Bigger peak gap - David Robinson vs Tim Duncan or John Stockton vs Karl Malone?

[SHAQ32]

Make sure you read. Is there a bigger peak gap between Duncan vs Robinson, or is there a bigger peak gap between Stockton vs Malone?

[Cavsfansince84]

Pretty fair question imo and went with Duncan and Admiral as having the bigger gap because Malone never solidified himself enough as a rs+ps performer while Duncan's peak is likely top 7 all time.

[migya]

Pretty fair question imo and went with Duncan and Admiral as having the bigger gap because Malone never solidified himself enough as a rs+ps performer while Duncan's peak is likely top 7 all time.

Really unreasonable the criticism of Malone's playoff performances. Overall he successfully continued carrying the huge scoring load for the Jazz all those years. Stockton is far beyond boxscore numbers, as his impact is shown in metrics. Robinson deserves criticism for his PS reduction in level but his peak was huge. Bigger difference is Stockton/Malone but not as bigger difference in this comparison as it seems.

[Cavsfansince84]

Pretty fair question imo and went with Duncan and Admiral as having the bigger gap because Malone never solidified himself enough as a rs+ps performer while Duncan's peak is likely top 7 all time.

Really unreasonable the criticism of Malone's playoff performances. Overall he successfully continued carrying the huge scoring load for the Jazz all those years. Stockton is far beyond boxscore numbers, as his impact is shown in metrics. Robinson deserves criticism for his PS reduction in level but his peak was huge. Bigger difference is Stockton/Malone but not as bigger difference in this comparison as it seems.

Its not that unreasonable in the context I am saying it. Like I said, I think either way is arguable but I think the gap between an atg peak and what Robinson was able to do is bigger.

[antonac]

It's easily Stockton and Malone for me.

I know part of what makes this tricky is that Malone is considered retrospectively over-rated these days but Stockton's legacy is built largely on his Longevity.

I'm totally OK with Stockton ending up high on these all-time PG lists due to his insane longevity, but peak wise there was always a pretty significant gap between Stockton and Malone.

[henshao]

Peak John Stockton is almost a contradiction in terms

[SHAQ32]

Peak John Stockton is almost a contradiction in terms

How so?

[Owly]

Peak John Stockton is almost a contradiction in terms

How so?

I would read the point as Stockton produced at a very consistent level for a long time ... it's more a plateau (at a high level) than a peak.

e.g. 88-02
stat: average; high; low
PER: 22.6; 23.9; 21.3
WS/48: .218; .238; .177
BPM: 7.5; 9.0; 5.3

(and '93 produces somewhat outlier lows for PER and WS/48 - next lowest are 21.8 and .200; '02 stands out as low for BPM but '98 is also only 5.6, everything else at 6.1 or above). Add '03 and whilst the new bottom numbers are added for PER (21) and BPM (5) they aren't big changes.

Now, imo, that can obscure how good '90 (or '95 depending on what you weight etc) are and this is box only ... but that's how I'd read it anyhow.

[jdzimme3]

This might be unpopular but i have peak drob > peak duncan

[SHAQ32]

This might be unpopular but i have peak drob > peak duncan

Regular season, sure.

[migya]

This might be unpopular but i have peak drob > peak duncan

It isn't unreasonable at all. He had less talent around him and was a better scorer and defender.

[70sFan]

This might be unpopular but i have peak drob > peak duncan

It isn't unreasonable at all. He had less talent around him and was a better scorer and defender.

Robinson was a better scorer, but only in regular season:

2001-07 Duncan: 24.1 ppg (26.3 pp75) on 50.6 FG%, 55.8 TS% (+3.6 rTS%) and 52.0% FTr
1990-06 Robinson: 24.0 ppg (24.5 pp75) on 48.8 FG%, 55.7 TS% (+2.1 rTS%) and 57.6% FTr

The numbers in the playoffs are very close for primes and if anything, Duncan has a slight edge (especially considering faced opponents). If we take only 3 years peaks, Duncan's edge becomes only bigger:

2002-04 Duncan: 25.2 ppg (25.6 pp75) on 50.1 FG%, 56.7 TS% (+5.2 rTS%) and 55.9% FTr
1994-06 Robinson: 24.0 ppg (25.9 pp75) on 48.8 FG%, 53.8 TS% (+0.2 rTS%) and 53.7% FTr

Robinson only was a better scorer if you trust his RS numbers, but I don't trust his RS scoring numbers at all.

[Ancalagon]

This isn’t the whole answer, but let’s look at Win Shares and WS/48.

