John Stockton vs James Harden

[Narigo]

Who do you have higher all-time?

[SNPA]

Stockton’s assists and steals record wins out here IMO. Defense counts too.

Although I read an interest article about a year ago talking about how stats used to be kept and how Utah was giving Stockton very generous numbers. But still…

[Colbinii]

Super close--when the next project happens I am excited to see where they end up.

[penbeast0]

Stockton’s assists and steals record wins out here IMO. Defense counts too.

Although I read an interest article about a year ago talking about how stats used to be kept and how Utah was giving Stockton very generous numbers. But still…

Someone posted the actual numbers here of home assists v. away assists and Stockton was pretty normal in that respect. The outlier ATGs were Magic who got very favorable home treatment and if I remember right, Nash who got relatively unfavorable home treatment though not sure I remember that right.

[VanWest82]

The only reason this is even close is because as underwhelming as Stockton was at times in the postseason, Harden gives Mailman a run for his money in that regard. But like Mailman, Harden should have two MVPs. He was the far more impactful player in his prime.

[1993Playoffs]

Harden was far better in his prime imo.

[migya]

Harden is all boxscore numbers, Stockton is all real positive effect.

[kcktiny]

Hard to compare players at different positions, but Stockton's defense was much better, both his shot defense and his ability to force turnovers. Both were great on offense for what they did, but Stockton's defense tells me he was a better PG than Harden was a SG.

[HeartBreakKid]

Hard to compare players at different positions, but Stockton's defense was much better, both his shot defense and his ability to force turnovers. Both were great on offense for what they did, but Stockton's defense tells me he was a better PG than Harden was a SG.

Their positions are not really all that different....Harden was mostly an SG in name.

[VanWest82]

Harden is all boxscore numbers, Stockton is all real positive effect.

[f4p]

Unless one really, really, really values longevity, it's hard to see this as being that close, with harden winning handily. if the complaint is that harden falls off in the playoffs, then i'm not sure how stockton comes out looking any better. his first 3 WCF's are pretty bad, including scoring 33 total points in the first 5 games of the 1996 WCF. and if trying to beat the 1997/98 bulls is tough, meet the KD warriors.

if we're talking peak production, stockton never even sniffed an MVP, topping out at 7/8/9 finishes and never over 0.045 MVP shares. harden of course needed pretty terrible voter luck to not win multiple MVP's and, even still, is currently 12th all-time in MVP shares.

and arguably the more 30,000 foot view. stockton played 18 seasons, in which he was essentially injury free, with perfect prime overlap with a top 25 all-time player, who was also injury free. and didn't win a title. and didn't even win the west until most of the other powers had aged out. he was on a 2-star team in a western conference that, post-Showtime, was essentially a bunch of 1-star-plus-role-players conference in a league that, outside of chicago, was also a 1-star-plus-role players league. without any seasons ruined by injury. and didn't win. he got to be the 2nd best player on his team for 18 years. and didn't win. the closest prime harden got to being the 2nd best player on his team was either the 2021 nets, who had horrible injury luck, or being the best player with 2018 chris paul as 2nd best player, and that team was a juggernaut when they were both healthy and far better than any utah team. so you either have to be way, way lower on malone than most people are (like he's not even top 40) or it's really hard to see how a 2nd star with perfect health who couldn't win a title is above a 1st option who got every bit as close to winning and had his best chance ruined by a teammate's hamstring.

[Jaivl]

Agree with the general sentiment, Harden is the much better player prime vs prime, but are close in terms of careers due to Stockton's enormous prime and very useful post-prime years.

and arguably the more 30,000 foot view. stockton played 18 seasons, in which he was essentially injury free, with perfect prime overlap with a top 25 all-time player, who was also injury free. and didn't win a title. and didn't even win the west until most of the other powers had aged out. he was on a 2-star team in a western conference that, post-Showtime, was essentially a bunch of 1-star-plus-role-players conference in a league that, outside of chicago, was also a 1-star-plus-role players league. without any seasons ruined by injury. and didn't win.

I mean, yeah? So they got to the Finals and then to win the title they had to beat Chicago, who, as you acknowledge, also had 2 stars (but better ones) + incredible depth. Also, that's late-prime or even post-prime Stockton. Missing completely over the 90-95 period feels much more jarring, if you were to use such arguments (IMO the 1995 loss is the only glaring one).

