you mean by "I don't value Mavs Nash very high"?

From 2002-2004 Nash was the 1B offensive player on the best offense in the NBA.

Nash has 6 superstar seasons if you don't like 2003 and 2004 Nash (though if you could explain why you are not high on him that would be great) from 2005-2010, Wade has ~5 Superstar seasons (06, 09, 10, 11, 12). Nash has 5 more seasons as a high impact, all-star player (02, 03, 04, 11, 12) while Wade 5-6 (05, 07, 08, 13, 15, 16) but was injury plagued in over half of them.

Mavs Nash is a good player but more of a standard all-star than anyone who would be near this discussion, a worse version of Price in my opinion. He mades 2 3rd team All NBAs which is about right. The change in 05 is dramatic in my opinion whether it's because of pace, change in hand check rules, D'Antoni or genuine improvements to his game and body.

They're not valueless seasons but Wade has more than 5 seasons where he's pretty good as well, 05, 13 and 14 Wade are as good as Mavs Nash to me for example.

[Jordan Syndrome]

In my opinion Wade should be over Nash, since I don't value Mavs Nash nearly as high as Suns, I don't think his longevity is all that much better than Wade's.

What do you mean by "I don't value Mavs Nash very high"?

From 2002-2004 Nash was the 1B offensive player on the best offense in the NBA.

Nash has 6 superstar seasons if you don't like 2003 and 2004 Nash (though if you could explain why you are not high on him that would be great) from 2005-2010, Wade has ~5 Superstar seasons (06, 09, 10, 11, 12). Nash has 5 more seasons as a high impact, all-star player (02, 03, 04, 11, 12) while Wade 5-6 (05, 07, 08, 13, 15, 16) but was injury plagued in over half of them.

Mavs Nash is a good player but more of a standard all-star than anyone who would be near this discussion, a worse version of Price in my opinion. He mades 2 3rd team All NBAs which is about right. The change in 05 is dramatic in my opinion whether it's because of pace, change in hand check rules, D'Antoni or genuine improvements to his game and body.

They're not valueless seasons but Wade has more than 5 seasons where he's pretty good as well, 05, 13 and 14 Wade are as good as Mavs Nash to me for example.

2014 Wade missed 29 regular season games and was mediocre in both the 2013 and 2014 post-seasons.

Wade has less high impact seasons than Nash and less all-star level seasons as well.

[Joao Saraiva]

Votes
John Stockton
D. Wade
Steve Nash

John Stockton is a king longevity wise. The best of the best in that regard from the ones that are left.
The proof of that are his totals in steals and assists, records that will be there for a looong time.

Prime:
But it's not only longevity. Stockton's prime (88-92) is absolutely phenomenal. He had series after series for the ages, and that has really become underrated with time. Sure a bad one here and there, but he reached superstar heights.

88 run - Head to head with the GOAT point guard... and arguably outplaying him!
In 88 there were talks of Stockton being the best PG in the league. And rightfully so.
In the 1st round against Portland Stockton went for 20 PPG and 12 APG at 67.5ts%, leading Utah's offense to extremely good levels. He displayed great playmaking, great scoring and fantastic defense too on that series.

But things only got better. Against the Lakers and Magic (the GOAT PG) Stockton actually outplayed him with 19.3 PPG, 16.4 APG and 4 SPG. That is tremendous production. The Jazz actually took the current NBA (and 88 champions too) to 7 games with Stockton leading the offense. As it was shown before in this thread, Stockton lead an offense that wasn't built on spacing and assisted time and time again to great spots undereath the basket. It was impressive as hell. He sometimes is criticized for not being agressive enough, but he was. He got to the line a lot, and ended up with 8.3 FTAs.

89 fiasco in the playoffs wasn't his fault
Hard to blame Stockton here against GSW. Yes we were supposed to win. No, we can't blame it on our stars. Stockton went for 27.3 PPG and 13.7 APG on that series, while he had at 60.1ts% with only 11 TOs in the entire series.

The Jazz role players actually weren't efficient enough, giving Stockto and Malone too big of a burden to carry against an excelent offensive GSW team. Our defense didn't work well, but Stockton wasn't the problem here. Our wings just couldn't compete with Mullin and Richmond, since they lacked the necessary speed and lateral quickness to hang with them. They murdered Utah, but Stockton still had a fantastic series.

