RealGM

CP3 seems like he's possibly played his last game and quite frankly looking at the landscape there doesn't seen to be anyone in the foreseeable future. Lonzo Ball just doesn't seem like he'll ever be healthy again, he seemed like the one with this type of game.

Why has the elite Stockton/Kidd/Nash type of PG become so obsolete in today's league? Do pass first PGs have lesser value in the league today?

Why is there no one that seems to want to run a team in such a manner?

Tyrese Haliburton doing his thang

I think Tyus Jones is gonna end up a starter on a 50 W team by next playoffs for this reason

I miss that archetype, and not just the star versions. I'm talking Jose Calderon, Pablo Prigioni, Steve Blake. Mugsy Bogues. Andre Miller. Shaun Livingston. Hell, even Mark Jackson and Rajon Rondo. Can't forget Rubio.

I don't know. Different game now. Different developmental strategies when these kids are coming up. A lot of emphasis on being a threat to shoot your own shot after getting free with a pick.

ronnymac2 wrote:I miss that archetype, and not just the star versions. I'm talking Jose Calderon, Pablo Prigioni, Steve Blake. Mugsy Bogues. Andre Miller. Shaun Livingston. Hell, even Mark Jackson and Rajon Rondo. Can't forget Rubio.

I don't know. Different game now. Different developmental strategies when these kids are coming up. A lot of emphasis on being a threat to shoot your own shot after getting free with a pick.

Guys like Rondo and Rubio were always something of a lodestone on their team because of their inability to punish the defense with their own scoring when required. Andre Miller and Mark Jackson aged out conceptually quite some time ago as league talent rose, particularly because they were both weak perimeter shooters who were inefficient even back then.

Steve Blake probably isn't a great example, nor Jose Calderon, because both could hit shots and what-not, but were simply not capable of scaling it up too much, so they existed as roleplayers.

And that's not even addressing height.

I don't think it's just strategy differences changing, though. I think there's more of a minimum skill threshold coming up now. There's a lot less rigid definition in roles, and a lot less room to hide someone who straight-up sucks at scoring in the game than there was in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Livingston, though, I miss him. He literally just aged out, though, and after that knee... I'm surprised he played again, and for as long as he did. He was fun.

Dr Positivity wrote:I think Tyus Jones is gonna end up a starter on a 50 W team by next playoffs for this reason

As a back-up

Isn't Conley starting on one of the best teams in the league?

Micic in Charlotte looks very traditional PG too and I think had a decent start.

3rd-4th scoring option PGs with passing/running the offense as their best skill will continue to exist and be valuable, just won't be stars. OP did say "pure" but also listed 3 PGs who could still score and/or defend, so I presume we are not talking about people who are only good at dribbling/passing and nothing else.

FuShengTHEGreat wrote:CP3 seems like he's possibly played his last game and quite frankly looking at the landscape there doesn't seen to be anyone in the foreseeable future. Lonzo Ball just doesn't seem like he'll ever be healthy again, he seemed like the one with this type of game.

Why has the elite Stockton/Kidd/Nash type of PG become so obsolete in today's league? Do pass first PGs have lesser value in the league today?

Why is there no one that seems to want to run a team in such a manner?

I think it's important not to conflate all these guys like they were similarly pass-first. This is a thing that's a spectrum.

What we can say I think though is that if a guy is as pass-first as Stockton played, he either a) should be shooting more or b) has significant shooting issues.

And of course, is it harder to make it in the game to day as perimeter player with shooting issues? Absolutely.

In a spread PnR league you need to get 2 on the ball or a 3 on 2 on the weakside to break defenses down. PGs that aren't scoring threats find that difficult. One of the reasons PGs that can shoot are so effective is because it eliminates the option of playing under screens and chasing over the top of screens often locks defenders into a trailing position behind the ballhandler which necessitates more help that's subsequently exploited.

Doctor MJ wrote:

FuShengTHEGreat wrote:CP3 seems like he's possibly played his last game and quite frankly looking at the landscape there doesn't seen to be anyone in the foreseeable future. Lonzo Ball just doesn't seem like he'll ever be healthy again, he seemed like the one with this type of game.

Why has the elite Stockton/Kidd/Nash type of PG become so obsolete in today's league? Do pass first PGs have lesser value in the league today?

Why is there no one that seems to want to run a team in such a manner?

I think it's important not to conflate all these guys like they were similarly pass-first. This is a thing that's a spectrum.

What we can say I think though is that if a guy is as pass-first as Stockton played, he either a) should be shooting more or b) has significant shooting issues.

