RealGM

who of these 3 was more valuable at their best ?

I assume it’s Kidd.

You assume wrong, at least in my ratings. Stockton is the best distributor, particularly in the half court where he shines and Kidd is, well, not as impressive though both shine in the open court. Stockton is easily the best shooter, even when you give Payton the advantage of the shorter 3 point line, Payton the most prolific scorer. And, Stockton's defense, while behind the other two due to his slighter frame and smaller size, was still good.

Stockton & it isn't close.

John put up his first double digit win share season in 1987-88 with a 23.2 PER | .645 TS% | 14.1 WS | .238 WS/48 split. His final season in 2002-03 he was still going, if not a little slowed by age at 21.0 PER | .577 TS% | 9.0 WS | .190 WS/48. Over that 16 year stretch Stockton notched 22.5 PER | .613 TS% | 192.0 WS | .217 WS/48 with double digit win shares in 13 of those 16 seasons.

Payton is next for me. First good season in 1992-93 at 17.0 PER | .529 TS% | 7.8 WS | .147 WS/48 with his last good season in 2003-04 at 17.3 PER | .528 TS% | 8.1 WS | .137 WS/48. Over that 12 year stretch Gary racked up 20.8 PER | .533 TS% | 127.4 WS | .170 WS/48 with double digit win shares in 7 of those 12 seasons.

Kidd's first good season was 1997-98 at 16.4 PER | .502 TS% | 8.0 WS | .123 WS/48 with his last good season in 2009-10 at 17.2 PER | .577 TS% | 8.9 WS | .148 WS/48. Over those 13 seasons Jason came in at 18.9 PER | .513 TS% | 111.4 WS | .147 WS/48 with double digit win shares in 2 of those 13 seasons.

penbeast0 wrote:You assume wrong, at least in my ratings. Stockton is the best distributor, particularly in the half court where he shines and Kidd is, well, not as impressive. Stockton is easily the best shooter, even when you give Payton the advantage of the shorter 3 point line, Payton the most prolific scorer. And, Stockton's defense, while behind the other two due to his slighter frame and smaller size, was still good.

Did Stockton have the same impact on team winning that Nets Kidd did? The impact stuff seems to be kind to him despite his shooting and scoring shortcomings.

No-more-rings wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:You assume wrong, at least in my ratings. Stockton is the best distributor, particularly in the half court where he shines and Kidd is, well, not as impressive. Stockton is easily the best shooter, even when you give Payton the advantage of the shorter 3 point line, Payton the most prolific scorer. And, Stockton's defense, while behind the other two due to his slighter frame and smaller size, was still good.

Did Stockton have the same impact on team winning that Nets Kidd did? The impact stuff seems to be kind to him despite his shooting and scoring shortcomings.

The impact numbers we have show Stockton to be outstanding in that respect though they are only there at the tail end of his career. Kidd has one of the highest impacts I've seen for a point guard defensively, offensively not so much. But there are much better stat guys here on the site and elsewhere than I am. Hopefully one will step in and give you a clearer detail picture.

Could be a three way tie. Personally Stockton, Payton, Kidd

Payton was not on that level.

feyki wrote:Payton was not on that level.

He most certainly was.

Looking at say a decade of each player, say ages 25-34, it's hard to choose Jason Kidd because he shot so poorly.

In that age range Kidd shot just 43% on 2s but Stockton shot 55% on 2s, scoring at similar rates (per game and per minute are close) - and that's over 10 long years. Kidd was the much better defensive rebounder but Stockton got more steals. So for Kidd to have been the better player imho he would have had to have been a much better all-around defender than Stockton, and I just don't see that.

As for Stockton versus Payton, I think it's very close. Stockton shot better and got more steals, but Payton was the better scorer and better rebounder. I think Payton was the slightly better overall defender, but just slightly. Both were the PGs for very successful teams for long periods of time. The fact that neither won a title means nothing, they each got to the Finals more than most PGs. I can see valid arguments for either.

But I would definitely take both over Kidd hands down.

I wonder how many know that over the decade of 1993-94 to 2002-03 Gary Payton scored the 3rd most total points among all players, not just PGs (only Karl Malone and Shaquille O'Neal scored more), while also passing for the 3rd most assists (only Stockton and Mark Jackson threw for more) and grabbing the most steals. That's a dominant run for a PG.

mitchco wrote:

feyki wrote:Payton was not on that level.