1990 vs Suns wasn't indeed the most epic performance from Stockton. We struggled on offense here, and Stockton's bad shooting was definitely a part of it.

1991 run - elite shooting, elite playmaking yet again
Against the Suns again, but shots were falling this time. Stockton finishes the 1st round with 18 and 12.5, with 71ts%.

In the 2nd round, another epic series from Stockton. Playmaking at elite levels again while being super efficient on offense. Finishes the series at 18.4 PPG and 14.6 APG on 60ts%.

In 1992 it looked like it could be our year... but we wer just not deep enough
We went all the way to the WCF with Stockton leading the playmaking duties of the team at extremely high level. His shot wasn't falling at superb rates like in other years, but it's not like he was inefficient or something.

Eventually we ran into Portland, and they proved to be too deep for us. If only we had Horny with us at the time...

Sockton and Malone were at full force in this playoff run, but Jeff Malone, Corbin and Eaton wer a flawed cast to say the least. Again, not enough spacing coming out of there, and Stockton making that team work on offense is something that deserves special praise. Sure he had Malone, but running offensive schemes with that was extremely difficult. Particularly Eaton as a big black hole on offense for his entire career, and both Corbin and Jeff weren't great offensive palyers either. Yes Jeff put up some volume, but his efficiency was questionable and he brought nothing else to the table.

I think Stockton's prime gets underrated because of the Jazz teams not being deep enough and having some serious flaws.


Accodales

Stockton has 11 all-NBA team slections, and some defensive ones too. That is a lot and shows you he was relevant for a long time. He wasn't just hanging arround the league, even until his very last year. If you look at his per 100 possessions numbers, you'll realize John was still a factor, just playing less minutes.

[colts18]

John Stockton vs Peak Steve Nash

Team Context:

1997 Jazz- 90.0 Pace (17th), 11.0 3PA/Game (29th, last place), 35.7 3P% teammates (3.1 Made Per game)
2006 Suns- 95.8 Pace (1st), 25.6 3PA/Game (1st), 39.1 3P% teammates (8.4 Made Per Game)

Nash played in a much more favorable offensive environment to Stockton. Nash's team played fast and had 3 point shooters spreading the floor. By contrast, Stockton's teams were slow and took the least amount of 3 pointers in the league. Nash's teammates scored over 15 more PPG from 3 pointers which inflated Nash's team O rating compared to Stockton's. Could you imagine Stockton getting to play in a fast offense with 3 point shooters to spread the floor?

2006 was clearly an easier environment for perimeter players than 1997. All 10 of the top 10 scorers in 2006 were perimeter players. All 10 of them scored 25+ PPG on 54+ TS%. Only 3 perimeter players accomplished that in 1997 and a total of 4 players reached 25+ PPG. In 2006, 3 players reached 30+ PPG while no player accomplished that feat in 1997, not even Michael Jordan. It was clearly a more favorable environment for Nash in the post handchecking NBA.

Per Game stats:

Stockton- 35 MPG, 14.4 PPG, 10.5 AST-3.0 TOV, 55 FG%, 42 3P%, 65.4 TS% (+12 rTS%)
Nash- 35 MPG, 18.8 PPG, 10.5 AST-3.5 TOV, 51 FG, 44 3P%, 63.2 TS% (+9.6 rTS%)

The Per Game stats look pretty close. Both of them played an even amount of minutes. Nash scored better, but Stockton's passing and efficiency rated higher. Remember, Nash played on the fastest offense in the league while Stockton was on a slow offense. Stockton played 82 games while Nash played 79 so that's another slight edge for Stockton.If you adjust for pace, the numbers look close.


Per 75 Possessions:

Stockton- 16.4 PPG, 11.9 AST-3.5 TOV, 3.2 Reb, 2.3 STL
Nash- 20 PPG, 11.1 AST-3.7 TOV, 4.5 Reb, 0.8 STL

The Per game gap shrunk when you adjust for pace.

Advanced Stats:

Stockton- 6.6 BPM, 22.1 PER, .226 WS/48, 6.3 VORP
Nash- 5.0 BPM, 23.3 PER, .212 WS/48, 4.9 VORP

RAPM:

Stockton: 2.3 Off, 1.5 Def, 3.9 Tot
Nash: 2.2 Off, -0.4 Def, 1.9 Tot

When you look at both the box score advanced stats and the advanced impact data, Stockton beats out Nash on both counts. Stockton's offense comes out nearly equal to Nash's while Stockton's defense crushes Nash.


