Stockton or Nash - who was better

[migya]

Use reasonings including metrics to compare Stockton and Nash. Who was better?

Clearly looks like Stockton but maybe there are numbers that favor Nash.

[ceiling raiser]

How do they compare in +/- stats?

[LukaTheGOAT]

Stockton definitely has the longevity edge; I tend to believe in the exponential value of MVP-level seasons compared to All-NBA level seasons, and therefore I would go Nash.

I think Nash is at worst like a top 7 offensive player ever, and despite how underwhelming he is on the other side of the ball; having a guy who is that caliber of offensive player is hard to pass up, considering I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

I take Nash for peak and an all-time sense. The only people who have an 8-year string of postseason offense as good as Nash are Shaq and Lebron (via backpicks).

Steve Nash was on a #1 offense for 9 years straight in his career, playing with Dirk and then becoming the #1 guy during this time span. This gives validity to the idea that Nash truly was a special driving force and could mesh with other high-end talent.

Nash's exploits on offense are exquisite and I haven't seen any proof and I haven't seen much suggest Stockton was an MVP-level force in the PS. I don't think he pressured defenses enough with his scoring/attacking of the rim.

That is part of the reason why the difference between them as scorers is so stark.

Read on Twitter

RAPM and APM figures are very kind to Nash.

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/rapm-by-player

At this link that goes up to 201e not only does Nash have the top peak offensive peak per RAPM ahead of arguably Peak Lebron, Peak Kobe, Peak Wade, etc., but he takes up multiple spots in the upper echelon.

According to Steve Ilardi's 04-09 APM, Steve Nash also has the highest offensive peak by QUITE the margin as well. https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/04-09-6-year-apm

The magnitude to which his offense explodes in these measures, to me, gives him a compelling argument.

Finally, a lot of people contribute Nash's success to D'Antoni's scheme; however Nash lead a top 10 offense ever in 2010 without D'Antoni

Underrated 2009-2010 Steve Nash:

▫️19.2 IA Pts/75
▫️11.0 AST
▫️3.3 REB
▫️+7.20 rTS%
▫️17.8 adjusted box creation
▫️9.5 adjusted passer rating

These numbers are pretty similar to his years with D'Antoni, and this was a season where he would turn 36 later on; when he was older and slower too compared to his 05-07 versions.

Read on Twitter

[migya]

Stockton definitely has the longevity edge; I tend to believe in the exponential value of MVP-level seasons compared to All-NBA level seasons, and therefore I would go Nash.

I think Nash is at worst like a top 7 offensive player ever, and despite how underwhelming he is on the other side of the ball; having a guy who is that caliber of offensive player is hard to pass up, considering I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

I take Nash for peak and an all-time sense. The only people who have an 8-year string of postseason offense as good as Nash are Shaq and Lebron (via backpicks).

Steve Nash was on a #1 offense for 9 years straight in his career, playing with Dirk and then becoming the #1 guy during this time span. This gives validity to the idea that Nash truly was a special driving force and could mesh with other high-end talent.

Nash's exploits on offense are exquisite and I haven't seen any proof and I haven't seen much suggest Stockton was an MVP-level force in the PS. I don't think he pressured defenses enough with his scoring/attacking of the rim.

That is part of the reason why the difference between them as scorers is so stark.

Read on Twitter

RAPM and APM figures are very kind to Nash.

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/rapm-by-player

At this link that goes up to 201e not only does Nash have the top peak offensive peak per RAPM ahead of arguably Peak Lebron, Peak Kobe, Peak Wade, etc., but he takes up multiple spots in the upper echelon.

According to Steve Ilardi's 04-09 APM, Steve Nash also has the highest offensive peak by QUITE the margin as well. https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/04-09-6-year-apm

The magnitude to which his offense explodes in these measures, to me, gives him a compelling argument.

Finally, a lot of people contribute Nash's success to D'Antoni's scheme; however Nash lead a top 10 offense ever in 2010 without D'Antoni

Underrated 2009-2010 Steve Nash:

▫️19.2 IA Pts/75
▫️11.0 AST
▫️3.3 REB
▫️+7.20 rTS%
▫️17.8 adjusted box creation
▫️9.5 adjusted passer rating

These numbers are pretty similar to his years with D'Antoni, and this was a season where he would turn 36 later on; when he was older and slower too compared to his 05-07 versions.

