Stockton for 10 seasons or Magic for 6 seasons?

[SHAQ32]

Assume you're running the organization. Would you rather have prime John Stockton for 10 seasons or Prime Magic Johnson for 6 seasons?

[falcolombardi]

Magic imo. Much easier to build a championship team around him assuming similar levels of talent in a team.

[No-more-rings]

Magic pretty easily. Presuming Magic’s best 6 year stretch was roughly 85-90, you’re talking five 60+ win teams, 3 championships and 4 finals runs.

We can talk about supporting casts and other factors, but it’s highly unlikely you’d ever achieve that kind of success in even 10 years of Stockton as your franchise piece.

[penbeast0]

Much as I love Stockton and deep as those Lakers were with Kareem, Worthy, Cooper, Scott, etc., hard to believe it's going to beat out one of the most successful teams in NBA history without some strong reason to think so. Especially when post-Magic Lakers lose other talent and pre-Magic prime Lakers have Norm Nixon who would be an even worse fit with Stockton. On the other hand, I don't think Magic significantly improves the Jazz though having a second scoring option would help a bit. Enough to beat the Bulls in those 2 finals? Iffy.

But OP seems to imply random team, not subbing in Stockton for Magic on the Lakers. If you add either to an expansion team but Magic only plays the 1st 6 seasons and Stockton plays 10, it's pretty clearly Stockton but that's another slanted scenario. With a random team with enough talent to be a contender, drop it to 4 seasons and I'll take Stockton, 5 and I'd guess it's a wash.

[Doctor MJ]

So I think the key thing for me in these sort of debates is this:

When you're building a team to try to peak as a champion, what kind of time frame are you expecting to focus on?

The Warriors recently have been trying to have their cake and eat it too by building up a "now" and "later", but I think we can clearly see that the later has cost the now with this approach, and this is what we should expect basically in any 21st century circumstance.

In general I tend to think that you're looking for around a 5-year window, and so when choosing between players, stuff that goes much beyond that essentially just becomes a tie breaker for me.

So, by general principles, I'd favor the better player for 6 over the worse player for 10.

[AEnigma]

Almost certainly Magic, but I suppose with a large enough salary difference I could entertain taking Stockton. For example, if prime Stockton were my fourth to sixth highest salary player, then that would make that decision a lot easier.

[Owly]

So I think the key thing for me in these sort of debates is this:

When you're building a team to try to peak as a champion, what kind of time frame are you expecting to focus on?

The Warriors recently have been trying to have their cake and eat it too by building up a "now" and "later", but I think we can clearly see that the later has cost the now with this approach, and this is what we should expect basically in any 21st century circumstance.

In general I tend to think that you're looking for around a 5-year window, and so when choosing between players, stuff that goes much beyond that essentially just becomes a tie breaker for me.

So, by general principles, I'd favor the better player for 6 over the worse player for 10.

I don't know, too me, and I could be reading this wrong, this seems to assume one paradigm that I'm not certain is necessarily the case.

So know your window is conceptually good. GS not doing that (and arguably cutting "short term" directed money [Payton, Porter] rather than "long term" directed money [dumping youngsters showing nothing]) might have cost them, not that this year was any kind of guarantee nor that they can't do anything now. But yeah I would be among those saying ride out your actual now window if you know there's one now rather than betting on high picks that haven't shown anything. Knowing your window is good.

I'm not sure Magic necessarily gives you a known window. If you just get him as a rookie, have his best 6 years then like IRL he has HIV ... you were probably expecting him for another ... X years. You might even have a contract and then maybe you can claim it back off the cap but maybe that's messy? So I guess you're saying "I take an in advance known 6 year window over an in advance known 10, rather than a one where the years are evaluated in retrospect?