And of course, is it harder to make it in the game to day as perimeter player with shooting issues? Absolutely.

I hasten to add, even Nash was an ~ 19 ppg guy for a couple of years in Phoenix before he started to tail off due to age and minutes restrictions and his back. And was a 23 ppg scorer that one postseason. He definitely looked for his shot a little more than did Stockton, for whom that passivity is a major criticism in some circles. Meantime, Nash was quite aggressive in how he approached attacking the D, so it wasn't like he was failing to exert pressure and just Rondo'g it while cutters moved around screens most of the time, you know what I mean?

And lest I be overly critical of Stockton, who was also a fantastic player, he was better about being more aggressive when he was younger. Dude was quick, clever, he just didn't seem to like shooting much, even when they needed him to. But quite skilled, regardless. A player like him would have no problem thriving today. He was scoring 17 ppg on like 11, 12 FGA/g for a stretch in his mid/late 20s. It's pretty easy to think of teams who could use a dude like that, especially because he had the range.

And yeah, Haliburton is a 15 FGA/g guy rocking 20/10. He's the inheritor here. We see a lot of bigger guys taking on more playmaking responsibility now, of course, so there's some emphasis there. But the idea that such a player is obsolete, as FuSheng stated, isn't right. They can exist. There's talent cycle to consider, and there's flavor-du-jour as well, right? Things come and go. But even Paul, he was like an 11-16 FGA/g player who was hyperefficient, had range, playmaking and 11 seasons of 17+ ppg. Dude wasn't out there just chilling and looking for chest passes to shooters off the curl. He sought his shot plenty, so I think there's a bit of reflection needed to understand what that type of player actually was and is...

Heej wrote:In a spread PnR league you need to get 2 on the ball or a 3 on 2 on the weakside to break defenses down. PGs that aren't scoring threats find that difficult. One of the reasons PGs that can shoot are so effective is because it eliminates the option of playing under screens and chasing over the top of screens often locks defenders into a trailing position behind the ballhandler which necessitates more help that's subsequently exploited.

This. Unless you have massive advantages elsewhere and are a top defensive team, you are at a big disadvantage if your PG cannot punish defenses in the modern NBA landscape.

homecourtloss wrote:

Heej wrote:In a spread PnR league you need to get 2 on the ball or a 3 on 2 on the weakside to break defenses down. PGs that aren't scoring threats find that difficult. One of the reasons PGs that can shoot are so effective is because it eliminates the option of playing under screens and chasing over the top of screens often locks defenders into a trailing position behind the ballhandler which necessitates more help that's subsequently exploited.

This. Unless you have massive advantages elsewhere and are a top defensive team, you are at a big disadvantage if your PG cannot punish defenses in the modern NBA landscape.

There is, of course, a difference between a PG who can "punish defenses in the modern NBA landscape" and a guy who needs to sustain a high scoring output every game. Like, Nash, Paul, Stockton, etc were all fine for the most part. Of them, Stockton was probably the least successful at escalating his scoring volume when required, but he was also dumped on a team where he had to do that more often than most and was perhaps least well suited to it.

Like, if Trae was only asked to score 18 ppg, that's essentially the player type we are discussing, but Atlanta keeps asking him to push near 30 ppg, which is their issue come the playoffs. You need more distribution of scoring load, particularly with smaller guys.

tsherkin wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

FuShengTHEGreat wrote:CP3 seems like he's possibly played his last game and quite frankly looking at the landscape there doesn't seen to be anyone in the foreseeable future. Lonzo Ball just doesn't seem like he'll ever be healthy again, he seemed like the one with this type of game.

Why has the elite Stockton/Kidd/Nash type of PG become so obsolete in today's league? Do pass first PGs have lesser value in the league today?

Why is there no one that seems to want to run a team in such a manner?

I think it's important not to conflate all these guys like they were similarly pass-first. This is a thing that's a spectrum.

What we can say I think though is that if a guy is as pass-first as Stockton played, he either a) should be shooting more or b) has significant shooting issues.

And of course, is it harder to make it in the game to day as perimeter player with shooting issues? Absolutely.

I hasten to add, even Nash was an ~ 19 ppg guy for a couple of years in Phoenix before he started to tail off due to age and minutes restrictions and his back. And was a 23 ppg scorer that one postseason. He definitely looked for his shot a little more than did Stockton, for whom that passivity is a major criticism in some circles. Meantime, Nash was quite aggressive in how he approached attacking the D, so it wasn't like he was failing to exert pressure and just Rondo'g it while cutters moved around screens most of the time, you know what I mean?

