replace stockton with prime isiah. do they beat the bulls

[Woodsanity]

Lateral move at best.

[tsherkin]

Replacing the Jazz "centers" with Laimbeer would have given them a FAR better chance to beat the bulls than replacing Stockton with Zeke. To say the Jazz had bad centers is perhaps the understatement of the century. The whole Bull's defense was predicated on Pippen being the "center" defender who basically ignored that the Jazz had them on the floor to effectively test the rules of that era's illegal defense rules.

I am inclined to agree that Laimbeer would help them more, yes. Laimbeer was a very good player, even if he was, charitably, not the best human being out there on the court. That talent upgrade would have been humongous, and his skill set would have let him fit nicely into how the Jazz liked to run things very well.

[tsherkin]

Replacing the Jazz "centers" with Laimbeer would have given them a FAR better chance to beat the bulls than replacing Stockton with Zeke. To say the Jazz had bad centers is perhaps the understatement of the century. The whole Bull's defense was predicated on Pippen being the "center" defender who basically ignored that the Jazz had them on the floor to effectively test the rules of that era's illegal defense rules.

I am inclined to agree that Laimbeer would help them more, yes. Laimbeer was a very good player, even if he was, charitably, not the best human being out there on the court. That talent upgrade would have been humongous, and his skill set would have let him fit nicely into how the Jazz liked to run things very well.

[tsherkin]

Replacing the Jazz "centers" with Laimbeer would have given them a FAR better chance to beat the bulls than replacing Stockton with Zeke. To say the Jazz had bad centers is perhaps the understatement of the century. The whole Bull's defense was predicated on Pippen being the "center" defender who basically ignored that the Jazz had them on the floor to effectively test the rules of that era's illegal defense rules.

I am inclined to agree that Laimbeer would help them more, yes. Laimbeer was a very good player, even if he was, charitably, not the best human being out there on the court. That talent upgrade would have been humongous, and his skill set would have let him fit nicely into how the Jazz liked to run things very well.

[yellowknifer]

Are we letting Stockton shoot more? Cause if so I think the Jazz win easily. Stockton is one of those guys who would be even better if a modern setting. Isiah wasn't a good shooter. I admire the guy but his game wouldn't fit assuming we are trying to get the most out of both teams rather than just assume they play the same outdated styles. Not even close really either IMO.

[Jonny Blaze]

Are we letting Stockton shoot more? Cause if so I think the Jazz win easily. Stockton is one of those guys who would be even better if a modern setting. Isiah wasn't a good shooter. I admire the guy but his game wouldn't fit assuming we are trying to get the most out of both teams rather than just assume they play the same outdated styles. Not even close really either IMO.

How and Why?

The Modern era is going to let Stockton off the hook by having no left hand?

The modern era is going to suddenly give Stockton the skills to hit a jumper off of the dribble?

Stockton was a great shooter when he was wide open, but he could not create his own shot and he could not drive to the hoop with his left hand.

FYI...these are all things Isaiah Thomas excelled at.

[art_tatum]

I mean if Stockton made those last second 3 pointers in game 6 for both years they might've won.
Who knows what happens in game 7.
One year they were down by 1 and he shot the 3. Iono what he was thinking

[og15]

Are we letting Stockton shoot more? Cause if so I think the Jazz win easily. Stockton is one of those guys who would be even better if a modern setting. Isiah wasn't a good shooter. I admire the guy but his game wouldn't fit assuming we are trying to get the most out of both teams rather than just assume they play the same outdated styles. Not even close really either IMO.

How and Why?

The Modern era is going to let Stockton off the hook by having no left hand?

The modern era is going to suddenly give Stockton the skills to hit a jumper off of the dribble?

Stockton was a great shooter when he was wide open, but he could not create his own shot and he could not drive to the hoop with his left hand.

FYI...these are all things Isaiah Thomas excelled at.

Stockton was not incapable of creating his own shot, and he could certainly get to the basket going left, too much hyperbole

[Jonny Blaze]

Are we letting Stockton shoot more? Cause if so I think the Jazz win easily. Stockton is one of those guys who would be even better if a modern setting. Isiah wasn't a good shooter. I admire the guy but his game wouldn't fit assuming we are trying to get the most out of both teams rather than just assume they play the same outdated styles. Not even close really either IMO.

