Curry, Nash, or Stockton with a twist

[penbeast0]

If you could have either Curry, Nash, or Stockton to start your team in the pre 3 point line NBA (early 70s or late 60s), which would you choose first?

[Doctor MJ]

Stockton because of the defense.

[kcktiny]

Stockton because of the defense.

Absolutely.

Not only that, I wonder how many realize that Nash played 18 seasons, and Curry 16 seasons, but that Stockton in his career threw for almost as many assists (15806) as Nash and Curry did in their entire careers combined (16874). Nash also never threw for as many as 900 assists in a season. Stockton threw for 1000+ assists in a season 7 times, 900+ assists 9 times.

Alsos Stockton grabbed 800+ more steals than Nash and Curry did combined, blocked almost as many shots (315) and those two did combined (367).

[Cavsfansince84]

One thing to keep in mind is how effective Nash might be in the up tempo 60's & 70's. He might flourish in that environment better than both Curry and Stockton would even if his defense is prob the worst of the 3. Much like how Cousy did for a while but with much better shooting.

[Doctor MJ]

One thing to keep in mind is how effective Nash might be in the up tempo 60's & 70's. He might flourish in that environment better than both Curry and Stockton would even if his defense is prob the worst of the 3. Much like how Cousy did for a while but with much better shooting.

Offensively I'd expect Nash to be the best of the bunch to be clear, but I think the lack of 3s would shrink playmaking impact enough that Stockton's D would make the difference.

[falcolombardi]

Nash then curry, and stockton quite behind

Stockton defense at the guard spot is not relevant enough to make up for being a much worse scorer and playmaker

[uberhikari]

The only thing I'm fairly certain of is that Stockton would be the worst player of the three by a considerable margin. Stockton just doesn't have the scoring/passing aggression needed to really take advantage of that era's uptempo playstyle. Furthermore, PG defense in the 60s/70s was much less valuable than it is today.

I've always thought of Jerry West as a proto-Curry, so I can see an argument for Steph Curry being a slightly lesser version of West due to his slightly smaller size.

[penbeast0]

In addition to defense, Stockton also a much better finisher than Nash, probably slightly better than Curry. I don't see Curry as Jerry West. West was more James Harden; so much of West's offense came from driving and drawing contact. Stockton's not as big a threat to create jump shots for himself as either of the others though; particularly Curry who makes a lot of amazing shots with very little room.

[jdzimme3]

Nash then curry, and stockton quite behind

Stockton defense at the guard spot is not relevant enough to make up for being a much worse scorer and playmaker

Hold on, worse playmaker?

[falcolombardi]

Nash then curry, and stockton quite behind

Stockton defense at the guard spot is not relevant enough to make up for being a much worse scorer and playmaker

Hold on, worse playmaker?

Pretty clearly so, yes

[eminence]

Curry.

Dribbling rules of the day curtail Nash the most and Stockton is just not the same level of player, doesn't play with enough offensive force (maybe if Layden had stuck around).

[Bucketz_McGee]

Stockton. I'd pick Stockton in any situation, imo, he is the GOAT point guard.

[tsherkin]

Offensively I'd expect Nash to be the best of the bunch to be clear, but I think the lack of 3s would shrink playmaking impact enough that Stockton's D would make the difference.

I dunno, there's a bit of a match-off with the dramatically increased pace, too. And Nash's slightly increased scoring aggression.

In addition to defense, Stockton also a much better finisher than Nash, probably slightly better than Curry. I don't see Curry as Jerry West. West was more James Harden; so much of West's offense came from driving and drawing contact. Stockton's not as big a threat to create jump shots for himself as either of the others though; particularly Curry who makes a lot of amazing shots with very little room.

Mmm, tough to call that. He shot so little that those numbers are a bit problematic to consider in a comparison. 9.1 FGA/g, 1.5 3PA/g on his career, dude topped out at 11.9 FGA/g. Not really a huge difference in 0-3 FG% for Nash, at least in the years we have for Stockton, and his short game was a LOT better than Stockton's. Similar percentages shooting away from the rim, but obviously Nash supported notably higher 3pt volume and percentages. Stockton mostly wasn't comparable there even on small volume outside of the pulled-in line years from 95-97.

SO yeah, I contest the "much better finisher" angle. Phoenix Nash had a nearly identical 2P% between the two and zone-specific stuff doesn't do Stockton any favors there either.

[Cavsfansince84]

I don't think any of these 3 would be as good as West and Oscar were back then though. Not even in the same tier.

[DorianRo]

I would take Stockton today and any day over Curry/Nash . Curry is one dimensional offensively and doesn't play D. Nash can't play a lick of D though his offense was overrall the best of the 3 guys IMO

[tsherkin]

Curry is one dimensional offensively and doesn't play D.

Do you WATCH Steph, like ever? Neither of those statements is true...

[DorianRo]

Curry is one dimensional offensively and doesn't play D.

Do you WATCH Steph, like ever? Neither of those statements is true...

Take away his 3 and the Kerr System and he is just a run of the mill player. If the 3 isn't hitting, your team is in trouble quick with Curry. Plus with Stockton you don't have to worry about D being played. Stockton/Nash were far better at creating offensively than Curry. Curry is just better off the ball using screens and chucking up 3's in the Kerr System. He is more of a product of today's ball with endless screen. . Stockton/Nash could be effective in any area

[tsherkin]

Take away his 3 and the Kerr System and he isn't just a run of the mill player. If the 3 isn't hitting, your team is in trouble quick with Curry. Plus with Stockton you don't have to worry about D being played. Stockton/Nash were far better at creating offensively than Curry. Curry is just bad off the ball using screens and chucking up 3's

I mean, he was an 8 apg point guard under Mark Jackson and has pretty strong on-ball skills, so no, that isn't really correct at all. And all of that also ignores the effort he puts into off-ball movement.

With Stockton, you don't have to worry about D unless his man is larger and/or more athletic than him.

And no, again, you're quite incorrect about Curry's playmaking. And it also doesn't make sense to compare low-volume shooters like Nash and Stockton to high-volume guys like Steph in terms of creation.

[DorianRo]

Take away his 3 and the Kerr System and he isn't just a run of the mill player. If the 3 isn't hitting, your team is in trouble quick with Curry. Plus with Stockton you don't have to worry about D being played. Stockton/Nash were far better at creating offensively than Curry. Curry is just bad off the ball using screens and chucking up 3's

I mean, he was an 8 apg point guard under Mark Jackson and has pretty strong on-ball skills, so no, that isn't really correct at all. And all of that also ignores the effort he puts into off-ball movement.

With Stockton, you don't have to worry about D unless his man is larger and/or more athletic than him.

And no, again, you're quite incorrect about Curry's playmaking. And it also doesn't make sense to compare low-volume shooters like Nash and Stockton to high-volume guys like Steph in terms of creation.

The thing is, you put Nash/Stockton in any era and they would be elite. Curry's numbers are only good under this era cause of the way game is played today with less physical play, and endless screens and pick and rolls

[tsherkin]

The thing is, you put Nash/Stockton in any era and they would be elite. Curry's numbers are only good under this era cause of the way game is played today with less physical play, and endless screens and pick and rolls

That is an assumption. And both Stockton and Nash would suffer for the lack of a 3pt shot, both in efficiency AND in terms of playmaking.

Also, giving Curry crap for endless screens and PnRs while not discussing that Stockton and Nash are basically the original PnR spam artists is hilarious.