Where would prime John Stockton rank today?

[Matt15]

In the NBA and among point guards where do you think he would rank?

[Patterns]

/waits for some nostalgia fan to say that he'd be the undisputed best player in the league

[kooldude]

he'd be the undisputed best player in the league

[Storm Surge]

behind Diener as the 2nd best PG in the league.

[shawngoat23]

I think he'd be comparable to Chris Paul, who is a top 3 player (even though his PER is lower). Paul's a better scorer and rebounder, but Stockton is a more efficient scorer and a better defender. Paul is a better "playmaker", but Stockton is a better point guard.

Some have said that Paul was the MVP last year. Others accept his second place finish behind Kobe. Still others might have LeBron ahead of both of them. However, I don't think anyone can really make a case that Paul wasn't a top 3 player last year, so I'd say prime Stockton is at worst a top 4 player in today's league. However, a caveat--guys like Paul and LeBron have yet to reach their prime, and Kobe has had better seasons than last year (even though he won MVP last year).

[TMACFORMVP]

Nash is a top 15 player in the league, and Stockton was the better defender (he was an overrated defender, but certainly average to above average and most definitely better than Nash) and more reliable in all styles of play (half court/fast-break). Most definitely a top 10 player in the league, arguably Top 5, but that's debateable. Keep in mind, unlike most legends, Stockton was never the one with an actual peak, more-so an extended play of elite production at the PG position, so even during his best days, I'm not sure he'd be better than a CP3 coming off the season he'd have last year, but he'd arguably be the best PG in the league and easily a top 10 player in the league.

[Patterns]

/waits for some nostalgia fan to say that he'd be the undisputed best player in the league

I think he'd be comparable to Chris Paul, who is a top 3 player (even though his PER is lower). Paul's a better scorer and rebounder, but Stockton is a more efficient scorer and a better defender. Paul is a better "playmaker", but Stockton is a better point guard.

Some have said that Paul was the MVP last year. Others accept his second place finish behind Kobe. Still others might have LeBron ahead of both of them. However, I don't think anyone can really make a case that Paul wasn't a top 3 player last year, so I'd say prime Stockton is at worst a top 4 player in today's league. However, a caveat--guys like Paul and LeBron have yet to reach their prime, and Kobe has had better seasons than last year (even though he won MVP last year).

Nash is a top 15 player in the league, and Stockton was the better defender (he was an overrated defender, but certainly average to above average and most definitely better than Nash) and more reliable in all styles of play (half court/fast-break). Most definitely a top 10 player in the league, arguably Top 5, but that's debateable. Keep in mind, unlike most legends, Stockton was never the one with an actual peak, more-so an extended play of elite production at the PG position, so even during his best days, I'm not sure he'd be better than a CP3 coming off the season he'd have last year, but he'd arguably be the best PG in the league and easily a top 10 player in the league.

And the crazy people have come out.

[shawngoat23]

Patterns, I have yet to see an objective post from you on any thread involving a comparison between a "current" player and a retired player. I'm not one of the "old geezers" who you always harp on. I'm a twenty-two year old basketball fan who's been following basketball as long as I can remember, one who recognizes greatness when he sees it, whether on the court, on live TV, or in game film.

If you're going to rant, try to make sense. What in the world is a "nostalgia fan"? Yes, I miss the likes of John Stockton, who have retired, but I am also intrigued by the potential of the new guard like Chris Paul.

[TMACFORMVP]

How is it crazy to say Stockton would be a Top 10 player in the league if he played today, aren't Deron and CP3 top ten players in the league? There's no denying he'd be on their level in terms of play if not even better than a player like Deron. Look, I know you have no respect for the players that played in the past, with the players are bigger and more athletic crap arguments but that wouldn't work with a guy like Stockton, who played the game of fundamentals and smarts, something that's not easily acquired or taught.

Ehh, really there's no point in arguing anyway...

[cwas2882]

/waits for some nostalgia fan to say that he'd be the undisputed best player in the league

I think he'd be comparable to Chris Paul, who is a top 3 player (even though his PER is lower). Paul's a better scorer and rebounder, but Stockton is a more efficient scorer and a better defender. Paul is a better "playmaker", but Stockton is a better point guard.

Some have said that Paul was the MVP last year. Others accept his second place finish behind Kobe. Still others might have LeBron ahead of both of them. However, I don't think anyone can really make a case that Paul wasn't a top 3 player last year, so I'd say prime Stockton is at worst a top 4 player in today's league. However, a caveat--guys like Paul and LeBron have yet to reach their prime, and Kobe has had better seasons than last year (even though he won MVP last year).

