Where would Stockton rank as a point guard today

[iggymcfrack]

What is sadly not surprising is that people in this very thread pretending that doesn't matter and stating his defense would fully translate. Just about every modern premier PG has either size and/or athleticism on Stockton with enough skill to capitalize,

And we have seen smaller guys like Paul and Trae and so forth struggle with larger guys as well, so it isn't an odd extension to believe the same of someone like Stockton. That he might give it back on the other end is, of course, another consideration, but still. It'd definitely be a point of contention which would change his relative value.

Career DRAPM goes back 27 years. Chris Paul leads all PGs in DRAPM over that sample. Statistically, he's the best defensive PG in the NBA since play-by-play data became available. Using him as an example of why Stockton's defense wouldn't translate today is laughable. Also, in 2002 at age 39, Stockton had the 2nd best DRAPM of any guard in the league behind only Doug Christie:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201024055612/https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-rapm

Do you really think the league's changed that much over the last 22 years that it would go from Stockton being elite at Chris Paul's age to him suddenly being a liability in his prime? This is 2 years before LeBron came into the league. It's not exactly ancient history. I'd say the Kidd, Paul, and Stockton are the 3 best defensive PGs in the history of the league and I certainly don't think moving one of them forward a few years would make a major disruption to their value.

[OriAr]

Are people actually saying Stockton was anything but a great shooter? Stockton, who had multiple years of shooting above 40% behind the 3 point line, who, based on the data we have, shot 50% from long 2, is somehow not a great shooter?
Stockton today would have had absolutely bonkers efficiency, 50/46/85 for 70% TS with increased 3 point rate is very much a possible shooting splits for him.
Some of the disrespect here is amazing.

[tsherkin]

Career DRAPM goes back 27 years. Chris Paul leads all PGs in DRAPM over that sample. Statistically, he's the best defensive PG in the NBA since play-by-play data became available. Using him as an example of why Stockton's defense wouldn't translate today is laughable. Also, in 2002 at age 39, Stockton had the 2nd best DRAPM of any guard in the league behind only Doug Christie:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201024055612/https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2002-rapm

Do you really think the league's changed that much over the last 22 years that it would go from Stockton being elite at Chris Paul's age to him suddenly being a liability in his prime? This is 2 years before LeBron came into the league. It's not exactly ancient history. I'd say the Kidd, Paul, and Stockton are the 3 best defensive PGs in the history of the league and I certainly don't think moving one of them forward a few years would make a major disruption to their value.

So, part one, I didn't say he would be a liability. But yes, I do think there are large, meaningful differences in how things operate now. Still, I think Stockton ate it enough in his own prime that what we're really describing is what was already happening, tbf. I don't put a lot of stock (excuse the pun) in DRAPM, or RAPM in general, however.

[tsherkin]

You always say stuff like "I don't agree with One and Done", but on closer inspection you often do, or the difference is so minor as to be one of degrees. I said Stockton would be maybe a top 25-30 player today. You have him about there too I assume?

Because you speak with a degree of disparagement which I cannot get behind, and I find it really frustrating the language you choose to use around those players. Your venom, of course, often masks a semi-reasonable opinion, I"ll grant you that, but it's a positioning with which I cannot really relate.

[One_and_Done]

You always say stuff like "I don't agree with One and Done", but on closer inspection you often do, or the difference is so minor as to be one of degrees. I said Stockton would be maybe a top 25-30 player today. You have him about there too I assume?

Because you speak with a degree of disparagement which I cannot get behind, and I find it really frustrating the language you choose to use around those players. Your venom, of course, often masks a semi-reasonable opinion, I"ll grant you that, but it's a positioning with which I cannot really relate.

So to summarise, you do in fact agree with where I rate Stockton.

[tsherkin]

You always say stuff like "I don't agree with One and Done", but on closer inspection you often do, or the difference is so minor as to be one of degrees. I said Stockton would be maybe a top 25-30 player today. You have him about there too I assume?

Because you speak with a degree of disparagement which I cannot get behind, and I find it really frustrating the language you choose to use around those players. Your venom, of course, often masks a semi-reasonable opinion, I"ll grant you that, but it's a positioning with which I cannot really relate.

So to summarise, you do in fact agree with where I rate Stockton.