You should target a known window but how accurately can teams anticipate windows ahead of time: Portland of the late 2000s decade were expecting to be good. Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Fernandez, Bayless (Outlaw and Webster had been HS picks so still youngish, some liked Rodriguez). Hollinger and Ford's future rankings of November 2009 for the '11, '12 and '13 seasons liked their roster 2nd best and overall 1st for that window. They would transpire to be below average for that window.

May '13 (now Chad Ford, Amin Elhassan, Tom Haberstroh and Kevin Pelton) same project looking at '14, '15, '16. IRL in two of those years GSW will be the dominant force in basketball. They're ranked 5th in roster, 5th overall, 8th management. And that after a huge boost, previously around the offseason before the 12-13 campaign, predicting for the same window (14-16) they're 19th overall, 16th in roster. People didn't see this coming.

So (1) I think you're assuming that you're taking Magic for 6 with the knowledge in advance of "we're getting him for these 6 years" and the end point and I don't know that that's the only framing and (2) whilst targeting a window is good, situations on your own team and elsewhere can rapidly change and then a short window could disappear if there's an injury or two or a huge roadblock.


First glance I suspect it's Magic and certainly that the consensus will be Magic. His last 5 years have 4 great box years, the shooting comes on ... given the gap between Magic and Stockton in most rankings I don't think it's because Stockton's years 11-17 (some really strong years though probably some lower minutes ones. and then '86 isn't bad) are much worse than what's left of Magic (5 full years trending around 70 rs games - especially if you took the top 6 VORP years - and then two partial years). So this is definitely going to be people picking Magic. If salaries are circa equal (not really a given otoh but... how things trend in the individual max era) there's something like exponential value to great players because teams need to be great to really get up there in title odds. Still with Stockton's impact signal and longevity and consistency of very high level play I do sometimes wonder if he's underrated.

[Doctor MJ]

So I think the key thing for me in these sort of debates is this:

When you're building a team to try to peak as a champion, what kind of time frame are you expecting to focus on?

The Warriors recently have been trying to have their cake and eat it too by building up a "now" and "later", but I think we can clearly see that the later has cost the now with this approach, and this is what we should expect basically in any 21st century circumstance.

In general I tend to think that you're looking for around a 5-year window, and so when choosing between players, stuff that goes much beyond that essentially just becomes a tie breaker for me.

So, by general principles, I'd favor the better player for 6 over the worse player for 10.

I don't know, too me, and I could be reading this wrong, this seems to assume one paradigm that I'm not certain is necessarily the case.

So know your window is conceptually good. GS not doing that (and arguably cutting "short term" directed money [Payton, Porter] rather than "long term" directed money [dumping youngsters showing nothing]) might have cost them, not that this year was any kind of guarantee nor that they can't do anything now. But yeah I would be among those saying ride out your actual now window if you know there's one now rather than betting on high picks that haven't shown anything. Knowing your window is good.

I'm not sure Magic necessarily gives you a known window. If you just get him as a rookie, have his best 6 years then like IRL he has HIV ... you were probably expecting him for another ... X years. You might even have a contract and then maybe you can claim it back off the cap but maybe that's messy? So I guess you're saying "I take an in advance known 6 year window over an in advance known 10, rather than a one where the years are evaluated in retrospect?

You should target a known window but how accurately can teams anticipate windows ahead of time: Portland of the late 2000s decade were expecting to be good. Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Fernandez, Bayless (Outlaw and Webster had been HS picks so still youngish, some liked Rodriguez). Hollinger and Ford's future rankings of November 2009 for the '11, '12 and '13 seasons liked their roster 2nd best and overall 1st for that window. They would transpire to be below average for that window.

May '13 (now Chad Ford, Amin Elhassan, Tom Haberstroh and Kevin Pelton) same project looking at '14, '15, '16. IRL in two of those years GSW will be the dominant force in basketball. They're ranked 5th in roster, 5th overall, 8th management. And that after a huge boost, previously around the offseason before the 12-13 campaign, predicting for the same window (14-16) they're 19th overall, 16th in roster. People didn't see this coming.