He most certainly was.

For each of you, what do you base this on? Here are some numbers for you to use or dispute:

Payton was the highest volume scorer of the 3. Not the consistent outside threat of Stockton or even Dallas version of Kidd, but more aggressive attacking offensively than either. 5 straight years over 20 ppg where the other two never reached that mark. On the flip side, Stockton much more efficient than either of the others with a career ts% over .600 and 3 straight years right around the .650 mark which was pretty incredible for that era. Kidd on the other hand has a career efficiency number a full .100 points worse and didn't break .550 until his low usage years in Dallas when both his playmaking and defense had slipped from prime. Payton's in the middle with his prime but closer to the low efficiency Kidd than the high efficiency Stockton.

In terms of playmaking, Payton runs a 32 ast% to a 22.5 to% which isn't that impressive for an ATG PG. Kidd is over 40% with a turnover % under 20% during his prime. And of course, Stockton blows any guard in NBA history away for racking up assists consistently racking up 50%+ with turnover % usually in the low 20s.

Defensively, the closest thing we have to an objective measure is probably All-Defense selections where Stockton had 5 (all 2nd team), Kidd 9 (4 1st team), and Payton also 9, but all of them 1st team. Where we have impact stats, Kidd's impact is mainly defensive, end of career Stockton is still excellent on both ends, Payton's defensive impact numbers are a little disappointing with Nate McMillan on his own team grading out higher.

Kidd adds outstanding rebounding, Stockton adds his ironman capacity, all played long outstanding careers.

mitchco wrote:

feyki wrote:Payton was not on that level.

He most certainly was.

For each of you, what do you base this on? Here are some numbers for you to use or dispute:

Payton was the highest volume scorer of the 3. Not the consistent outside threat of Stockton or even Dallas version of Kidd, but more aggressive attacking offensively than either. 5 straight years over 20 ppg where the other two never reached that mark. On the flip side, Stockton much more efficient than either of the others with a career ts% over .600 and 3 straight years right around the .650 mark which was pretty incredible for that era. Kidd on the other hand has a career efficiency number a full .100 points worse and didn't break .550 until his low usage years in Dallas when both his playmaking and defense had slipped from prime. Payton's in the middle with his prime but closer to the low efficiency Kidd than the high efficiency Stockton.

In terms of playmaking, Payton runs a 32 ast% to a 22.5 to% which isn't that impressive for an ATG PG. Kidd is over 40% with a turnover % under 20% during his prime. And of course, Stockton blows any guard in NBA history away for racking up assists consistently racking up 50%+ with turnover % usually in the low 20s.

Defensively, the closest thing we have to an objective measure is probably All-Defense selections where Stockton had 5 (all 2nd team), Kidd 9 (4 1st team), and Payton also 9, but all of them 1st team. Where we have impact stats, Kidd's impact is mainly defensive, end of career Stockton is still excellent on both ends, Payton's defensive impact numbers are a little disappointing with Nate McMillan on his own team grading out higher.

Kidd adds outstanding rebounding, Stockton adds his ironman capacity, all played long outstanding careers.

stockton was the most efficient scorer but i think his loss of efficiency in the playoffs is being under adressed here

that is arguably his biggest edge over payton/kidd and it shrinks in the playoffs

Biggest edge over Kidd certainly, biggest edge over Payton is playmaking.

Kidd's career playoff efficiency .498, Payton drops to .506, Stockton .568. Still a very large, healthy edge in playoff efficiency though not quite as ridiculous as in the regular season.

falcolombardi wrote:stockton was the most efficient scorer but i think his loss of efficiency in the playoffs is being under adressed here

that is arguably his biggest edge over payton/kidd and it shrinks in the playoffs

John had a few seasons where he was averaging 7 assist more than prime Gary Payton, that's plenty of edge.

Stockton with little hesitation for me. I actually think his absurd consistency creates a situation where people devalue the idea of peak John Stockton

Suppose he had a 3 year stretch where he averaged for each season:

- 16 ppg and 13 apg on 62% TS (116 TS+)
- 122 ORTG, 104 DRTG
- 13.6 WS, .221 WS/48
- 8.0 BPM
- 7.5 VORP

It would be like wow what a phenomenal 3 year peak. I mean those numbers eclipse the single season peaks of both Kidd and Payton

And those numbers represent Stockton's average season for a decade

So if you want to say Stockton never peaked much higher than his 10 year prime or that he instead actually had a 10 year peak, however you want to describe it, I'm taking peak Stockton here

Stockton is a level up from Kidd and Payton, more in the category where you compare him to Steve Nash or Chris Paul. Career he is probably the #4 all time behind Magic, Oscar, and West, possibly #5 depending on where you rank Curry but Curry's peak is ahead of his, probably Paul's too and possibly Nash's depending on how you consider defense and teammates.