How and Why?

The Modern era is going to let Stockton off the hook by having no left hand?

The modern era is going to suddenly give Stockton the skills to hit a jumper off of the dribble?

Stockton was a great shooter when he was wide open, but he could not create his own shot and he could not drive to the hoop with his left hand.

FYI...these are all things Isaiah Thomas excelled at.

Stockton was not incapable of creating his own shot, and he could certainly get to the basket going left, too much hyperbole

Stockton did not do it very often. He didn't do it very often because he was not that good at it.
Lost in all the John Stockton hype was that he was not that great of a scorer. He was quite average it.

His lack of scoring ability is why the Utah Jazz consistently flamed out of the playoffs early. 97 and 98 were the anomalies...not the norm.

If the Utah Jazz had a point guard that could keep the opposing defense honest by being able to score 25-30 points (when his team needed it) they would have done much better in the post season.

[dhsilv2]

Are we letting Stockton shoot more? Cause if so I think the Jazz win easily. Stockton is one of those guys who would be even better if a modern setting. Isiah wasn't a good shooter. I admire the guy but his game wouldn't fit assuming we are trying to get the most out of both teams rather than just assume they play the same outdated styles. Not even close really either IMO.

How and Why?

The Modern era is going to let Stockton off the hook by having no left hand?

The modern era is going to suddenly give Stockton the skills to hit a jumper off of the dribble?

Stockton was a great shooter when he was wide open, but he could not create his own shot and he could not drive to the hoop with his left hand.

FYI...these are all things Isaiah Thomas excelled at.

Stockton was not incapable of creating his own shot, and he could certainly get to the basket going left, too much hyperbole

He also had a great jumper off the dribble...

[tsherkin]

He also had a great jumper off the dribble...

When he bothered to use it. I suppose we'll never know how much of that was him and how much was Sloan, but the cry the entire time was that Malone needed more scoring next to him and Stockton generally didn't deliver. It's not so much that he usually did a terrible job as he just never added the extra punch they always seemed to be missing. That is the genesis of that particular angle of criticism. Had he, they'd have likely been a multiple-title franchise.

Stockton was a skilled player. A very good player, but it's not like he didn't have flaws. Basically any player has flaws. His was, in a nut shell, limp assertiveness and defensive challenges against bigger/more athletic PGs. Now, in 98, he can take a pass for his knee and being 35 (36, really, by the time of the Finals). He wasn't exactly a staggering, ATG athlete to begin with and he was short, so he was doing what he could. But earlier in his run with the Mailman, he wasn't a stunner.

That said, still, I don't think replacing him with his inversion is a hot idea either. Thomas wasn't a particularly good scorer. He was inefficient, even for a POA scorer. Having someone willing to shoot but not that good at it wouldn't have helped them all that much, particularly at the cost of Stockton's range and playmaking. Isiah could make plays, but he didn't do it like Stockton did for the Jazz and I don't think his dribble attack suited the Jazz all that well. The Jazz really needed basically KJ, or better yet, a scoring 2 or 3who could fit nicely into the system alongside Stockton and Malone. They tried it with Jeff Malone and Jeff Hornacek and Thurl Bailey and what have you, but it never really worked out come the playoffs.

[dhsilv2]

How and Why?

The Modern era is going to let Stockton off the hook by having no left hand?

The modern era is going to suddenly give Stockton the skills to hit a jumper off of the dribble?

Stockton was a great shooter when he was wide open, but he could not create his own shot and he could not drive to the hoop with his left hand.

FYI...these are all things Isaiah Thomas excelled at.

Stockton was not incapable of creating his own shot, and he could certainly get to the basket going left, too much hyperbole

Stockton did not do it very often. He didn't do it very often because he was not that good at it.
Lost in all the John Stockton hype was that he was not that great of a scorer. He was quite average it.

His lack of scoring ability is why the Utah Jazz consistently flamed out of the playoffs early. 97 and 98 were the anomalies...not the norm.

If the Utah Jazz had a point guard that could keep the opposing defense honest by being able to score 25-30 points (when his team needed it) they would have done much better in the post season.