Read on Twitter

For plus/minus:

Stockton 97-03, age 34-40 - +8.9 on court, +10.8 on/off

Nash 97- 14, age 22-37 - +6.3 on court, +7.0 on/off

[ceoofkobefans]

I think it’s closer than most but I’d take Nash. Stockton has a huge longevity advantage but I think the peak gap is bigger

[ceoofkobefans]

Stockton definitely has the longevity edge; I tend to believe in the exponential value of MVP-level seasons compared to All-NBA level seasons, and therefore I would go Nash.

I think Nash is at worst like a top 7 offensive player ever, and despite how underwhelming he is on the other side of the ball; having a guy who is that caliber of offensive player is hard to pass up, considering I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

I take Nash for peak and an all-time sense. The only people who have an 8-year string of postseason offense as good as Nash are Shaq and Lebron (via backpicks).

Steve Nash was on a #1 offense for 9 years straight in his career, playing with Dirk and then becoming the #1 guy during this time span. This gives validity to the idea that Nash truly was a special driving force and could mesh with other high-end talent.

Nash's exploits on offense are exquisite and I haven't seen any proof and I haven't seen much suggest Stockton was an MVP-level force in the PS. I don't think he pressured defenses enough with his scoring/attacking of the rim.

That is part of the reason why the difference between them as scorers is so stark.

Read on Twitter

RAPM and APM figures are very kind to Nash.

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/rapm-by-player

At this link that goes up to 201e not only does Nash have the top peak offensive peak per RAPM ahead of arguably Peak Lebron, Peak Kobe, Peak Wade, etc., but he takes up multiple spots in the upper echelon.

According to Steve Ilardi's 04-09 APM, Steve Nash also has the highest offensive peak by QUITE the margin as well. https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/04-09-6-year-apm

The magnitude to which his offense explodes in these measures, to me, gives him a compelling argument.

Finally, a lot of people contribute Nash's success to D'Antoni's scheme; however Nash lead a top 10 offense ever in 2010 without D'Antoni

Underrated 2009-2010 Steve Nash:

▫️19.2 IA Pts/75
▫️11.0 AST
▫️3.3 REB
▫️+7.20 rTS%
▫️17.8 adjusted box creation
▫️9.5 adjusted passer rating

These numbers are pretty similar to his years with D'Antoni, and this was a season where he would turn 36 later on; when he was older and slower too compared to his 05-07 versions.

Read on Twitter

Nah I definitely think that Stockton is good at pressuring defenses and getting to the rim he was just too conservative with his scoring which kills his value

[AEnigma]

^If he is that conservative (especially in the postseason, then he is probably not pressuring the defence as much as the raw numbers suggests, no?

Anyway, we get this thread every couple of months. When are we going to have the Kobe versus Manu threads?

2003-14 Manu, regular season: .209 ws/48, 5.9 BPM, +10.6 on-court, +7.5 on/off
2000-11 Kobe, regular season: .196 ws/48, 5.6 BPM, +6 on-court, +7.1 on/off
2003-14 Manu, postseason: .170 ws/48, 5.2 BPM, +8.3 on-court, +11.2 on/off
2000-11 Kobe, postseason: .167 ws/48, 5.8 BPM, +4.1 on-court, +7.9 on/off

Wow, by the “metrics”, clearly looks like Manu, right?

[eminence]

If only Layden had stayed

[colts18]

I don't see Nash as clearly better than Stockton for peak. I think Stockton's peak is better than Nash's. He didn't have a roster constructed to focus on Offense to the detriment of defense like Nash did. I got Stockton's 10th best year, 1997, as comparable to Nash's 2006 MVP season.

John Stockton vs Peak Steve Nash

Team Context:

1997 Jazz- 90.0 Pace (17th), 11.0 3PA/Game (29th, last place), 35.7 3P% teammates (3.1 Made Per game)
2006 Suns- 95.8 Pace (1st), 25.6 3PA/Game (1st), 39.1 3P% teammates (8.4 Made Per Game)

Nash played in a much more favorable offensive environment to Stockton. Nash's team played fast and had 3 point shooters spreading the floor. By contrast, Stockton's teams were slow and took the least amount of 3 pointers in the league. Nash's teammates scored over 15 more PPG from 3 pointers which inflated Nash's team O rating compared to Stockton's. Could you imagine Stockton getting to play in a fast offense with 3 point shooters to spread the floor?

