RealGM

See Poll

One-game overreactions notwithstanding, they look pretty similar as scorers.

I think their needs to be an "about the same" option in the poll.

Stockton never had a 35 point game in his career. He had eleven 30 point games in a 1500 game career.

Haliburton has had eight 35 point games, and has 30 points twenty five times already. So, I think it’s clear that he has more scoring ability than Stockton.

But it’s one of those “If you stand with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one in a bucket of ice, you’re average!” things. Stockton was a methodical, not explosive scorer. OTOH, Haliburton puts up 30 six or seven times a year. If you want the consistency, you want Stockton. If you want slightly higher, but (much) more varied results, you take Haliburton.

Tbh, I don’t think either is a primary scorer for a decent offensive team. The difference between them is that I’m not sure Stockton is, really, a second option scoring threat. It’s not that he wasn’t great, and God knows he was one of the great passers in league history. But he was at 15 or 16 ppg in 36 minutes for almost his entire career. He just wasn’t a scorer. (And please don’t tell me “He could have scored more!” John Stockton is no dummy. Neither is Jerry Sloan. If John Stockton could have scored more, he would have. He simply wasn’t that type of player.)

Haliburton has been sort of a 2 or even 1A scorer with the Pacers—at least he was 2023 and 2024—so I have to give this to him. But I don’t think it’s his strength either.

TrueLAfan wrote:Haliburton has had eight 35 point games, and has 30 points twenty five times already. So, I think it’s clear that he has more scoring ability than Stockton.

I'd posit Stockton would have more than that if he'd been permitted to act as a freer option in his career than Sloan enjoyed, to be fair, especially with a looser hand on what was a permitted 3pt shot, given his ability. So I think comparison based on 30+-point games, especially given Karl Malone's scoring output, is a little dicey.

Tbh, I don’t think either is a primary scorer for a decent offensive team. The difference between them is that I’m not sure Stockton is, really, a second option scoring threat. It’s not that he wasn’t great, and God knows he was one of the great passers in league history. But he was at 15 or 16 ppg in 36 minutes for almost his entire career. He just wasn’t a scorer. (And please don’t tell me “He could have scored more!” John Stockton is no dummy. Neither is Jerry Sloan. If John Stockton could have scored more, he would have. He simply wasn’t that type of player.)

I mostly agree with this, but I think Sloan had some ideas about shot selection which were a little at odds with Stockton's skillset. And of course the Jazz slowed down like everyone else in the mid-late 90s, whereas Stockton thrived in transition. We don't know if he could have up-scaled his 3pt volume, he certainly wasn't a Nash-level shooter, but it's possible he could have scored a little more with a little bit more freedom to pull-up in transition, and some more transition action.

Keep in mind, the Pacers played at 99.9 possessions per game this year in the RS. Utah has been under that since 1989. When Stockton broke out, they still had Thurl Bailey scoring about 20 ppg alongside 27 or so from Malone. By 91, they'd added Jeff Malone as a scoring threat, and then a couple years later, they moved on with the Hornacek trade.

It's interesting to consider what he might have looked like in a contemporary context, right? The Jazz were 11th in 3PA/g in 1991... at 5.6 per game.

Haliburton takes more than that per game.

It's just a bit distant an environment for comparison, you know? 35 years is a lot of difference in strategy and league environment. Hali's a better shooter, for sure, and taller and more athletic. So the odds are that you're right and that he has more native ability. But he's also given a bit more freedom to work his style than Stockton. The Jazz HAD scorers, and a pretty role-based system, so it's always going to be an interesting question.

EDIT: And FWIW, he did have a 34-point game against the Warriors in the 89 postseason, and another against the Kings in the 90 RS. He could get there sometimes.

TrueLAfan wrote:Stockton never had a 35 point game in his career. He had eleven 30 point games in a 1500 game career.

Haliburton has had eight 35 point games, and has 30 points twenty five times already. So, I think it’s clear that he has more scoring ability than Stockton.

