RealGM

LukaTheGOAT wrote:Stockton definitely has the longevity edge; I tend to believe in the exponential value of MVP-level seasons compared to All-NBA level seasons, and therefore I would go Nash.

I think Nash is at worst like a top 7 offensive player ever, and despite how underwhelming he is on the other side of the ball; having a guy who is that caliber of offensive player is hard to pass up, considering I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

I take Nash for peak and an all-time sense. The only people who have an 8-year string of postseason offense as good as Nash are Shaq and Lebron (via backpicks).

Steve Nash was on a #1 offense for 9 years straight in his career, playing with Dirk and then becoming the #1 guy during this time span. This gives validity to the idea that Nash truly was a special driving force and could mesh with other high-end talent.

Nash's exploits on offense are exquisite and I haven't seen any proof and I haven't seen much suggest Stockton was an MVP-level force in the PS. I don't think he pressured defenses enough with his scoring/attacking of the rim.

That is part of the reason why the difference between them as scorers is so stark.

Read on Twitter

RAPM and APM figures are very kind to Nash.

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/rapm-by-player

At this link that goes up to 201e not only does Nash have the top peak offensive peak per RAPM ahead of arguably Peak Lebron, Peak Kobe, Peak Wade, etc., but he takes up multiple spots in the upper echelon.

According to Steve Ilardi's 04-09 APM, Steve Nash also has the highest offensive peak by QUITE the margin as well. https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/04-09-6-year-apm

The magnitude to which his offense explodes in these measures, to me, gives him a compelling argument.

Finally, a lot of people contribute Nash's success to D'Antoni's scheme; however Nash lead a top 10 offense ever in 2010 without D'Antoni

Underrated 2009-2010 Steve Nash:

▫️19.2 IA Pts/75
▫️11.0 AST
▫️3.3 REB
▫️+7.20 rTS%
▫️17.8 adjusted box creation
▫️9.5 adjusted passer rating

These numbers are pretty similar to his years with D'Antoni, and this was a season where he would turn 36 later on; when he was older and slower too compared to his 05-07 versions.

Read on Twitter

LukaTheGOAT wrote:Stockton definitely has the longevity edge; I tend to believe in the exponential value of MVP-level seasons compared to All-NBA level seasons, and therefore I would go Nash.

I think Nash is at worst like a top 7 offensive player ever, and despite how underwhelming he is on the other side of the ball; having a guy who is that caliber of offensive player is hard to pass up, considering I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

I take Nash for peak and an all-time sense. The only people who have an 8-year string of postseason offense as good as Nash are Shaq and Lebron (via backpicks).

Steve Nash was on a #1 offense for 9 years straight in his career, playing with Dirk and then becoming the #1 guy during this time span. This gives validity to the idea that Nash truly was a special driving force and could mesh with other high-end talent.

Nash's exploits on offense are exquisite and I haven't seen any proof and I haven't seen much suggest Stockton was an MVP-level force in the PS. I don't think he pressured defenses enough with his scoring/attacking of the rim.

That is part of the reason why the difference between them as scorers is so stark.

Read on Twitter

RAPM and APM figures are very kind to Nash.

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/rapm-by-player

At this link that goes up to 201e not only does Nash have the top peak offensive peak per RAPM ahead of arguably Peak Lebron, Peak Kobe, Peak Wade, etc., but he takes up multiple spots in the upper echelon.

According to Steve Ilardi's 04-09 APM, Steve Nash also has the highest offensive peak by QUITE the margin as well. https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/04-09-6-year-apm

The magnitude to which his offense explodes in these measures, to me, gives him a compelling argument.

Finally, a lot of people contribute Nash's success to D'Antoni's scheme; however Nash lead a top 10 offense ever in 2010 without D'Antoni

Underrated 2009-2010 Steve Nash:

▫️19.2 IA Pts/75
▫️11.0 AST
▫️3.3 REB
▫️+7.20 rTS%
▫️17.8 adjusted box creation
▫️9.5 adjusted passer rating

These numbers are pretty similar to his years with D'Antoni, and this was a season where he would turn 36 later on; when he was older and slower too compared to his 05-07 versions.

Read on Twitter

colts18 wrote:John Stockton vs Peak Steve Nash

colts18 wrote: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

migya wrote:

LukaTheGOAT wrote:Stockton definitely has the longevity edge; I tend to believe in the exponential value of MVP-level seasons compared to All-NBA level seasons, and therefore I would go Nash.

I think Nash is at worst like a top 7 offensive player ever, and despite how underwhelming he is on the other side of the ball; having a guy who is that caliber of offensive player is hard to pass up, considering I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

I take Nash for peak and an all-time sense. The only people who have an 8-year string of postseason offense as good as Nash are Shaq and Lebron (via backpicks).

Steve Nash was on a #1 offense for 9 years straight in his career, playing with Dirk and then becoming the #1 guy during this time span. This gives validity to the idea that Nash truly was a special driving force and could mesh with other high-end talent.

Nash's exploits on offense are exquisite and I haven't seen any proof and I haven't seen much suggest Stockton was an MVP-level force in the PS. I don't think he pressured defenses enough with his scoring/attacking of the rim.

That is part of the reason why the difference between them as scorers is so stark.

Read on Twitter

RAPM and APM figures are very kind to Nash.

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/rapm-by-player

At this link that goes up to 201e not only does Nash have the top peak offensive peak per RAPM ahead of arguably Peak Lebron, Peak Kobe, Peak Wade, etc., but he takes up multiple spots in the upper echelon.

According to Steve Ilardi's 04-09 APM, Steve Nash also has the highest offensive peak by QUITE the margin as well. https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/04-09-6-year-apm

The magnitude to which his offense explodes in these measures, to me, gives him a compelling argument.