Malone three year peak Regular Season WS —> 1996-1998 —> 15.1, 16.7, 16.8 = 48.6
Stockton three year peak Regular Season WS —> 1998-1990 —> 14.1, 15.6, 14.4 = 44.1
Malone +4.7

Duncan three year peak Regular Season WS —> 2001-2003 —> 13.2, 17.8, 16.5 = 47.5
Robinson three year peak Regular Season WS —> 1994-1996 —> 20.0, 17.5, 18.3 = 55.8
Robinson +8.3

Robinson, Malone, Duncan, Stockton


Malone three year peak Regular Season WS/48 —> 1997-1999 —> .268, .259, .252 = adds to .789
Stockton three year peak Regular Season WS/48 —> 1998-1990 —> .238, .236, .238 = adds to .712
Malone +.077

Duncan three year peak Regular Season WS/48 —> 2002-2004 —> .257, .248, .249 = adds to .754
Robinson three year peak Regular Season WS/48 —> 1994-1996 —> .296, .273, .290 = adds to .859
Robinson +.105

Robinson, Malone, Duncan, Stockton


Malone three year peak postseason WS —> 1996-1998 —> 2.6, 2.2, 3.0 = 7.8
Stockton three year peak postseason WS—> 1996-1998 —> 2.2, 3.1, 2.2 = 7.5
Malone +0.3

Duncan three year peak postseason WS —> 2003-2005 —> 5.9, 1.5, 3.5 = 10.9
Robinson three year peak postseason WS —> 1999-2001 —> 3.0, 0.7, 1.8 = 5.5
Duncan +5.4

Duncan, Malone, Stockton, Robinson


Malone three year peak postseason WS/48 —> 1998-2000 —> .184, .135, .194 = adds to .513
Stockton three year peak postseason WS/48 —> 1987-89 —> .200, .207, .230 = adds to .637
Stockton +.124

Duncan three year peak postseason WS/48 —> 2002-2004 —> .247, .279, .183 = adds to .709
Robinson three year peak postseason WS/48 —> 1999-2001 —> .243, .220, .207 = .670
Duncan +.039

Duncan, Robinson, Stockton, Malone


These are both really close, closer than people think, complicated by differing peak periods and differing postseason performance. It’s also complicated by timing of deep runs vs. peak efficiency, confusing the narrative.

The interesting thing about Stockton and Malone is that their Regular Season peaks (and postseason efficiency peaks) are more than a decade apart, similar to Duncan and Robinson. In fact, despite being drafted a year apart, their actual peaks are further apart than Duncan and Robinson in terms of actual years. And Robinson’s best postseasons were with Duncan, when he had the maximum defensive impact and the least offensive load.

During Stockton’s best years, they didn’t have the team around them to compete. During Malone’s best years, Stockton was slightly over the hill.

I would say all four guys are slightly underrated on this board in general.

[Colbinii]

This isn’t the whole answer, but let’s look at Win Shares and WS/48.

Malone three year peak Regular Season WS —> 1996-1998 —> 15.1, 16.7, 16.8 = 48.6
Stockton three year peak Regular Season WS —> 1998-1990 —> 14.1, 15.6, 14.4 = 44.1
Malone +4.7

Duncan three year peak Regular Season WS —> 2001-2003 —> 13.2, 17.8, 16.5 = 47.5
Robinson three year peak Regular Season WS —> 1994-1996 —> 20.0, 17.5, 18.3 = 55.8
Robinson +8.3

Robinson, Malone, Duncan, Stockton


Malone three year peak Regular Season WS/48 —> 1997-1999 —> .268, .259, .252 = adds to .789
Stockton three year peak Regular Season WS/48 —> 1998-1990 —> .238, .236, .238 = adds to .712
Malone +.077

Duncan three year peak Regular Season WS/48 —> 2002-2004 —> .257, .248, .249 = adds to .754
Robinson three year peak Regular Season WS/48 —> 1994-1996 —> .296, .273, .290 = adds to .859
Robinson +.105

Robinson, Malone, Duncan, Stockton


Malone three year peak postseason WS —> 1996-1998 —> 2.6, 2.2, 3.0 = 7.8
Stockton three year peak postseason WS—> 1996-1998 —> 2.2, 3.1, 2.2 = 7.5
Malone +0.3

Duncan three year peak postseason WS —> 2003-2005 —> 5.9, 1.5, 3.5 = 10.9
Robinson three year peak postseason WS —> 1999-2001 —> 3.0, 0.7, 1.8 = 5.5
Duncan +5.4

Duncan, Malone, Stockton, Robinson


Malone three year peak postseason WS/48 —> 1998-2000 —> .184, .135, .194 = adds to .513
Stockton three year peak postseason WS/48 —> 1987-89 —> .200, .207, .230 = adds to .637
Stockton +.124

Duncan three year peak postseason WS/48 —> 2002-2004 —> .247, .279, .183 = adds to .709
Robinson three year peak postseason WS/48 —> 1999-2001 —> .243, .220, .207 = .670
Duncan +.039

Duncan, Robinson, Stockton, Malone


These are both really close, closer than people think, complicated by differing peak periods and differing postseason performance. It’s also complicated by timing of deep runs vs. peak efficiency, confusing the narrative.