So (1) I think you're assuming that you're taking Magic for 6 with the knowledge in advance of "we're getting him for these 6 years" and the end point and I don't know that that's the only framing and (2) whilst targeting a window is good, situations on your own team and elsewhere can rapidly change and then a short window could disappear if there's an injury or two or a huge roadblock.


First glance I suspect it's Magic and certainly that the consensus will be Magic. His last 5 years have 4 great box years, the shooting comes on ... given the gap between Magic and Stockton in most rankings I don't think it's because Stockton's years 11-17 (some really strong years though probably some lower minutes ones. and then '86 isn't bad) are much worse than what's left of Magic (5 full years trending around 70 rs games - especially if you took the top 6 VORP years - and then two partial years). So this is definitely going to be people picking Magic. If salaries are circa equal (not really a given otoh but... how things trend in the individual max era) there's something like exponential value to great players because teams need to be great to really get up there in title odds. Still with Stockton's impact signal and longevity and consistency of very high level play I do sometimes wonder if he's underrated.

Some good thoughts here.

Overarching thing is that you don't know in general what will happen in the future. Portland didn't pan out first and foremost because their superstar talent didn't pan out, which in theory could happen with your Magic or Stockton prospects too.

With this in mind, if you're doing an apples to apples comparison, the question is either:

a) Would you rather build your franchise around a tiers higher player over less time?

or

b) would you rather draft your franchise around a tiers higher prospect even if you think he might have longevity issues down the road?

In either case, it would have to be a very special set of circumstance for me to say "Please give me the less talented player."

Re: Stockton impact signals. But those signals come late in his career when he's playing in smaller minutes and is never the guy they are really counting on in the clutch. This is why back when we got those signals some of us said:

"This may indeed indicate that Stockton > Malone, but until we see evidence along these lines in their primes, I'll err on the side of primacy and consensus."

And the of course we did get more data, and Malone > Stockton through the real '90s Jazz era, which is the era that really makes them relevant.

ftr, I think Stockton is just about your dream if you're looking for an old vet who won't make a lot of mistakes to set the pace for a club whose focus is on developing younger players, but I do I want him to lead the offense I'm hoping will win me championships? Not if I'm comparing him to someone like Magic I don't.

[Cavsfansince84]

Big gap between a guy who is going to be arguably the best player in the league for 6 seasons or close enough to it and a guy who is more like top 10ish I would say. Now I don't know if this scenario is taking place in the 80's/90's or today but maybe you could argue that Stockton would be better today with the more shoot first mindset many pgs have but Magic would still be very dominant and shooting more 3's as well(which he learned to do well enough).

[tsherkin]

Magic, no question for me.

[kcktiny]

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[Colbinii]

I would take 3 years of Magic.

[migya]

Much as I love Stockton and deep as those Lakers were with Kareem, Worthy, Cooper, Scott, etc., hard to believe it's going to beat out one of the most successful teams in NBA history without some strong reason to think so. Especially when post-Magic Lakers lose other talent and pre-Magic prime Lakers have Norm Nixon who would be an even worse fit with Stockton. On the other hand, I don't think Magic significantly improves the Jazz though having a second scoring option would help a bit. Enough to beat the Bulls in those 2 finals? Iffy.

But OP seems to imply random team, not subbing in Stockton for Magic on the Lakers. If you add either to an expansion team but Magic only plays the 1st 6 seasons and Stockton plays 10, it's pretty clearly Stockton but that's another slanted scenario. With a random team with enough talent to be a contender, drop it to 4 seasons and I'll take Stockton, 5 and I'd guess it's a wash.

I understand your take and somewhat agree but you also stated an important point, that Magic probably isn't making those Jazz teams any better in place of Stockton. Stockton is one of the players who is most difficult to truly see how valuable he was. For those Jazz teams to win average of 55 games for a 12-13 year stretch, into Stockton's late 30s, with the low talent they had, is extraordinary. Had they had the talent the 80s Lakers did they likely win 96-98 and another one in the early 90s, probably 92. Stockton's impact is shown in the metrics and is among the best ever.