2006 was clearly an easier environment for perimeter players than 1997. All 10 of the top 10 scorers in 2006 were perimeter players. All 10 of them scored 25+ PPG on 54+ TS%. Only 3 perimeter players accomplished that in 1997 and a total of 4 players reached 25+ PPG. In 2006, 3 players reached 30+ PPG while no player accomplished that feat in 1997, not even Michael Jordan. It was clearly a more favorable environment for Nash in the post handchecking NBA.

Per Game stats:

Stockton- 35 MPG, 14.4 PPG, 10.5 AST-3.0 TOV, 55 FG%, 42 3P%, 65.4 TS% (+12 rTS%)
Nash- 35 MPG, 18.8 PPG, 10.5 AST-3.5 TOV, 51 FG, 44 3P%, 63.2 TS% (+9.6 rTS%)

The Per Game stats look pretty close. Both of them played an even amount of minutes. Nash scored better, but Stockton's passing and efficiency rated higher. Remember, Nash played on the fastest offense in the league while Stockton was on a slow offense. Stockton played 82 games while Nash played 79 so that's another slight edge for Stockton.If you adjust for pace, the numbers look close.


Per 75 Possessions:

Stockton- 16.4 PPG, 11.9 AST-3.5 TOV, 3.2 Reb, 2.3 STL
Nash- 20 PPG, 11.1 AST-3.7 TOV, 4.5 Reb, 0.8 STL

The Per game gap shrunk when you adjust for pace.

Advanced Stats:

Stockton- 6.6 BPM, 22.1 PER, .226 WS/48, 6.3 VORP
Nash- 5.0 BPM, 23.3 PER, .212 WS/48, 4.9 VORP

RAPM:

Stockton: 2.3 Off, 1.5 Def, 3.9 Tot
Nash: 2.2 Off, -0.4 Def, 1.9 Tot

When you look at both the box score advanced stats and the advanced impact data, Stockton beats out Nash on both counts. Stockton's offense comes out nearly equal to Nash's while Stockton's defense crushes Nash.


Playoffs:

This is where Stockton shined. Stockton stepped up his game in the 97 Playoffs.

Per 75 Possessions:

Stockton- 18.2 PPG, 10.7 AST-3.7 TOV, 4.4 Reb,1.9 STL, 62.7 TS% (+9.5 rTS%)
Nash- 19.9 PPG, 10.0 AST-3.5 TOV, 3.6 Reb, 0.4 STL, 61.5 TS% (+7.9 r TS%)

In the playoffs, Stockton passed better, was more efficient, had 5x more steals than Nash, and outrebounded Nash too. The gap is scoring volume was reduced during the postseason.

Average opponent in the playoffs:

Stockton- 57.2 Wins, 4.88 SRS, 104.0 D Rating
Nash- 50.2 Wins, 3.29 SRS, 104.8 D Rating

Stockton played tougher opponents in the playoffs. He played a 56 win Lakers team, 57 win Rockets team, and a 69 win Bulls team. Nash played a 45 win Lakers team, 47 win Clippers team, and a 60 win Mavericks team. Stockton's numbers look better when you account for the stiff opposition.

Team Results:

Stockton- 64-18, 7.97 SRS (2nd), 113.6 O Rating (2nd), 104.0 D Rating (9th)
Nash- 54-28, 5.48 SRS (4th), 111.5 O Rating (2nd), 105.6 D Rating (16th)

Playoff Team Results:

Stockton- 7.88 SRS, +6.9 Offense, -2.1 Defense, +9.0 Net relative to opponent
Nash- 4.19 SRS, +9.5 Offense, +4.5 Defense (bad), +5.0 Net relative to opponent

Stockton's team results beat out Nash's in the regular season. In the playoffs, that gap widens.

Playoff Advanced Stats:
Stockton- 7.8 BPM, 22.7 PER, .201 WS/48, 1.8 VORP
Nash- 3.7 BPM, 21.3 PER, .153 WS/48, 1.1 VORP

Once again, the gap between them widens in the playoffs for Stockton.

