Where would Stockton rank as a point guard today

[NZB2323]

I have SGA, Luka, and Curry above him. The rest are either injured, unproven, or past their prime.

I know Stockton is going to play 82 games, be healthy in the playoffs, play defense, pass, shoot, and he isn’t afraid to take the big shot in the playoffs.

[OdomFan]

He'd have a good chance at being number 1 point guard pretty quickly as far as who the top true point guard is. Under a different coach maybe he shoots the ball more. People ignore or forget that this man could shoot very well. He was just very unselfish with it u inside of Coach Jerry Sloans system. Hey, it worked for him and them.

[watpho71]

John Stockton was a product of his environment, an era that demanded you represent a position on the court. And he was the prototypical pass-first point guard, who did it better than anyone. Offensive systems were more conservative and high percentage shots were deemed the goal in most schemes. There were so many tangibles to his game. He was not merely a boring, not flashy player. He set the best screens on the court. He was a pesky and almost shut-down defender that disrupted every opponent. His ball-handling skills were second to none and controlled the tempo of a game, it was his game. He was a leader. He was clutch. He would have no problems on the court in today's game, he would be just as prominent if not more. His work ethic alone would put players to shame.

[theonlyclutch]

I think he's referring to best TRUE PG...as in, pass first and running the offense, rather than score-first and reacting to the defense. CP3, Jason Kidd, Rondo, Steve Nash fit this mold.

'Pass-first' PGs as an archetype are obsolete in 2024 lol. In good teams there are often other playmakers who can do the job of scoring and playmaking at the same time. PGs that can't apply good scoring pressure in volume (and that's not Stockton and his career 13 ppg playoffs) just don't get to dominate the ball in a way that is necessary to rack up assist counts like they used to. The closest one is Haliburton and he's still a significantly more aggressive scorer, especially pre-injury.

didn't old cp3 lead the thunder to a fairly decent pretty much due to pass first pg play? i'd say there's plenty of teams that could thrive with stockton and passfirst pg play even in 2024

Ah, the 'I have a certain agenda I like to push so will just lie' crowd strikes again. CP3 in 2020 averaged 6 assists with the thunder and 5 assists in the playoffs, sharing playmaking duties with with Shai. In fact this is probably the season he played the least like Stockton.

The season he played most like Stockton in 2022 ended in a brutal playoff upset, so there's the connection to Stockton I suppose..

[chicago paxsons]

Lol over doncic ????????

I think he's referring to best TRUE PG...as in, pass first and running the offense, rather than score-first and reacting to the defense. CP3, Jason Kidd, Rondo, Steve Nash fit this mold.

'Pass-first' PGs as an archetype are obsolete in 2024 lol. In good teams there are often other playmakers who can do the job of scoring and playmaking at the same time. PGs that can't apply good scoring pressure in volume (and that's not Stockton and his career 13 ppg playoffs) just don't get to dominate the ball in a way that is necessary to rack up assist counts like they used to. The closest one is Haliburton and he's still a significantly more aggressive scorer, especially pre-injury.

I think you're misconstruing an obsolete archetype with an absent one. The fact is that pass-first point guards as effective as stockton were always a rarity. The kinds of players who were typically pass-first players throughout nba history were good passers with limited scoring ability. Those are the types of players that are obselete.

The problem is that doesn't describe stockton at all. He was never a typical pass-first point guard. He's more like steve nash in that he had offensive skills, shooting, getting to the line (despite limited shot attempts), but chose to facilitate instead of taking every shot.

These types of players are valuable, if incredibly rare, because they're portable with just about everyone since they have very few offensive weaknesses. Teams would love to have guys like stockton and nash running the offense even if they aren't putting up gawdy offensive numbers. The problem is that the number of players who are willing, and able, to run an offense effectively without wanting to take a shot every other possession are near nonexistent currently.

[benhillboy]

On the back third of his career when +/- was first quantifiable he posted a +8.9/ +10.8 on/net. He would’ve done whatever the hell he wanted to do on a modern NBA floor. Last I checked dribbling, passing, shooting, and defending at a high level can pay a few dividends.