But it’s one of those “If you stand with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one in a bucket of ice, you’re average!” things. Stockton was a methodical, not explosive scorer. OTOH, Haliburton puts up 30 six or seven times a year. If you want the consistency, you want Stockton. If you want slightly higher, but (much) more varied results, you take Haliburton.

Tbh, I don’t think either is a primary scorer for a decent offensive team. The difference between them is that I’m not sure Stockton is, really, a second option scoring threat. It’s not that he wasn’t great, and God knows he was one of the great passers in league history. But he was at 15 or 16 ppg in 36 minutes for almost his entire career. He just wasn’t a scorer. (And please don’t tell me “He could have scored more!” John Stockton is no dummy. Neither is Jerry Sloan. If John Stockton could have scored more, he would have. He simply wasn’t that type of player.)

Haliburton has been sort of a 2 or even 1A scorer with the Pacers—at least he was 2023 and 2024—so I have to give this to him. But I don’t think it’s his strength either.

Sloan may not have been a dummy, but he was a guy who made judgments and they set in stone. He was pretty inflexible with his system and his roles; you wouldn't see him do the things (good and bad) that Doug Moe did in Denver using Fat Lever or TR Dunn as his board crasher and sending his bigs back on defense, using Bill Hanslick to defend opposing centers, giving Michael Adams a starting job and a green light to shoot 3's back when almost no one shot a lot of them, etc.

I do think Stockton with a Moe or D'Antoni as coach could be considerably more of a scorer (and probably less of a PnR machine). He would probably never be a big midrange scorer, but a coach willing to give a green light to Stockton's extremely efficient 3 point shot, shooting off breaks and off the dribble instead of only in kickout/bailout situations, that would add another layer to his scoring ability. That said, I think Haliburton has shown more scoring potential than Stockton actually showed and deserves this poll.

First--always good to see and discuss things with penbeast0 and DoctorMJ (who should chime in) and tsherkin. Always.

Yes, it’s true that John Stockton did have two 30 point playoff games. And both were in 1989, against Run-DMC, who played at a frenetic pace. And I totally see/know the rigidity of Sloan's system. Still, the fact is that John Stockton never was a primary, or secondary scorer. It has little to do with Karl Malone. It has everything to do with Jeff Malone and Jeff Hornacek and, to a lesser degree, Thurl Bailey and Darrell Griffith. When the Jazz needed scoring, they went for Karl, obviously. But when they needed scoring after that—they turned to a different scorer than John Stockton. If he was a guy who could do that, I have to think that someone would have made the change at some point ... more than a couple of times in a season. Sloan was absolutely a system guy—but that’s a level of inflexibility that went on for nearly two decades. And Stockton was no shrinking violet; I can’t imagine him not saying “Look, I get that I’m the distributor. But I’m also a great shooter and scoring is a big deal, so maybe I should take a couple of more shots a game.” And that happened almost never. Stockton didn't just have no 35 point games, or a low number of 30 point games--he only had 43 games with over 25 points. Surely there was a few times in every season when the Jazz needed a few extra point in the second half, and Malone and Hornacek, or even Karl(!) was having a tough game. I understand the impetus to say he's a better scorer, but there's no examples. In a comparison, I need to something to hang my hat on, and it's not there.

I consider that pretty seriously with Stockton. He just wasn’t a primary scorer or, generally, secondary scorer. He was a 2B guy most of the time. Bailey, Jeff Malone and Hornacek scored more. And in Stockton’s peak 10 year run from 1988 to 1997, those guys played 882 games. At least one played alongside the Stockton/Karl Malone duo every year in that peak. To me, that shows that there was always a desire for a secondary scorer in Sloan’s system—and that it wasn’t John Stockton. I have a real difficulty in saying he was “better” at something he never did. You have to pull the trigger sometime. Haliburton has done it more. I can take the Sloan effect into consideration, but there's not enough there there.

TrueLAfan wrote:Tbh, I don’t think either is a primary scorer for a decent offensive team. The difference between them is that I’m not sure Stockton is, really, a second option scoring threat. It’s not that he wasn’t great, and God knows he was one of the great passers in league history. But he was at 15 or 16 ppg in 36 minutes for almost his entire career. He just wasn’t a scorer. (And please don’t tell me “He could have scored more!” John Stockton is no dummy. Neither is Jerry Sloan. If John Stockton could have scored more, he would have. He simply wasn’t that type of player.)

