In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively?

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, trex_8063, Doctor MJ, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Quotatious

User avatar
jamaalstar21
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 3,527
And1: 6,575
Joined: Jul 21, 2016
 

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#21 » by jamaalstar21 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 1:27 pm

colts18 wrote:I want to see Nash put up "All-time" offenses if he had Big Mark Eaton as his center, 6' 11" Thurl Bailey as his small forward playing on a slow paced team with a hard headed defensive-minded coach with a rigid offensive system who hated 3 pointers in a physical era with handchecking.

When the Jazz went to the finals, they were last in the NBA in 3 point attempts. Despite that they had the best offense in that time. When the Nash suns were at their peak, they were #1 in 3 point attempts. I cannot emphasize enough how much of an advantage it is to play on a team with spacing.


Is there correlation in the 90s between 3-point attempts and offensive efficiency? I haven't checked on that. Just quickly plucked a couple years from the 90s and found top, bottom, and middling offensive teams being top 3 in 3-point attempts. If this was a real thing in the 90s then your point is fair. If this is an assumption based on current NBA trends, I'd investigate before making this assertion. There's no question the Jazz were downright allergic to 3-pointers a lot of the time. But the same year you're talking about, the Bulls weren't exactly hoisting many threes either (17th in 3-point rate), and they were the best offense in the NBA. Obviously spacing matters in every era, I'm just not immediately convinced that 3-point rate is the most helpful metric for that in 90s basketball. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious.

There's no question that Nash played on offensively slanted teams his whole career, and this is going to boost his reputation in terms of leading some of the best offenses ever. Sometimes I think the talent he played with gets overstated because he did go to the Western Conference Finals with the following starting lineups:
Raja Bell/Marion/Diaw/Tim Thomas
Jason Richardson/Grant Hill/Amar'e/Robin Lopez (or Jarron Collins after Lopez got hurt early in the second round).

Nash also went to the Western Conference Finals on some stacked offensive squads like the 2004 Mavs and 2005 Suns, but he also took some mostly spare parts. He swept the Spurs in 2010 with a 37 year old Grant Hill as the 3rd best player. That same squad would have pushed the Lakers to 7 without that miracle Artest put back (they went down in 6, and the Lakers were the better team).

I just can't really imagine Stockton=Nash, offensively. If Stockton is a better point guard, it's because of defense and physicality. Swapping those two, I think Phoenix becomes a steadier more reliable defense and a normal good offense. Stockton was a conservative playmaker who would have piled up assists on those Suns by getting the ball to Amar'e and hitting shooters coming off pin downs (or something like that). Nash was a singular offensive force who kept his foot on the throat of the defense by constantly attacking, probing for kickouts and dunks. If all else failed, he was the most versatile pull-up shooter of his era. Nash is a transformative offensive player, Stockton was the steadiest of steady playmakers. I can't get aligned with the people in this thread who see more in Stockton's offensive game. Stock couldn't even drive left, and whenever the defense forced him to his left he was forced to turn his back and protect the ball, stalling the offense until he could recover. I agree with you that Stockton would look better spraying passer to an army of shooters, but I don't think he'd look like Nash. They were such fundamentally different players in terms of offensive mentality.
User avatar
feyki
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,633
And1: 255
Joined: Aug 08, 2016
     

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#22 » by feyki » Thu Apr 8, 2021 3:36 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
leolozon wrote:Nash was in another stratosphere as a scorer when he wanted too. He's simply a better shooter and a better scorer overall...

Nash also had better efficiency and it was in less MPG than Stockton....

It's pretty obvious Nash had untapped potential as a scorer, because he had a pass first mentality. Imagine if he took 10 3s a game...


It's pretty obvious Stockton had untapped potential as a scorer, because he had a pass first mentality. Imagine if he took 10 3s a game.

Stockton .608 career ts% (+.076 relative to league) on career 21.0 pts/100 possessions

Nash .605 career ts% (+.074 relative to league) on career 23.3 pts/100 possessions

Not sure where you get this idea that Nash was more efficient, he scored a bit more (but not a lot more) but not at a higher efficiency. And, of course, Stockton was statistically a clearly superior assist generator, no one in NBA history is even close in terms of volume, consistency, or totals.

Stockton 50.2 career Ast% (led the league 15 times!)