[f4p]

Agree with the general sentiment, Harden is the much better player prime vs prime, but are close in terms of careers due to Stockton's enormous prime and very useful post-prime years.

and arguably the more 30,000 foot view. stockton played 18 seasons, in which he was essentially injury free, with perfect prime overlap with a top 25 all-time player, who was also injury free. and didn't win a title. and didn't even win the west until most of the other powers had aged out. he was on a 2-star team in a western conference that, post-Showtime, was essentially a bunch of 1-star-plus-role-players conference in a league that, outside of chicago, was also a 1-star-plus-role players league. without any seasons ruined by injury. and didn't win.

I mean, yeah? So they got to the Finals and then to win the title they had to beat Chicago, who, as you acknowledge, also had 2 stars (but better ones) + incredible depth. Also, that's late-prime or even post-prime Stockton. Missing completely over the 90-95 period feels much more jarring, if you were to use such arguments (IMO the 1995 loss is the only glaring one).

it was late (early?) and i was kind of combining ideas, but i think we agree. stockton and malone kind of get the "would have won except for jordan" label, while ignoring that they were together for 11 injury-free years from '86-'96 and never even got out of the west, which was not exactly full of juggernauts. 1994 and 1995 were the perfect time to strike, especially getting the 1995 rockets in the first round before we really got going in the later rounds. and who knows how the 7-game 1996 WCF goes if stockton isn't averaging only 9.9/7.6 on 39.7/20.0/57.9 shooting splits. they even won one game where he put up 4 and 6 on 1-6 shooting so he basically got a free win to work with.

and as you mention, even if they did beat chicago, it would be hard to say how much credit stockton gets. the last 4 games of the 1998 finals, he averaged 6.5 ppg on 34/14/50 shooting splits.

[No-more-rings]

So i think that’s a pretty good comparison. Both guys are probably top 30 or so, but not sure where exactly I’d put both.

I’d probably take Harden, his peak is considerably better and he’s not short on longevity at this point. 2013-2020 is 8 straight years of legit all nba level, with 2017-2020 as legit mvp caliber years. Stockton has a ton of all star and all nba years himself, but I don’t really think he’s ever had a legit argument as a top 5 player or anything but I may need to take a closer look.

[G35]

While others can debate the stats, I will go the fit, culture route. Harden has been in multiple good situations, some he screwed up and others he didn't get the job done.

Stockton stayed in Utah, a franchise that is not a free agent destination and management that did not go out and maximize the window for his two HOF's. The Jazz were expected to improve internally. Stockton squeezed the best out of the Jazz teams and came as close as you can come to beating the Jordan Bulls.

I take Stockton if I want a chance at a title, I take Harden if you want to talk about stats......

[NBA4Lyfe]

Hard to compare players at different positions, but Stockton's defense was much better, both his shot defense and his ability to force turnovers. Both were great on offense for what they did, but Stockton's defense tells me he was a better PG than Harden was a SG.

harden would have a much easier time guarding stock, than stock would of guarding harden

harden will be seen as a top 20 guy easily in same range as barkley in 25 years

[penbeast0]

Stockton will give you considerably better team defense than Harden (or Barkley), his strength wasn't his man coverage but his ability to anticipate and disrupt; that and he didn't get caught standing around not paying attention on that end the way Harden (and Barkley) seem to all too often.

I'd rather have Stockton for a team with enough talent to have a reasonable shot at a title than Barkley too unless that team is already built around a great PG. His two way game and unselfish play trump the two great scorers great scoring skills but lazy defense for a talented team.

Similarly for a new team starting out, I'd take Stockton first. He wouldn't lift the team as fast but would develop the talents of the rest of the members of the team more and maximize your chance of developing that second or third star because of the type of game he has.

For a team that needs a primary scorer to have a shot, then Barkley and Harden become more valuable. Stockton isn't going to fill that role. It depends on needs.

[f4p]

i thought for a second harden was going to win a poll on the PC board, but phew. i think we're up to 13 or 14 straight that i've seen him lose. which is kind of amazing when you consider polls are usually only made when a degree of uncertainty is expected. even with an early 7-3 lead for harden, we've now seen a 13-5 swing for stockton with basically no one posting. even though i don't necessarily agree with them, i kind of see how the kobe fans feel about this place. when a good board with good conversations like this just picks winners and losers and won't let go (see duncan/kg/steph on the other side), it gets kind of frustrating that you can't get good conversations about those players.