Clutch Play:

It would be wrong to mention 1997 Stockton without mentioning how clutch he was in that postseason. That was the year of Stockton's top career highlight, his buzzer beater in Game 6 vs Houston to send the Utah Jazz to their 1st NBA finals. What's forgotten is that Stockton carried the team for the whole 4th quarter. The Jazz were down by 10 points with 3:13 left in the 4th quarter when John Stockton decided to go into Beast Mode. He scores 13 points on 4-4 shooting with 2 Assists and a crucial steal that led to the layup that tied the game. He scored or assisted on all 19 of the Jazz points. He makes a clutch layup with 22 seconds left to tie the game. Then makes a 3 pointer at the buzzer to win the game.

Watch on YouTube

Then in Game 4 of the finals, he takes over the game in the 4th. He forces a critical steal off of Michael Jordan which leads to an easy 2 points. Later he throws his iconic full court baseball pass to Karl Malone for a layup that gives the Jazz the lead.

Watch on YouTube

Based on all of that, I don't see how anyone can rate Nash's 2006 season ahead of Stockton 1997's season. Stockton's statistical and impact stats edge Nash in the regular season and postseason. This season was peak Steve Nash when he won an MVP. 1997 was clearly not Stockton's best season and he still finishes ahead of Nash. In fact, 1997 is Stockton's 11th best season according BPM, 10th best according to PER, and 6th best season according to win shares. If Nash can't really beat out 34 year old Stockton in his 5th-10th best season, then I don't see how anyone can say that Stockton doesn't have a comparable peak.

Head to Head
Stockton: 14-8 W-L, 12 PPG, 9 AST-2.1 TOV, 3 Reb, 1.7 STL, 47 FG%, 44 3P%
Nash: 8-14 W-L, 11 PPG, 6 AST-3.0 TOV, 3 Reb, 0.5 STL, 40 FG%, 39 3P%

Stockton destroys Nash head to head despite being an old man. Nash struggled vs Stockton in a physical handchecking league.



Stockton is the best mid range shooter of this generation:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[ceoofkobefans]

Stockton definitely has the longevity edge; I tend to believe in the exponential value of MVP-level seasons compared to All-NBA level seasons, and therefore I would go Nash.

I think Nash is at worst like a top 7 offensive player ever, and despite how underwhelming he is on the other side of the ball; having a guy who is that caliber of offensive player is hard to pass up, considering I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

I take Nash for peak and an all-time sense. The only people who have an 8-year string of postseason offense as good as Nash are Shaq and Lebron (via backpicks).

Steve Nash was on a #1 offense for 9 years straight in his career, playing with Dirk and then becoming the #1 guy during this time span. This gives validity to the idea that Nash truly was a special driving force and could mesh with other high-end talent.

Nash's exploits on offense are exquisite and I haven't seen any proof and I haven't seen much suggest Stockton was an MVP-level force in the PS. I don't think he pressured defenses enough with his scoring/attacking of the rim.

That is part of the reason why the difference between them as scorers is so stark.

Read on Twitter

RAPM and APM figures are very kind to Nash.

https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/rapm-by-player

At this link that goes up to 201e not only does Nash have the top peak offensive peak per RAPM ahead of arguably Peak Lebron, Peak Kobe, Peak Wade, etc., but he takes up multiple spots in the upper echelon.

According to Steve Ilardi's 04-09 APM, Steve Nash also has the highest offensive peak by QUITE the margin as well. https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/04-09-6-year-apm

The magnitude to which his offense explodes in these measures, to me, gives him a compelling argument.

Finally, a lot of people contribute Nash's success to D'Antoni's scheme; however Nash lead a top 10 offense ever in 2010 without D'Antoni

Underrated 2009-2010 Steve Nash:

▫️19.2 IA Pts/75
▫️11.0 AST
▫️3.3 REB
▫️+7.20 rTS%
▫️17.8 adjusted box creation
▫️9.5 adjusted passer rating

These numbers are pretty similar to his years with D'Antoni, and this was a season where he would turn 36 later on; when he was older and slower too compared to his 05-07 versions.

