COACHING/PG SWITCH

[penbeast0]

So that tsherkin and I and everyone else that wants to talk about this can join in, question:

Would Stockton have been as effective, more effective, or less effective than he actually was (not than Nash) if his career were spent with the teams that Nash played with (Dallas, Phoenix, then that short stint in LA) for the coaches Nash played for? Would D'Antoni have been able to unlock a bit more from Stockton or would Stockton have been less impressive if he was expected to improvise more and run less set play pnr?

Would Nash have been as effective, more effective or less effective than he actually was (not than Stockton) if his career were spent in Utah during the years Stockton was actually there, playing for Jerry Sloan in Sloan's system? Would not having good shooters around him have been a problem? Would the extra Karl Malone prn chances have given him more opportunities? Would he have forced Sloan to change his conception of the point guard role like Manu forced Pop to reevaluate his role in that offense?

[SHAQ32]

Utah might have been better in 97 and 98 vs Chicago as Nash was more of a scorer than Stockton. And Utah needed more scoring.

[penbeast0]

Specifically NOT asking how good the team would be, interested in how the coaching and system would affect the individuals who played PG.

[One_and_Done]

Whether Stockton was more or less effective in a given year compared to how his career unfolded, he would have been less impactful than Nash could have been because he was a worse player. This appears to draw a subtle equivalence between the two that doesn't exist. Nash was one of the best offensive players of all-time, one of the best dribbling/passing/shooting guards ever, and could actually beat guys off the dribble with ease with his herky jerky moves. Nash was deceptively athletic too.

Stockton showed none of that. He would be shut down by superior defenders, unable to create his shot to nearly the same extent as Nash, unable to shoot off the dribble like Nash., etc. The Suns are not a contender switching out Nash for Stockton. The Jazz are absolutely a contender with Nash over Stockton.

[Djoker]

Utah might have been better in 97 and 98 vs Chicago as Nash was more of a scorer than Stockton. And Utah needed more scoring.

More scoring? The 97 and 98 Jazz were a historically great offensive team.

If anything they needed more defense.

[penbeast0]

Whether Stockton was more or less effective in a given year compared to how his career unfolded, he would have been less impactful than Nash could have been because he was a worse player. This appears to draw a subtle equivalence between the two that doesn't exist. Nash was one of the best offensive players of all-time, one of the best dribbling/passing/shooting guards ever, and could actually beat guys off the dribble with ease with his herky jerky moves. Nash was deceptively athletic too.

Stockton showed none of that. He would be shut down by superior defenders, unable to create his shot to nearly the same extent as Nash, unable to shoot off the dribble like Nash., etc. The Suns are not a contender switching out Nash for Stockton. The Jazz are absolutely a contender with Nash over Stockton.

Again, please read the OP. I'm not asking for you to repeat the same anti-Stockton comments you've made so many times or to compare how good the teams would be. I'm looking for whether those who saw them play think that Stockton would have been benefitted or hurt significantly, RS and PS, by playing in Dallas/Phoenix/etc. under Nelson/D'Antoni/etc. and/or whether Nash would have been benefitted or hurt significantly by playing in Utah under Sloan.

[One_and_Done]

Well, Nash played in a tougher league, so yes he'd have been much better playing in a worse league next to a genuine MVP candidate, something he never had in Phoenix. Stockton would have been worse, because he would have been playing in a better league. The guard quality was generally better in Nash's time too.

Stockton wouldn't have had the same benefit from playing under D'Antoni because he lacks the ability to dribble, drive, pass and create separation that Nash had. He wouldn't have been better in D'Antoni's system, because he would have struggled to fulfill the requirements of said system. He would still be an all-star PG, but a defensive point guard is probably lowest on the list of what D'Antoni's system needs, right after traditional 5 man. Stockton benefited from playing on the Jazz, in a time where opposing teams guarded the 3 much less, and would let you get pretty open on stand and shoot 3s. Today Stockton wouldn't be able to get open as much, so his effectiveness would drop. He likely wouldn't be getting the home-cooking from the scorekeepers in Nash's league either.

[penbeast0]

They published a study of which great PGs got home/away scoring benefit on assists. Of those I remember, Magic got the biggest advantage from playing at home where Stockton was relatively close to neutral. I don't remember where Nash ended up. If I find the survey, I will post the link here.