[One_and_Done]

I think he's referring to best TRUE PG...as in, pass first and running the offense, rather than score-first and reacting to the defense. CP3, Jason Kidd, Rondo, Steve Nash fit this mold.

'Pass-first' PGs as an archetype are obsolete in 2024 lol. In good teams there are often other playmakers who can do the job of scoring and playmaking at the same time. PGs that can't apply good scoring pressure in volume (and that's not Stockton and his career 13 ppg playoffs) just don't get to dominate the ball in a way that is necessary to rack up assist counts like they used to. The closest one is Haliburton and he's still a significantly more aggressive scorer, especially pre-injury.

I think you're misconstruing an obsolete archetype with an absent one. The fact is that pass-first point guards as effective as stockton were always a rarity. The kinds of players who were typically pass-first players throughout nba history were good passers with limited scoring ability. Those are the types of players that are obselete.

The problem is that doesn't describe stockton at all. He was never a typical pass-first point guard. He's more like steve nash in that he had offensive skills, shooting, getting to the line (despite limited shot attempts), but chose to facilitate instead of taking every shot.

These types of players are valuable, if incredibly rare, because they're portable with just about everyone since they have very few offensive weaknesses. Teams would love to have guys like stockton and nash running the offense even if they aren't putting up gawdy offensive numbers. The problem is that the number of players who are willing, and able, to run an offense effectively without wanting to take a shot every other possession are near nonexistent currently.

His dribbling and shot creation is closer to TJ McConnell than it is to Steve Nash.

Stockton would likely be a top 30ish player today, but the quality of the league has improved alot. Stockton wouldn't be an all-star anymore.

[chicago paxsons]

'Pass-first' PGs as an archetype are obsolete in 2024 lol. In good teams there are often other playmakers who can do the job of scoring and playmaking at the same time. PGs that can't apply good scoring pressure in volume (and that's not Stockton and his career 13 ppg playoffs) just don't get to dominate the ball in a way that is necessary to rack up assist counts like they used to. The closest one is Haliburton and he's still a significantly more aggressive scorer, especially pre-injury.

I think you're misconstruing an obsolete archetype with an absent one. The fact is that pass-first point guards as effective as stockton were always a rarity. The kinds of players who were typically pass-first players throughout nba history were good passers with limited scoring ability. Those are the types of players that are obselete.

The problem is that doesn't describe stockton at all. He was never a typical pass-first point guard. He's more like steve nash in that he had offensive skills, shooting, getting to the line (despite limited shot attempts), but chose to facilitate instead of taking every shot.

These types of players are valuable, if incredibly rare, because they're portable with just about everyone since they have very few offensive weaknesses. Teams would love to have guys like stockton and nash running the offense even if they aren't putting up gawdy offensive numbers. The problem is that the number of players who are willing, and able, to run an offense effectively without wanting to take a shot every other possession are near nonexistent currently.

His dribbling and shot creation is closer to TJ McConnell than it is to Steve Nash.

Stockton would likely be a top 30ish player today, but the quality of the league has improved alot. Stockton wouldn't be an all-star anymore.

"His dribbling and shot creation is closer to TJ McConnell than it is to Steve Nash." Just plainly, objectively untrue.

As far as his dribbling, you're confusing flash for impact. Good dribblers, like mcconnell, and even great ones don't handle the ball as often as stockton did throughout his career while averaging under 3 turnovers a game. Only the very best ones do. And let's not pretend like stealing the ball was invented after stockton retired.

And where shot creation is concerned, you don't seem to get it. Stockton is a pass-first point guard by choice. He's looking to create shots for his teammates, not himself. And when he did get open he made his shots on high efficiency. That's what made him so impactful.

Of course if you're judging him solely on selfish "i'm gonna get my shots, situation be damned" mindsets, then you won't judge him properly since you don't even understand what he's trying to do on the court. In fact, players knew exactly what he was trying to do on offense for decades and couldn't stop him.

"Stockton would likely be a top 30ish player today, but the quality of the league has improved alot. Stockton wouldn't be an all-star anymore."

This statement is an admission that you either didn't watch stockton play or didn't understand in the slightest what he was doing on the court. In a league as pick and roll dominant and spaced out as the the league is now, stockton is exactly the kind of older generation player who would thrive and would certainly be recognized for it by anyone who cares about substance and effectiveness.

