Where would Stockton rank as a point guard today

[One_and_Done]

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.

I mean, people in this thread have noted a bunch of times he got outplayed. But even if he's putting up big stats, like in the 89 playoffs, for anyone else we'd call that low calories or empty numbers if your seemingly better team is swept in the 1st round.

[bledredwine]

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.

I mean, people in this thread have noted a bunch of times he got outplayed. But even if he's putting up big stats, like in the 89 playoffs, for anyone else we'd call that low calories or empty numbers if your seemingly better team is swept in the 1st round.

Bunch of times?

When, aside from 89? I was too young to remember 89' well and am mostly familiar with the top teams from those years.
But he was excellent in the 90s.

[SeanieWard]

Only Luka, Shai and maybe 36 year old Steph would be better imo

I'm one of those who believe the guys today are the most talented and skilled players we've ever seen so I'm not living in the past but Stockton was Chris Paul/Steve Nash esque. That type of game translate in any era I think

Everybody knows about his assists but Stockton was a pesty defender. When people talk about Isaiah Thomas being the best small guard along with Steph, I usually disagree because I think Stockton was better than Thomas statistically and on tape. But I will also admit I didn't watch these guys all that much since I grew up in the 90s

At the age of 39 in 2000-01, which I consider to be a great era of hoops where there was an influx of talent and hand checking was still allowed, Stockton who was tied for the oldest player in the NBA still averaged 13 points, 8 assists and 2 steals on 50% shooting. So a prime Stockton at the age of 26-27 is definitely a top 5 PG today without question for me

I think he'd average 17 points, 12 assists, and 2.5 steals on good percentages and be on the All NBA defensive team

[nate33]

Chris Paul and Tyrese Haliburton are two recent examples of what a highly efficient pass-first PG can accomplish in today's game.

Chris Paul was 5th in MVP voting in 2021 at age 35. He was 1st or 2nd Team All-NBA in nearly every healthy season of his prime.
Tyrese Haliburton was probably the 5th place MVP and destined for All-NBA 1st or 2nd team until the injury

I see no reason why Stockton couldn't be in the same tier - a guy who would consistently rank in the 5-15 range in MVP voting and be a 2nd or 3rd team All-NBA guy most seasons with maybe a couple seasons on 1st team. I figure Stockton is just a hair worse than healthy prime Chris Paul, and a little better than Haliburton.

So, there are differences between those guys and Stockton. Hali, of course, is much larger and a better shooter. And also a much more willing/aggressive shooter.

And Paul is one of the best mid-range shooters in league history, plus also more advanced in his usage of screens. I don't think he's a particularly good corollary for Stockton.

Like, due respect to Stockton. I'm not in One_and_Done's camp here, I think Stockton would be a very valuable player in today's game. Not a focal star, but a perennial All-Star and a very positive influence on a team offense. I just don't think he would shoot any more than he did in his own time, nor would he likely be a ton more aggressive in general. He might take more 3s so that his efficiency could match up, and he'd surely love the return to faster tempos, but he was who he was mentality-wise.

Haliburton is not a better shooter than Stockton. Stockton had off-the-charts shooting efficiency, mostly from midrange. Obviously, in today's game, Stockton would take a greater percentage of his shots from 3-point range, which would only increase his efficiency. And his pick-and-roll game would only be better with today's spacing.

[tsherkin]

Haliburton is not a better shooter than Stockton. Stockton had off-the-charts shooting efficiency, mostly from midrange. Obviously, in today's game, Stockton would take a greater percentage of his shots from 3-point range, which would only increase his efficiency. And his pick-and-roll game would only be better with today's spacing.

I'm open to debating the point, but having watched both, I don't really think you got the same action off a live dribble or from 3. In the recorded seasons from 97 forward, Stockton isn't any better from 10-16 feet on lower volume (14% of total volume, which is off a piddling total of 8.5 FGA/g) compared to Hali's similarly low proportion of 11.4% but against 13.1 FGA/g. So we're talking around 1.2 FGA/g from Stockton and about 1.5 from Hali. So there, Hali's shooting 49% against Stockton's 46.1%.