[Rishkar]

I don't think this is quite the study you were referring to, but The Salt Lake times did some analysis on the issue. It places Stockton at around average for guards with 7.3% more assists at home, and Steve Nash was one of only two players to actually acquire more assists on the road, coming in with 4.5% more assists while away.
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/2019/05/17/its-an-nba-urban-legend/

This nylon calculus article also delves into it, but with a focus on touch time.
https://fansided.com/2015/05/26/underneath-the-box-score-hood-the-hometown-assist/

[One_and_Done]

These days there is too much scrutiny from too many ppl for the same level of home cooking. Whether it favoured Magic more than Stockton strikes me as irrelevant, because I don't think anyone is advocating Magic on the basis of apg, whereas Stockton's place as assists leader is constantly cited by his backers.

Go look up his highlights for footage of him blowing by people to the basket. Like most everyone he could do it from time to time. But it's a rarity. Ben Taylor's recent video shows how Nash's incredible handle and herky jerky moves gave him the 'shake' needed to punish teams for overcompensating to stop his 3. Harden and Curry and Doncic have this core ability too, along with other stuff like the step back 3 and deep 3. Stockton, lacking that, would be greatly limited by.modern D.

His D would suffer as well, due to the change to the touch rules, and the PnR he and Malone excelled at would be the equivalent of attacking someone with a spoon today. PnR, and the actions coming out of it, has become vastly more sophisticated compared to Stockton's day.

[homecourtloss]

Utah might have been better in 97 and 98 vs Chicago as Nash was more of a scorer than Stockton. And Utah needed more scoring.

More scoring? The 97 and 98 Jazz were a historically great offensive team.

If anything they needed more defense.

1997 Chicago Bulls won that series on the back of their defense. The 1997 jazz were a great offensive team, but not in the finals. The Utah Jazz had a -9.8 rDRtg in the finals, easily good enough defense to win the title holding down a great Chicago offense, but couldn’t generate enough offense at the end of games to pull off that series, which was highly winnable even with the plethora of questionable call that went against them. That 1997 series had Stockton needing to shoot more — he had great efficiency, and they were opportunities for him to shoot, but he didn’t and part of that is the offense that Sloan wanted to run. On the other hand, it’s highly unlikely that the jazz hold down the Chicago Bulls as well as they did with Nash in there instead of Stockton, the playing defense in 1997 is much different than playing defense in today’s game, which is much more difficult for any point guard.

1998 Jazz held down the Chicago Bulls’ offense well enough again, but Stockton was neither overly efficient and barely scored at all band the Jazz had a terrible offensive series. Even when you take out that one terrible game they had.

[penbeast0]

...He likely wouldn't be getting the home-cooking from the scorekeepers in Nash's league either.

These days there is too much scrutiny from too many ppl for the same level of home cooking. Whether it favoured Magic more than Stockton strikes me as irrelevant,....

Then why did you bring it up?

[One_and_Done]

...He likely wouldn't be getting the home-cooking from the scorekeepers in Nash's league either.

These days there is too much scrutiny from too many ppl for the same level of home cooking. Whether it favoured Magic more than Stockton strikes me as irrelevant,....

Then why did you bring it up?

You have to read till the end of the sentence.

[penbeast0]

These days there is too much scrutiny from too many ppl for the same level of home cooking. Whether it favoured Magic more than Stockton strikes me as irrelevant, because I don't think anyone is advocating Magic on the basis of apg, whereas Stockton's place as assists leader is constantly cited by his backers.

Go look up his highlights for footage of him blowing by people to the basket. Like most everyone he could do it from time to time. But it's a rarity. Ben Taylor's recent video shows how Nash's incredible handle and herky jerky moves gave him the 'shake' needed to punish teams for overcompensating to stop his 3....

Nope, still make no sense as anything other than a factually incorrect cheap shot at Stockton. He didn't get favorable treatment from Utah scorers to any significant degree more than most other top PGs. About average.

And Stockton got to the rim more and finished with a higher percentage than Nash, so I don't think your other point holds water either. Nash, as someone said elsewhere, had a lot of outstanding ways to score in the short to midrange with pullups, teardrops, and the like, but he didn't have a greater record of "blowing by people to the basket" as you claim.