Playoffs:

This is where Stockton shined. Stockton stepped up his game in the 97 Playoffs.

Per 75 Possessions:

Stockton- 18.2 PPG, 10.7 AST-3.7 TOV, 4.4 Reb,1.9 STL, 62.7 TS% (+9.5 rTS%)
Nash- 19.9 PPG, 10.0 AST-3.5 TOV, 3.6 Reb, 0.4 STL, 61.5 TS% (+7.9 r TS%)

In the playoffs, Stockton passed better, was more efficient, had 5x more steals than Nash, and outrebounded Nash too. The gap is scoring volume was reduced during the postseason.

Average opponent in the playoffs:

Stockton- 57.2 Wins, 4.88 SRS, 104.0 D Rating
Nash- 50.2 Wins, 3.29 SRS, 104.8 D Rating

Stockton played tougher opponents in the playoffs. He played a 56 win Lakers team, 57 win Rockets team, and a 69 win Bulls team. Nash played a 45 win Lakers team, 47 win Clippers team, and a 60 win Mavericks team. Stockton's numbers look better when you account for the stiff opposition.

Team Results:

Stockton- 64-18, 7.97 SRS (2nd), 113.6 O Rating (2nd), 104.0 D Rating (9th)
Nash- 54-28, 5.48 SRS (4th), 111.5 O Rating (2nd), 105.6 D Rating (16th)

Playoff Team Results:

Stockton- 7.88 SRS, +6.9 Offense, -2.1 Defense, +9.0 Net relative to opponent
Nash- 4.19 SRS, +9.5 Offense, +4.5 Defense (bad), +5.0 Net relative to opponent

Stockton's team results beat out Nash's in the regular season. In the playoffs, that gap widens.

Playoff Advanced Stats:
Stockton- 7.8 BPM, 22.7 PER, .201 WS/48, 1.8 VORP
Nash- 3.7 BPM, 21.3 PER, .153 WS/48, 1.1 VORP

Once again, the gap between them widens in the playoffs for Stockton.

Clutch Play:

It would be wrong to mention 1997 Stockton without mentioning how clutch he was in that postseason. That was the year of Stockton's top career highlight, his buzzer beater in Game 6 vs Houston to send the Utah Jazz to their 1st NBA finals. What's forgotten is that Stockton carried the team for the whole 4th quarter. The Jazz were down by 10 points with 3:13 left in the 4th quarter when John Stockton decided to go into Beast Mode. He scores 13 points on 4-4 shooting with 2 Assists and a crucial steal that led to the layup that tied the game. He scored or assisted on all 19 of the Jazz points. He makes a clutch layup with 22 seconds left to tie the game. Then makes a 3 pointer at the buzzer to win the game.

Watch on YouTube

Then in Game 4 of the finals, he takes over the game in the 4th. He forces a critical steal off of Michael Jordan which leads to an easy 2 points. Later he throws his iconic full court baseball pass to Karl Malone for a layup that gives the Jazz the lead.

Watch on YouTube

Based on all of that, I don't see how anyone can rate Nash's 2006 season ahead of Stockton 1997's season. Stockton's statistical and impact stats edge Nash in the regular season and postseason. This season was peak Steve Nash when he won an MVP. 1997 was clearly not Stockton's best season and he still finishes ahead of Nash. In fact, 1997 is Stockton's 11th best season according BPM, 10th best according to PER, and 6th best season according to win shares. If Nash can't really beat out 34 year old Stockton in his 5th-10th best season, then I don't see how anyone can say that Stockton doesn't have a comparable peak.

Head to Head
Stockton: 14-8 W-L, 12 PPG, 9 AST-2.1 TOV, 3 Reb, 1.7 STL, 47 FG%, 44 3P%
Nash: 8-14 W-L, 11 PPG, 6 AST-3.0 TOV, 3 Reb, 0.5 STL, 40 FG%, 39 3P%

Stockton destroys Nash head to head despite being an old man. Nash struggled vs Stockton in a physical handchecking league.



Stockton is the best mid range shooter of this generation:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Doctor MJ]

No idea how to choose between Wade and Stockton, strictly a prime vs longevity thing

Nash--the best of both worlds.

In my opinion Wade should be over Nash, since I don't value Mavs Nash nearly as high as Suns, I don't think his longevity is all that much better than Wade's.