[Ol Roy]

Pete Maravich played before Stockton and was flashier, but he wasn't nearly as effective.

[SelfishPlayer]

One shot that true point guards had to perfect back then was the pull up free throw line jump shot. Without giving Stockton new skills, that would be part of the bread and butter for Stockton being highly productive in this era, running offensive sets built around him taking that shot which is an absolute layup for him. It would be similar to the Harden floater where he either takes it or throws a lob.

[KGtabake]

Here's a better question. What modern player plays like Stockton? Who is the archetype for his success?

Tyrese Haliburton.

I'm definitely taking Tyrese. Stockton never showed his shooting range for one thing, when Stockton shot nobody guarded the 3 much and it was relatively open shots. Tyres (and CP3) hit far higher degree of difficulty shots with ease.

Dude. Go to bed. You're tired.

[NBA4Lyfe]

Tj McConnell would be a great comp for stock today

[theonlyclutch]

John Stockton was a product of his environment, an era that demanded you represent a position on the court. And he was the prototypical pass-first point guard, who did it better than anyone. Offensive systems were more conservative and high percentage shots were deemed the goal in most schemes. There were so many tangibles to his game. He was not merely a boring, not flashy player. He set the best screens on the court. He was a pesky and almost shut-down defender that disrupted every opponent. His ball-handling skills were second to none and controlled the tempo of a game, it was his game. He was a leader. He was clutch. He would have no problems on the court in today's game, he would be just as prominent if not more. His work ethic alone would put players to shame.

Imagine saying Stockton, who shared 20 years of absolute health with an extremely productive, 2x MVP-winning big meshing with his playstyle super well, stable front office/coaching, good supporting players including DPOYs and former ASs, and won precisely nothing to show for it was "clutch". If Stockton was as good as leader as clutch as y'all say he'd have hardware considering how many times he got to roll the dice with good team situations, you'd think that guy would lead his team to a fluke one sometime but nope, he has as many rings as all the modern guards that's he supposedly so much better than.

Coming from much of the same crowd that has Jordan > Lebron cos rings, this is double standards at its finest.

[txusto]

Top 5 with multiple All Stars and All-Defensive Team selections, he's one of the most underrated Legends.

[One_and_Done]

John Stockton was a product of his environment, an era that demanded you represent a position on the court. And he was the prototypical pass-first point guard, who did it better than anyone. Offensive systems were more conservative and high percentage shots were deemed the goal in most schemes. There were so many tangibles to his game. He was not merely a boring, not flashy player. He set the best screens on the court. He was a pesky and almost shut-down defender that disrupted every opponent. His ball-handling skills were second to none and controlled the tempo of a game, it was his game. He was a leader. He was clutch. He would have no problems on the court in today's game, he would be just as prominent if not more. His work ethic alone would put players to shame.

Imagine saying Stockton, who shared 20 years of absolute health with an extremely productive, 2x MVP-winning big meshing with his playstyle super well, stable front office/coaching, good supporting players including DPOYs and former ASs, and won precisely nothing to show for it was "clutch". If Stockton was as good as leader as clutch as y'all say he'd have hardware considering how many times he got to roll the dice with good team situations, you'd think that guy would lead his team to a fluke one sometime but nope, he has as many rings as all the modern guards that's he supposedly so much better than.

Coming from much of the same crowd that has Jordan > Lebron cos rings, this is double standards at its finest.

This. I would respect the argument more if they thought Mailman and Sloan weren't that good. Otherwise how did 2 supposed MVPs play together for 20 years, with perfect health, and have so little to show for it? They didn't even make the finals until 97, and their record from say 88 to 93 is pretty meh for a team that supposedly had 2 MVPs. At times they even had a 3rd all-star (eg Eaton, Hornacek, J.Malone), and they had some decent role players. Despite that they have a tonne of 1st and 2nd round losses.