Nash is a top 15 player in the league, and Stockton was the better defender (he was an overrated defender, but certainly average to above average and most definitely better than Nash) and more reliable in all styles of play (half court/fast-break). Most definitely a top 10 player in the league, arguably Top 5, but that's debateable. Keep in mind, unlike most legends, Stockton was never the one with an actual peak, more-so an extended play of elite production at the PG position, so even during his best days, I'm not sure he'd be better than a CP3 coming off the season he'd have last year, but he'd arguably be the best PG in the league and easily a top 10 player in the league.

And the crazy people have come out.

Are you saying that because you're in front of a mirror, drooling and putting on lipstick?

Stockton's best season was prob when he put up:

17 pts 14.5 assist 2.7 stls on better percentages than Chris Paul. And people are putting Stockton slightly behind him and they're crazy? Maybe they're underrating Stockton.

[cwas2882]

Patterns =

[ronnymac2]

I know this is going to sound a bit odd, and I don't want this to come out the wrong way, but....I'll take williams and paul over stockton. I think they are better than Stockton at his absolute prime. I'm not projecting them to be better...I think AS IS, they are better. Not by a lot, but clearly. And it has nothing to do with eras or anything like that (I'm not agreeing with patterns....honestly I would only do that if I were in a state of....well, it doesn't matter, cuz if i'm in that state of mind, i wouldn't be able to type anyway lol.). I just think they are better.

I think those 2 would be better. I think kg, lebron, kobe, duncan, and wade would be clearly better. I'll take dirk over stockton. Honestly, I'd prob take dwight and yao over him, too. Stockton to me would be in the melo, pierce, amare, bosh, carter, t-mac, nash level.

Imo, Deron Williams and Chris Paul are better scorers than stockton ever was. And I know the percentages. But I'm talking about how they score their points. Stockton was better at playing off of other plays and hitting outside shots. He could create for himself fairly well, but not like williams and paul. Hell, I think steve nash is clearly better than stockton as a scorer. Williams and Paul are a lot more diverse ito of where they score the ball, and they do it on pretty good percentages themselves.

I know, 17,14,3 and great %'s is very nice. But don't use those stats. Just look at the players themselves and what they do on the court.

Maybe I'm a bit hard on stockton. I don't think so. I think he MAY be a top 10 player in the nba. (although, something else to bring up is, he wasn't really recognized that much as a top 10 player in the nba in his time...top 10 in mvp voting 5 times in almost 2 decades of play, and no higher than 7...just for those who like mvp voting, though i don't like to use it). He'd be an elite player and surely an elite, top 5 (arguably top 3ish) pg. But not a top 3 player. Not a top 5 player. No, he was never that good. I think you could argue he wouldn't be top 10 either, but I don't really want to get into that.

[TMACFORMVP]

Those are good points, I'd think he'd be a borderline top 10 player in the league, it's a good debate with him and current Deron, hell I might lean towards Deron as well, but feels kinda awkward saying that at this point of William's career.

Bron
Kobe
Paul
KG
Duncan
Wade
Dirk
Dwight

and possibly Yao/Deron are the only guys that have more than a legit argument IMO. So I'd say borderline top 10 would be around right, but anything less would be pretty inaccurate. And to be on the honest side, I'm not a huge Stockton fan either when compared to other all time great PG's like Isiah (I was real frustrated when he voted in on the all time at the spot he went in) but in the current league, I won't hate on him as much, lol

[Blackfyre]

Players I would take over him without any hesitation are : LeBron, Kobe, Paul, KG, Duncan, Wade and probably Dirk, Dwight, Deron and healthy Yao. Thing with Deron is that he can be a first option and carry a team on his own but John can't. He needs other superstar alongside him. Top 10 is about right for him and that shows how overrated Stockton was when he was selected 27th in alltime draft. Even bigger travesty was LeBron going 36th

[shawngoat23]

I'll take the following players' primes over Stockton: Shaq, Duncan, KG, Kobe, Wade, and Nash. Plus I'll take LeBron's performance the last few years, as well as Paul's last year (although barely), even though they haven't reached their prime yet.

However, the question was where prime Stockton would rank today. The Shaq, Duncan, and KG of 2003 are not available today. I'd take them over those players in the same sense that I would take LeBron, Kobe, or Paul over Duncan and KG.