Stockton clears Hali from 16-23 feet at 49.8%... but on about 2.3 FGA/g against Haliburton's 48.7% on 1.02 FGA/g. Then there is a difference at the FT line (85.6% vs. 82.6%, peaking over 87% so far), and then a clear difference in 3pt shooting. Stockton was a 38.4% guy from 3 on 1.5 3PA/g. Hali's a 39.3% guy on 6.2 3PA/g. It's also worth noting that Hali shot 50%+ from 10-16 in 2022 and 2024, and then 50%%+ from 16-23 in 2023 and 2024. Like, he's clearly hitting his stride as well. So, raw FG% and volume are in his favor.

I don't really see a pro-Stockton argument from a shooting perspective, and that's before you factor in his general hesitation to pull the trigger. Like, I respect Stockton, I think he's getting undersold by some and I think he'd be a fantastic #2 in basically any era. But Haliburton to me is a clearly superior shooter across multiple fronts.

I think Stockton would rep well in the modern rendition of the PnR as I've said, but I don't think he has the same level of proficiency as someone like Haliburton. And then again, Hali also has more size to gain clearance for his shots.

[dhsilv2]

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.

There are less small guards today and more score first smaller guards. Stockton was elite off ball. That's where his value was off the charts and today it would still be really valuable. But as the game now will require stockton to work more in a POA role, it's not unreasonable to expect him to struggle there. It's a very real concern.

Clutch has been trying to hammer this home, in a weird way, as I was discussing why Jeff Malone sucked and in general the Jazz support did. But it's absolutely fair to be critical of how Stockton did vs Porter, Payton, and some of those guys.

[nate33]

Haliburton is not a better shooter than Stockton. Stockton had off-the-charts shooting efficiency, mostly from midrange. Obviously, in today's game, Stockton would take a greater percentage of his shots from 3-point range, which would only increase his efficiency. And his pick-and-roll game would only be better with today's spacing.

I'm open to debating the point, but having watched both, I don't really think you got the same action off a live dribble or from 3. In the recorded seasons from 97 forward, Stockton isn't any better from 10-16 feet on lower volume (14% of total volume, which is off a piddling total of 8.5 FGA/g) compared to Hali's similarly low proportion of 11.4% but against 13.1 FGA/g. So we're talking around 1.2 FGA/g from Stockton and about 1.5 from Hali. So there, Hali's shooting 49% against Stockton's 46.1%.

Stockton clears Hali from 16-23 feet at 49.8%... but on about 2.3 FGA/g against Haliburton's 48.7% on 1.02 FGA/g. Then there is a difference at the FT line (85.6% vs. 82.6%, peaking over 87% so far), and then a clear difference in 3pt shooting. Stockton was a 38.4% guy from 3 on 1.5 3PA/g. Hali's a 39.3% guy on 6.2 3PA/g. It's also worth noting that Hali shot 50%+ from 10-16 in 2022 and 2024, and then 50%%+ from 16-23 in 2023 and 2024. Like, he's clearly hitting his stride as well. So, raw FG% and volume are in his favor.

I don't really see a pro-Stockton argument from a shooting perspective, and that's before you factor in his general hesitation to pull the trigger. Like, I respect Stockton, I think he's getting undersold by some and I think he'd be a fantastic #2 in basically any era. But Haliburton to me is a clearly superior shooter across multiple fronts.

I think Stockton would rep well in the modern rendition of the PnR as I've said, but I don't think he has the same level of proficiency as someone like Haliburton. And then again, Hali also has more size to gain clearance for his shots.

When I discuss "midrange", I'm mostly referring to 16-22 feet. I don't pay much attention to the 10-16 feet range because nobody shoots from there with any consistency. It's no man's land. I'm saying Stockton's pull up game on long 2's was about as efficient as anyone in history (55% in his youngest season recorded at age 34 on significant volume). I don't see any reason he wouldn't take a step back and shoot more pull up 3's in the analytics era.