The interesting thing about Stockton and Malone is that their Regular Season peaks (and postseason efficiency peaks) are more than a decade apart, similar to Duncan and Robinson. In fact, despite being drafted a year apart, their actual peaks are further apart than Duncan and Robinson in terms of actual years. And Robinson’s best postseasons were with Duncan, when he had the maximum defensive impact and the least offensive load.

During Stockton’s best years, they didn’t have the team around them to compete. During Malone’s best years, Stockton was slightly over the hill.

I would say all four guys are slightly underrated on this board in general.

I don't think Stockton or Duncan are underrated on this board in any capacity.

Many people believe Stockton was as good or better than Nash and many have Duncan in the Top 5-6 players of all-time.

[One_and_Done]

One of these things is not like the other. 3 of these guys are superstars, the other is an all-nba/all-star type player.

Everyone loves Stockton's advanced stats, I won't speak to those here. One point I will make that I think gets overlooked alot when modern statheads pine for Stockton or Reggie Miller is the context. Some modern fans look at Stockton and Miller and see them playing a more modern game, and think how much better they'd be today with spaced floors. Part of that is true. What people should consider more is how much easier it was for Miller or Stockton to play in a league that didn't understand the value of the 3 point shot, and didn't put in as much effort to guard it. It led to them getting way more open looks than they might otherwise have had, because defences weren't asked to scramble all over the floor in constant rotation like they are today except for the last 5 minutes (and even then not consistently).

The flip side is in the modern NBA teams would deploy all the anti-Curry, anti-shooter type of defences that are hyper focused on stopping 3 point shooters, and not giving them open shots. The way great players like Curry and Harden overcome that is because the shooting is the threat that unlocks their drive game. If Harden or Curry can't drive, then defending them becomes a heck of alot easier. It's because they can get right to the basket with space that makes defending them so tough. While Miller and Stockton were far from 3 and D guys (certainly Reggie wasn't as far as the D went), they were not the athletically gifted drivers of modern superstars. I submit that in today's game they would be no better than they were in their era, and arguably would be notably worse. Miller would kill it s a Klay type, but Klay is a second option to a true superstar. Stockton and Miller would be secondary and tertiary offensive players today.

A player I think would kill it today would be a young Ray Allen. He had both the shooting, but also the speed and explosion to get to the basket. People don't always remember how quick and athletic young Ray Allen was.

[penbeast0]

Actually, Stockton and Miller were both excellent drivers and finishers, unlike some of the other 3 point greats of the era. The complaint with Stockton is that he doesn't call his own number enough; compare him to the equivalents of his era like Nash and you will see Stockton drives to the basket more and more successfully. Similarly, Miller has a fine foul draw for a 3 point specialist, significantly better than Ray Allen both career and peak, mainly because he would use his 3 point shot to set up his drives and was crafty at drawing the foul (or cheating if you prefer with his leg kick on his pull ups).

[krii]

I second penbeast0.

There is a lot of talk about Stockton not playing selfishly or caring about exposing his skills/shooting numbers, and that in today's NBA that would be a problem. In my opinion, this is thinking that doesn't take into account that Stockton growing up in today's world would have had a greater emphasis on individual play going beyond team-level plays. In other words, in today's world, both coaches and the entire organisation(s) would pressure him to shoot more or go for more drives. Stockton was not the Ben Simmons type who refuses to drop threes just because he doesn't like them, or whatever his reason is. He'd just do it whenever asked. Not with a Mamba mentality (=shooting anything I can if needed), but more Nash-like (ie., run it and see the option, if there's nothing open, play by yourself), or even Durant-like (ie., do whatever is needed in a system).

Looking at Stockton's effectiveness in this aspect of his game, IMO he is even underrated in such debates. Some people think he didn't have it in him to play more individually. Well, based on how often he took it upon himself to play dirty, I think the opposite. He was simply the incarnation of the system player, its most effective and best version ever. In every iteration, he would be the system itself. In today's game, such a system is often more individual, ergo, he would play more individual plays.

[migya]

Actually, Stockton and Miller were both excellent drivers and finishers, unlike some of the other 3 point greats of the era. The complaint with Stockton is that he doesn't call his own number enough; compare him to the equivalents of his era like Nash and you will see Stockton drives to the basket more and more successfully. Similarly, Miller has a fine foul draw for a 3 point specialist, significantly better than Ray Allen both career and peak, mainly because he would use his 3 point shot to set up his drives and was crafty at drawing the foul (or cheating if you prefer with his leg kick on his pull ups).

Reggie jumped into players and got the foul calls, he wasn't much of a driver and finisher, though not awful. Ray Allen was much more athletic, faster and skilled at taking it to the basket. Stockton was a pitbull type, feisty and finished with some contact.

[uberhikari]

John Stockton was never an MVP-caliber player. What are we doing here?

[One_and_Done]

John Stockton was never an MVP-caliber player. What are we doing here?

Pretty much my take.