[AEnigma]

Prime Stockton alone might be enough of an improvement to swing the 1998 Finals; how are we questioning whether prime Magic would be enough?

[ShaqAttac]

magic ez

[Laimbeer]

Showtime wins no titles with Stockton. Magic/Malone win one, anyway.

[Owly]

So I think the key thing for me in these sort of debates is this:

When you're building a team to try to peak as a champion, what kind of time frame are you expecting to focus on?

The Warriors recently have been trying to have their cake and eat it too by building up a "now" and "later", but I think we can clearly see that the later has cost the now with this approach, and this is what we should expect basically in any 21st century circumstance.

In general I tend to think that you're looking for around a 5-year window, and so when choosing between players, stuff that goes much beyond that essentially just becomes a tie breaker for me.

So, by general principles, I'd favor the better player for 6 over the worse player for 10.

I don't know, too me, and I could be reading this wrong, this seems to assume one paradigm that I'm not certain is necessarily the case.

So know your window is conceptually good. GS not doing that (and arguably cutting "short term" directed money [Payton, Porter] rather than "long term" directed money [dumping youngsters showing nothing]) might have cost them, not that this year was any kind of guarantee nor that they can't do anything now. But yeah I would be among those saying ride out your actual now window if you know there's one now rather than betting on high picks that haven't shown anything. Knowing your window is good.

I'm not sure Magic necessarily gives you a known window. If you just get him as a rookie, have his best 6 years then like IRL he has HIV ... you were probably expecting him for another ... X years. You might even have a contract and then maybe you can claim it back off the cap but maybe that's messy? So I guess you're saying "I take an in advance known 6 year window over an in advance known 10, rather than a one where the years are evaluated in retrospect?

You should target a known window but how accurately can teams anticipate windows ahead of time: Portland of the late 2000s decade were expecting to be good. Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Batum, Fernandez, Bayless (Outlaw and Webster had been HS picks so still youngish, some liked Rodriguez). Hollinger and Ford's future rankings of November 2009 for the '11, '12 and '13 seasons liked their roster 2nd best and overall 1st for that window. They would transpire to be below average for that window.

May '13 (now Chad Ford, Amin Elhassan, Tom Haberstroh and Kevin Pelton) same project looking at '14, '15, '16. IRL in two of those years GSW will be the dominant force in basketball. They're ranked 5th in roster, 5th overall, 8th management. And that after a huge boost, previously around the offseason before the 12-13 campaign, predicting for the same window (14-16) they're 19th overall, 16th in roster. People didn't see this coming.

So (1) I think you're assuming that you're taking Magic for 6 with the knowledge in advance of "we're getting him for these 6 years" and the end point and I don't know that that's the only framing and (2) whilst targeting a window is good, situations on your own team and elsewhere can rapidly change and then a short window could disappear if there's an injury or two or a huge roadblock.


First glance I suspect it's Magic and certainly that the consensus will be Magic. His last 5 years have 4 great box years, the shooting comes on ... given the gap between Magic and Stockton in most rankings I don't think it's because Stockton's years 11-17 (some really strong years though probably some lower minutes ones. and then '86 isn't bad) are much worse than what's left of Magic (5 full years trending around 70 rs games - especially if you took the top 6 VORP years - and then two partial years). So this is definitely going to be people picking Magic. If salaries are circa equal (not really a given otoh but... how things trend in the individual max era) there's something like exponential value to great players because teams need to be great to really get up there in title odds. Still with Stockton's impact signal and longevity and consistency of very high level play I do sometimes wonder if he's underrated.

Some good thoughts here.

Overarching thing is that you don't know in general what will happen in the future. Portland didn't pan out first and foremost because their superstar talent didn't pan out, which in theory could happen with your Magic or Stockton prospects too.