By the way, Deron Williams might be the second best point guard today, but even Jazz fans will tell you that he doesn't belong in the same conversation as John Stockton. They'll likely also crucify me for suggesting that Paul belongs in the same league either.

[Patterns]

Patterns, I have yet to see an objective post from you on any thread involving a comparison between a "current" player and a retired player. I'm not one of the "old geezers" who you always harp on. I'm a twenty-two year old basketball fan who's been following basketball as long as I can remember, one who recognizes greatness when he sees it, whether on the court, on live TV, or in game film.

If you're going to rant, try to make sense. What in the world is a "nostalgia fan"? Yes, I miss the likes of John Stockton, who have retired, but I am also intrigued by the potential of the new guard like Chris Paul.

I don't even want to delve into this non-sense. Stockton would not be a top 10 player right now period. At his prime, he's not better than CPaul, Deron, or Nash. He's a Billups with a far longer longevity.

Yea he averaged 17/14/etc on great percentages but tell him to do it now. He can't. Adjust it to the current paste and his numbers will look something like 15/12 which isn't bad but not on the level of Nash, CPaul, or Deron.

I am not not going to argue much if someone says he's top 15. But top 10? top 5? You mean to tell me that Stockton is better than Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Duncan, KG, CPaul?

Stockton is a great player and legend but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Of course, I expect all Bulls fans to praise Jordan's competition in order to solidify his championships - that he beat worthy opponents.

I would for sure take these players over Stockton if we don't factor in health and logevity:

Kobe
Lebron
Duncan
KG
CPaul3
Nash
Deron
Dirk
Dwight
Wade
Bosh

Then it's debatable between Amare, Pierce, etc.

[tsherkin]

Hmm.

Stockton is a guy who definitely gets a bit overrated. He's a top 30-40 type player all-time.

Stockton was an aggressive, physical defender but quick guys and big guys definitely had some fun with him; Gary Payton actually noticeably outscored him during his own prime, but Stockton's career was so long, HIS decline was around the same time as PAYTON'S decline (the Glove having been drafted 6 years after Stockton).

Stockton was never a dominant scorer, or even a really dangerous one. He was always a guy who'd burn you if you went under the screen and who was canny enough with his timing and the threat of his shot to get to the rim in Utah's system. He had better handles than many remember and something else that people rarely consider when looking at him, but often times, he'd set his man up with a little size-up dribble and then whip a pass beside his head while the guy's hands were down, waiting for a dribble move to pick off on a steal attempt. Stockton used the threat of scoring to set up the pass, whereas scorers use the threat of the pass to set up a scoring opportunity. He was an artist, a lot like Magic Johnson in that sense (though obviously radically different in terms of style).

He did display some pretty outstanding technical skill in passing; he was about as pin-point precise as you'll ever see... with either hand. The only guys who's left hand was or is as good were Magic and Nash... and I think Stockton and Nash were both better with the left hand than Magic, actually. Stockton did things with his off-hand that a lot of guys can't do properly two-handed. He threw alley-oops and shuffle passes and stuff, some really tough passes, and he did them FREQUENTLY.

Did he benefit from Malone? Yeah, Stockton benefited from Malone more than the reverse was true, but that's neither here nor there, every great player who is measured among the greatest had a sidekick or someone else to feed off of.

He was a filthy pickpocket who's defense reminded a little bit of Walt Frazier; obviously, Frazier was more of a handful man-on, but just in terms of the sticky fingers, the anticipation, he was reminiscent of Clyde's defense. He was one of the smartest ballers of all-time, that's for sure. He made up for being very sleight and comparatively unathletic (he had great stamina and good quickness, he just wasn't a dominant athlete like a KJ or even an Isiah Thomas, really) in this manner.

Where would he rank?

Looking at the point guards and assuming they match the production and such that they managed last year, I'm not sure that Stockton (just on his own) would really rank above Deron or Paul; both of those guys were doing some pretty phenomenal things.

It IS, however, worth mentioning that at the age of 40, he was still averaging 10 AST36 and averaging almost 8 apg in under 28 mpg. He had Malone and some other guys like Harpring and a young AK, but he was doing that with consistency. He was always a measured-pace guy, he thrived at whatever tempo the game took on. He attacked relentlessly in transition and in the halfcourt sets the Jazz ran (people forget that Malone was a freaking FANTASTIC transition scorer and a lot of his buckets were outlet passes and oops from Stockton, not just rolls peeling away from having set a screen or popping on a J, or scoring in an iso down low).