Read on Twitter

For plus/minus:

Stockton 97-03, age 34-40 - +8.9 on court, +10.8 on/off

Nash 97- 14, age 22-37 - +6.3 on court, +7.0 on/off

Stocktons +/- data gets inflated by Jerry Sloan playing all of the starters together and all of the bench players together. There are very small samples of for example Malone playing without Stockton or Stockton playing without Malone

[penbeast0]

Stockton's data may be inflated by playing all the starters together, Nash's by playing starters out of position to create offensive mismatches deliberately sacrificing defense for offense. Nash is the better scorer (though not by a huge amount), Stockton the better defender (by a huge amount), Nash the more creative playmaker, Stockton the more reliable playmaker (it's harder to create a #1 offense when your C/SF are Ostertag and Byron Russell than when they are Amare and Joe Johnson), Nash has created more great offenses but Stockton pushed weaker offensive lineups a long way and once he got Hornacek for a 3rd competent offensive starter, Utah's lineups were very good offensively despite having 2 defensive specialists. I would rate them close, Stockton a little better running a set offense and as a playmaker overall, Nash better on broken plays or creating something from nothing. Stockton also adds the ironman advantage; Nash is not a perpetually injured guy but Stockton was ridiculous.

Overall, I have Stockton as the better player. Give him Phoenix's talent and coaching and give Nash Utah's and I think Phoenix gets a little better and Utah gets a little worse with the differential coming on the defensive end.

[SHAQ32]

I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

Why not?

[migya]

I don't see Nash as clearly better than Stockton for peak. I think Stockton's peak is better than Nash's. He didn't have a roster constructed to focus on Offense to the detriment of defense like Nash did. I got Stockton's 10th best year, 1997, as comparable to Nash's 2006 MVP season.

John Stockton vs Peak Steve Nash

Team Context:

1997 Jazz- 90.0 Pace (17th), 11.0 3PA/Game (29th, last place), 35.7 3P% teammates (3.1 Made Per game)
2006 Suns- 95.8 Pace (1st), 25.6 3PA/Game (1st), 39.1 3P% teammates (8.4 Made Per Game)

Nash played in a much more favorable offensive environment to Stockton. Nash's team played fast and had 3 point shooters spreading the floor. By contrast, Stockton's teams were slow and took the least amount of 3 pointers in the league. Nash's teammates scored over 15 more PPG from 3 pointers which inflated Nash's team O rating compared to Stockton's. Could you imagine Stockton getting to play in a fast offense with 3 point shooters to spread the floor?

2006 was clearly an easier environment for perimeter players than 1997. All 10 of the top 10 scorers in 2006 were perimeter players. All 10 of them scored 25+ PPG on 54+ TS%. Only 3 perimeter players accomplished that in 1997 and a total of 4 players reached 25+ PPG. In 2006, 3 players reached 30+ PPG while no player accomplished that feat in 1997, not even Michael Jordan. It was clearly a more favorable environment for Nash in the post handchecking NBA.

Per Game stats:

Stockton- 35 MPG, 14.4 PPG, 10.5 AST-3.0 TOV, 55 FG%, 42 3P%, 65.4 TS% (+12 rTS%)
Nash- 35 MPG, 18.8 PPG, 10.5 AST-3.5 TOV, 51 FG, 44 3P%, 63.2 TS% (+9.6 rTS%)

The Per Game stats look pretty close. Both of them played an even amount of minutes. Nash scored better, but Stockton's passing and efficiency rated higher. Remember, Nash played on the fastest offense in the league while Stockton was on a slow offense. Stockton played 82 games while Nash played 79 so that's another slight edge for Stockton.If you adjust for pace, the numbers look close.


Per 75 Possessions:

Stockton- 16.4 PPG, 11.9 AST-3.5 TOV, 3.2 Reb, 2.3 STL
Nash- 20 PPG, 11.1 AST-3.7 TOV, 4.5 Reb, 0.8 STL

The Per game gap shrunk when you adjust for pace.

Advanced Stats:

Stockton- 6.6 BPM, 22.1 PER, .226 WS/48, 6.3 VORP
Nash- 5.0 BPM, 23.3 PER, .212 WS/48, 4.9 VORP

RAPM:

Stockton: 2.3 Off, 1.5 Def, 3.9 Tot
Nash: 2.2 Off, -0.4 Def, 1.9 Tot

When you look at both the box score advanced stats and the advanced impact data, Stockton beats out Nash on both counts. Stockton's offense comes out nearly equal to Nash's while Stockton's defense crushes Nash.


Playoffs:

This is where Stockton shined. Stockton stepped up his game in the 97 Playoffs.