And lest I be overly critical of Stockton, who was also a fantastic player, he was better about being more aggressive when he was younger. Dude was quick, clever, he just didn't seem to like shooting much, even when they needed him to. But quite skilled, regardless. A player like him would have no problem thriving today. He was scoring 17 ppg on like 11, 12 FGA/g for a stretch in his mid/late 20s. It's pretty easy to think of teams who could use a dude like that, especially because he had the range.

And yeah, Haliburton is a 15 FGA/g guy rocking 20/10. He's the inheritor here. We see a lot of bigger guys taking on more playmaking responsibility now, of course, so there's some emphasis there. But the idea that such a player is obsolete, as FuSheng stated, isn't right. They can exist. There's talent cycle to consider, and there's flavor-du-jour as well, right? Things come and go. But even Paul, he was like an 11-16 FGA/g player who was hyperefficient, had range, playmaking and 11 seasons of 17+ ppg. Dude wasn't out there just chilling and looking for chest passes to shooters off the curl. He sought his shot plenty, so I think there's a bit of reflection needed to understand what that type of player actually was and is...

Good stuff!

I'll add: The thing for me about guys like Kidd, Nash & Paul is that they would absolutely look to punish you with their scoring if you sold out to prevent the pass, and this meant both that they were more likely to have volume scoring games, and iirc more likely to have bigger clutch scoring numbers.

With Stockton while I think there's reason to believe that his lacking in this area was more about what his coach wanted - his biggest scoring series came early in his career - there's no denying that when you go back and watch the Jazz in the crunch of the playoffs you see times when Stockton had the opening to attack and it's like it wasn't even something he was considering.

This then to say that while I think Stockton could do well in today's game, I think you'd definitely want him to play differently than he did, whereas this is not so clear for Kidd/Nash/Paul.

Doctor MJ wrote:
Good stuff!

Thanks

I'll add: The thing for me about guys like Kidd, Nash & Paul is that they would absolutely look to punish you with their scoring if you sold out to prevent the pass, and this meant both that they were more likely to have volume scoring games, and iirc more likely to have bigger clutch scoring numbers.

This is true. Kidd was quite bad at it, but he certainly tried. And he made up for it with his rebounding and defense, at least in-era. He would struggle a lot more as a focal player in today's game, though. He was just so, so bad inside about 17 feet. He wasn't awful (especially for his era) from like 16-23 and from 3, but my God was he bad closer than than that. It was almost impressive how crap he was in the closer spaces. And yet such a good passer and such a good defender and his feel for the game and anticipation, so good.

With Stockton while I think there's reason to believe that his lacking in this area was more about what his coach wanted - his biggest scoring series came early in his career - there's no denying that when you go back and watch the Jazz in the crunch of the playoffs you see times when Stockton had the opening to attack and it's like it wasn't even something he was considering.

I have heard this before and whilst I can get behind the idea that Sloan wanted that, Layden wasn't the same kind of coach and it was the same. And later, after years and years of the same issue cropping up (no reliable second scorer for Malone), you'd think that unless he was an idiot, Sloan would have given Stockton the green light to shoot just a little more. But either that never happened or Stockton never figured it out or he was simply incapable. Later in his career, I mean, he was a 6'1 dude going against a very large, very athletic Chicago backcourt (even in their aged state), so it's a little more understandable. And in 98, of course, he had the same surgery which touched up Stoudemire's career, so it isn't surprising that he was not bursting all over the place.

This then to say that while I think Stockton could do well in today's game, I think you'd definitely want him to play differently than he did, whereas this is not so clear for Kidd/Nash/Paul.

Kidd would need a skill upgrade in a bad way. Paul could play exactly as he did in his day, especially before injury. Nash could probably play just as he did, speaking of his 2005-2007 form, but might be asked to score a little more during the RS. Given how 3P volume looks now, though, and his proficiency at pull-up 3s and transition, I don't see a huge problem with him slightly elevating his scoring volume.

Stockton could play as he did, but he'd have to be #3 on a team unless he became more aggressive. You'd still need punch from scorers. And ostensibly, that's sort of how he was deployed in Utah when they thought that guys like Thurl Bailey, Jeff Malone or Jeff Hornacek were enough, even into the playoffs.

tsherkin wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
Good stuff!

Thanks

I'll add: The thing for me about guys like Kidd, Nash & Paul is that they would absolutely look to punish you with their scoring if you sold out to prevent the pass, and this meant both that they were more likely to have volume scoring games, and iirc more likely to have bigger clutch scoring numbers.