Nash 41.5 career Ast% (led the league 5 times)

The whole idea that Nash is somehow a step above Stockton offensively is because he
(a) had a very slightly high scoring volume
(b) had more successful offenses in Phoenix (with better offensive talent around him; when Stockton had a decent 3rd scorer in Hornacek, his offenses tended to be best in league too)
(c) had more variance in his scoring where Stockton was more consistent though I would attribute most of that to Nash playing in a more wide open offense in Phoenix where Jerry Sloan's system in Utah was much more constrained.

Nash may have a slight advantage but some of his fans/Stockton's detractors are just grossly overstating any potential difference.


These are out of context, I think. Nash was not primary offensive focal in the Mavs. Comparing those assists rates it's just unfair. And also, I'm opposed against judging players with cumulative numbers but no context.

Nash had %49 Ast rate in his Suns career. And had %8 to %11 +rTS in his prime about to 10 years long. Don't say Stockton is not close to it, it's; but Nash played with higher effciency on much higher volume, that's why he has a GOAT case based on efficiency. Deandre Jordan or Gobert also played with too high TS's but what's holding them called as ATG efficiency, it's volume. Nash had +20 PPG in his 30+ minutes games in between 05/08, along with 4 consecutive years. Stockton's highest year was 17. This is where they're leaving in efficiency tiers.

Also, not just assists and efficiency; creating also matters lots. Stockton creates %50 of his points by his own while Nash creates %75 of his points by his own. This is a huge factor.

When I'm taking these into account, Stockton is closer to Kidd than Nash, offensively.
Image
“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot.”
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 23,274
And1: 5,290
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#23 » by penbeast0 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 5:24 pm

feyki wrote:... Nash was not primary offensive focal in the Mavs. Comparing those assists rates it's just unfair. And also, I'm opposed against judging players with cumulative numbers but no context.

Nash had %49 Ast rate in his Suns career. And had %8 to %11 +rTS in his prime about to 10 years long. Don't say Stockton is not close to it, it's; but Nash played with higher effciency on much higher volume, that's why he has a GOAT case based on efficiency. Deandre Jordan or Gobert also played with too high TS's but what's holding them called as ATG efficiency, it's volume. Nash had +20 PPG in his 30+ minutes games in between 05/08, along with 4 consecutive years. Stockton's highest year was 17. This is where they're leaving in efficiency tiers.

Also, not just assists and efficiency; creating also matters lots. Stockton creates %50 of his points by his own while Nash creates %75 of his points by his own. This is a huge factor.

When I'm taking these into account, Stockton is closer to Kidd than Nash, offensively.


So, using only his Phoenix numbers while using every year of Stockton, Nash scores 23.7pp100 to Stockton's 21.0 though his efficiency does slip above STockton's at .617 while having an assist % of 46.4 to Stockton's 50+. This, to you, is not comparable. You are putting a ridiculous and almost indefensible amount of weight on the slim reed of unassisted points which I have never seen any study that significantly correlates this with winning. Stats aren't going to show Nash as significantly better because he wasn't; he had a slight advantage and was prettier and in an offense that gave him more freedom. That's it.

But he is comparable offensively with a guy who scores 18.3 per game on A HUNDRED POINTS LOWER EFFICIENCY while getting significantly less assists. I assume Kidd had an unassisted scoring rate well over 100 :banghead:

Kidd doesn't belong in this discussion at all unless we are talking defensive impact as well. He was a poor scorer in his prime that players would sag off daring him to shoot. When he did learn to shoot efficiently, he had either aged enough or changed his game enough that he wasn't creating much for himself or others. Without his arguably GOAT level PG defense and rebounding, he is not a particularly impressive PG.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 7,116
And1: 2,818
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#24 » by colts18 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 6:05 pm

jamaalstar21 wrote:Is there correlation in the 90s between 3-point attempts and offensive efficiency? I haven't checked on that. Just quickly plucked a couple years from the 90s and found top, bottom, and middling offensive teams being top 3 in 3-point attempts. If this was a real thing in the 90s then your point is fair. If this is an assumption based on current NBA trends, I'd investigate before making this assertion. There's no question the Jazz were downright allergic to 3-pointers a lot of the time. But the same year you're talking about, the Bulls weren't exactly hoisting many threes either (17th in 3-point rate), and they were the best offense in the NBA. Obviously spacing matters in every era, I'm just not immediately convinced that 3-point rate is the most helpful metric for that in 90s basketball. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious.