[tsherkin]

When I discuss "midrange", I'm mostly referring to 16-22 feet. I don't pay much attention to the 10-16 feet range because nobody shoots from there with any consistency. It's no man's land. I'm saying Stockton's pull up game on long 2's was about as efficient as anyone in history (55% in his youngest season recorded at age 34 on significant volume). I don't see any reason he wouldn't take a step back and shoot more pull up 3's in the analytics era.

I'm sure he would adjust a little to shoot some more threes, yes. I don't see that as changing the differences between the two of them as shooters even still. I think Hali is better at that particular skill.

[theonlyclutch]

Haliburton is not a better shooter than Stockton. Stockton had off-the-charts shooting efficiency, mostly from midrange. Obviously, in today's game, Stockton would take a greater percentage of his shots from 3-point range, which would only increase his efficiency. And his pick-and-roll game would only be better with today's spacing.

I'm open to debating the point, but having watched both, I don't really think you got the same action off a live dribble or from 3. In the recorded seasons from 97 forward, Stockton isn't any better from 10-16 feet on lower volume (14% of total volume, which is off a piddling total of 8.5 FGA/g) compared to Hali's similarly low proportion of 11.4% but against 13.1 FGA/g. So we're talking around 1.2 FGA/g from Stockton and about 1.5 from Hali. So there, Hali's shooting 49% against Stockton's 46.1%.

Stockton clears Hali from 16-23 feet at 49.8%... but on about 2.3 FGA/g against Haliburton's 48.7% on 1.02 FGA/g. Then there is a difference at the FT line (85.6% vs. 82.6%, peaking over 87% so far), and then a clear difference in 3pt shooting. Stockton was a 38.4% guy from 3 on 1.5 3PA/g. Hali's a 39.3% guy on 6.2 3PA/g. It's also worth noting that Hali shot 50%+ from 10-16 in 2022 and 2024, and then 50%%+ from 16-23 in 2023 and 2024. Like, he's clearly hitting his stride as well. So, raw FG% and volume are in his favor.

I don't really see a pro-Stockton argument from a shooting perspective, and that's before you factor in his general hesitation to pull the trigger. Like, I respect Stockton, I think he's getting undersold by some and I think he'd be a fantastic #2 in basically any era. But Haliburton to me is a clearly superior shooter across multiple fronts.

I think Stockton would rep well in the modern rendition of the PnR as I've said, but I don't think he has the same level of proficiency as someone like Haliburton. And then again, Hali also has more size to gain clearance for his shots.

When I discuss "midrange", I'm mostly referring to 16-22 feet. I don't pay much attention to the 10-16 feet range because nobody shoots from there with any consistency. It's no man's land. I'm saying Stockton's pull up game on long 2's was about as efficient as anyone in history (55% in his youngest season recorded at age 34 on significant volume). I don't see any reason he wouldn't take a step back and shoot more pull up 3's in the analytics era.

His shot chart involves a significantly higher portion of assisted 2s and 3s than what lead star guards usually do today. C. 45% of 2s and 65% of 3s were assisted. That aligns more with Celtics Derrick White than Clippers Chris Paul. The closest star analogue is Curry who is notorious for creating shots through non-stop off-ball movement and his GOAT-level hair-trigger shooting from range, both skills Stockton have not demonstrated.

[SelfishPlayer]

I'm open to debating the point, but having watched both, I don't really think you got the same action off a live dribble or from 3. In the recorded seasons from 97 forward, Stockton isn't any better from 10-16 feet on lower volume (14% of total volume, which is off a piddling total of 8.5 FGA/g) compared to Hali's similarly low proportion of 11.4% but against 13.1 FGA/g. So we're talking around 1.2 FGA/g from Stockton and about 1.5 from Hali. So there, Hali's shooting 49% against Stockton's 46.1%.