Haliburton has been sort of a 2 or even 1A scorer with the Pacers—at least he was 2023 and 2024—so I have to give this to him. But I don’t think it’s his strength either.

Yeah Hali has been a primary scorer on a high level offense. Now we can say that takes a coach like Rick Carlisle, maybe but he's actually done it so its odd to say he can't.

As to because Stockton didn't score in volume he couldn't. I don't necessarily buy that. We know he averages about the same number of PPG as old Steve Nash, who has a couple of explosive scoring bursts on his resume(2005 2nd round against Dallas his apex), but we never say well if Nash could have scored more he would have. No we acknowledge he absolutely could have scored more but he believed at the time his approach was best(and considering Nash led the best offense in the league for like a decade straight its hard to argue with contemporary Steve Nash, though current Steve Nash has stated looking back he thinks he should have looked to score more.)

Now Stockton isn't Nash. But he was a very efficient scorer, terrific shooter and one of the most durable players we've ever seen. I'd be surprised if he couldn't have upped his FGA to 15 while maintaining similar efficiency which would have made him a 20 ppg guy plenty for a good 2nd option on a contending team. Especially not if he came up now when scoring PG is the rule as opposed to the exception of his day.

TrueLAfan wrote:First--always good to see and discuss things with penbeast0 and DoctorMJ (who should chime in) and tsherkin. Always.

Likewise!

Sloan was absolutely a system guy—but that’s a level of inflexibility that went on for nearly two decades. And Stockton was no shrinking violet; I can’t imagine him not saying “Look, I get that I’m the distributor. But I’m also a great shooter and scoring is a big deal, so maybe I should take a couple of more shots a game.”

I hear you. I guess it's just that the Jazz were a pretty structured offense, with a coach legendary for his commitment to how he did things and how he wanted the team to run (and not at all for innovation or non-traditional approaches), on a roster with other scorers... in an era where small guys didn't shoot that much.

In the entire decade of the 90s, the only guys 6'3 and under who played 40+ games and scored 20+ ppg were Tim Hardaway, Allen Iverson, Kevin Johnson, Stephon Marbury, Damon Stoudamire, Hersey Hawkins, Dana Barros, Michael Adams and Joe Dumars. And the guys who did it more than once were Dumars (2), Hardaway (5), Hawkins (2), AI (3), and KJ (4).

It wasn't a common thing... and it was primarily from guys playing 38-40+ minutes per game, on top of that, and generally taking 17+ FGA/g.

Stockton topped out at 11.9 FGA/g.

We're talking about a pretty titanic shift in his general approach for him to start delving into that territory. If you took his career average percentages, 3PAr and FTr, he'd have to shift his average to 14 FGA/g to reach 20+ ppg, give or take. +2 FGA/g doesn't seem a lot, but it would be a pretty big deal in terms of the types of shots he was taking, how that would affect his passing, friction with Sloan, etc.

Now, I'm not married to the idea that Stockton is a better scorer. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. But I think a 6'1 dude who wasn't an elite athlete would have generally been a hard sell to such a stodgy old coach as far as asserting himself more. Even Mark Price was only a 19+ ppg scorer once, and he was around Stockton's size AND a better shooter.

I think Sloan had the notion of positional value and height in his mind a little more. Roles, structure. He wanted a table setter, and he wanted a shooter and he wanted Malone in the post. I don't think he was super open to the idea of a little dude doing all kinds of scoring, which was very much against the grain of thought at the time (and obviously quite distant from, say, Bob Cousy back in the 50s).

We'll never know. It's interesting to consider, but there are a lot of factors working at odds with the idea of Stockton elevating his shooting volume.

CP3 is the closest modern analogue for a higher scoring volume version of Stockton, no? IIRC, John has the highest mid-range shooting percentage from 97-03 if I'm not mistaken. Way more assisted on those shots than Chris, though. Here's an old post from colts18:

colts18 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

2klegend wrote:Stockton and CP3 are very similar players. Both are tough, run an efficient offense, and are very underrated as a shooter. Look at CP3 and you have your answer.