I just can't really imagine Stockton=Nash, offensively. If Stockton is a better point guard, it's because of defense and physicality. Swapping those two, I think Phoenix becomes a steadier more reliable defense and a normal good offense. Stockton was a conservative playmaker who would have piled up assists on those Suns by getting the ball to Amar'e and hitting shooters coming off pin downs (or something like that). Nash was a singular offensive force who kept his foot on the throat of the defense by constantly attacking, probing for kickouts and dunks. If all else failed, he was the most versatile pull-up shooter of his era. Nash is a transformative offensive player, Stockton was the steadiest of steady playmakers. I can't get aligned with the people in this thread who see more in Stockton's offensive game. Stock couldn't even drive left, and whenever the defense forced him to his left he was forced to turn his back and protect the ball, stalling the offense until he could recover. I agree with you that Stockton would look better spraying passer to an army of shooters, but I don't think he'd look like Nash. They were such fundamentally different players in terms of offensive mentality.


1. All of the top teams in the best Offensive rating were 3 point oriented. Go on the list of the top offensive teams in history and find me one that finished LAST in 3 point attempts. I'm not talking about 1980s where teams were taking 4 3 pointers per game. This was an era where teams were taking 15-20 3 pointers in a game.

http://paceandspacehoops.com/the-greatest-offensive-teams-in-nba-history/

From the article:
"But your top 5 offenses in NBA history, in order? The 2004 Mavericks, 2006 Suns, 2016 Warriors, 2002 Mavs, and the 1998 Last Shot victim Utah Jazz."

Where did those top offenses of all-time rank in 3 point attempts?

2004 Mavs- 5th
2006 Suns- 1st
2016 Warriors- 1st
2002 Mavs- 3rd
1998 Jazz- 29th, LAST

Tell me which team is the outlier in that list?

2. Your analysis of Stockton's game is off. He was MORE aggressive than Nash. He drove to the basket more often than Nash. Nash's career high Free Throw Rate is 32.6%. Stockton beat that number in ALL 19 seasons of his careers. Based on the data we have of Old Stockton, he shot 34% of his shots at the rim. Nash shot 20% of his shots at the rim.

Your point of about Stockton's pullup shooting. WRONG. Stockton can't go left. WRONG. Here is a real scouting report on Stockton during his prime.

Image

Let's see:
-Frequent Driver to the basket
-Went both ways frequently
-Shot off the dribble often and shot BETTER off the dribble

That's the total opposite of how Stockton's game is described.
Max123
Sophomore
Posts: 110
And1: 51
Joined: Feb 26, 2021
 

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#25 » by Max123 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 6:19 pm

colts18 wrote:
jamaalstar21 wrote:Is there correlation in the 90s between 3-point attempts and offensive efficiency? I haven't checked on that. Just quickly plucked a couple years from the 90s and found top, bottom, and middling offensive teams being top 3 in 3-point attempts. If this was a real thing in the 90s then your point is fair. If this is an assumption based on current NBA trends, I'd investigate before making this assertion. There's no question the Jazz were downright allergic to 3-pointers a lot of the time. But the same year you're talking about, the Bulls weren't exactly hoisting many threes either (17th in 3-point rate), and they were the best offense in the NBA. Obviously spacing matters in every era, I'm just not immediately convinced that 3-point rate is the most helpful metric for that in 90s basketball. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious.

I just can't really imagine Stockton=Nash, offensively. If Stockton is a better point guard, it's because of defense and physicality. Swapping those two, I think Phoenix becomes a steadier more reliable defense and a normal good offense. Stockton was a conservative playmaker who would have piled up assists on those Suns by getting the ball to Amar'e and hitting shooters coming off pin downs (or something like that). Nash was a singular offensive force who kept his foot on the throat of the defense by constantly attacking, probing for kickouts and dunks. If all else failed, he was the most versatile pull-up shooter of his era. Nash is a transformative offensive player, Stockton was the steadiest of steady playmakers. I can't get aligned with the people in this thread who see more in Stockton's offensive game. Stock couldn't even drive left, and whenever the defense forced him to his left he was forced to turn his back and protect the ball, stalling the offense until he could recover. I agree with you that Stockton would look better spraying passer to an army of shooters, but I don't think he'd look like Nash. They were such fundamentally different players in terms of offensive mentality.


1. All of the top teams in the best Offensive rating were 3 point oriented. Go on the list of the top offensive teams in history and find me one that finished LAST in 3 point attempts. I'm not talking about 1980s where teams were taking 4 3 pointers per game. This was an era where teams were taking 15-20 3 pointers in a game.

http://paceandspacehoops.com/the-greatest-offensive-teams-in-nba-history/

From the article:
"But your top 5 offenses in NBA history, in order? The 2004 Mavericks, 2006 Suns, 2016 Warriors, 2002 Mavs, and the 1998 Last Shot victim Utah Jazz."