I'll repeat the point of Nash being Top 2 in on-court ORtg 10 years in a row through the age of 36 and being 3rd all-time in assists.

I do understand picking Wade over Nash if you're more impressed with Wade as a player, but seeing Nash as a guy with actually unimpressive longevity is a bit of a skewed perspective.

[Doctor MJ]

In my opinion Wade should be over Nash, since I don't value Mavs Nash nearly as high as Suns, I don't think his longevity is all that much better than Wade's.

What do you mean by "I don't value Mavs Nash very high"?

From 2002-2004 Nash was the 1B offensive player on the best offense in the NBA.

Nash has 6 superstar seasons if you don't like 2003 and 2004 Nash (though if you could explain why you are not high on him that would be great) from 2005-2010, Wade has ~5 Superstar seasons (06, 09, 10, 11, 12). Nash has 5 more seasons as a high impact, all-star player (02, 03, 04, 11, 12) while Wade 5-6 (05, 07, 08, 13, 15, 16) but was injury plagued in over half of them.

Mavs Nash is a good player but more of a standard all-star than anyone who would be near this discussion, a worse version of Price in my opinion. He mades 2 3rd team All NBAs which is about right. The change in 05 is dramatic in my opinion whether it's because of pace, change in hand check rules, D'Antoni or genuine improvements to his game and body.

They're not valueless seasons but Wade has more than 5 seasons where he's pretty good as well, 05, 13 and 14 Wade are as good as Mavs Nash to me for example.

So I'll use the "play it backward" technique again.

Imagine Nash has the Phoenix years first, then goes to Dallas in support of Dirk to help them become the best offense in the league. What kind of respect do you think Nash would have been given for those years already being an offensive legend and respected leader and mentor, as opposed to being the afterthought he was when played forward?

Remember that in Dallas, Nash was a mentor to Dirk, and they came up together building their ability to create a great offense together, and that Dirk would never lead an outlier offense again after Nash left (3 straight 7+ rORtg seasons with Nash, and he would only ever break 5+ once in his career after that).

People back then were looking for one face to be the guy to get really excited about, and Dirk was obviously going to be that guy, but knowing what we know now, I really think it's a problem to see Nash's years in Dallas through a lens of "worse version of Price" when the Dallas offense was thriving in a way you literally never saw from an offense Price was on and you know that Nash would go on to show even more in a few years.

I do think that Nash had some weaker moments in Dallas, and that lasting taste of the bizarre Antawn?Antoine! '03-04 Mavs isn't sweet, I also think he really did continue to grow as a player and thus did get better in Phoenix no matter how you look at it, but fundamentally, what Nash was doing out there was working well enough for the offense to be the best in the league, so you can't really say there was something wrong with it. In some ways, it feels like knocking a virtuoso guitarist for playing a more subdued solo when the context of the band called for that.

As I say this, I want to say: I'm not saying you saying Price > Nash is ridiculous, I'm quibbling specifically with the notion that Nash's Dallas years should be dismissed lightly.

[colts18]

You can't bring up Nash's O ratings without mentioning the defense. His teams sacrificed defense for offense. That's why when he left the Mavs, the Mavs became a better team despite having a worse offense.


2004 Mavs with Nash: 52-30, 4.86 SRS

2005 Mavs w/o Nash: 58-24, 5.86 SRS

[Magic Is Magic]

Voting for the #26 spot:


1. James Harden
2. Scottie Pippen
3. Steve Nash

1. Harden dropped 36 ppg in the modern era! He also accumulated three scoring titles, an MVP, and an assist title. Very few have won both an assist and scoring title in their NBA career. Not to mention he is an 8x all-star, but the thing holding him back the most is lack of Finals appearances and rings. He only has 1 Finals appearance, although I feel if CP3 didn't get hurt in 2018 playoffs then Harden most likely wins his first title and possibly the FMVP. I can't count LeBron out completely in 2018 but if Chris Paul doesn't get hurt in 2018 then Harden likely wins his 1st ring (finally). Harden also has 6x all NBA 1st teams (more than some guys voted before him such as: Barkley, Erving, Dirk, KG, Moses, Robinson, Russell, & Curry/Wade/Nash/Pippen [if people are voting them in]).