With this in mind, if you're doing an apples to apples comparison, the question is either:

a) Would you rather build your franchise around a tiers higher player over less time?

or

b) would you rather draft your franchise around a tiers higher prospect even if you think he might have longevity issues down the road?

In either case, it would have to be a very special set of circumstance for me to say "Please give me the less talented player."

Re: Stockton impact signals. But those signals come late in his career when he's playing in smaller minutes and is never the guy they are really counting on in the clutch. This is why back when we got those signals some of us said:

"This may indeed indicate that Stockton > Malone, but until we see evidence along these lines in their primes, I'll err on the side of primacy and consensus."

And the of course we did get more data, and Malone > Stockton through the real '90s Jazz era, which is the era that really makes them relevant.

ftr, I think Stockton is just about your dream if you're looking for an old vet who won't make a lot of mistakes to set the pace for a club whose focus is on developing younger players, but I do I want him to lead the offense I'm hoping will win me championships? Not if I'm comparing him to someone like Magic I don't.

Briefly:
I don’t know whether “real” means going back to 97 or inc 94-97.
Fwiw, I’ll trust a “trustworthy” long term RAPM for separating value over individual interpretations, though I do get aggregating over years (needed to get more reliable data) does lose something of the distinction between different versions of players. And the 97-14 sample does have Stockton significantly ahead.
I will say I would expect post-Hornacek arrival Stockton becomes less contextually valuable as there’s another high level player who can do a lot of the same things well (pass, shoot, avoid mistakes, heady play) who’s capable of playing the same position (or fulfilling much of the same role). And more valuable again when Hornacek goes.
Re-earlier on off
94-96 does tilt significantly pro Malone.
Career to 93 versus 76ers tilts massively pro-Stockton but in such a small sample that an unweighted aggregate career to 96 tilts slightly Malone. If one thinks versus one team is junky and focus on 94-96 maybe you see a clear separation. If you see Stockton’s large margin and fairly consistent yearly advantage in the yearly (i.e. 2 game) versus 76ers samples (Malone has narrow edges in ’87 and ’92) versus 76ers sample as something broadly indicative of that earlier era (one might mentally say until Malone increased his passing load if one wanted a play type anchor to justify, or perhaps the Hornacek thing) then even regressing Stockton back to earth (on-off +29.58561 per 48 in versus 76ers sample) one might see Stockton amassing a significant lead.
IDK what to do with this.
And given Stockton has
a) Generally strong impact signals
b) The non-box things that fit well (shooting/spacing, passing, defense, perhaps the low mistake stuff, doesn’t require shots for impact) including and perhaps especially on good teams.
c) A top say 5 years (88-91,95) where he’s generally between 23 and 24 PER, between .230 and 240 WS/48, between 8 and 9 BPM (how many pgs can match or better this?)
I don’t know … like I say I do wonder if he’s underrated. Perhaps whether he is tiers (plural, though this is very abstract) behind Magic … though for Magic’s apex years I can probably go with this…
Interpretations, weightings of playoffs can differ, how one deals with salaries can differ.
Like I say I tilt Magic, especially focused on these apex years (that peak is higher) … I just wonder sometimes if I’m going along with it.

[Clyde Frazier]

Even as a big longevity guy and Stockton being the poster boy for it, I still think this is Magic comfortably. I consider Magic the exception to the rule when it comes to shorter primes. He was just that good, a true basketball anomaly.

[rk2023]

I don't know if I'm more concerned about this question being asked, or for the 4 voters whom selected Stockton.