Stockton clears Hali from 16-23 feet at 49.8%... but on about 2.3 FGA/g against Haliburton's 48.7% on 1.02 FGA/g. Then there is a difference at the FT line (85.6% vs. 82.6%, peaking over 87% so far), and then a clear difference in 3pt shooting. Stockton was a 38.4% guy from 3 on 1.5 3PA/g. Hali's a 39.3% guy on 6.2 3PA/g. It's also worth noting that Hali shot 50%+ from 10-16 in 2022 and 2024, and then 50%%+ from 16-23 in 2023 and 2024. Like, he's clearly hitting his stride as well. So, raw FG% and volume are in his favor.

I don't really see a pro-Stockton argument from a shooting perspective, and that's before you factor in his general hesitation to pull the trigger. Like, I respect Stockton, I think he's getting undersold by some and I think he'd be a fantastic #2 in basically any era. But Haliburton to me is a clearly superior shooter across multiple fronts.

I think Stockton would rep well in the modern rendition of the PnR as I've said, but I don't think he has the same level of proficiency as someone like Haliburton. And then again, Hali also has more size to gain clearance for his shots.

When I discuss "midrange", I'm mostly referring to 16-22 feet. I don't pay much attention to the 10-16 feet range because nobody shoots from there with any consistency. It's no man's land. I'm saying Stockton's pull up game on long 2's was about as efficient as anyone in history (55% in his youngest season recorded at age 34 on significant volume). I don't see any reason he wouldn't take a step back and shoot more pull up 3's in the analytics era.

His shot chart involves a significantly higher portion of assisted 2s and 3s than what lead star guards usually do today. C. 45% of 2s and 65% of 3s were assisted. That aligns more with Celtics Derrick White than Clippers Chris Paul. The closest star analogue is Curry who is notorious for creating shots through non-stop off-ball movement and his GOAT-level hair-trigger shooting from range, both skills Stockton have not demonstrated.

Stockton does move off ball around a ton of screens with the goal of catching and shooting. That is part of his game. He probably never did anything like a step back three pointer, but he certainly ran around screens to free himself up for a shooting opportunity.

[tsherkin]

Stockton does move off ball around a ton of screens with the goal of catching and shooting. That is part of his game. He probably never did anything like a step back three pointer, but he certainly ran around screens to free himself up for a shooting opportunity.

Yeah, I won't say he was Curry-like, but Stockton knew how to move without the ball well enough.

[SelfishPlayer]

Stockton does move off ball around a ton of screens with the goal of catching and shooting. That is part of his game. He probably never did anything like a step back three pointer, but he certainly ran around screens to free himself up for a shooting opportunity.

Yeah, I won't say he was Curry-like, but Stockton knew how to move without the ball well enough.

That's a very normal old school skill that most guards could do. Jeff Malone was absolutely great at it! I've been critical of him in this thread but his offball movement shooting (inside the arch) is amongst the best ever.

[tsherkin]

Stockton does move off ball around a ton of screens with the goal of catching and shooting. That is part of his game. He probably never did anything like a step back three pointer, but he certainly ran around screens to free himself up for a shooting opportunity.

Yeah, I won't say he was Curry-like, but Stockton knew how to move without the ball well enough.

That's a very normal old school skill that most guards could do. Jeff Malone was absolutely great at it! I've been critical of him in this thread but his offball movement shooting (inside the arch) is amongst the best ever.

"Among the best ever" is pretty aggressive, I can't really agree with that. It certainly wasn't an issue for him, though. He knew what he was about with how to use a screen. He surely didn't have the same kind of motor as Curry or Reggie, and of course he didn't have the same gravity as either, which also altered the relevance of his off-ball movement.

[SelfishPlayer]

Yeah, I won't say he was Curry-like, but Stockton knew how to move without the ball well enough.

That's a very normal old school skill that most guards could do. Jeff Malone was absolutely great at it! I've been critical of him in this thread but his offball movement shooting (inside the arch) is amongst the best ever.