I'd rather have Stockton for a team with enough talent to have a reasonable shot at a title than Barkley too unless that team is already built around a great PG.

he played a million years with karl malone in a league where few teams had a great duo like utah. that seems like a reasonable shot. why all the struggles? why not even getting out of the west until stockton had become a more diminished player? barkley got his 1st good team in 1993 and went straight to the finals. and even put up better fights against 1994/95 houston than utah did. harden got his best teammate in cp3 and immediately had a better team than any utah (or barkley) team. and still went toe to toe with the warriors the following year with cp3 falling off. imagine if harden/barkley got to be the second best players on their teams for a decade plus. i have to imagine that is creating amazing teams.

Similarly for a new team starting out, I'd take Stockton first. He wouldn't lift the team as fast but would develop the talents of the rest of the members of the team more and maximize your chance of developing that second or third star because of the type of game he has.

so he can't floor raise like those guys, but he'll ceiling raise is the presumption? again, he had a million years already playing with a star and a very stable coaching situation. if the jazz could have developed a 3rd star from nothing, they would have ruled the league. and they didn't. if he's the kind who can develop a star, then why didn't he.

it feels like you are giving stockton credit for results he would produce in hypothetical situations. except they aren't even hypotheticals, they are things he lived. and he didn't produce those results.

[Johnlac1]

"why not even getting out of the west until stockton had become a more diminished player?"

Hello, the LA Showtime Lakers? Even so. Utah came very close to beating peak Lakers in the '88 playoffs. In a seven game conference semi final series Stockton had 29 pts. and 20 assists in game seven.
Which leads me to my greatest criticism of Stockton...he simply didn't shoot enough...especially threes. 20-20 hindsight, but he should have taken more shots per game especially more three balls.
Other posters have cited that taking Harden over Stockton depended on the teammates. With a lot of good scorers, you want Stockton. On a team that needs a top scorer, you want Harden.
Again, Stockton was not as good a scoring machine as Harden, but he could have easily scored more pts. for the Jazz shooting three balls which few teams at the time used to best effect. The Jazz played the Bulls tough in two finals despite losing in six games both times. The Jazz simply didn't have the firepower of the Bulls.
Even so, how many finals has Harden been in? One. He choked during the 2011 series against Miami.
So lets not get too exuberant with Harden praise when he's only been in one final where he choked.

[penbeast0]

...

Similarly for a new team starting out, I'd take Stockton first. He wouldn't lift the team as fast but would develop the talents of the rest of the members of the team more and maximize your chance of developing that second or third star because of the type of game he has.

so he can't floor raise like those guys, but he'll ceiling raise is the presumption? again, he had a million years already playing with a star and a very stable coaching situation. if the jazz could have developed a 3rd star from nothing, they would have ruled the league. and they didn't. if he's the kind who can develop a star, then why didn't he.

it feels like you are giving stockton credit for results he would produce in hypothetical situations. except they aren't even hypotheticals, they are things he lived. and he didn't produce those results.

It's a fair critique but I do believe that a pass first point guard who busts his butt on defense has a much better chance to develop talent around him than a scoring machine who is lazy or unfocused on defense. It just seems logical though logic is an imperfect guide to the NBA.

As for talent around him, Karl Malone was great, Jeff Hornacek was very good late in Stockton's career, Mark Eaton was the definition of limited one dimensional (and the likes of Felton Spencer and Mark Olberding were even worse) plus the other wings Stockton played with . . . Benoit, Russell, Griffith, aging Jeff Malone were consistently weak.

Houston had some decent players outside the big two and while they had one impressive season better than Utah did, Utah was more consistently good and Houston accomplished less, not more, in the playoffs. His playoff failures are a legit critique of Stockton, just don't think you can hold Harden up as a superior playoff star in comparison.

P.S. you want Harden to win a comp, put him up against Iverson. AI is never the answer here that I remember except once when they comp was Pete Maravich. He lost to Chauncey Billups which would be an interesting matchup for Harden and one I'd favor Harden in.