[bledredwine]

John Stockton was a product of his environment, an era that demanded you represent a position on the court. And he was the prototypical pass-first point guard, who did it better than anyone. Offensive systems were more conservative and high percentage shots were deemed the goal in most schemes. There were so many tangibles to his game. He was not merely a boring, not flashy player. He set the best screens on the court. He was a pesky and almost shut-down defender that disrupted every opponent. His ball-handling skills were second to none and controlled the tempo of a game, it was his game. He was a leader. He was clutch. He would have no problems on the court in today's game, he would be just as prominent if not more. His work ethic alone would put players to shame.

Imagine saying Stockton, who shared 20 years of absolute health with an extremely productive, 2x MVP-winning big meshing with his playstyle super well, stable front office/coaching, good supporting players including DPOYs and former ASs, and won precisely nothing to show for it was "clutch". If Stockton was as good as leader as clutch as y'all say he'd have hardware considering how many times he got to roll the dice with good team situations, you'd think that guy would lead his team to a fluke one sometime but nope, he has as many rings as all the modern guards that's he supposedly so much better than.

Coming from much of the same crowd that has Jordan > Lebron cos rings, this is double standards at its finest.

This. I would respect the argument more if they thought Mailman and Sloan weren't that good. Otherwise how did 2 supposed MVPs play together for 20 years, with perfect health, and have so little to show for it? They didn't even make the finals until 97, and their record from say 88 to 93 is pretty meh for a team that supposedly had 2 MVPs. At times they even had a 3rd all-star (eg Eaton, Hornacek, J.Malone), and they had some decent role players. Despite that they have a tonne of 1st and 2nd round losses.

First, it's not just rings, but all of the advanced metrics and a variety of angles that put Jordan ahead of Lebron. You can read all of that in the GOAT thread.

Second, it's hypocritical that you're both implying Stockton wasn't great because of hardware when you just mentioned the Lebron Jordan hardware comparison as unfair.

That makes no sense. Pick a take - does hardware matter or not?

I think it absolutely does but less so for a pass-first point guard like Stockton or Kidd who were excellent winners but had volume scorers on their team.

As a matter of fact, who are these unicorn PG's you're mentioning in the current league who have better careers or more hardware than John Stockton?

Kyrie and Steph. That's it.

Finally, Stockton does have accolades on defense. He's 2 time steals leader, 5 times all defense, and is both the all time assist leader and all tie steals leader in the NBA 3,286 steals Kidd coming in second at 2,684... and over 15,000 assists. That's much better than some of the scrubs starting right now. Top five, easy. With Stockton instead of Kyrie's subpar performance, Luka would have had a better shot at the chip this year.

[One_and_Done]

Imagine saying Stockton, who shared 20 years of absolute health with an extremely productive, 2x MVP-winning big meshing with his playstyle super well, stable front office/coaching, good supporting players including DPOYs and former ASs, and won precisely nothing to show for it was "clutch". If Stockton was as good as leader as clutch as y'all say he'd have hardware considering how many times he got to roll the dice with good team situations, you'd think that guy would lead his team to a fluke one sometime but nope, he has as many rings as all the modern guards that's he supposedly so much better than.

Coming from much of the same crowd that has Jordan > Lebron cos rings, this is double standards at its finest.

This. I would respect the argument more if they thought Mailman and Sloan weren't that good. Otherwise how did 2 supposed MVPs play together for 20 years, with perfect health, and have so little to show for it? They didn't even make the finals until 97, and their record from say 88 to 93 is pretty meh for a team that supposedly had 2 MVPs. At times they even had a 3rd all-star (eg Eaton, Hornacek, J.Malone), and they had some decent role players. Despite that they have a tonne of 1st and 2nd round losses.

First, it's not just rings, but all of the advanced metrics and a variety of angles that put Jordan ahead of Lebron. You can read all of that in the GOAT thread.

Second, it's hypocritical that you're both implying Stockton wasn't great because of hardware when you just mentioned the Lebron Jordan hardware comparison as unfair.

That makes no sense. Pick a take - does hardware matter or not?

I think it absolutely does but less so for a pass-first point guard like Stockton or Kidd who were excellent winners but had volume scorers on their team.

As a matter of fact, who are these unicorn PG's you're mentioning in the current league who have better careers or more hardware than John Stockton?