No, I 'd rank him higher than that. You say 25-30. I think he'd probably be more like top 15, top 20. I can understand some of your opinion, of course: you're very much against allowing older players any sense of adaptation into the modern environment, since that implies things they didn't actually do in their own careers, but Stockton wasn't an idiot. I doubt he'd fail to leverage the 3 and his general shooting ability, and the tempo certainly wouldn't be an issue for him. In his own career, as has already been discussed ITT, he had issues with larger and more athletic guards. Switching would keep that relevant, no doubt. But likewise, modern offense would leverage his ability inside the PnR that much more anyhow, so I think that's a net positive for his impact.

[Swindle]

He’s comfortably in the top 10 pgs all-time so I don’t see how he isn’t at least top 5 in any given era. Other than the obvious HoF playmaking he can also shoot and defend so great pick-up for any team

[One_and_Done]

Because you speak with a degree of disparagement which I cannot get behind, and I find it really frustrating the language you choose to use around those players. Your venom, of course, often masks a semi-reasonable opinion, I"ll grant you that, but it's a positioning with which I cannot really relate.

So to summarise, you do in fact agree with where I rate Stockton.

No, I 'd rank him higher than that. You say 25-30. I think he'd probably be more like top 15, top 20. I can understand some of your opinion, of course: you're very much against allowing older players any sense of adaptation into the modern environment, since that implies things they didn't actually do in their own careers, but Stockton wasn't an idiot. I doubt he'd fail to leverage the 3 and his general shooting ability, and the tempo certainly wouldn't be an issue for him. In his own career, as has already been discussed ITT, he had issues with larger and more athletic guards. Switching would keep that relevant, no doubt. But likewise, modern offense would leverage his ability inside the PnR that much more anyhow, so I think that's a net positive for his impact.

What's your top 15-20 with Stockton today?

The GB just did a project rating the top 30 players, so tell which of these guys you have below Stockton.

1. Jokic
#2. Luka
#3. Giannis
#4. Shai
#5. Joel Embiid
#6. Jayson Tatum
#7. Steph Curry
#8. Jalen Brunson
#9. Anthony Edwards
#10. Lebron James
#11. Anthony Davis
#12. KD
#13. Wemby
#14. Jaylen Brown
#15. Tyrese Haliburton
#16. Devin Booker
#17. Kawhi Leonard
#18. Donavan Mitchell
#19. Ja Morant
#20. Jimmy Butler
#21. Kyrie Irving
#22. Domantas Sabonis
#23. Zion Williamson
#24. Dame Lillard
#25. Paul George
#26. Tyrese Maxey
#27. Bam
#28. D. Fox
#29. Rudy Gobert
#30. Pascal Siakam

[MavsDirk41]

So to summarise, you do in fact agree with where I rate Stockton.

No, I 'd rank him higher than that. You say 25-30. I think he'd probably be more like top 15, top 20. I can understand some of your opinion, of course: you're very much against allowing older players any sense of adaptation into the modern environment, since that implies things they didn't actually do in their own careers, but Stockton wasn't an idiot. I doubt he'd fail to leverage the 3 and his general shooting ability, and the tempo certainly wouldn't be an issue for him. In his own career, as has already been discussed ITT, he had issues with larger and more athletic guards. Switching would keep that relevant, no doubt. But likewise, modern offense would leverage his ability inside the PnR that much more anyhow, so I think that's a net positive for his impact.

What's your top 15-20 with Stockton today?

Lol whats telling is that he called you out for your negative bias towards players of the past (because you are too young to have watched them play) but you get on here and act like you are some kind of basketball savant without any bias whatsoever. Ranking players across different eras of the nba is more than just looking up advanced stats on basketball reference.

[MavsDirk41]

Top 5 is a REAL stretch. He does not have the ball handling abilities that are needed today to be a top level guard. He'd probably do better being a shooting guard or some type of combo than the pure point that he was. It's just the nature of guards needing to be elite creators for themselves in the current NBA. I say maybe top 15. There's no way I can get him above: Steph, Luka, Shai, Brunson, Hali, Maxey, Ja, Dame, Fox, Trae, Ky.

Doesnt have the ball handling skills lol?? What??? Stockton was an elite ball handler and playmaker. If you want to criticize him because of his small frame and lack of athleticism i can see that. But he was a terrific ball handler.

Also, when did SGA become a point guard? Kyrie Irving isnt a point guard either. He is a SG in a point guards body. Maxey hasnt proven anything. Lilliard is getting old. I would take Stockton over Fox, Young, and Haliburton without question. That leaves Luka and Curry. Brunson is great but im still taking Stockton.