[Doctor MJ]

Briefly:
I don’t know whether “real” means going back to 97 or inc 94-97.
Fwiw, I’ll trust a “trustworthy” long term RAPM for separating value over individual interpretations, though I do get aggregating over years (needed to get more reliable data) does lose something of the distinction between different versions of players. And the 97-14 sample does have Stockton significantly ahead.
I will say I would expect post-Hornacek arrival Stockton becomes less contextually valuable as there’s another high level player who can do a lot of the same things well (pass, shoot, avoid mistakes, heady play) who’s capable of playing the same position (or fulfilling much of the same role). And more valuable again when Hornacek goes.
Re-earlier on off
94-96 does tilt significantly pro Malone.
Career to 93 versus 76ers tilts massively pro-Stockton but in such a small sample that an unweighted aggregate career to 96 tilts slightly Malone. If one thinks versus one team is junky and focus on 94-96 maybe you see a clear separation. If you see Stockton’s large margin and fairly consistent yearly advantage in the yearly (i.e. 2 game) versus 76ers samples (Malone has narrow edges in ’87 and ’92) versus 76ers sample as something broadly indicative of that earlier era (one might mentally say until Malone increased his passing load if one wanted a play type anchor to justify, or perhaps the Hornacek thing) then even regressing Stockton back to earth (on-off +29.58561 per 48 in versus 76ers sample) one might see Stockton amassing a significant lead.
IDK what to do with this.
And given Stockton has
a) Generally strong impact signals
b) The non-box things that fit well (shooting/spacing, passing, defense, perhaps the low mistake stuff, doesn’t require shots for impact) including and perhaps especially on good teams.
c) A top say 5 years (88-91,95) where he’s generally between 23 and 24 PER, between .230 and 240 WS/48, between 8 and 9 BPM (how many pgs can match or better this?)
I don’t know … like I say I do wonder if he’s underrated. Perhaps whether he is tiers (plural, though this is very abstract) behind Magic … though for Magic’s apex years I can probably go with this…
Interpretations, weightings of playoffs can differ, how one deals with salaries can differ.
Like I say I tilt Magic, especially focused on these apex years (that peak is higher) … I just wonder sometimes if I’m going along with it.

I think that when the primacy of the Jazz is tipping more and more to Karl Malone and Karl Malone is the guy contending for and eventually winning MVPs, that when you then see that Karl Malone is leading the raw +/- in most years, it's just really hard to favor Stockton over Malone regardless of the unknown RAPMs of the time.

I also have to acknowledge I've never used pre-93-94 Pollack data except when evaluating 76ers. Happy to listen to your thoughts on the matter but yeah, sample is just really problematic for me.

Re: makes sense Stockton becomes less contextually valuable with Hornacek there. While I applaud looking at contextual developments like this, to me the way Stockton's minutes go down cannot be blamed on Hornacek. You can always blame Sloan, as Stockton supporters do mercilessly, but in terms of what we actually saw, it was a team that doubled down on Malone while playing Stockton considerably less than norms at the time and it resulting in the best results of that run.

Re: how many PGs can do better than these PER/BPM stats? There's no doubt that Stockton shines in these metrics, and that these metrics have caused people on the internet to ask "Was Stockton better than X?". While I've never dismissed these questions out of hand, suffice to say, there's more to the game than the box score and it takes quite a lot for me to go against the consensus of the time.

Re: really tiers plural behind Magic? Certainly debatable, but what I definitely see as the case is that when Stockton was racking up those huge APG numbers, he wasn't doing it by pulling rabbits out of the hat. The offensive scheme in Utah produced a lot of opportunities for assists for the point guard even before Stockton was a starter, and that offensive scheme wasn't a particularly robust one in the playoffs against the most flexible of defense.

Again, you can blame Sloan and say that Stockton could have done more, and I'm not saying you're wrong to think that...but it's definitely not a situation where "Stockton in the Sloan offense" represents some floor for what Stockton's APG would be under various coaches. It was the scheme in Utah that put Stockton in a place to rack up so many assists, and while it's entirely possible Stockton would have been more valuable had things been run differently, I do think it's important not double count "He got the most assists despite having a hand tied behind his back." You don't put up numbers like that in an assist-deflating environment. In most situations, he's racking up less assists, and probably getting weaker advanced box score stats.