I don't think their styles are similar at all to be honest.

They are similar in some aspects, but there are a few key differences. We only have data for Stockton's last 7 years (1997-2003), his age 34-40 years. We have data for CP3's whole career. Keep in mind we don't have Stockton's peak data. I'll compare Stockton's last 7 years vs CP3's last 7 years (2014-2020, Age 28-34):

Shooting stats:
% of shots in each range:
Stockton....CP3
0-3 ft: 34% vs 10%
3-10 ft: 8% vs 12%
10-16 ft: 14% vs 23%
16-23 ft: 28% vs 21%
3P: 16% vs 35%

CP3 and Stockton shot a similar amount of mid range shots from 10-23 feet (42% vs 44%). The key difference is that Stockton was much more willing to go to the basket. Stockton was taking 1/3 of his shots at the rim while CP3 barely went to the basket. At the same time, CP3 was much more willing to shoot 3s than Stockton due to the era differences. As a result, Stockton's average shot distance was 12 feet vs CP3's 17 feet.


Shooting % in each range:
Stockton....CP3
0-3 ft: 64% vs 66%
3-10 ft: 36% vs 48%
10-16 ft: 46% vs 50%
16-23 ft: 50% vs 48%
3P: 40% vs 38%

Very similar profiles in shooting. Both of them are among the best mid range shooters of this era.

Size:
Stockton: 6-1, 170 lbs.
CP3: 6-1, 175 lbs.

# of dunks:
Stockton: 0
CP3: 4

Exact same size and similar athletic abilities.

Per 100 Possession stats:
Stockton: 22-15-5, 4.4 TOV, 3.0 stl, 22 PER, 6.0 BPM, +10.8 On/off
CP3: 28-14-7, 3.6 TOV, 2.9 stl, 25 PER, 7.0 BPM, +13.3 On/off

Stats aren't too far off. CP3 was a better scorer and had more skills creating his own baskets. Everything else is pretty similar. CP3 has a small edge in advanced stats due to his age.

The shooting, the passing, defense, and advanced stats are pretty similar between the two players. Here is the biggest difference between the two

Stockton......CP3
Usage Rate: 19% vs 24%
% of 2 Pointers assisted: 45% vs 12%
% of 3 Pointers assisted: 65% vs 34%

CP3 took on a bigger scoring burden than Stockton. But more importantly, he was creating the shots himself while Stockton had teammates helping him create shots. Look at the vast disparity in assisted 2 pointers. CP3 was nearly 4x less likely to have a 2 point bucket assisted than Stockton.

Overall, I do agree that CP3 is the closest comparison to Stockton. Both of them are amazing mid range shooters, skilled passers, and adept at generating steals. If prime Stockton was in the NBA, he would be putting up similar numbers to CP3 but with less scoring.

I like the CP3 analogue and the other comments here. Nice.

I still can’t support the idea that John Stockton is a better (or equal) scorer to Hali because he never was a better scorer. Now, the counter argument seems to be “Well, he could have been!” And maybe he could have. But that fact is what it is—Stockton wasn’t as much of a scorer. He didn’t score as much. Making him, or any player, into something he or she isn’t is a fun exercise and can teach us a lot. But it doesn’t change what actually occurred. I’m interested in those arguments when they’re (more) in a vacuum; when we’re (more) clearly discussing hypotheticals and what ifs.

Scoring, for me in this context, is largely a numerical construct. If I’m asked, “Was John Stockton was a better scorer than Tyrese Haliburton?” I can say “Stockton’s focus was on distribution“ or “Jerry Sloan kept him in a rigid structure” or “If he’d had a different offense, he’d score more.” But the response is kind of damning “Yeah, but did he score more? Did he ever score a lot?” Everything besides scoring points is supposition.