The Jazz got Hornacek in 94 who finally replaced the absolutely AWFUL Jeff Malone. The Jazz would then over the next 5 years lose to the eventual champion 4 times and the runner up the one other year. So no, the 97 and 98 years weren't some outliers, they are the normal result of a team finally getting good enough people around their stars to be real contenders. Nobody contends that Stockton with more scoring focus and some more ability would make him better. But I think we'd all agree Thomas would have been better if he were more efficient, played better defense, and was a better play making for others. Thomas got to play with a team that put out 5 well above average players pretty much every minute of every game and stockton had to play on teams that started complete replacement level players and had to deal with years of Jeff Malone shooting the team out of games.

[HEAT33]

Bulls in 4

[Jonny Blaze]

Stockton was not incapable of creating his own shot, and he could certainly get to the basket going left, too much hyperbole

Stockton did not do it very often. He didn't do it very often because he was not that good at it.
Lost in all the John Stockton hype was that he was not that great of a scorer. He was quite average it.

His lack of scoring ability is why the Utah Jazz consistently flamed out of the playoffs early. 97 and 98 were the anomalies...not the norm.

If the Utah Jazz had a point guard that could keep the opposing defense honest by being able to score 25-30 points (when his team needed it) they would have done much better in the post season.

The Jazz got Hornacek in 94 who finally replaced the absolutely AWFUL Jeff Malone. The Jazz would then over the next 5 years lose to the eventual champion 4 times and the runner up the one other year. So no, the 97 and 98 years weren't some outliers, they are the normal result of a team finally getting good enough people around their stars to be real contenders. Nobody contends that Stockton with more scoring focus and some more ability would make him better. But I think we'd all agree Thomas would have been better if he were more efficient, played better defense, and was a better play making for others. Thomas got to play with a team that put out 5 well above average players pretty much every minute of every game and stockton had to play on teams that started complete replacement level players and had to deal with years of Jeff Malone shooting the team out of games.

John Stockton and Karl Malone played for more than the 5 years that you stated. The Jazz had a long history of post season underachievement before 97 and 98.

In 1989 the Jazz were a dark horse contenders for the NBA title. They had earned this distinction when they beat the defending Champion Lakers on Christmas day 1988.
They went out in the 1st round as a 2 seed.

They did the exact same thing the next year in 1990. Going 55-27 and losing in the 1st round again to the Warriors.
Isaish Thomas wins the 1990 NBA Finals MVP award.

In 1995 they went 60-22 and lost in the 1st round.

In a lot of these series John Stockton gets dominated by the opposing point guard which directly leads to the Jazz's defeat.
Stockton lack of scoring ability always caught up to the Jazz in the playoffs.

If Stockton could score the ball like Isaiah Thomas the Utah Jazz would have been much more successful in the playoffs.

[dhsilv2]

He also had a great jumper off the dribble...

When he bothered to use it. I suppose we'll never know how much of that was him and how much was Sloan, but the cry the entire time was that Malone needed more scoring next to him and Stockton generally didn't deliver. It's not so much that he usually did a terrible job as he just never added the extra punch they always seemed to be missing. That is the genesis of that particular angle of criticism. Had he, they'd have likely been a multiple-title franchise.

Stockton was a skilled player. A very good player, but it's not like he didn't have flaws. Basically any player has flaws. His was, in a nut shell, limp assertiveness and defensive challenges against bigger/more athletic PGs. Now, in 98, he can take a pass for his knee and being 35 (36, really, by the time of the Finals). He wasn't exactly a staggering, ATG athlete to begin with and he was short, so he was doing what he could. But earlier in his run with the Mailman, he wasn't a stunner.

That said, still, I don't think replacing him with his inversion is a hot idea either. Thomas wasn't a particularly good scorer. He was inefficient, even for a POA scorer. Having someone willing to shoot but not that good at it wouldn't have helped them all that much, particularly at the cost of Stockton's range and playmaking. Isiah could make plays, but he didn't do it like Stockton did for the Jazz and I don't think his dribble attack suited the Jazz all that well. The Jazz really needed basically KJ, or better yet, a scoring 2 or 3who could fit nicely into the system alongside Stockton and Malone. They tried it with Jeff Malone and Jeff Hornacek and Thurl Bailey and what have you, but it never really worked out come the playoffs.

But was any of this true?