2. Talk about a true swiss army knife of basketball. The ultimate #2 option for a vast number of reasons. Capable of 20 ppg, a great rebounder, the team's playmaker (assist leader), the team's defensive anchor, and ultimate glue guy. His peak was 3rd in MVP voting (1994) so that matches Wade's best MVP run, but Pippen also has the 6 rings to Wade's 3. Additionally, Pippen's 8x all Defensive 1st teams is the second most all time and his 10 overall selections is 5th most in NBA HISTORY. He also has 3x 1st team all NBA selections, which is more 1st team all NBAs than: Wade, Stockton, Nash, Payton (2). Lastly, his ability to take a 57 win team after losing the greatest player in the world for lowly Pete Myers and only dropping off by 2 wins (to 55) was beyond incredible. I feel Pippen could have won a championship that year if he had someone good (but did not need Jordan) to win it. With a lesser talent than MJ he would have won, with someone like Reggie or Mitch Richmond could have been enough for Pippen to win that year. Pippen also won over 30 playoff series which is good for 5th all time (if I'm not mistaken). Big time winner, big time longevity.

3. Winning a RS MVP is the toughest, most prestigious award you could win in NBA history. And Nash has TWO of them. Back-to-back even. His 7x All-NBA selections is not great but winning 5 assist titles sure is, and not even Magic (4) or Kidd (5) or CP3 (4) have more than Nash. In fact, only 3 guys in NBA history have had more assist titles than Nash (Robertson, Cousy, and Stockton). And not that Nash was an amazing scorer, but he sure as hell could run an offense and he could run it efficiently! He is a member of the 50-40-90 club (50% fg, 40% 3p, 90% ft) along with 8 other players. The craziest part is that he has done with 4x for the most all time.

[Jordan Syndrome]

John Stockton vs Peak Steve Nash

Nash played in a much more favorable offensive environment to Stockton. Nash's team played fast and had 3 point shooters spreading the floor. By contrast, Stockton's teams were slow and took the least amount of 3 pointers in the league. Nash's teammates scored over 15 more PPG from 3 pointers which inflated Nash's team O rating compared to Stockton's. Could you imagine Stockton getting to play in a fast offense with 3 point shooters to spread the floor?

No, I can not imagine Stockton playing in a fast offense because Stockton's strengths were not the same as Steve Nash's strengths just as I wouldn't imagine Chris Paul playing in Steve Nash's fast offense either. This notion that you have been pounding into the ground for 5+ threads about John Stockton being able to replicate Steve Nash's output and play-style has been disproven even by Stockton's biggest stans (Aside from you who can't seem to grasp this idea).

Stockton's strength as an offensive player comes from his methodical dissecting of a defense.
Nash's strength as an offensive player comes from his controlled chaotic nature.

2006 was clearly an easier environment for perimeter players than 1997. All 10 of the top 10 scorers in 2006 were perimeter players. All 10 of them scored 25+ PPG on 54+ TS%. Only 3 perimeter players accomplished that in 1997 and a total of 4 players reached 25+ PPG. In 2006, 3 players reached 30+ PPG while no player accomplished that feat in 1997, not even Michael Jordan. It was clearly a more favorable environment for Nash in the post handchecking NBA.

It was more favorable to a degree--the best teams from 2005-2007 still contained the 2005 Pistons and 2007 Spurs.

Keep in mind from 2005-2007 (I would prefer to use these 3 seasons as a whole for Nash as we get a larger sample size) the league average Offensive Rating was ~106.3 and the league Offensive Rating in 1997 was 106.7 (107.6 in 1996 and 105.0 in 1998, averaging out to 106.4 over the 3-year span)--right in line with 2005-2007.

League average pace from 2005-2007 was 91.1 and from 1996-1998 it was 90.7.

When we compare 2005-2007 and 1996-1998 the landscape, on average, wasn't as different as your preconceived and evidently misguided theories say they were, but such is an issue (and flaw) when you are coming from a corner of "I am right and I will prove I am right" instead of "I have an idea of what I think but let me look through the data and see what it tells me". A common mistake nonetheless, especially in something as un-objective as comparing our favorite basketball players of yesteryear.

Advanced Stats:

Stockton- 6.6 BPM, 22.1 PER, .226 WS/48, 6.3 VORP
Nash- 5.0 BPM, 23.3 PER, .212 WS/48, 4.9 VORP

You are fixated on comparing one season for some reason--isn't the idea of 2005-2007 Nash being a similar player throughout that period a better indicator of his "peak" since the sample size is larger?