[moderndarwin]

If the point of basketball is to win games he’d be one of the best players in the league. He is not the raw stats guy that a Luka or Giannis is but as the Draymond type complementary guy to a scorer he’d be absolutely elite. If you put prime Stockton on the Wolves and replaced Conley they be the clear cut heavy favorites to win the chip imo. His decision making is not just elite it’s arguably the best of all time. He is the all time leader in dimes and assists. Basketball is about micro adjustments and body control. He’s like a pg version of Jokic. He doesn’t need blazing speed he uses things like change of pace to create a tiny advantage and then threads the needle at perfect pace and space to a scorer. And if you cheat off him he’s a deadeye marksmen. It’s like some of you didn’t actually watch him play. Same with defense. He’s strong, huge hands, amazing anticipation etc. this some crazy talk going on in here.

[Reeko]

When a guy like Gary Payton speaks so glowingly of a player and star after star talk about how hellish it was going up against said player, that should tell you all you need to know about John Stockton.

[Broadcaster]

So to summarise, you do in fact agree with where I rate Stockton.

No, I 'd rank him higher than that. You say 25-30. I think he'd probably be more like top 15, top 20. I can understand some of your opinion, of course: you're very much against allowing older players any sense of adaptation into the modern environment, since that implies things they didn't actually do in their own careers, but Stockton wasn't an idiot. I doubt he'd fail to leverage the 3 and his general shooting ability, and the tempo certainly wouldn't be an issue for him. In his own career, as has already been discussed ITT, he had issues with larger and more athletic guards. Switching would keep that relevant, no doubt. But likewise, modern offense would leverage his ability inside the PnR that much more anyhow, so I think that's a net positive for his impact.

What's your top 15-20 with Stockton today?

The GB just did a project rating the top 30 players, so tell which of these guys you have below Stockton.

1. Jokic
#2. Luka
#3. Giannis
#4. Shai
#5. Joel Embiid
#6. Jayson Tatum
#7. Steph Curry
#8. Jalen Brunson
#9. Anthony Edwards
#10. Lebron James
#11. Anthony Davis
#12. KD
#13. Wemby
#14. Jaylen Brown
#15. Tyrese Haliburton
#16. Devin Booker
#17. Kawhi Leonard
#18. Donavan Mitchell
#19. Ja Morant
#20. Jimmy Butler
#21. Kyrie Irving
#22. Domantas Sabonis
#23. Zion Williamson
#24. Dame Lillard
#25. Paul George
#26. Tyrese Maxey
#27. Bam
#28. D. Fox
#29. Rudy Gobert
#30. Pascal Siakam

Can I just ask how old you are?

[MavsDirk41]

If the point of basketball is to win games he’d be one of the best players in the league. He is not the raw stats guy that a Luka or Giannis is but as the Draymond type complementary guy to a scorer he’d be absolutely elite. If you put prime Stockton on the Wolves and replaced Conley they be the clear cut heavy favorites to win the chip imo. His decision making is not just elite it’s arguably the best of all time. He is the all time leader in dimes and assists. Basketball is about micro adjustments and body control. He’s like a pg version of Jokic. He doesn’t need blazing speed he uses things like change of pace to create a tiny advantage and then threads the needle at perfect pace and space to a scorer. And if you cheat off him he’s a deadeye marksmen. It’s like some of you didn’t actually watch him play. Same with defense. He’s strong, huge hands, amazing anticipation etc. this some crazy talk going on in here.

Well said sir!

[MavsDirk41]

So to summarise, you do in fact agree with where I rate Stockton.

No, I 'd rank him higher than that. You say 25-30. I think he'd probably be more like top 15, top 20. I can understand some of your opinion, of course: you're very much against allowing older players any sense of adaptation into the modern environment, since that implies things they didn't actually do in their own careers, but Stockton wasn't an idiot. I doubt he'd fail to leverage the 3 and his general shooting ability, and the tempo certainly wouldn't be an issue for him. In his own career, as has already been discussed ITT, he had issues with larger and more athletic guards. Switching would keep that relevant, no doubt. But likewise, modern offense would leverage his ability inside the PnR that much more anyhow, so I think that's a net positive for his impact.

What's your top 15-20 with Stockton today?

The GB just did a project rating the top 30 players, so tell which of these guys you have below Stockton.