Where did those top offenses of all-time rank in 3 point attempts?

2004 Mavs- 5th
2006 Suns- 1st
2016 Warriors- 1st
2002 Mavs- 3rd
1998 Jazz- 29th, LAST

Tell me which team is the outlier in that list?

2. Your analysis of Stockton's game is off. He was MORE aggressive than Nash. He drove to the basket more often than Nash. Nash's career high Free Throw Rate is 32.6%. Stockton beat that number in ALL 19 seasons of his careers. Based on the data we have of Old Stockton, he shot 34% of his shots at the rim. Nash shot 20% of his shots at the rim.

Your point of about Stockton's pullup shooting. WRONG. Stockton can't go left. WRONG. Here is a real scouting report on Stockton during his prime.

Image

Let's see:
-Frequent Driver to the basket
-Went both ways frequently
-Shot off the dribble often and shot BETTER off the dribble

That's the total opposite of how Stockton's game is described.

Beside the point but where did you find that scouting report from? How likely do you think it is to find similar scouts for other players across eras and what would be my best bet at finding them? I find thah reading scouting reports like that one could be both really fun and helpful to know what opposing defenses where actually worried about.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
User avatar
feyki
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,633
And1: 255
Joined: Aug 08, 2016
     

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#26 » by feyki » Thu Apr 8, 2021 6:19 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
feyki wrote:... Nash was not primary offensive focal in the Mavs. Comparing those assists rates it's just unfair. And also, I'm opposed against judging players with cumulative numbers but no context.

Nash had %49 Ast rate in his Suns career. And had %8 to %11 +rTS in his prime about to 10 years long. Don't say Stockton is not close to it, it's; but Nash played with higher effciency on much higher volume, that's why he has a GOAT case based on efficiency. Deandre Jordan or Gobert also played with too high TS's but what's holding them called as ATG efficiency, it's volume. Nash had +20 PPG in his 30+ minutes games in between 05/08, along with 4 consecutive years. Stockton's highest year was 17. This is where they're leaving in efficiency tiers.

Also, not just assists and efficiency; creating also matters lots. Stockton creates %50 of his points by his own while Nash creates %75 of his points by his own. This is a huge factor.

When I'm taking these into account, Stockton is closer to Kidd than Nash, offensively.


So, using only his Phoenix numbers while using every year of Stockton, Nash scores 23.7pp100 to Stockton's 21.0 though his efficiency does slip above STockton's at .617 while having an assist % of 46.4 to Stockton's 50+. This, to you, is not comparable. You are putting a ridiculous and almost indefensible amount of weight on the slim reed of unassisted points which I have never seen any study that significantly correlates this with winning. Stats aren't going to show Nash as significantly better because he wasn't; he had a slight advantage and was prettier and in an offense that gave him more freedom. That's it.

But he is comparable offensively with a guy who scores 18.3 per game on A HUNDRED POINTS LOWER EFFICIENCY while getting significantly less assists. I assume Kidd had an unassisted scoring rate well over 100 :banghead:

Kidd doesn't belong in this discussion at all unless we are talking defensive impact as well. He was a poor scorer in his prime that players would sag off daring him to shoot. When he did learn to shoot efficiently, he had either aged enough or changed his game enough that he wasn't creating much for himself or others. Without his arguably GOAT level PG defense and rebounding, he is not a particularly impressive PG.


I did not share any number about Stockton, besides his 30+ minutes best PPG year. As I said his TS was close to Nash in their primes. Stockton had %6 to %10 +rTS. That's why I said it was close, but when volume accounts his effiency not on the same level with Nash.

06/08 Nash - 227 TS Add per year
95/97 Stockton - 201 TS Add per year
.

And this also doesn't include the Nash's higher minutes games. Stockton's game does not change in higher minutes, but Nash was on the 20/25 line when he played over of 75 poss a game.

Stockton's peak assist rate also around the %55, his career and prime assist rate is very close; but Nash's not like that.