There are good arguments for Nash being higher impact than Stockton, the strongest probably being Phoenix's consistent record of having great offenses, even after Amare and Marion leave. The counter is Stockton played with lesser offensive players but it's still hard to ignore Nash's great results. There is also an argument based on playoff resilience. But not one based on favorable scorekeepers helping Stockton's stats relative to other top PGs or Nash having a stronger record of blowing by people to the basket.

[One_and_Done]

It is definitely relevant because most of the point guards he's being compared to were modern point guards, and they didn't get that benefit regardless of whether Magic supposedly did.

Stockton couldn't get to the rim like Nash, and I don't think number of layups is the indicator of how well you got to the rim either. Nash of course didn't get to the rim with athleticism, as I explained. But Stockton didn't do it at all really.

Aside from the fact Stockton played on plenty of great teams, there's also the era adjustment to do. Stockton's team mates meant more relative to the weak era he played in. Malone was far and away better than anyone Nash had in phoenix.

[SilentA]

These aren't players I studied too much but off memory:

Stockton: I think he would have been slightly better in the Suns than he was in the Jazz. While I don't recall his handle being as good as Nash (nor his aggression), I do think he'd still learn to take advantage of a better spaced floor and stress the defense more relative to his time in the Jazz, even if I have no evidence to suggest he'd necessarily do better playing more aggressively (he was solid in transition at least). Even if he remains a "conservative but efficient" shooter, with coaching, I'd gamble on him being able to exert more offensive pressure with that kind of PG-centric system and with a finisher like Amare, given his basketball IQ. Not quite at Nash's level, but better than the Jazz still.

Defensively, I'll just be honest and say I don't remember much how Jazz vs Suns defensive schemes or playstyles were, but off vague memory I have no reason to believe Stockton would defend better/worse in the Suns. As for Lakers and Mavs, he'd be fine playing a secondary role and shooting time to time. He's more suited to this than Nash and can defend.

Nash: I think he becomes less impactful in Utah. I just don't see his creativity and ball-handling flourishing in a system built mostly around a 2-man game, taking advantage of illegal defense rules, and a lot of post-ups/a few off-ball screens here and there etc., as good as Malone was. He'd be good, but I think still better in the Suns.

Edit: Upon further consideration, in fact, I wonder how close a 90s Jazz Steve Nash would look to Cavs Mark Price.

Funnily enough, I think some of the modern PGs that call their own number more and have a good 2-man game, but otherwise have a ceiling on their playmaking ability, would be better "maximized" in 90s Utah.

[Djoker]

Utah might have been better in 97 and 98 vs Chicago as Nash was more of a scorer than Stockton. And Utah needed more scoring.

More scoring? The 97 and 98 Jazz were a historically great offensive team.

If anything they needed more defense.

1997 Chicago Bulls won that series on the back of their defense. The 1997 jazz were a great offensive team, but not in the finals. The Utah Jazz had a -9.8 rDRtg in the finals, easily good enough defense to win the title holding down a great Chicago offense, but couldn’t generate enough offense at the end of games to pull off that series, which was highly winnable even with the plethora of questionable call that went against them. That 1997 series had Stockton needing to shoot more — he had great efficiency, and they were opportunities for him to shoot, but he didn’t and part of that is the offense that Sloan wanted to run. On the other hand, it’s highly unlikely that the jazz hold down the Chicago Bulls as well as they did with Nash in there instead of Stockton, the playing defense in 1997 is much different than playing defense in today’s game, which is much more difficult for any point guard.

1998 Jazz held down the Chicago Bulls’ offense well enough again, but Stockton was neither overly efficient and barely scored at all band the Jazz had a terrible offensive series. Even when you take out that one terrible game they had.

Obviously the Bulls' defense crushed their offense but that Jazz team is still among the best offenses of all time. In fact the 1997 and 1998 Jazz were the 18th and 7th greatest offensive teams of all time in the regular season with +6.9 rORtg and +7.6 rORtg, respectively. And apart from the Chicago series, they were largely dominant offensively in the playoffs as well. And then they ran into what is arguably the GOAT team and lost in a hard-fought series. That's hardly a knock against them IMO.

[homecourtloss]

More scoring? The 97 and 98 Jazz were a historically great offensive team.