Finally, a lot of people contribute Nash's success to D'Antoni's scheme; however Nash lead a top 10 offense ever in 2010 without D'Antoni

Underrated 2009-2010 Steve Nash:

▫️19.2 IA Pts/75
▫️11.0 AST
▫️3.3 REB
▫️+7.20 rTS%
▫️17.8 adjusted box creation
▫️9.5 adjusted passer rating

These numbers are pretty similar to his years with D'Antoni, and this was a season where he would turn 36 later on; when he was older and slower too compared to his 05-07 versions.

Read on Twitter

For plus/minus:

Stockton 97-03, age 34-40 - +8.9 on court, +10.8 on/off

Nash 97- 14, age 22-37 - +6.3 on court, +7.0 on/off

LukaTheGOAT wrote:I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

colts18 wrote:I don't see Nash as clearly better than Stockton for peak. I think Stockton's peak is better than Nash's. He didn't have a roster constructed to focus on Offense to the detriment of defense like Nash did. I got Stockton's 10th best year, 1997, as comparable to Nash's 2006 MVP season.

colts18 wrote:John Stockton vs Peak Steve Nash

colts18 wrote: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

penbeast0 wrote:Stockton's data may be inflated by playing all the starters together, Nash's by playing starters out of position to create offensive mismatches deliberately sacrificing defense for offense. Nash is the better scorer (though not by a huge amount), Stockton the better defender (by a huge amount), Nash the more creative playmaker, Stockton the more reliable playmaker (it's harder to create a #1 offense when your C/SF are Ostertag and Byron Russell than when they are Amare and Joe Johnson), Nash has created more great offenses but Stockton pushed weaker offensive lineups a long way and once he got Hornacek for a 3rd competent offensive starter, Utah's lineups were very good offensively despite having 2 defensive specialists. I would rate them close, Stockton a little better running a set offense and as a playmaker overall, Nash better on broken plays or creating something from nothing. Stockton also adds the ironman advantage; Nash is not a perpetually injured guy but Stockton was ridiculous.

Overall, I have Stockton as the better player. Give him Phoenix's talent and coaching and give Nash Utah's and I think Phoenix gets a little better and Utah gets a little worse with the differential coming on the defensive end.

migya wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Stockton's data may be inflated by playing all the starters together, Nash's by playing starters out of position to create offensive mismatches deliberately sacrificing defense for offense. Nash is the better scorer (though not by a huge amount), Stockton the better defender (by a huge amount), Nash the more creative playmaker, Stockton the more reliable playmaker (it's harder to create a #1 offense when your C/SF are Ostertag and Byron Russell than when they are Amare and Joe Johnson), Nash has created more great offenses but Stockton pushed weaker offensive lineups a long way and once he got Hornacek for a 3rd competent offensive starter, Utah's lineups were very good offensively despite having 2 defensive specialists. I would rate them close, Stockton a little better running a set offense and as a playmaker overall, Nash better on broken plays or creating something from nothing. Stockton also adds the ironman advantage; Nash is not a perpetually injured guy but Stockton was ridiculous.

Overall, I have Stockton as the better player. Give him Phoenix's talent and coaching and give Nash Utah's and I think Phoenix gets a little better and Utah gets a little worse with the differential coming on the defensive end.

Don't know where the evidence is showing Stockton playing with mostly the starters but can't see those Jazz teams holding up for 5 minutes any game with the bench they had. They were low talented. Phoenix gets much better with Stockton and Utah much worse with Nash. Opposition guards in the 90s would've run amok on Nash.

theonlyclutch wrote:

migya wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Stockton's data may be inflated by playing all the starters together, Nash's by playing starters out of position to create offensive mismatches deliberately sacrificing defense for offense. Nash is the better scorer (though not by a huge amount), Stockton the better defender (by a huge amount), Nash the more creative playmaker, Stockton the more reliable playmaker (it's harder to create a #1 offense when your C/SF are Ostertag and Byron Russell than when they are Amare and Joe Johnson), Nash has created more great offenses but Stockton pushed weaker offensive lineups a long way and once he got Hornacek for a 3rd competent offensive starter, Utah's lineups were very good offensively despite having 2 defensive specialists. I would rate them close, Stockton a little better running a set offense and as a playmaker overall, Nash better on broken plays or creating something from nothing. Stockton also adds the ironman advantage; Nash is not a perpetually injured guy but Stockton was ridiculous.

Overall, I have Stockton as the better player. Give him Phoenix's talent and coaching and give Nash Utah's and I think Phoenix gets a little better and Utah gets a little worse with the differential coming on the defensive end.

Don't know where the evidence is showing Stockton playing with mostly the starters but can't see those Jazz teams holding up for 5 minutes any game with the bench they had. They were low talented. Phoenix gets much better with Stockton and Utah much worse with Nash. Opposition guards in the 90s would've run amok on Nash.

Stockton's minutes fell off by ~5+ minutes every game from 97 onwards and Utah's record stayed largely intact for the next few seasons before age affected the core as a whole.

SHAQ32 wrote:

LukaTheGOAT wrote:I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

Why not?

migya wrote:

theonlyclutch wrote:

migya wrote:
Don't know where the evidence is showing Stockton playing with mostly the starters but can't see those Jazz teams holding up for 5 minutes any game with the bench they had. They were low talented. Phoenix gets much better with Stockton and Utah much worse with Nash. Opposition guards in the 90s would've run amok on Nash.

Stockton's minutes fell off by ~5+ minutes every game from 97 onwards and Utah's record stayed largely intact for the next few seasons before age affected the core as a whole.

From 98-02 They had some good veterans that made a big difference. Before then Stockton and Malone, lesser extent Hornacek, carried those teams.