94 - 7th best offense. They were 108.6 rated in the regular season and lost to the rockets with a 105.3. Rockets had a 110.3 offensive rating
95 - 4nd best offense. 114.3 regular season and a 116.2 vs the rockets. They gave up 120.6.
96 - 3nd best offense. 113.3 regular season and 104.9 vs the sonics. Actually held the sonics to 101.9...they really lost that series more so by blowing close games imo. Also sonics were the number 2 defense at 102.1
97 - 2nd in offense. 113.6 regular and lost to the bulls 103.8. Keep in mind the bulls were the number 1 defense at 102.4.
98 - 1st in offense. 112.7 and lost with a 96.1 rating (a bit skewed by the famous 54 point game)

Now their defensive rating.

94 - 104.1 7th
95 - 105.7 8th
96 - 106.1 8th
97 - 104.0 9th
98 - 105.4 17th

Any even simple look at their team numbers of this, their best stretch shows that their offense was elite. It was their defense that looked to be the problem and it's backed up by some of the series where they were just scored on.

we don't have a lot of RAPM data but lets look at RPM for stockton late career.

97 - 13th (4th on offensive RPM)
98 - 16th (6th on offense)
99 - 6th (15th on offense)
00 - 5th (12th on offense)

This is the end of his prime and best years, but incredible impact on the offensive end even late in his career. I think the obsession of that era's "PPG" crowd just ignore the incredible impact Stockton had on offense. I think WAY too much credit was wrongly given to Malone over him for the Jazz success.

At the end once they got a solid number 3 in Jeff, the team would go on the lose to an all time great Bulls team twice. They lost to a really good rocket's team lead by Hakeem when they desperately needed a better center. And then they lost to Payton and Kemp at their best together, on a team that was top to bottom one of the, if not THE, deepest teams of that era. If Stockton were a top 20 level all time guy, he'd have scored more and maybe they win a few chips. He wasn't, but lets not make it out that he wasn't an offensive savant or ignore that they lost to REALLY good teams, in close series, and just even a little luck could have changed that legacy.

[dhsilv2]

Stockton did not do it very often. He didn't do it very often because he was not that good at it.
Lost in all the John Stockton hype was that he was not that great of a scorer. He was quite average it.

His lack of scoring ability is why the Utah Jazz consistently flamed out of the playoffs early. 97 and 98 were the anomalies...not the norm.

If the Utah Jazz had a point guard that could keep the opposing defense honest by being able to score 25-30 points (when his team needed it) they would have done much better in the post season.

The Jazz got Hornacek in 94 who finally replaced the absolutely AWFUL Jeff Malone. The Jazz would then over the next 5 years lose to the eventual champion 4 times and the runner up the one other year. So no, the 97 and 98 years weren't some outliers, they are the normal result of a team finally getting good enough people around their stars to be real contenders. Nobody contends that Stockton with more scoring focus and some more ability would make him better. But I think we'd all agree Thomas would have been better if he were more efficient, played better defense, and was a better play making for others. Thomas got to play with a team that put out 5 well above average players pretty much every minute of every game and stockton had to play on teams that started complete replacement level players and had to deal with years of Jeff Malone shooting the team out of games.

John Stockton and Karl Malone played for more than the 5 years that you stated. The Jazz had a long history of post season underachievement before 97 and 98.

In 1989 the Jazz were a dark horse contenders for the NBA title. They had earned this distinction when they beat the defending Champion Lakers on Christmas day 1988.
They went out in the 1st round as a 2 seed.

They did the exact same thing the next year in 1990. Going 55-27 and losing in the 1st round again to the Warriors.
Isaish Thomas wins the 1990 NBA Finals MVP award.

In 1995 they went 60-22 and lost in the 1st round.

In a lot of these series John Stockton gets dominated by the opposing point guard which directly leads to the Jazz's defeat.
Stockton lack of scoring ability always caught up to the Jazz in the playoffs.

If Stockton could score the ball like Isaiah Thomas the Utah Jazz would have been much more successful in the playoffs.

89 - Jazz won 51 games and had the 7th best record in the league. They had a team with Bob Hensen, Thurl Bailey, and Mark Eaton against a run and gun warriors team. Gee I wonder if a big slow footed giant would struggle against a precursor to today's modern offense? Also I thought Stockton just needed to shoot more? You start with a series were Stockton average 28.4 points per game?