I will say that I’m separating the idea of “Was John Stockton a more effective scorer than Tyrese Haliburton?” and/or “Who had more scoring ability, John Stockton or Tyrese Haliburton?” That’s when speculative and what-if commentaries have merit and, maybe, that was the intent here. And I think they can/would come into play more here … if Stockton had ever demonstrated he could be a better scorer. It’s been pointed out that Nash and CP3 have relatively similar scoring averages—but both were capable of exploding. In a much shorter career, Nash had over thirty 30 point games and close to a hundred games of 26 or higher. Same with CP3, except lots and lots more in a similar length career. And I understand the point/argument that “Stockton wasn’t in that type of offense.” I get that. But I have to say … never? Again, Jerry Sloan isn’t an idiot. John Stockton is a fierce guy. There weren’t a couple of games a year where Karl was in foul trouble or having an off (or off-ish) night, and Stockton said “I need to score in this game.” Or Jerry Sloan could see that and asked for Stockton to increase his output on that night? Just for that one game? Because it simply did not happen. It’s too much supposition for a comparison for me.

TrueLAfan wrote:I like the CP3 analogue and the other comments here. Nice.

I still can’t support the idea that John Stockton is a better (or equal) scorer to Hali because he never was a better scorer. Now, the counter argument seems to be “Well, he could have been!” And maybe he could have. But that fact is what it is—Stockton wasn’t as much of a scorer. He didn’t score as much. Making him, or any player, into something he or she isn’t is a fun exercise and can teach us a lot. But it doesn’t change what actually occurred. I’m interested in those arguments when they’re (more) in a vacuum; when we’re (more) clearly discussing hypotheticals and what ifs.

Scoring, for me in this context, is largely a numerical construct. If I’m asked, “Was John Stockton was a better scorer than Tyrese Haliburton?” I can say “Stockton’s focus was on distribution“ or “Jerry Sloan kept him in a rigid structure” or “If he’d had a different offense, he’d score more.” But the response is kind of damning “Yeah, but did he score more? Did he ever score a lot?” Everything besides scoring points is supposition.

Sure, he didn't score more. But "didn't" and "couldn't" aren't necessarily the same thing, and again, the preponderance of era- and context-related factors which operated on him are at least worthy things to consider in that argument. The environment for little dudes to shoot is very, very different now, and a lot more liberal and permissive. And that's without considering Sloan's particular mentality.

I hear you on the supposition, but we weren't in the locker room with him and Sloan, you know?

Now, all those hypotheticals aren't really a sell on the idea that Stockton was categorically better than Haliburton. In my head, they open the door to the possibility and make it fairly challenging to just outright say Haliburton is better. Haliburton benefits from different refereeing on ball-handling, different mentality on shooting 3s.

How often was Stockton given the green light to take pull-up 3s in transition? Coaching had a much stronger impact in the 90s than it does now, and we're talking about a dude who really wasn't interested in iso scorers and wanted the team to run its sets.

Anyway, at some point, this isn't a resolvable thing, right? We'll never know if he could have scored more, or exactly how much the permissive environment in which Haliburton operates (as far as relaxed rules about carries/palming, and for shot selection) has opened the door for him. We do know he has physical tools Stockton never did, though, and I think it IS fair to say that Haliburton is a better shooter.

So there's at least that angle to argue for Hali that has some kind of edge.

It's also worth noting that Stockton was a 21 PTS100 guy on his career, who flirted occasionally with 22-23 PTS100. This is fairly similar to Haliburton's first two seasons, subsequent to which Hali's FGA100 have been 15-17, whereas Stockton never hit 16.0+ FGA100 until 99 and 2000 in more limited minutes.

It would be interesting to compare transition possessions per 100 between the two of them across their careers as well, had we the data, because that's another thing. Haliburton's played at 99.9 - 101.7 poss/g these past 3 seasons where his scoring rate has outstripped Stockton's per 100 possessions... and like I said earlier, Stockton was at 98 or lower poss/g from 1989 onward. Indeed, 89-95, they averaged closer to 95 poss/g, and then dropped down to 90 and the high 80s after that.

So the nature of available opportunities is a little different between the two in THAT regard as well.

Just some food for thought.

Yeah, it’s not something that can be answered, really. I like the conversation more than anything else. And I’ve got one other example that I think is really pertinent.