If anything they needed more defense.

1997 Chicago Bulls won that series on the back of their defense. The 1997 jazz were a great offensive team, but not in the finals. The Utah Jazz had a -9.8 rDRtg in the finals, easily good enough defense to win the title holding down a great Chicago offense, but couldn’t generate enough offense at the end of games to pull off that series, which was highly winnable even with the plethora of questionable call that went against them. That 1997 series had Stockton needing to shoot more — he had great efficiency, and they were opportunities for him to shoot, but he didn’t and part of that is the offense that Sloan wanted to run. On the other hand, it’s highly unlikely that the jazz hold down the Chicago Bulls as well as they did with Nash in there instead of Stockton, the playing defense in 1997 is much different than playing defense in today’s game, which is much more difficult for any point guard.

1998 Jazz held down the Chicago Bulls’ offense well enough again, but Stockton was neither overly efficient and barely scored at all band the Jazz had a terrible offensive series. Even when you take out that one terrible game they had.

Obviously the Bulls' defense crushed their offense but that Jazz team is still among the best offenses of all time. In fact the 1997 and 1998 Jazz were the 18th and 7th greatest offensive teams of all time in the regular season with +6.9 rORtg and +7.6 rORtg, respectively. And apart from the Chicago series, they were largely dominant offensively in the playoffs as well. And then they ran into what is arguably the GOAT team and lost in a hard-fought series. That's hardly a knock against them IMO.

Eh, they didn’t run into some unbeatable juggernaut. The Jazz defense crushed a regular season 114+ ORtg Bulls team. Jordan wasn’t killing them (-.2% rTS aided by a generous whistle on touch perimeter fouls including non-shooting ones, +.1% reFG, +6 on court over 6 games, Bulls total of of +8 over 6 games). Even with some calls that went against them, the 1997 series was highly winnable for the Jazz but neither Karl Malone nor John Stockton raised their respective games enough to take it. Kudos to the Bulls’ defense for stopping a great offense, but that was an entirely winnable series with good enough play from the rest of the Jazz to take it.

1998 Bulls were even further removed from a “GOAT” type team—Jordan was -.8% rTS (aided by an even more generous whistle), -3.2% reFG. That Bulls’ team was a few FTs and/or defensive rebounds away from losing game 7 vs. the Pacers (or Kukoc not saving them).

[Djoker]

1997 Chicago Bulls won that series on the back of their defense. The 1997 jazz were a great offensive team, but not in the finals. The Utah Jazz had a -9.8 rDRtg in the finals, easily good enough defense to win the title holding down a great Chicago offense, but couldn’t generate enough offense at the end of games to pull off that series, which was highly winnable even with the plethora of questionable call that went against them. That 1997 series had Stockton needing to shoot more — he had great efficiency, and they were opportunities for him to shoot, but he didn’t and part of that is the offense that Sloan wanted to run. On the other hand, it’s highly unlikely that the jazz hold down the Chicago Bulls as well as they did with Nash in there instead of Stockton, the playing defense in 1997 is much different than playing defense in today’s game, which is much more difficult for any point guard.

1998 Jazz held down the Chicago Bulls’ offense well enough again, but Stockton was neither overly efficient and barely scored at all band the Jazz had a terrible offensive series. Even when you take out that one terrible game they had.

Obviously the Bulls' defense crushed their offense but that Jazz team is still among the best offenses of all time. In fact the 1997 and 1998 Jazz were the 18th and 7th greatest offensive teams of all time in the regular season with +6.9 rORtg and +7.6 rORtg, respectively. And apart from the Chicago series, they were largely dominant offensively in the playoffs as well. And then they ran into what is arguably the GOAT team and lost in a hard-fought series. That's hardly a knock against them IMO.

Eh, they didn’t run into some unbeatable juggernaut. The Jazz defense crushed a regular season 114+ ORtg Bulls team. Jordan wasn’t killing them (-.2% rTS aided by a generous whistle on touch perimeter fouls including non-shooting ones, +.1% reFG, +6 on court over 6 games, Bulls total of of +8 over 6 games). Even with some calls that went against them, the 1997 series was highly winnable for the Jazz but neither Karl Malone nor John Stockton raised their respective games enough to take it. Kudos to the Bulls’ defense for stopping a great offense, but that was an entirely winnable series with good enough play from the rest of the Jazz to take it.