1. Jokic
#2. Luka
#3. Giannis
#4. Shai
#5. Joel Embiid
#6. Jayson Tatum
#7. Steph Curry
#8. Jalen Brunson
#9. Anthony Edwards
#10. Lebron James
#11. Anthony Davis
#12. KD
#13. Wemby
#14. Jaylen Brown
#15. Tyrese Haliburton
#16. Devin Booker
#17. Kawhi Leonard
#18. Donavan Mitchell
#19. Ja Morant
#20. Jimmy Butler
#21. Kyrie Irving
#22. Domantas Sabonis
#23. Zion Williamson
#24. Dame Lillard
#25. Paul George
#26. Tyrese Maxey
#27. Bam
#28. D. Fox
#29. Rudy Gobert
#30. Pascal Siakam

I would take Stockton over half of those players

[Special_Puppy]

No, I 'd rank him higher than that. You say 25-30. I think he'd probably be more like top 15, top 20. I can understand some of your opinion, of course: you're very much against allowing older players any sense of adaptation into the modern environment, since that implies things they didn't actually do in their own careers, but Stockton wasn't an idiot. I doubt he'd fail to leverage the 3 and his general shooting ability, and the tempo certainly wouldn't be an issue for him. In his own career, as has already been discussed ITT, he had issues with larger and more athletic guards. Switching would keep that relevant, no doubt. But likewise, modern offense would leverage his ability inside the PnR that much more anyhow, so I think that's a net positive for his impact.

What's your top 15-20 with Stockton today?

The GB just did a project rating the top 30 players, so tell which of these guys you have below Stockton.

1. Jokic
#2. Luka
#3. Giannis
#4. Shai
#5. Joel Embiid
#6. Jayson Tatum
#7. Steph Curry
#8. Jalen Brunson
#9. Anthony Edwards
#10. Lebron James
#11. Anthony Davis
#12. KD
#13. Wemby
#14. Jaylen Brown
#15. Tyrese Haliburton
#16. Devin Booker
#17. Kawhi Leonard
#18. Donavan Mitchell
#19. Ja Morant
#20. Jimmy Butler
#21. Kyrie Irving
#22.
Domantas Sabonis
#23. Zion Williamson
#24. Dame Lillard
#25. Paul George
#26. Tyrese Maxey
#27. Bam
#28. D. Fox
#29. Rudy Gobert
#30. Pascal Siakam

I would take Stockton over half of those players

Good argument for Stockton being top 2

[tsherkin]

#13. Wemby
#14. Jaylen Brown
#18. Donavan Mitchell
#19. Ja Morant
#20. Jimmy Butler
#21. Kyrie Irving
#22. Domantas Sabonis
#23. Zion Williamson
#24. Dame Lillard
#25. Paul George
#26. Tyrese Maxey
#27. Bam
#28. D. Fox
#29. Rudy Gobert
#30. Pascal Siakam

'Probably Kawhi too, given health.

[One_and_Done]

#13. Wemby
#14. Jaylen Brown
#18. Donavan Mitchell
#19. Ja Morant
#20. Jimmy Butler
#21. Kyrie Irving
#22. Domantas Sabonis
#23. Zion Williamson
#24. Dame Lillard
#25. Paul George
#26. Tyrese Maxey
#27. Bam
#28. D. Fox
#29. Rudy Gobert
#30. Pascal Siakam

'Probably Kawhi too, given health.

If you were trying to win a title this year you would build a team around John Stockton over Lillard, PG3, Jaylen, Jimmy, Wemby or Mitchell? I don't believe you. Maybe if your team is set elsewhere and has a big hole at the 1, but not in a vacuum. I'd include others too, but those guys look inarguably a cut above.

[tsherkin]

If you were trying to win a title this year you would build a team around John Stockton over Lillard, PG3, Jaylen, Jimmy, Wemby or Mitchell? I don't believe you. Maybe if your team is set elsewhere and has a big hole at the 1, but not in a vacuum. I'd include others too, but those guys look inarguably a cut above.

I wouldn't build a team around any of them. I'm not looking at any of those guys as title pieces.

Kawhi, obviously, can do it but given his health and age at this point, I don't have the faith in him any longer, so it isn't super relevant now.

[bledredwine]

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.

You know, though I disagree, that’s a fair enough assessment. I will say that it wasn’t really Stockton’s fault, but there was definitely a difficult in scoring back then and scorers ran the league. I dislike Chris Paul for many of the same reasons, though he was often outplayed by other star PG’s whereas Stockton wasn’t.
Fair enough.