I’ve always said/thought that Kevin McHale was an underrated rebounder. The Celtics had two absolute beasts on the glass playing alongside him in Bird and Parish. And, for most of the seasons those three played, they had rebound differentials of about 300-400 a season, which is huge. Rebounding is one of those things where there’s an upper limit. The Celtics were at 51.8% for most of the decade of the 80s, and that’s really good. Take out 1987 and 1988, and they were at 52.2%. They’d be in the top 2 or 3 almost every year at that rate, and they stayed there for most of a decade. In other words, there wasn’t much headroom to the Celtics’ rebounding. The guy that took the hit seems to have been McHale; in 1987, the only year the Celtics were actually outrebounded as a team, McHale had a career high in rebounds and had his second best year in REB%. So there’s evidence to support the idea that he was a better rebounder than his numbers show.

But. If someone were to ask me—was Kevin McHale a better rebounder than A.C. Green? I’d have to say no. I’d have to. Yes, Green wasn’t always with great teams—at least not as often as McHale. He didn’t have great rebounders alongside him as often as McHale. But sometimes he did—and in those instances, and pretty much all the others, A.C. Green was a better rebounder than Kevin McHale. McHale topped out at a Reb% of 14.8, had one other year at 14, and a career rate of 13.2. A.C. topped out at 16.4, and had eight years better than McHale’s best.

It's easy to say—and you can—that McHale had other focuses than rebounding, that he was a better post defender, that he was part of the Celtics front-line scheme, that he was concentrating on scoring. Those are all 100% true. You can play the what if card and say if McHale had concentrated more on rebounding, he’d have gotten more boards and be a better rebounder. I get that, too. But none of the hypotheticals happened, and I'm simply leery of upping someone that much based on a level of a quality the player simply never showed. And, for me, that makes A.C. Green a better rebounder. I'd much rather have McHale as a player, teammate, and sitting with me at a bar, though. McHale is a good guy.

TrueLAfan wrote:I’ve always said/thought that Kevin McHale was an underrated rebounder. The Celtics had two absolute beasts on the glass playing alongside him in Bird and Parish. And, for most of the seasons those three played, they had rebound differentials of about 300-400 a season, which is huge. Rebounding is one of those things where there’s an upper limit. The Celtics were at 51.8% for most of the decade of the 80s, and that’s really good. Take out 1987 and 1988, and they were at 52.2%. They’d be in the top 2 or 3 almost every year at that rate, and they stayed there for most of a decade. In other words, there wasn’t much headroom to the Celtics’ rebounding. The guy that took the hit seems to have been McHale; in 1987, the only year the Celtics were actually outrebounded as a team, McHale had a career high in rebounds and had his second best year in REB%. So there’s evidence to support the idea that he was a better rebounder than his numbers show.

Seems like. Though to be fair, he also spent a bunch of time on the quicker 3s than Bird did, and that took him out of position at times for defensive boards, which are the volume floaters. And he didn't top 33 mpg until 86. And he did mainly seem to suffer as a defensive rebounder, because he was still a very good offensive rebounder.

But. If someone were to ask me—was Kevin McHale a better rebounder than A.C. Green? I’d have to say no. I’d have to. Yes, Green wasn’t always with great teams—at least not as often as McHale. He didn’t have great rebounders alongside him as often as McHale. But sometimes he did—and in those instances, and pretty much all the others, A.C. Green was a better rebounder than Kevin McHale. McHale topped out at a Reb% of 14.8, had one other year at 14, and a career rate of 13.2. A.C. topped out at 16.4, and had eight years better than McHale’s best.

I'd wonder about that. Because their PER36 rebounding numbers are quite similar, and he was a career 10.6/18.7% ORB/DRB guy, which is terribly far from 9.2/16.9 with McHale. There's a difference, but it amounts to about 0.6 REB36 (0.3 on either end).

I wouldn't generally lean on that too hard if I was trying to describe one guy as "better" than the other, particularly once introducing contextuals, like the entire absence of offensive responsibility for Green and McHale being a career 17.9 ppg scorer and such.

Worth considering.