Assists rates actually dramatically important in the game of basketball. Just look at 2014 and 2015 NBA finals two consecutive years endings. But not just that, if you measure any players offensive impact, you have to define,calculate and pay assisted points each sides both assist and score guys. Unless Stockton,Nash,Magic,Oscar,Paul would be waaayyy less important offensive players than in actual.
Image
“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot.”
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 23,274
And1: 5,290
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#27 » by penbeast0 » Thu Apr 8, 2021 6:30 pm

So, now TS Add shows that Nash has a slight edge (rather than a massive one like you are implying) and you say Stockton was closer to Kidd. Let's see how TS Add judged that . . . mmm, Kidd's top 3 years of TS Add are 119. 107, 104 (if you want consecutive years, change the 107 to 93). Now that's a massive edge. No matter what stat you use, it's nearly impossible to show that Nash is on a different level than Stockton with Stockton being closer to Kidd. Probably because it's a grossly false narrative.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
User avatar
feyki
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,633
And1: 255
Joined: Aug 08, 2016
     

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#28 » by feyki » Thu Apr 8, 2021 6:45 pm

penbeast0 wrote:So, now TS Add shows that Nash has a slight edge (rather than a massive one like you are implying) and you say Stockton was closer to Kidd. Let's see how TS Add judged that . . . mmm, Kidd's top 3 years of TS Add are 119. 107, 104 (if you want consecutive years, change the 107 to 93). Now that's a massive edge. No matter what stat you use, it's nearly impossible to show that Nash is on a different level than Stockton with Stockton being closer to Kidd. Probably because it's a grossly false narrative.


It's not slight edge. It's simply clear edge. Kidd and Stockton are not comparable players in efficiency, but Kidd has higher volume scoring, lower assisted points rate, much better offensive rebounding and comparable playmaking.
Image
“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot.”
User avatar
Ryoga Hibiki
Head Coach
Posts: 6,337
And1: 2,091
Joined: Nov 14, 2001
Location: Warszawa now, but from Northern Italy

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#29 » by Ryoga Hibiki » Thu Apr 8, 2021 8:35 pm

To be honest, I really don't get how anyone watching both can conclude Stockton was a comparable offensive player.
I am going as far as saying Nash was a better ball handler, shooter, finisher with both hands and PASSER. I don't care about the totals, they are extremely dependent on the team's strategy, Stockton had way more Rondo assists.
Moreover, Nash and an extra gear as a scorer and creator that he could turn on when needed, but that is not visible just looking at the averages.

Overall, they are extremely close as Stockton and an extra layer of toughness, defense and durability, but there's a very significant difference between the two on offense.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 16,439
And1: 12,076
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#30 » by 70sFan » Fri Apr 9, 2021 7:14 am

I'd take Nash rather clearly over Stockton on offense but some people should watch prime John a bit more because calling him passive or "Rondo playmaker" is plain wrong.
User avatar
jamaalstar21
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 3,527
And1: 6,575
Joined: Jul 21, 2016
 

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#31 » by jamaalstar21 » Fri Apr 9, 2021 12:41 pm

colts18 wrote:
jamaalstar21 wrote:Is there correlation in the 90s between 3-point attempts and offensive efficiency? I haven't checked on that. Just quickly plucked a couple years from the 90s and found top, bottom, and middling offensive teams being top 3 in 3-point attempts. If this was a real thing in the 90s then your point is fair. If this is an assumption based on current NBA trends, I'd investigate before making this assertion. There's no question the Jazz were downright allergic to 3-pointers a lot of the time. But the same year you're talking about, the Bulls weren't exactly hoisting many threes either (17th in 3-point rate), and they were the best offense in the NBA. Obviously spacing matters in every era, I'm just not immediately convinced that 3-point rate is the most helpful metric for that in 90s basketball. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious.

I just can't really imagine Stockton=Nash, offensively. If Stockton is a better point guard, it's because of defense and physicality. Swapping those two, I think Phoenix becomes a steadier more reliable defense and a normal good offense. Stockton was a conservative playmaker who would have piled up assists on those Suns by getting the ball to Amar'e and hitting shooters coming off pin downs (or something like that). Nash was a singular offensive force who kept his foot on the throat of the defense by constantly attacking, probing for kickouts and dunks. If all else failed, he was the most versatile pull-up shooter of his era. Nash is a transformative offensive player, Stockton was the steadiest of steady playmakers. I can't get aligned with the people in this thread who see more in Stockton's offensive game. Stock couldn't even drive left, and whenever the defense forced him to his left he was forced to turn his back and protect the ball, stalling the offense until he could recover. I agree with you that Stockton would look better spraying passer to an army of shooters, but I don't think he'd look like Nash. They were such fundamentally different players in terms of offensive mentality.