Still, without a really dominant big finisher, he'd look a little more pedestrian and his scoring ability wouldn't be sufficient to do what Paul does. Remember, Chris Paul is the first-option scorer AND the team's leading distributor, that's something Stockton could never manage, ever.

Paul is showing that he knows how to work a two-man game and milk it for all it's worth too; he and Chandler get oops very often as well, but Chandler isn't as prolific a scorer as was Malone (obviously)... and yet Paul's still hitting shooters and Tyson for double-digit assists, which shows a lot. And doing it while scoring 20+. He's not as good a defender, of course, but he's more athletic and he gets into the lanes pretty well himself (he did lead the league in steals per game last year).

Deron? He's showing a lot of the same, and he is also a better scorer than Stockton. Is he as clutch? As good on defense? As savvy and as good with his left hand? No, on all four accounts. But would I take him over Stockton for the Jazz right now? Probably, because they really don't have the secondary scoring to slip down to Stockton... though there's the chance he might elevate Boozer's game a little. I doubt it, though, because the Jazz take advantage of Boozer all over, he's just not as aggressive or as potent a finisher as was Malone, so he doesn't get to the line as well. He likes to pull up for short Js off of his rolls too often, IMO.

So right there, that's two guys I'd take ahead of Stockton.

Kidd? Nah, I'd take Stockton over Kidd any day. Kidd's always been weak sauce on offense, even in his prime, and Stockton has always been at least a steady threat to hit the outside shot and whatever mid-range gimme buckets you felt like surrendering. 15-footers are layups to Stockton; Kidd blows layups fairly frequently. Kidd's bigger and a better rebounder, and he has more success in iso defensive coverage against the more dominant players (and that was even more true earlier in his career) but Stockton's overall better.

Who else? The only other significant PGs are Billups, Baron Davis, Dre, Nash, Parker and Calderon. Arenas, I guess, but I think of him more as a combo guard or as a 2, but let's include him anyway because he's an underrated passer and deserves the pub.

Billups is, even now, one of the most efficient offensive weapons the league has. He should be shooting a lot more. People see his FG% and frown but he's been above 59% TS for four years running and above 60% in 3 of those years. He's scored 16.5+ each year, 17+ the last three. Billups is an excellent scorer. He posts up well, draws lots of fouls and is lights-out at the line... and he's about as deadly as it gets from downtown. He's an excellent defender and an outstanding playmaker. He's a better shooter and scorer than Stockton ever was, and a similarly disruptive defender (only moreso a lot of the time because he's larger)... though Stockton was a way better HELP defender, which is potentially more valuable, since his steals weren't the result of gambles, but of good anticipation and timing. Plus, he got a ream of on-ball steals, which is exceedingly uncommon.

I think this one is narrowly Stockton; he was a 15-17 ppg scorer in his prime, which was about a decade, and that's comparable to Billups' scoring range (though Chauncey's more 16-19). Stockton was comparably efficient, too, so I maintain Stockton as the choice over Billups.

He's an easy choice over Dre, good as is Miller, and I would take Stockton over Baron Davis any day of the week because I don't think much of volume chuckers, talented as is Davis.

Parker and Calderon? Well, Calderon doesn't do anything Stockton didn't and John was better in transition AND the superior defender by far, so there's not really much to that.

The Spurs would be a lot better with Stockton versus with Parker, so that's an easy one too.

Which brings us to Nash. Nash is the better shooter and scorer, a comparable playmaker at worst, and I would argue the superior playmaker. He is more capable of dribble-penetration of his own and has the sort of flair that typified Magic's game. I would argue, however, that the defensive gap makes up for the playmaking gap and that Stockton was marginally better than Nash.

Arenas? Gil is a bit too inconsistent as a scorer (he's either super-hot or super-cold a lot of the time and he's way worse defensively... though that's more a reflection of how good Stockton was). Too, there's the durability issue, which favors Stockton heavily. Gil gets a lot of bad press... and he deserves anything pertaining to his shot selection, which sucks a lot of the time. He's still a very good player though, so while I'd take Stockton, it's with due respect to what a healthy Gilbert Arenas can accomplish on the court.

So that leaves him top-3 at his position. How many players at the other positions are better?