Per 75 Possessions:

Stockton- 18.2 PPG, 10.7 AST-3.7 TOV, 4.4 Reb,1.9 STL, 62.7 TS% (+9.5 rTS%)
Nash- 19.9 PPG, 10.0 AST-3.5 TOV, 3.6 Reb, 0.4 STL, 61.5 TS% (+7.9 r TS%)

In the playoffs, Stockton passed better, was more efficient, had 5x more steals than Nash, and outrebounded Nash too. The gap is scoring volume was reduced during the postseason.

Average opponent in the playoffs:

Stockton- 57.2 Wins, 4.88 SRS, 104.0 D Rating
Nash- 50.2 Wins, 3.29 SRS, 104.8 D Rating

Stockton played tougher opponents in the playoffs. He played a 56 win Lakers team, 57 win Rockets team, and a 69 win Bulls team. Nash played a 45 win Lakers team, 47 win Clippers team, and a 60 win Mavericks team. Stockton's numbers look better when you account for the stiff opposition.

Team Results:

Stockton- 64-18, 7.97 SRS (2nd), 113.6 O Rating (2nd), 104.0 D Rating (9th)
Nash- 54-28, 5.48 SRS (4th), 111.5 O Rating (2nd), 105.6 D Rating (16th)

Playoff Team Results:

Stockton- 7.88 SRS, +6.9 Offense, -2.1 Defense, +9.0 Net relative to opponent
Nash- 4.19 SRS, +9.5 Offense, +4.5 Defense (bad), +5.0 Net relative to opponent

Stockton's team results beat out Nash's in the regular season. In the playoffs, that gap widens.

Playoff Advanced Stats:
Stockton- 7.8 BPM, 22.7 PER, .201 WS/48, 1.8 VORP
Nash- 3.7 BPM, 21.3 PER, .153 WS/48, 1.1 VORP

Once again, the gap between them widens in the playoffs for Stockton.

Clutch Play:

It would be wrong to mention 1997 Stockton without mentioning how clutch he was in that postseason. That was the year of Stockton's top career highlight, his buzzer beater in Game 6 vs Houston to send the Utah Jazz to their 1st NBA finals. What's forgotten is that Stockton carried the team for the whole 4th quarter. The Jazz were down by 10 points with 3:13 left in the 4th quarter when John Stockton decided to go into Beast Mode. He scores 13 points on 4-4 shooting with 2 Assists and a crucial steal that led to the layup that tied the game. He scored or assisted on all 19 of the Jazz points. He makes a clutch layup with 22 seconds left to tie the game. Then makes a 3 pointer at the buzzer to win the game.

Watch on YouTube

Then in Game 4 of the finals, he takes over the game in the 4th. He forces a critical steal off of Michael Jordan which leads to an easy 2 points. Later he throws his iconic full court baseball pass to Karl Malone for a layup that gives the Jazz the lead.

Watch on YouTube

Based on all of that, I don't see how anyone can rate Nash's 2006 season ahead of Stockton 1997's season. Stockton's statistical and impact stats edge Nash in the regular season and postseason. This season was peak Steve Nash when he won an MVP. 1997 was clearly not Stockton's best season and he still finishes ahead of Nash. In fact, 1997 is Stockton's 11th best season according BPM, 10th best according to PER, and 6th best season according to win shares. If Nash can't really beat out 34 year old Stockton in his 5th-10th best season, then I don't see how anyone can say that Stockton doesn't have a comparable peak.

Head to Head
Stockton: 14-8 W-L, 12 PPG, 9 AST-2.1 TOV, 3 Reb, 1.7 STL, 47 FG%, 44 3P%
Nash: 8-14 W-L, 11 PPG, 6 AST-3.0 TOV, 3 Reb, 0.5 STL, 40 FG%, 39 3P%

Stockton destroys Nash head to head despite being an old man. Nash struggled vs Stockton in a physical handchecking league.



Stockton is the best mid range shooter of this generation:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Stockton's peak was better it just wasn't as hyped as Nash's. It's that ther are many seasons that can be considered Stockton's peak. Not considering defense, which Stockton was much better at, he is slightly better offensively, it was the setting of the slow paced, mostly half court offense of the Jazz that made Stockton a less scorer. The low talent on his teams, especially compared to Nash's Suns, makes it incredible that he got the assists that he did and the efficiency he did. Similar for Malone.