1. All of the top teams in the best Offensive rating were 3 point oriented. Go on the list of the top offensive teams in history and find me one that finished LAST in 3 point attempts. I'm not talking about 1980s where teams were taking 4 3 pointers per game. This was an era where teams were taking 15-20 3 pointers in a game.

http://paceandspacehoops.com/the-greatest-offensive-teams-in-nba-history/

From the article:
"But your top 5 offenses in NBA history, in order? The 2004 Mavericks, 2006 Suns, 2016 Warriors, 2002 Mavs, and the 1998 Last Shot victim Utah Jazz."

Where did those top offenses of all-time rank in 3 point attempts?

2004 Mavs- 5th
2006 Suns- 1st
2016 Warriors- 1st
2002 Mavs- 3rd
1998 Jazz- 29th, LAST

Tell me which team is the outlier in that list?

2. Your analysis of Stockton's game is off. He was MORE aggressive than Nash. He drove to the basket more often than Nash. Nash's career high Free Throw Rate is 32.6%. Stockton beat that number in ALL 19 seasons of his careers. Based on the data we have of Old Stockton, he shot 34% of his shots at the rim. Nash shot 20% of his shots at the rim.

Your point of about Stockton's pullup shooting. WRONG. Stockton can't go left. WRONG. Here is a real scouting report on Stockton during his prime.

Image

Let's see:
-Frequent Driver to the basket
-Went both ways frequently
-Shot off the dribble often and shot BETTER off the dribble

That's the total opposite of how Stockton's game is described.


I didn't ask if the best offensive teams ever were 3-point oriented, that is well known and oft discussed. I was asking if the correlation between 3-point rate and offensive rating were as strong in the 90s, obviously as it pertained to Stockton/Jazz offense. I wasn't asking a leading question to score a win for Nash over Stockton, I was genuinely curious. Obviously, spacing is important for offense regardless of era, but I personally haven't looked into that correlation before and thought maybe you (or someone else reading this thread) had and might comment.

The better those things correlate, the more the Jazz would be a strange outlier. Their offense got better and better as the 90s went on, and their 3-point rate kept dropping, at least relative to the league. By the late 90s, every Jazz team was a top 3 offense and a bottom 3 3-point shooting team. This is despite the mid 90s acquisition of Hornacek, and Stockton being a pretty great 3-point shooter in his own right. The Jazz had the personnel to be a 3-point heavy team by 90s standards, but they clearly preferred a different style. I dunno! Is the argument that Stockton was held back and those offenses would have been all-time if Sloan let them bomb away (or if they acquired more 3-point shooting personnel)? As you mentioned, they were the best offense in the league in 1998. Or do you mean Stockton would be thought of more as an offensive innovator had he been given the controls to a high-powered 3-point bombing machine? I don't think it should be assumed that that specific Jazz offense would have been better bombing from 3, as they were very successful at what they did and more 3-point shooting would be a stylistic overhaul. I do think Stockton/Malone/Hornacek deserve credit for their outlier offense!

You mention Mark Eaton and Thurl Bailey, Jazz players from the early 80s and early 90s, when Utah was the defensive-oriented team you describe. But you also mention 1998, when Utah was the best offense in the NBA. Bailey was injured then gone, when Utah started becoming a great offensive team in 1992. Eaton was really old at that point, still starting, but no longer playing big minutes, and was gone entirely by 94. By 1995, Stockton was leading the NBA in TS% (and Offensive BPM). I just don't think the 92 Jazz supporting cast can be used to describe the 1998 Jazz offense.

It's inarguable that Stockton got to the line more, I already admitted that Stockton was the superior physical player. I don't think you can just chalk up "offensive aggressiveness" to free throw rate when we're talking about playmaking point guards. I'm not making up the "Stockton was a conservative playmaker" thing, it was oft complained about by coaches and commentators at the time. He was aggressive in transition and a dutiful offensive executor in the half court. I've seen some spicy Stockton playoff games for sure, but most Jazz footage I watch, I see Stockton as pretty tame. This isn't a take I invented on an island and keep there, it's held by many. https://backpicks.com/2018/01/25/backpicks-goat-25-john-stockton/ This Elgee article sums up most of what I feel about Stockton, but I'm higher on Stockton overall.