This is true. Kidd was quite bad at it, but he certainly tried. And he made up for it with his rebounding and defense, at least in-era. He would struggle a lot more as a focal player in today's game, though. He was just so, so bad inside about 17 feet. He wasn't awful (especially for his era) from like 16-23 and from 3, but my God was he bad closer than than that. It was almost impressive how crap he was in the closer spaces. And yet such a good passer and such a good defender and his feel for the game and anticipation, so good.

With Stockton while I think there's reason to believe that his lacking in this area was more about what his coach wanted - his biggest scoring series came early in his career - there's no denying that when you go back and watch the Jazz in the crunch of the playoffs you see times when Stockton had the opening to attack and it's like it wasn't even something he was considering.

I have heard this before and whilst I can get behind the idea that Sloan wanted that, Layden wasn't the same kind of coach and it was the same. And later, after years and years of the same issue cropping up (no reliable second scorer for Malone), you'd think that unless he was an idiot, Sloan would have given Stockton the green light to shoot just a little more. But either that never happened or Stockton never figured it out or he was simply incapable. Later in his career, I mean, he was a 6'1 dude going against a very large, very athletic Chicago backcourt (even in their aged state), so it's a little more understandable. And in 98, of course, he had the same surgery which touched up Stoudemire's career, so it isn't surprising that he was not bursting all over the place.

This then to say that while I think Stockton could do well in today's game, I think you'd definitely want him to play differently than he did, whereas this is not so clear for Kidd/Nash/Paul.

Kidd would need a skill upgrade in a bad way. Paul could play exactly as he did in his day, especially before injury. Nash could probably play just as he did, speaking of his 2005-2007 form, but might be asked to score a little more during the RS. Given how 3P volume looks now, though, and his proficiency at pull-up 3s and transition, I don't see a huge problem with him slightly elevating his scoring volume.

Stockton could play as he did, but he'd have to be #3 on a team unless he became more aggressive. You'd still need punch from scorers. And ostensibly, that's sort of how he was deployed in Utah when they thought that guys like Thurl Bailey, Jeff Malone or Jeff Hornacek were enough, even into the playoffs.

More good stuff.

There's no doubt that Kidd was much worse at it than Nash or Paul and this made him a worse player then, and I expect would make him a worse player in any eras going forward.

But of course, you don't need to be as good as Nash or Paul to have a nice NBA career. I think Kidd largely did what was right (on the court) given his relative skills, and his scoring attack was decent enough to be better than being a guy that the defense could just back off of.

Re: Stockton could play as he did but he'd have to be #3. To me it's not about pecking order so much as it is about taking what the defense gives you when you have the ball. Simply put, that's not what Stockton did for most of his career in the half court, and it was a problem then, and would be a considerably bigger problem today.

But to be clear: Were I looking to draft these guys for today's game, I'd pick Stockton over Kidd without hesitation. I don't have confidence that Stockton could be Paul - let alone Nash - on offense, but he was a considerably better shooter than Kidd and I think he could adjust to at least top Kidd.

Doctor MJ wrote:More good stuff.

Gonna make me blush, Doc xD

There's no doubt that Kidd was much worse at it than Nash or Paul and this made him a worse player then, and I expect would make him a worse player in any eras going forward.

But of course, you don't need to be as good as Nash or Paul to have a nice NBA career. I think Kidd largely did what was right (on the court) given his relative skills, and his scoring attack was decent enough to be better than being a guy that the defense could just back off of.

Oh yes. In-era, I think he was fine. It was a very different environment, after all. And in New Jeresy, he basically anchored their defense, which is fairly rare to see from a guard. And he had enough era-relative depth that his playmaking helped them on O quite a bit. And then he evolved as he aged out of a focal role, and was critical to Dallas' title run... and with 3pt shooting, no less. Imagine that, Ason Kidd's shooting helping a team title. xD But yes, he was a very, very smart player and in an era where someone like Andre Miller could positively benefit a team's O, Kidd was much, much better.

Re: Stockton could play as he did but he'd have to be #3. To me it's not about pecking order so much as it is about taking what the defense gives you when you have the ball. Simply put, that's not what Stockton did for most of his career in the half court, and it was a problem then, and would be a considerably bigger problem today.

It's a loose term. I meant he'd be the third guy you'd look to for volume scoring, e.g. you'd need to have someone else who could step it up above him and behind the big volume guy. He didn't attack a lot looking for his own shot and he wasn't the guy you'd expect to light a D up when they were overcommitting to the first option.