Kyrie and Steph. That's it.

Finally, Stockton does have accolades on defense. He's 2 time steals leader, 5 times all defense, and is both the all time assist leader and all tie steals leader in the NBA 3,286 steals Kidd coming in second at 2,684... and over 15,000 assists. That's much better than some of the scrubs starting right now. Top five, easy. With Stockton instead of Kyrie's subpar performance, Luka would have had a better shot at the chip this year.

I said the Jazz should 'have more to show for it', not that they had to win a ring. For instance, the Jazz won an average of 51 games from 1988-94. They were eliminated in the 1st round three times, and the 2nd round twice. The two years they made the WCFs they were spanked 1-4 and 2-4. How is that in line with the expected performance of 2 MVPs.

In the case of other players who came up short I might point to injuries, or a bad/suboptimal fit of players, or to strong opponents. None of that applies to Stockton and Malone. They had perfect health, their skillsets were completely aligned, the teams fit around them pretty well, they were well coached, and yet they were getting spanked in the playoffs and recording meh win seasons (for a team of 2 supposed MVPs).

It was only later that they played at the hoped for level, and this is ironically when Stockton wasn't in his prime and his drop off in 98 barely impeded the team. In 98 Stockton only played 64 games, and a mere 29mpg, yet the Jazz barely missed a beat; dropping from 64 wins the previous year to 62, and still making the finals. It suggests to me what MVP voters already knew; Mailman was the real engine of the Jazz success.

[SelfishPlayer]

Those Utah teams lacked talent. During the entire Stockton and Malone run, did the Jazz produce a single All Star wing player? The Jazz and the Clippers were the two franchises NBA players were the LEAST interested in playing for before Vancouver and Toronto came on the scene.

[One_and_Done]

Those Utah teams lacked talent. During the entire Stockton and Malone run, did the Jazz produce a single All Star wing player? The Jazz and the Clippers were the two franchises NBA players were the LEAST interested in playing for before Vancouver and Toronto came on the scene.

See that's just not true at all. Jeff Malone was an all-star wing. He didn't make an all-star team in Utah, but that was because there's only 1 ball to go around and you have to sacrifice for a team with 2 other all-stars. He was just as good as when he made all-star teams. Ditto Hornacek, who was even better. Eaton was an all-star and 2 time DPOY player and even got MVP votes in 2 different years.

There were also other good role players in those teams, like Thurl Bailey, Tyrone Corbin, etc. Also just how much help do 2 supposed MVP type players need? It's kind of ridiculous to look at all this and still be like 'yeh, but they needed an all-nba wing too!' Really? They needed a 3rd (or in some years 4th) all-star player to get out of the 1st or 2nd round? Nobody asks or cares about who the 4th man was on the Shaq-Kobe Lakers... because they have two MVP type players as their 1-2 punch. You shouldn't need much more after that.

[SelfishPlayer]

Those Utah teams lacked talent. During the entire Stockton and Malone run, did the Jazz produce a single All Star wing player? The Jazz and the Clippers were the two franchises NBA players were the LEAST interested in playing for before Vancouver and Toronto came on the scene.

See that's just not true at all. Jeff Malone was an all-star wing. He didn't make an all-star team in Utah, but that was because there's only 1 ball to go around and you have to sacrifice for a team with 2 other all-stars. He was just as good as when he made all-star teams. Ditto Hornacek, who was even better. Eaton was an all-star and 2 time DPOY player and even got MVP votes in 2 different years.

There were also other good role players in those teams, like Thurl Bailey, Tyrone Corbin, etc. Also just how much help do 2 supposed MVP type players need? It's kind of ridiculous to look at all this and still be like 'yeh, but they needed an all-nba wing too!' Really? They needed a 3rd (or in some years 4th) all-star player to get out of the 1st or 2nd round? Nobody asks or cares about who the 4th man was on the Shaq-Kobe Lakers... because they have two MVP type players as their 1-2 punch. You shouldn't need much more after that.

Jeff Hornacek and Jeff Malone were not wing players. Wings HAVE to be able to guard the small forward position. Those are just two guards. You are reaching. Shaq is better than Malone and Stockton COMBINED!