If we stretch it out to 2005-2007 and 1996-1998 Stockton:

Nash: 6.0 OBPM, 23.0 PER, .214 WS/48 on 22.3 USG%
Stockton: 5.7 OBPM, 22.0 PER, .217 WS/48 on 18.7 USG%

And, here in lies the issue here, Nash has a 25% higher usage rate--yes, USG% is not perfect but by it's model it is saying Nash was used 25% more.

Playoffs:[/b]

This is where Stockton shined. Stockton stepped up his game in the 97 Playoffs.

Per 75 Possessions:

Stockton- 18.2 PPG, 10.7 AST-3.7 TOV, 4.4 Reb,1.9 STL, 62.7 TS% (+9.5 rTS%)
Nash- 19.9 PPG, 10.0 AST-3.5 TOV, 3.6 Reb, 0.4 STL, 61.5 TS% (+7.9 r TS%)

Again, why are you using such a small sample size?

Nash (2005-07): 39.6 MPG, 21.2 PPG, 11.3 APG, 4.0 TOV, 3.9 REB, 60.2 TS%, 5.7 OBPM, 22.2 PER, .160 WS/48 on 24.9 USG%
Stockton (1996-98): 34.7 MPG, 12.8 PPG, 9.3 APG, 2.9 TOV, 3.4 REB, 58.5 TS%, 4.6 OBPM, 20.0 PER, .179 WS/48 on 19.2 USG%

Again, you are so fixated on using this one 20 game sample that when you try to zoom out just a smidge you get a completely different picture than you are attempting to capture. You are drawing up this giant theory like an Instagram Model is gearing up for a photo shoot.

Stockton (1996-98): In the playoffs, Stockton passed better, was more efficient, had 5x more steals than Nash, and outrebounded Nash too. The gap is scoring volume was reduced during the postseason.

Let's stop you here--The gap in scoring increased in the post-season. Look above, 12.8 PPG to 21.2 PPG. You are trying to adjust for pace? I already showed you that both bundles of years had the same pace. The fact is Stockton couldn't play the 40 MPG Nash could--don't try to paint this in a way it isn't.

Stockton was more efficient? No he wasn't, look above--60.2 TS% to 58.5 TS%.

Average opponent in the playoffs:

Stockton- 57.2 Wins, 4.88 SRS, 104.0 D Rating
Nash- 50.2 Wins, 3.29 SRS, 104.8 D Rating

Stockton played tougher opponents in the playoffs. He played a 56 win Lakers team, 57 win Rockets team, and a 69 win Bulls team. Nash played a 45 win Lakers team, 47 win Clippers team, and a 60 win Mavericks team. Stockton's numbers look better when you account for the stiff opposition.

Phoenix faced teams with the following SRS: 2.63 (4), 5.86 (6), 7.84 (5), 2.53 (7), 1.75 (7), 5.96 (6), 0.24 (5), 8.35 (6)
Utah faced the teams with the following SRS: 2.21 (5), 5.98 (6), 7.40 (7), -2.66 (3), 3.66 (5), 3.85 (6), 10.70 (6), -1.23 (5), 3.30 (5), 6.88 (4), 7.24 (6)

Was Stockton's competition really "stiffer"?

Phoenix average SRS faced: 4.92
Utah average SRS faced: 4.79

Stiffer, huh?

Clutch Play:[/b]

The nice thing about this is we get a statistical profile of Stockton and Nash over at NBA.com and we don't need to dive into some fanboy-ish narratives.

Stockton RS PER 100(1997): 26-14 Record, 23.8 Pts, 3.2 Reb, 13.0 Ast, 2.6 Tov, +4.3
Stockton RS PER 100(1998): 23-9 Record, 30.0 Pts, 4.5 Reb, 12.3 Ast, 4.5 Tov, +29.6

Nash RS Per 100(2005): 25-9 Record, 32.9 Pts, 3.0 Reb, 15.0 Ast, 5.6 Tov, +22.2
Nash RS Per 100(2006): 21-20 Record, 35.7 Pts, 6.7 Reb, 12.8 Ast, 3.3 Tov, +7.0
Nash RS Per 100(2007): 26-13 Record, 34.4 Pts, 4.1 Reb, 12.4 Ast, 4.1 Tov, +12.1

The common theme, once again, is Nash is a superior scorer to Stockton.