I have Stockton ahead of Nash for peak as well as career. It would be more of a slam dunk if he'd had playoff success, that's where the questions come up as to whether he was predictable and could be gamed in a playoff series. If you are looking at ATG PGs who came up big in the playoffs, Frazier gets into the conversation as well, again ahead of Kidd and Payton for me.

BenoUdrihFTL wrote:Stockton with little hesitation for me. I actually think his absurd consistency creates a situation where people devalue the idea of peak John Stockton

Suppose he had a 3 year stretch where he averaged for each season:

- 16 ppg and 13 apg on 62% TS (116 TS+)
- 122 ORTG, 104 DRTG
- 13.6 WS, .221 WS/48
- 8.0 BPM
- 7.5 VORP

It would be like wow what a phenomenal 3 year peak. I mean those numbers eclipse the single season peaks of both Kidd and Payton

And those numbers represent Stockton's average season for a decade

So if you want to say Stockton never peaked much higher than his 10 year prime or that he instead actually had a 10 year peak, however you want to describe it, I'm taking peak Stockton here

I think it is arguable that Stockton was better than Magic. Magic was a freak at his height with his skills but Stockton was a much better defender and shooter and distributor, having much less talent on his teams and getting more assists. Malone was great but none would put him ahead of early 80s Kareem. Give the Jazz Worthy and they win championships, probably the in the 90s. Give him the Lakers bench and that's a dynasty, Jordan lucky to get one championship.

Stockton orchestrated everything. Malone would've had to delve appt more into his talented bag of tricks with any other PG. Say with Kidd, week is one of the best distributors ever, Malone scores well but not as easy and less.

penbeast0 wrote:Stockton is a level up from Kidd and Payton, more in the category where you compare him to Steve Nash or Chris Paul. Career he is probably the #4 all time behind Magic, Oscar, and West, possibly #5 depending on where you rank Curry but Curry's peak is ahead of his, probably Paul's too and possibly Nash's depending on how you consider defense and teammates.

I have Stockton ahead of Nash for peak as well as career. It would be more of a slam dunk if he'd had playoff success, that's where the questions come up as to whether he was predictable and could be gamed in a playoff series. If you are looking at ATG PGs who came up big in the playoffs, Frazier gets into the conversation as well, again ahead of Kidd and Payton for me.

Stockton did have playoff success. As a starter, from 88 onwards, Utah made 3 WCFs and 2 Finals. They made it to the 2nd round 4 times. That's actually from 88 to 00, Stockton age 25 to 37. Name star PGs that have that playoff resume?

Stockton is a level up from Kidd and Payton, more in the category where you compare him to Steve Nash or Chris Paul

Gary Payton was a significantly better PG than Steve Nash. Payton was a great player on both offense and defense, Nash just on offense.

During the Seattle Supersonics great run of 1992-93 to 1997-98 (when they averaged 60 wins a season), they ranked 3rd best in the league as a team in defensive efficiency, but 2nd best in offensive efficiency. Those 6 years Payton lead them in - by far - minutes played (3000 min/year), scoring, and assists, while also averaging close to 200 steals/year and being named all-defensive 1st team 5/6 of those seasons.

From 2004-05 to 2009-10, the Phoenix Suns (averaging 55 wins a season) ranked 1st in the league in offensive efficiency but just 21st in defensive efficiency. Nash played just 2660 min/year, lead them in assists, was 2nd in scoring, but committed 70 more turnovers per year over the 6 seasons than did Payton.

Over those 6 seasons of each, Payton averaged 140 more steals and 70 less turnovers per year than did Nash.

After his first 8 years in the league Payton was well on his way to a HOF career with being nominated to an all-NBA 1st team, all-NBA 2nd teams 3 times, and an all-NBA 3rd team, plus those 5 all-defensive 1st teams.

After his first 8 years in the league nobody was calling Nash an all-time great (all-NBA 3rd team twice).