- I never said anything about Stockton's pull up game or off the dribble shooting, so I'm not sure why you're giving me the CAPS treatment on that one and saying WRONG over and over. WHere do I mention Stockton's pull up game? I just said Nash was an awesome pull up shooter. Which he was. Better than Stockton! (Despite not saying that before)
- I'm not sure what I'm missing in this scouting report. The word left is in there a lot. Shooting a pull up jumper off a left dribble is common for a right handed shooter, it's how most shooters gather motion works. I see the last bullet point where we get 23-37 going left, but that's not enough to me to throw out my entire opinion. It's a small sample size, I don't know when it's from, I don't know who wrote it. Even if the numbers showed Stockton had good results going left in a larger sample, I'll still remember Stockton aborting a lot of attacks when a defender attacked his left hand. This isn't actually very damning, most ball handlers in the 90s we're a little more conservative going left, by my all-seeing eye ;)
User avatar
Ryoga Hibiki
Head Coach
Posts: 6,337
And1: 2,091
Joined: Nov 14, 2001
Location: Warszawa now, but from Northern Italy

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#32 » by Ryoga Hibiki » Fri Apr 9, 2021 12:54 pm

70sFan wrote:I'd take Nash rather clearly over Stockton on offense but some people should watch prime John a bit more because calling him passive or "Rondo playmaker" is plain wrong.
he was not a Rondo playmaker, but to get to 14 apg you need a lot Rondo assists in there (no exclusively, but quite a few).
The moment someone compares his assist rate and Nash's, who actually was creating so much more, it be brought up

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 16,439
And1: 12,076
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#33 » by 70sFan » Fri Apr 9, 2021 1:09 pm

jamaalstar21 wrote:This isn't actually very damning, most ball handlers in the 90s we're a little more conservative going left, by my all-seeing eye ;)


Actually, most players has been conservative going left in all eras we had - including today ;)
leolozon
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,615
And1: 5,266
Joined: Nov 08, 2009

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#34 » by leolozon » Fri Apr 9, 2021 2:43 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
leolozon wrote:Nash was in another stratosphere as a scorer when he wanted too. He's simply a better shooter and a better scorer overall...

Nash also had better efficiency and it was in less MPG than Stockton....

It's pretty obvious Nash had untapped potential as a scorer, because he had a pass first mentality. Imagine if he took 10 3s a game...


It's pretty obvious Stockton had untapped potential as a scorer, because he had a pass first mentality. Imagine if he took 10 3s a game.

Stockton .608 career ts% (+.076 relative to league) on career 21.0 pts/100 possessions

Nash .605 career ts% (+.074 relative to league) on career 23.3 pts/100 possessions

Not sure where you get this idea that Nash was more efficient, he scored a bit more (but not a lot more) but not at a higher efficiency. And, of course, Stockton was statistically a clearly superior assist generator, no one in NBA history is even close in terms of volume, consistency, or totals.

Stockton 50.2 career Ast% (led the league 15 times!)

Nash 41.5 career Ast% (led the league 5 times)

The whole idea that Nash is somehow a step above Stockton offensively is because he
(a) had a very slightly high scoring volume
(b) had more successful offenses in Phoenix (with better offensive talent around him; when Stockton had a decent 3rd scorer in Hornacek, his offenses tended to be best in league too)
(c) had more variance in his scoring where Stockton was more consistent though I would attribute most of that to Nash playing in a more wide open offense in Phoenix where Jerry Sloan's system in Utah was much more constrained.

Nash may have a slight advantage but some of his fans/Stockton's detractors are just grossly overstating any potential difference.


So you deleted my argument and kept the statements... Why? Because you didn't think you could argue against what I wrote?

It's just weird what you did. I was pretty obviously using playoffs numbers, because Nash turned up the scoring in the playoff, which is why I said "when he wanted to".

It should be pretty obvious that Nash was better at getting shots for himself, which is why it's far easier to imagine him take 10 3s a game as a lead ball handler than imagine Stockton doing it.

Plus, you decided to use career numbers during the RS, when the question is about peak. Look again at the scoring in the playoffs I put in my previous post. You know deep down that Stockton couldn't have done it, which is why you completely avoided the argument, sticked with the statements and then acted like I was talking about career RS.

EVERYONE agrees that Stockton had better longevity and therefore his totals are better. Using career averages as your argument makes no sense.
G35
RealGM
Posts: 20,411
And1: 5,918
Joined: Dec 10, 2005
     

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#35 » by G35 » Fri Apr 9, 2021 2:50 pm

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:To be honest, I really don't get how anyone watching both can conclude Stockton was a comparable offensive player.
I am going as far as saying Nash was a better ball handler, shooter, finisher with both hands and PASSER. I don't care about the totals, they are extremely dependent on the team's strategy, Stockton had way more Rondo assists.
Moreover, Nash and an extra gear as a scorer and creator that he could turn on when needed, but that is not visible just looking at the averages.