[migya]

Stockton's data may be inflated by playing all the starters together, Nash's by playing starters out of position to create offensive mismatches deliberately sacrificing defense for offense. Nash is the better scorer (though not by a huge amount), Stockton the better defender (by a huge amount), Nash the more creative playmaker, Stockton the more reliable playmaker (it's harder to create a #1 offense when your C/SF are Ostertag and Byron Russell than when they are Amare and Joe Johnson), Nash has created more great offenses but Stockton pushed weaker offensive lineups a long way and once he got Hornacek for a 3rd competent offensive starter, Utah's lineups were very good offensively despite having 2 defensive specialists. I would rate them close, Stockton a little better running a set offense and as a playmaker overall, Nash better on broken plays or creating something from nothing. Stockton also adds the ironman advantage; Nash is not a perpetually injured guy but Stockton was ridiculous.

Overall, I have Stockton as the better player. Give him Phoenix's talent and coaching and give Nash Utah's and I think Phoenix gets a little better and Utah gets a little worse with the differential coming on the defensive end.

Don't know where the evidence is showing Stockton playing with mostly the starters but can't see those Jazz teams holding up for 5 minutes any game with the bench they had. They were low talented. Phoenix gets much better with Stockton and Utah much worse with Nash. Opposition guards in the 90s would've run amok on Nash.

[theonlyclutch]

Stockton's data may be inflated by playing all the starters together, Nash's by playing starters out of position to create offensive mismatches deliberately sacrificing defense for offense. Nash is the better scorer (though not by a huge amount), Stockton the better defender (by a huge amount), Nash the more creative playmaker, Stockton the more reliable playmaker (it's harder to create a #1 offense when your C/SF are Ostertag and Byron Russell than when they are Amare and Joe Johnson), Nash has created more great offenses but Stockton pushed weaker offensive lineups a long way and once he got Hornacek for a 3rd competent offensive starter, Utah's lineups were very good offensively despite having 2 defensive specialists. I would rate them close, Stockton a little better running a set offense and as a playmaker overall, Nash better on broken plays or creating something from nothing. Stockton also adds the ironman advantage; Nash is not a perpetually injured guy but Stockton was ridiculous.

Overall, I have Stockton as the better player. Give him Phoenix's talent and coaching and give Nash Utah's and I think Phoenix gets a little better and Utah gets a little worse with the differential coming on the defensive end.

Don't know where the evidence is showing Stockton playing with mostly the starters but can't see those Jazz teams holding up for 5 minutes any game with the bench they had. They were low talented. Phoenix gets much better with Stockton and Utah much worse with Nash. Opposition guards in the 90s would've run amok on Nash.

Stockton's minutes fell off by ~5+ minutes every game from 97 onwards and Utah's record stayed largely intact for the next few seasons before age affected the core as a whole.

[migya]

Stockton's data may be inflated by playing all the starters together, Nash's by playing starters out of position to create offensive mismatches deliberately sacrificing defense for offense. Nash is the better scorer (though not by a huge amount), Stockton the better defender (by a huge amount), Nash the more creative playmaker, Stockton the more reliable playmaker (it's harder to create a #1 offense when your C/SF are Ostertag and Byron Russell than when they are Amare and Joe Johnson), Nash has created more great offenses but Stockton pushed weaker offensive lineups a long way and once he got Hornacek for a 3rd competent offensive starter, Utah's lineups were very good offensively despite having 2 defensive specialists. I would rate them close, Stockton a little better running a set offense and as a playmaker overall, Nash better on broken plays or creating something from nothing. Stockton also adds the ironman advantage; Nash is not a perpetually injured guy but Stockton was ridiculous.

Overall, I have Stockton as the better player. Give him Phoenix's talent and coaching and give Nash Utah's and I think Phoenix gets a little better and Utah gets a little worse with the differential coming on the defensive end.

Don't know where the evidence is showing Stockton playing with mostly the starters but can't see those Jazz teams holding up for 5 minutes any game with the bench they had. They were low talented. Phoenix gets much better with Stockton and Utah much worse with Nash. Opposition guards in the 90s would've run amok on Nash.

Stockton's minutes fell off by ~5+ minutes every game from 97 onwards and Utah's record stayed largely intact for the next few seasons before age affected the core as a whole.