95 - yeah they lost to the eventual champs who mid season added Drexler...

I guess I'll give you in 90 KJ out played Stockton. Nobody was better than Stockton in that 89 series and there's no world Kenny Smith was better in 95. But KJ in 90 was absolutely a beast, there's no shame in being out played by a second team all nba, young insanely athletic KJ. We're comparing Stockton to Thomas, not so some all time elite player. Heck if you want Payton out played Stockton in 96 too...but Payton in 96 was an MVP level player so again no shame in that!

[RRyder823]

Are people actually arguing Thomas was a better PG then Stockton?

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[ReddoverKobe]

since we're in the middle of the summer and things are slow, what do you guys think:

replace stockton with prime isiah. do they beat the bulls ?

i say yes. IT was more of a scorer and would get you buckets when needed. we saw him drop 25+ on showtime on 1 ankle the year right before he started winning

97 probably not, 98 100% yes and think of how bad those Utah teams were lol

[tsherkin]

Any even simple look at their team numbers of this, their best stretch shows that their offense was elite. It was their defense that looked to be the problem and it's backed up by some of the series where they were just scored on.

Yes, on average, their offense was very good. The contention isn't that they weren't able to produce high-end offense, it's that when it mattered, they needed someone to step up offensively.

In 1990, they were -2.0 relative to their RS ORTG versus Phoenix (6th-ranked defense) and -1.5 relative to Phoenix's ORTG. Series went 5, they lost the last game by 2, and both Stockton and Thurl Bailey shot like slow-roasted dogcrap in the elimination game. Stockton was 3/11 ,0/3 from 3. Loads and loads of assists (17), of course, and Bailey took 29 FGAs, so you can argue who was more responsible for that loss, to be sure. But he didn't do great things with the scoring possessions that he had. You can maybe argue that he felt he was having a rough game and decided to be passive and see what others could do, but that didn't work out great either. This was prior to Utah being elite on offense, mind. They were 10th in 1990, 11th in 1991.

Hard to blame Utah for the WCS against the Blazers, who were the 2nd-best O and 3rd-ranked defense. They were outclassed. Didn't have the depth or secondary scoring punch to go head-to-head with Portland and Drexler.

1992, first year that the Jazz are actually a noteworthy offense, 4th-ranked and everything. Made a run into the WCFs, faced the Blazers, who had fallen off a bit offensively compared to the previous RS but not so much defensively. Utah got steamrolled, Portland ate them alive on offense. Terry Porter absolutely murdered them. Drexler was great, but Porter put 26/8 on 72.4% TS (52.9% from 3, 18/34) on Utah. Stockton shot under 40% from the field on the series, a shade over 23% from 3 and basically looked helpless at anything but giving up the ball. They got blown out in the opener; that certainly wasn't all on Stockton. Malone had 11 points on 3/6 shooting. Stockton was 1/6. They lost by 17 in game 2. Stockton and Malone both had far better games, but Utah was incompetent on D against the Blazers. Drexler and Porter murdered them. Stockton ate 41 from Porter on 12/14 shooting, 4/5 from 3 and 13/14 at the line. Like, it's hard to get beaten that thoroughly while you're putting in effort. The Jazz were a good defensive team, and their offense tried to keep pace, but Portland just bludgeoned them into submission. Stockton stank (4/13) as a scorer in Game 3 but they dragged the pace down and won. Porter also had a crap game (3/13). Utah had an offensive explosion to win their last game of the series in game 4. Porter ate them alive again (34/7, 9/16, 4/8 from 3, 12/12 at the line), but the Malones came through. Stockton had a good game. He didn't need to shoot more that game but he was 6/11 from the field. Stockton was 1/6 in game 5 in a 6-point loss. Karl Malone had a huge game, Jeff Malone had a good one, Tyrone Corbin of all people had a fine game off the bench (28 points). And of course, that's also the game Drexler poked him in the eye, so he only played 23 minutes. He was garbage in Game 6 (5/19, 26.3%, 1/8 from 3) on a night when the Jazz shot 38.1% from the field.