Head to Head
Stockton: 14-8 W-L, 12 PPG, 9 AST-2.1 TOV, 3 Reb, 1.7 STL, 47 FG%, 44 3P%
Nash: 8-14 W-L, 11 PPG, 6 AST-3.0 TOV, 3 Reb, 0.5 STL, 40 FG%, 39 3P%

Stockton destroys Nash head to head despite being an old man. Nash struggled vs Stockton in a physical handchecking league.

This should be a reportable offense. Nash wasn't in his prime until 2002 where the Jazz went 1-3 against the Mavericks and then 2-2 in 2003. Obviously these don't matter because the Primes don't line-up but the fact that you tried to use this as an argument brings my entire post to completion--you aren't here for knowledge or objectivity--you are here because of your infatuation with John Stockton being better than Nash.

[Doctor MJ]

Head to Head
Stockton: 14-8 W-L, 12 PPG, 9 AST-2.1 TOV, 3 Reb, 1.7 STL, 47 FG%, 44 3P%
Nash: 8-14 W-L, 11 PPG, 6 AST-3.0 TOV, 3 Reb, 0.5 STL, 40 FG%, 39 3P%

Stockton destroys Nash head to head despite being an old man. Nash struggled vs Stockton in a physical handchecking league.

I think you really need to look close at that.

Nash & Stockton played in the playoffs once, in '00-01. This was the first year in Dallas where Nash was healthy, and also the team's first winning season in over a decade, and thus first playoff appearance. What do we see?

Utah has home court advantage.
Utah goes up 2-0.
Dallas wins the last three games to complete the upset with an epic comeback at the end, outscoring Utah by 15 in the 4th quarter to take the game. Interestingly, Dirk & Nash checked in at the end of the 4th quarter. In the 2nd Half of the winner take all game in Utah, Nash had a +/- of +22, best of all players in the game. Stockton having mostly but not entirely played in sync with Nash, had a -17, worst of all players in the game.

Box Score averages:
Nash scored 18.4 PPG on 60.5% TS playing 40.6 minutes.
Stockton scored 9.8 PPG on 53.0% TS playing 37.3 minutes (still at prime minutes).

That look to you like "Stockton destroys Nash"?

[eminence]

2004 Dallas was a stupid experiment. 2003 Dallas is a more accurate representation of the talent level of that squad (approaching +8 and very well could've won a title without Dirk going down).

[DQuinn1575]

I'm putting up a vote for Harden; he has 9 elite years in the modern era, and has been a scoring and passing machine. Team success hasn't been there, which is what keeps him from being ranked higher. But tons of points, efficiency, and playmaking. I think he is best choice out there.

I have Wade next - his play at best has been among the top of the league, leading a team to a title and being key in other years.

Right now I'm taking Walt Frazier third - I need to look at the candidates closer, but love the combination of scoring, defense, and playmaking. He had a major impact in an era with some great Laker, Buck, Knick, Bullets team, and is one of the best two way players ever.

1. Harden
2. Wade
3. Frazier

fyi - last time my ghost vote was Nash over Stockton (and Pettit). Declaring that here as well, if needed.

[Doctor MJ]

2004 Dallas was a stupid experiment. 2003 Dallas is a more accurate representation of the talent level of that squad (approaching +8 and very well could've won a title without Dirk going down).

It's fascinating to look back on that 2003-04 team with a modern perspective.

You have a team that had the #1 offense in the league for two years in a row, and who just had a pretty good defense year, what do you do?

Add not one but two guys known more for their volume scoring than caring about anything else, one with a tendencies toward inefficiency, one one of the most inefficient chuckers in the history of the game.

What's the theory? Sure seems like it's an experiment to see if you really can just and scoring on top of scoring and have it have the same effect it would in baseball. Uh, nope.

But of course offensively, it did in fact work. The offense was better than the year before, and both Jamison & Walker had more efficient than typical years. Jamison becomes actually quite efficient and Walker becomes...enough less inefficient that Jamison's TS Add more than makes up for Walker's red in the ledger. Once again we notice guys Nash plays with getting a good deal more efficient.

But yeah, defense was a huge problem with this line up, and it's one of those "failed experiments" where you just can help but ask "How could you have thought this was a good idea?"

Of course, you can say that about anyone acquiring Antoine Walker from Boston, and I'd tend to say that guys like Walker went extinct because GMs are smarter about stuff like this now.