1998 Bulls were even further removed from a “GOAT” type team—Jordan was -.8% rTS (aided by an even more generous whistle), -3.2% reFG. That Bulls’ team was a few FTs and/or defensive rebounds away from losing game 7 vs. the Pacers (or Kukoc not saving them).

It's hard to take this post seriously.

If the 1997 Bulls were not an unbeatable juggernaut I don't think any team in history fits that description. That team won 69 games with a +10.7 SRS. In games in which Rodman played, they were 48-7 (72-win pace) with a roughly +11.2 SRS. They likely weren't much if any worse than the 1996 team which for many people is the GOAT team.

The 1998 Bulls were weaker. I would call them borderline GOAT tier but they too were a very very strong team. They won 62 games with a +7.24 SRS. But Pippen missed almost half the season. In the games Pippen played, they were 36-8 (67-win pace) with a roughly +9 SRS. There's only 14 teams in league history with an SRS above that mark.

And yes Jordan did kill them. In 1997 he had 13 turnovers and in 1998 he had 10 turnovers for the entire series, and in both he had a very high offensive load. The historically low turnover rates have to be taken into account when factoring in his offensive efficiency. By Ben Taylor's cTOV% he's around 5% for both series which is astonishingly low.

[homecourtloss]

Obviously the Bulls' defense crushed their offense but that Jazz team is still among the best offenses of all time. In fact the 1997 and 1998 Jazz were the 18th and 7th greatest offensive teams of all time in the regular season with +6.9 rORtg and +7.6 rORtg, respectively. And apart from the Chicago series, they were largely dominant offensively in the playoffs as well. And then they ran into what is arguably the GOAT team and lost in a hard-fought series. That's hardly a knock against them IMO.

Eh, they didn’t run into some unbeatable juggernaut. The Jazz defense crushed a regular season 114+ ORtg Bulls team. Jordan wasn’t killing them (-.2% rTS aided by a generous whistle on touch perimeter fouls including non-shooting ones, +.1% reFG, +6 on court over 6 games, Bulls total of of +8 over 6 games). Even with some calls that went against them, the 1997 series was highly winnable for the Jazz but neither Karl Malone nor John Stockton raised their respective games enough to take it. Kudos to the Bulls’ defense for stopping a great offense, but that was an entirely winnable series with good enough play from the rest of the Jazz to take it.

1998 Bulls were even further removed from a “GOAT” type team—Jordan was -.8% rTS (aided by an even more generous whistle), -3.2% reFG. That Bulls’ team was a few FTs and/or defensive rebounds away from losing game 7 vs. the Pacers (or Kukoc not saving them).

It's hard to take this post seriously.

If the 1997 Bulls were not an unbeatable juggernaut I don't think any team in history fits that description. That team won 69 games with a +10.7 SRS. In games in which Rodman played, they were 48-7 (72-win pace) with a roughly +11.2 SRS. They likely weren't much if any worse than the 1996 team which for many people is the GOAT team.

The 1998 Bulls were weaker. I would call them borderline GOAT tier but they too were a very very strong team. They won 62 games with a +7.24 SRS. But Pippen missed almost half the season. In the games Pippen played, they were 36-8 (67-win pace) with a roughly +9 SRS. There's only 14 teams in league history with an SRS above that mark.

And yes Jordan did kill them. In 1997 he had 13 turnovers and in 1998 he had 10 turnovers for the entire series, and in both he had a very high offensive load. The historically low turnover rates have to be taken into account when factoring in his offensive efficiency. By Ben Taylor's cTOV% he's around 5% for both series which is astonishingly low.

1997 was a great team albeit in a watered down league, but they weren’t in any way overwhelmingly better than the Jazz who had many chances with even slightly better play to win it despite sone terrible calls against them. +.2% rTS% (with a bunch of touch perimeter foul calls) and +.1% reFG vs. a good but not great defense (with good but not great perimeter defenders), and having rORtg of basically zero (+.6), +6 on court doesn’t count as “killing” to me (maybe for you). Turnovers were low but what did it lead to? A +0 rORtg.

Jazz very well could have won and it wasn’t an unbeatable juggernaut or peak jordan performance stopping them