Lost in 5 to the Sonics in 93. This was mostly before Payton's real breakout, it was his third season, but the Sonics were still elite at either end. The Jazz were solid. Seattle had a half-dozen guys scoring over 11 ppg in that series, and Utah let Sam Perkins grab 9.8 rpg against them, which is a little embarrassing. Stockton was... unremarkable. He shot a 45/38/83 and posted 13/11 on about 56% TS in a series where Utah was around -5 ORTG relative to their opponent. They needed more, didn't get it. Certainly, he wasn't alone in that regard; Karl Malone didn't shine and Jeff Malone smelled like a cat lady partying in a jar of cheese whiz. Sadly, both Stockton and Malone showed up in the elimination game but they just couldn't defend the Sonics. Stockton had what was generally speaking a big game for him, with a very efficient 19 points.

They lost to the 94 Rockets, still an unremarkable but solid offense. They were ranked 7th again. Not elite, again, apart from that blip in 92. Kenny Smith rained 3s all over them and of course Hakeem tore them apart. Karl Malone shot 43% on the series. Stockton shot a 41.5/26.5/78 for 14 ppg on 49.4% TS (Malone was at 26 ppg on 50.5% TS, across 44.8 mpg). So, again, unimpressive. Certainly not shouldering the burden all on his own, was Stockton, but definitely not giving them a chance to win. Definitely not that perimeter pressure to help open things up for everyone else. That wasn't what he brought to the table. There were diminishing returns to what he could offer a team offensively. If you could bust up their system, if you had size/athleticism, the natural things you'd expect happened with your short PG who didn't have physical advantages. Yeah, he had end to end quickness, for sure, but like, this is not the dude you were worried about popping off for 30 on you to save the day.

They took the Rockets to 5 games in the first round the next season. Utah was the 4th-ranked offense in 1995.Kenny Smith torched them again (17 ppg on 80.7% TS, 63.0% from 3 [minding that this was the first year the line was pulled in], 17/27 3P), and of course Drexler and Olajuwon ripped them apart. Particularly Hakeem (35 ppg, 60.6% TS), but Drexler put up 25 ppg on 72.1% TS. Malone had a good series. He tried to keep pace, managed 30 ppg on 55% TS and 9.3% TOV. Stockton had a solid series. Not solid enough to matter, but he posted 17.8 ppg on 54.6% TS, was 8/20 from 3. He just didn't provide a consequential secondary volume scorer to help match off Drexler while Malone tried to match Olajuwon. This is what people mean; Stockton was good, but he didn't have the punch when another team was really hitting Utah with scoring prowess.

96. Now we're talking 2nd-ranked offense, and without really leveraging the 3pt shot in general or the pulled-in line in particular (25th in 3PAr). Didn't matter, though, because they hit their shots at such a high rate and drew a ton of fouls. OKay. So they meet the Sonics in the WCFs. It goes 7 games. Payton trashes all over them in a grinder series at 86 possessions per game. Kemp shoots 69% from the field en route to 20 ppg. Malone couldn't hit a FT to save his damned life and Stockton couldn't hit anything to save his life, managing 9.9 ppg (4th on the team) on 39.7% FG, 20.0% 3P and 57.9% FT. He did try to put it together in the elimination game. While Malone crapped the bed in epic fashion, Stockton posted 22 on 9/15 shooting. It was his third double-digit scoring performance of the series and his first time over 14 points. On the series, he shot 2/10, 5/8, 2/9, 3/9, 1/6, 5/11 and 9/15. Not a banner series for him.

97. Malone cheats to get them into the Finals past the Rockets. They find themselves very much harried by the length and athleticism of the Bulls. Stockton plays a quiet, steady series while Malone wilts. Stockton is 2/5 in the second half of game 6 and is 0/1 in the 4th quarter while Chicago beats the pants off of them and goes +10 en route to the title. Shandon Anderson is 1/6 in the fourth quarter, outshooting both Karl Malone and John Stockton. Combined.



I'm with you; there are a couple of series where there isn't a reasonable expectation that they should have won. There are, however, a couple of series where it would have at least been more competitive a matchup if John had the tools to be a more dangerous scoring threat. For years and years, Utah wasn't actually an elite offense, merely a good one. They were missing some extra punch which he never provided. And that's really the bit people are looking at. That, and the playoffs.

[ReddoverKobe]

Are people actually arguing Thomas was a better PG then Stockton?

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

It's Thomas by a mile, unless Stockton gets to play Matt Maloney.