But to be clear: Were I looking to draft these guys for today's game, I'd pick Stockton over Kidd without hesitation. I don't have confidence that Stockton could be Paul - let alone Nash - on offense, but he was a considerably better shooter than Kidd and I think he could adjust to at least top Kidd.

I'd pick Stockton over Kidd any day, to be honest. I often find myself on the critical end of Stockton-related debates, but I consider him a very, very effective player. He absolutely maxed himself out for the most part and he was a particularly savvy player.

The "pure" pass first PG to play today needs to:
- be able to defend on 1s and 2s, better if can squrch on 3s
- be able to be a threat from 3 if open

Many of the guys you mention were not traditionally "pure" PGs. Chris Paul was a creator that could leverage from his scoring, even more so was Nash.

My usual reminder that for whatever scoring woes you want to point to with Kidd--and he certainly has plenty to point to--all his teams did was win. And his new teams traded win now talent for him and got massively better and his old teams got massively worse. And this happened enough times its hard to pretend that's a coincidence.

Jason Kidd just won basketball games. And I can't think of a single player in league history with his basketball understanding at both ends and in transition, again both ways. We have offensive geniuses, we have defensive ones, we even have some transition specialists, but nobody else quite like Kidd.

So yeah he's never to have Nash or Stockton's TS% and he's not likely to lead the best offense in the league every year like Nash(given elite offensive talent and coaches willing to sacrifice defense to achieve this). But is your team going to win a bunch of games every year? Yep.

too many toes on the line shots? Oh yeah. In his 30's after the knee injuries did he basically stop trying to finish? Oh yeah. Was he an erratic jump shooter in his 20's? Oh yeah. And he still figured out how to beat you.

Crazy to me how little respect that player gets. Played forever. Teams were always competitive. Was the starter on US National teams ahead of peak Chris Paul--and this wasn't just out of respect for his age.

I will be proud to be the one Kidd guy here forever lol.

And while we focus on offense, in today's PNR, switch everything game, his ability to defend up the lineup really gives him some advantages over Stockton and especially Nash who would get hunted relentlessly. Especially considering his conditioning issues.

Good riddance.

Texas Chuck wrote:My usual reminder that for whatever scoring woes you want to point to with Kidd--and he certainly has plenty to point to--all his teams did was win. And his new teams traded win now talent for him and got massively better and his old teams got massively worse. And this happened enough times its hard to pretend that's a coincidence.

He worked well in-era, for sure. It's more an issue now, and the East was bad enough that the Nets were relatively deep at the time. And that era was different than this one considerably in how much his individual scoring mattered.

I think that Kidd is a tough one to parse, but he was clearly a very good player. I think his impact in-era was a little misunderstood. he's spoken of as an offensive savant, and that's... partially true, but he was so bad at one part of that side of the game that I think he exerted more impact as a defender and rebounder. Also the era was so slow at some point that him being a transition engine was a big deal, because his halfcourt action was considerably lower-impact. But then, in seasons like 1999 and 2003, he was around league average, and that totally changed things in terms of his palpable offensive impact. And obviously in his later years, things changed.

Criticisms notwithstanding, he was actually a very good player. Just maybe not in the way that some people advance.

He was, however, a smart guy. I am given to wonder how he'd have developed in today's environment. He was clearly capable of developing the shot, though some of that was more corner usage and more passing support. He was an above-average 3pt shooter for his time, particularly earlier on.

And while we focus on offense, in today's PNR, switch everything game, his ability to defend up the lineup really gives him some advantages over Stockton and especially Nash who would get hunted relentlessly. Especially considering his conditioning issues.

Defensively, Kidd would be very valuable today, no doubt. He was in his own time and his skill set is especially useful now, for sure.

As far as "he just won games," it's worth mentioning that he did play on some very talented teams. Those Suns weren't nobodies, for example. And they were kind of bleh on offense (except in the horrid lockout year), but very good on D. Which matches up with his actual skillset. The jump in New Jersey was decent, but Van Horn played half a season and Kittles not at all the year before Kidd arrived... and both were 81- or 82-game players in Kidd's first season with the Nets. And they added RJ. And two years before Kidd joined, the offense was actually better than it was in Kidd's first year there. And they were below average on O every year except 2003, where they weren't even half a point better than league average. But they were fantastic on defense, and lodged in a fairly poor Eastern Conference, which changed how well they were able to perform.

And still, he was actually a top-10 offensive player during the time by at least some metrics. At least in 2003.