From 98-02 They had some good veterans that made a big difference. Before then Stockton and Malone, lesser extent Hornacek, carried those teams.

[AEnigma]

1997: 75% of minutes played with Malone
1998: 84% of minutes played with Malone
1999: 89% of minutes played with Malone
2000: 92% of minutes played with Malone
2001: 87% of minutes played with Malone
2002: 85% of minutes played with Malone
2003: 90% of minutes played with Malone

Poor guy!

[LukaTheGOAT]

I don't believe Stockton was ever an MVP level guy.

Why not?

I just don't think his offense is comparable to many of the other guards I would consider MVP level. He just is a much lesser scorer, and while a great passer, doesn't force enough reactions from the defense.

[theonlyclutch]

Don't know where the evidence is showing Stockton playing with mostly the starters but can't see those Jazz teams holding up for 5 minutes any game with the bench they had. They were low talented. Phoenix gets much better with Stockton and Utah much worse with Nash. Opposition guards in the 90s would've run amok on Nash.

Stockton's minutes fell off by ~5+ minutes every game from 97 onwards and Utah's record stayed largely intact for the next few seasons before age affected the core as a whole.

From 98-02 They had some good veterans that made a big difference. Before then Stockton and Malone, lesser extent Hornacek, carried those teams.

Utah's roster from '97 to '98, by MPG:
Karl Malone -> Karl Malone
John Stockton -> Jeff Hornacek
Jeff Hornacek -> John Stockton
Bryon Russell -> Bryon Russell
Greg Ostertag -> Adam Keefe
Antoine Carr -> Howard Eisley
Shandon Anderson -> Greg Ostertag
Adam Keefe -> Shandon Anderson
Chris Morris -> Greg Foster
Howard Eisley -> Antoine Carr

9 of the top 10 players in MPG from '97 were on the '98 team as well, and the sole outliers were still on both year's roster. So why did the same players go from players who needed to be carried by Malone/Stockton/Hornacek to being "good veterans who made a big difference"?

[penbeast0]

Curious, if you go back to 97, where do you rank Russell among starting SFs? Where do you rank Ostertag among starting Cs? You can do the same exercise for other Jazz starters Felton Spencer, Adam Keefe, David Benoit, aging Jeff Malone, Darrell Griffith (there are a few others but those are the main ones I can think of off the top of my head). What you have are centers and SFs who don't score and SGs who score but not well. Stockton and Malone played with two players who might be considered above average (both were to my mind marginal all-stars) in Mark Eaton (who didn't help the offense of course) and Jeff Hornacek. Nor were the benches ever anything to celebrate. It's a tough situation for a PG, even with Karl Malone there, because it makes for a predictable offense, whether your PG is John Stockton or Steve Nash.

Nash's best years were with the Suns and he's an amazing player and one of the top 5 guys in history I'd want running my offense (as is Stockton). Let's look at the talent he played with:

2004-2005: Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, Amare Stoudamire, Quinten Richardson plus Jim Jackson and Leandro Barbosa off the bench.
2005=2006: (Amare injured), Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, Barbosa, Kurt Thomas, Tim Thomas, James Jones, Eddie House -- still a lot of guys who can shoot though few that create their own offense.
2006-2007 Marion, Bell, Stoudamire, Barbosa, Diaw, James Jones, Kurt Thomas
2008 Marion, Bell, Stoudamire, Grant Hill, Barbosa, Shaq, Diaw, Giricek
2009 (D'antoni gone) Stoudamire, Jason Richardson, Bell, Shaq, Hill, Matt Barnes, Diaw, Barbosa
2010 Stoudamire, Richardson, Hill, Channing Frye, Jared Dudley, Robin Lopez, Goran Dragic, Barbosa,
2011 (offense finally drops to 9th with Amare gone) Frye, Hill, Marcin Gortat, Vince Carter, Dudley, Hedo Turkoglu, plus about 5 guys playing 15-20 mpg including nominal starter Robin Lopez.
2012 (9th again) Gortat, Dudley, Hill, Frye, Shannon Brown, Markieff Morris, Michael Redd

They drop to 29th in the league in offense with Dragic given the PG slot and Nash gone which shows Nash's great impact.


That's a lot of offensive minded talent who can shoot around Nash. Nash made it work better than almost anyone in history could have but he had weapons to work with is the point.