At the 2, you're talking about guys who can't just be used to make a playoff team but who are true superstars, or near to it. That means the list of guys potentially better than Stockton at the 2 includes Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Vince Carter, Brandon Roy and Kevin Martin.

Most will immediately disagree with the last three and I don't think I'd take any of them over a prime Stockton NOW, but I think that Roy and Martin have shown enough to be mentioned and since Vince is a 21/6/5 type player these days, he's worth a mention because he's about as explosive and dangerous as it gets when he's on. His inconsistency kills him, though. Brief mention of Durant, who's shining bright as a rook, but he needs to show more before I take him over someone like Stockton.

So that leaves the big three, of whom I remove McGrady because his efficiency has fallen off so badly because of his shot selection (and on account of his sketchy durability). I have to hammer Wade for his durability, too, so that leaves Kobe the only guy I'd really take over Stockton at the 2, despite Wade and T-Mac being clearly superior options if they're healthy.

That leaves Stockton top 4 so far.

At the 3? Lebron, easily. He's the only clear-cut choice, IMO. I'd strongly consider Carmelo. Ask me again after this season (or even at the All-Star break), because I've been hearing that 'Melo's defense is getting better and he's improved as a shooter a lot each of the last two years. He's also shown signs of improving as a passer. For now, just Lebron, so top 5.

PF? Weak sauce, lots of great PFs these days. I'd take Garnett, Dirk, Amare Stoudemire and Carlos Boozer... with honorable mention to Chris Bosh, who I wouldn't take over Stockton, but it's a near thing. That makes Stockton top 9.

Cs I'd take include Dwight Howard and Tim Duncan, to leave Stockton 11th.

I think that's pretty fair to Stockton; he'd be a great piece to build around but because he's never been a scorer, because he was always a guy who looked for ways to set up a pass rather than to set up a shot, it's more difficult to build around him because you need to find a go-to scorer and finishers (shooters, athletes and bruisers) for him to feed. Consequently, I think the 10 guys I listed above are a little more valuable.

I'd love to see what Dwight could do working with Stockton, lol, especially if he did as Amare and Karl Malone before him and developed a mid-range J to complement the rest of his game.

[tsherkin]

I don't even want to delve into this non-sense. Stockton would not be a top 10 player right now period. At his prime, he's not better than CPaul, Deron, or Nash. He's a Billups with a far longer longevity.

No, he's better than Billups. Better defender, better mid-range shooter and a much cannier playmaker. There's a reason Billups hasn't ever really threatened for 10+ apg and why Stockton did it for so long.

Yea he averaged 17/14/etc on great percentages but tell him to do it now. He can't. Adjust it to the current paste and his numbers will look something like 15/12 which isn't bad but not on the level of Nash, CPaul, or Deron.

Funny story about pace-adjusting his numbers. When Stockton cranked out 13.7 apg in 91-92, he did it at a pace of 95.5 possessions per game, which would have ranked him only 7th in the league this year. The Jazz played a pretty methodical game as they still do (but they were top-10 this year at 93.2).

Pace-adjusting his 13.7 apg at 95.5 to 93.2 (and ignoring the fact that he pushed the tempo better than does Deron) gives him an average of 13.4 apg.

Not a big drop-off. So he'd be at about 15.4/13.4, which is pretty impressive. Not far from your 15/12 comment, but that's still pretty staggering in terms of impact on a game. Too, you'd imagine he would probably catch an extra free throw or two per game because of the new rules, which might bump him up to 16 ppg or so.

15/13, however, is very much on the level of Deron and Nash. Paul scored more, sure, but Stockton would be playing comparable help defense (so 15/13/3 or so) and you're talking a difference of 2-4 ppg between him and Deron or Nash, which isn't really a big deal when you consider that he's adding the extra points through the difference in assists.

I am not not going to argue much if someone says he's top 15. But top 10? top 5? You mean to tell me that Stockton is better than Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Duncan, KG, CPaul?

Top 5 I'll not argue, I agree that it's silly, but top 10 is at least putatively debatable, IMO, though I guess you took out the durability and longevity criteria, so that makes some sense.

[cwas2882]

Not really pertinent to the discussion, but Stockton's RHR was said to be around 35. Crazy ****

[NO-KG-AI]

What is Stockton's prime? His highest MVP finish?(7)

I can't see him being a top 5 lock or whatever when he only finished top 10 in MVP voting 3 times in his career, with 7th being his highest.

Rose colored glasses for some....