Overall, they are extremely close as Stockton and an extra layer of toughness, defense and durability, but there's a very significant difference between the two on offense.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app



Where was that extra gear for the six years he was in Dallas? He had an ATG big man in Dirk, who is an excellent offensive player and a coach who was offensive minded...why didn't he turn it up in the playoffs if he had such a gear.....
I'm so tired of the typical......
User avatar
The Explorer
General Manager
Posts: 9,756
And1: 2,063
Joined: Jul 11, 2005
 

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#36 » by The Explorer » Fri Apr 9, 2021 3:27 pm

3 pt shooting - Nash
Dribble Penetration - Stockton
Free throws - Nash
Midrange - Nash
Overall athleticism - Stockton
Passing - Even
Handles - Stockton
Vison - Nash
Leadership - Even
Offensive rebounding - Nash
Screen setting - Stockton, far ahead

Overall, Nash gets the edge, but I think this is closer than most people think. Sloan used Stockton to successfully set picks across the middle of the lane against bigger forwards and guards, that's not something Nash showed he was capable of.
Anecdotally, Gary Payton used to say Stockton was the hardest player he ever had to guard. That counts for something as well.
WestGOAT
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,536
And1: 1,966
Joined: Dec 20, 2015

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#37 » by WestGOAT » Fri Apr 9, 2021 6:09 pm

I think this topic has been discussed so many times by many of the same posters over the years, so I doubt anyone is gonna change their mind on this topic :lol:.

Anyway at the end of the day the NBA is about winning titles. To do so you need to beat the best teams in the league.

At their peaks (so only looking at what Nash did for the Suns) it's clear to me that Nash demonstrated that he is way more capable than Stockton to maintain his production against tough defences in playoffs. Stockton's numbers take a nose-dive, whereas Nash maintains his elite efficiency at a much higher volume.

To me it's obvious who will give you a better chance to win if your team will make deep runs in the playoffs.
JN61
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,451
And1: 3,474
Joined: Jan 07, 2018
 

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#38 » by JN61 » Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:05 pm

Way smaller than their defensive gap. Nash was a bit better scorer and better shooter. Stockton better passer. That's about it.
Point-Forward
Freshman
Posts: 95
And1: 106
Joined: Jul 22, 2015
Location: Spain
   

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#39 » by Point-Forward » Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:39 pm

Beyond the stats and the analysis (which are all great and necessary, don't get me wrong), I would resume this the following way: Nash could give you 30-40 points on any given night if asked or required to. His team just functioned better if he was focusing on playmaking and sharing the ball, which he was all-time great at doing (I think he had an extra level of creativity with his passes that Stockton did not, although this is highly debatable).

I don't think Stockton had that same capability of dramatically raising his scoring volume if asked to, and that is actually one of the reasons why the Jazz came short during the 90's (among others). And this is not a knock on Stockton, I love watching the guy play, but he just didn't have that type of skill.

In the Playoffs, specially if it's a tough/close/important game, it's all about shot creation.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 23,274
And1: 5,290
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: In Their Peaks, How Big Is The Gap Between Nash and Stockton Offensively? 

Post#40 » by penbeast0 » Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:20 pm

I don't see any way Nash could average 30-40 except by turning into Allen Iverson and talking all the shots, good bad and indifferent. And of course, if Stockton played that way to, he'd also have scored a lot more. Nash's game was based on probing a defense to look for gaps and openings, not all out attack. Now, if you say that Nash was more likely to get you 30-40 than Stockton when playing in a freewheeling D'Antoni offense rather than a controlled Sloan offense, sure. On the other hand, Nash was also more likely to end up with less than 5 points in a game; that's why their actual scoring levels are pretty similar.

The real question for those who think Nash has this extra gear is where does it come from? It's not from attacking the basket; Stockton was better at that. It's not from off ball movement, Stockton was better at that. Nor do I see Nash as significantly quicker or able to jump over opponents more. So it's from being more able to get his jumper off the dribble; either he has a significantly quicker release or his dribble game is more shifty and less predictable so he is able to create more space for himself.

So, is it just the coaching system he played in or did Nash have some ability to create shots that Stockton didn't and if so, what was it based on?
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Return to Player Comparisons