"Among the best ever" is pretty aggressive, I can't really agree with that. It certainly wasn't an issue for him, though. He knew what he was about with how to use a screen. He surely didn't have the same kind of motor as Curry or Reggie, and of course he didn't have the same gravity as either, which also altered the relevance of his off-ball movement.

Jeff Malone and Ricky Pierce were top guys at this skillset, facts...

[tsherkin]

Jeff Malone and Ricky Pierce were top guys at this skillset, facts...

They were good at it, certainly. Again, "among the best ever?"

Doesn't really track. Neither were good enough at finishing the play to really get themselves into that category in terms of relevance. They certainly knew how to move around a screen and in general without the ball, though. As you said, it was a classic, old-school skill set.

[SelfishPlayer]

Jeff Malone and Ricky Pierce were top guys at this skillset, facts...

They were good at it, certainly. Again, "among the best ever?"

Doesn't really track. Neither were good enough at finishing the play to really get themselves into that category in terms of relevance. They certainly knew how to move around a screen and in general without the ball, though. As you said, it was a classic, old-school skill set.

Perhaps you aren't qualified to know. This is foundational basketball talk. I didn't make it this way. I hated watching Jeff Malone play, but this is commonly accepted about him. Reggie is the best, by far, then guys like this during their era. Rip Hamilton and Steph have eclipsed them.

[theonlyclutch]

That's a very normal old school skill that most guards could do. Jeff Malone was absolutely great at it! I've been critical of him in this thread but his offball movement shooting (inside the arch) is amongst the best ever.

"Among the best ever" is pretty aggressive, I can't really agree with that. It certainly wasn't an issue for him, though. He knew what he was about with how to use a screen. He surely didn't have the same kind of motor as Curry or Reggie, and of course he didn't have the same gravity as either, which also altered the relevance of his off-ball movement.

Jeff Malone and Ricky Pierce were top guys at this skillset, facts...

So now Jeff Malone is simultaneously totally odious as a 3rd option while being top level popping off ball for middies?
Sounds a lot like if Rip Hamilton was born 15 years earlier then, surely that player archetype could never win..

[SelfishPlayer]

"Among the best ever" is pretty aggressive, I can't really agree with that. It certainly wasn't an issue for him, though. He knew what he was about with how to use a screen. He surely didn't have the same kind of motor as Curry or Reggie, and of course he didn't have the same gravity as either, which also altered the relevance of his off-ball movement.

Jeff Malone and Ricky Pierce were top guys at this skillset, facts...

So now Jeff Malone is simultaneously totally odious as a 3rd option while being top level popping off ball for middies?
Y'all should probably look at Rip Hamilton and his shot profile in DET's most competitive years, must have been a total anchor.

Ricky Pierce came off the bench, perhaps Jeff Malone would have benefitted from doing the same. Tyler Herro is a modern day equivalent to this kind of player. Who's excited about having Tyler Herro as their starting shooting guard? Guys that score well and offer little else.

[tsherkin]

Perhaps you aren't qualified to know. This is foundational basketball talk. I didn't make it this way. I hated watching Jeff Malone play, but this is commonly accepted about him.

No, it isn't commonly accepted about him at all. You made that right up.

[dhsilv2]

Yeah, I won't say he was Curry-like, but Stockton knew how to move without the ball well enough.

That's a very normal old school skill that most guards could do. Jeff Malone was absolutely great at it! I've been critical of him in this thread but his offball movement shooting (inside the arch) is amongst the best ever.

"Among the best ever" is pretty aggressive, I can't really agree with that. It certainly wasn't an issue for him, though. He knew what he was about with how to use a screen. He surely didn't have the same kind of motor as Curry or Reggie, and of course he didn't have the same gravity as either, which also altered the relevance of his off-ball movement.

This Jeff Malone stuff is wild. The jazz offense dropped in the first year with Malone and then started to improve the next year though I'm going to assume it's from Eaton playing less. But I'm open to other options. But don't see any argument that Malone used this skill to make an offense better. So at that point...the rest of the discussion is kinda going nowhere, right?