Where would Stockton rank as a point guard today

[One_and_Done]

You lost me at 'he's better than Ja Morant and Wemby'

I'm waiting to see second-year Wemby, but rookie year Wemby, I am comfortable with saying Stockton was better.

Ja... is solid, but like, not that remarkable compared to someone like Stockton.

By the end of his rookie year Wemby looked better than Stockton has ever been and going into this year it's clear who you'd take. Morant is better than Stockton on every level.

[tsherkin]

By the end of his rookie year Wemby looked better than Stockton has ever been and going into this year it's clear who you'd take. Morant is better than Stockton on every level.

I expect Wemby to be considerably beyond Stockton starting this season, yes.

And no, Morant is very much a worse shooter and a considerably less effective playmaker than Stockton. "Every level" is wild hyperbole. He's an athletic north-south player, sure. He applies more rim pressure. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves in your quest to diminish Stockton, lol.

[shotsquatch]

Dude, he's first in career assists and steals by a wide margin. There's no chance he would be outside the top ten.

Stockton was an All-NBA defender and a maestro conducting the offense. He would benefit from the modern NBA's increased shooting volume. Shai, Luka, and Steph are the only guards I would prefer over Stockton at the position right now.

[One_and_Done]

By the end of his rookie year Wemby looked better than Stockton has ever been and going into this year it's clear who you'd take. Morant is better than Stockton on every level.

I expect Wemby to be considerably beyond Stockton starting this season, yes.

And no, Morant is very much a worse shooter and a considerably less effective playmaker than Stockton. "Every level" is wild hyperbole. He's an athletic north-south player, sure. He applies more rim pressure. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves in your quest to diminish Stockton, lol.

If Morant played in an era where nobody guarded the 3 seriously, and cherry picked so most of his 1.5 threes a game would be wide open, he'd have shot as well as Stockton probably.

[One_and_Done]

Dude, he's first in career assists and steals by a wide margin. There's no chance he would be outside the top ten.

Stockton was an All-NBA defender and a maestro conducting the offense. He would benefit from the modern NBA's increased shooting volume. Shai, Luka, and Steph are the only guards I would prefer over Stockton at the position right now.

Mark Jackson must have a similar chance of success too then, after all he's 6th all-time in Assists.

[chicago paxsons]

Dude, he's first in career assists and steals by a wide margin. There's no chance he would be outside the top ten.

Stockton was an All-NBA defender and a maestro conducting the offense. He would benefit from the modern NBA's increased shooting volume. Shai, Luka, and Steph are the only guards I would prefer over Stockton at the position right now.

Mark Jackson must have a similar chance of success too then, after all he's 6th all-time in Assists.

You clearly aren't aware of the massive gap between 6th all time and 1st all time in assists. 15,806 vs 10,334. That's a whole player's career of a gap. You could add garnett's assist total, 5,445 assists, 56th all time and it would still be less than stockton's total. Stockton is on a whole other level as a facilitator to mark jackson.

Hell, the gap between stockton and the no.2, jason kidd is 3,715 assists which is exactly the number of assists paul pressey had for his career. That gap is greater than the career assist totals of guys like luke ridnour, boris diaw, pete maravich, dirk nowitzki, vlade divac and chris webber.

[One_and_Done]

Dude, he's first in career assists and steals by a wide margin. There's no chance he would be outside the top ten.

Stockton was an All-NBA defender and a maestro conducting the offense. He would benefit from the modern NBA's increased shooting volume. Shai, Luka, and Steph are the only guards I would prefer over Stockton at the position right now.

Mark Jackson must have a similar chance of success too then, after all he's 6th all-time in Assists.

You clearly aren't aware of the massive gap between 6th all time and 1st all time in assists. 15,806 vs 10,334. That's a whole player's career of a gap. You could add garnett's assist total, 5,445 assists, 56th all time and it would still be less than stockton's total. Stockton is on a whole other level as a facilitator to mark jackson.

Hell, the gap between stockton and the no.2, jason kidd is 3,715 assists which is exactly the number of assists paul pressey had for his career. That gap is greater than the career assist totals of guys like luke ridnour, boris diaw, pete maravich, dirk nowitzki, vlade divac and chris webber.

I guess that's my point; longevity and peak performance are different things. Who cares that he's the assist leader. That speaks to the former more than the latter.

[chicago paxsons]

Mark Jackson must have a similar chance of success too then, after all he's 6th all-time in Assists.

You clearly aren't aware of the massive gap between 6th all time and 1st all time in assists. 15,806 vs 10,334. That's a whole player's career of a gap. You could add garnett's assist total, 5,445 assists, 56th all time and it would still be less than stockton's total. Stockton is on a whole other level as a facilitator to mark jackson.

Hell, the gap between stockton and the no.2, jason kidd is 3,715 assists which is exactly the number of assists paul pressey had for his career. That gap is greater than the career assist totals of guys like luke ridnour, boris diaw, pete maravich, dirk nowitzki, vlade divac and chris webber.

I guess that's my point; longevity and peak performance are different things. Who cares that he's the assist leader. That speaks to the former more than the latter.

Except with stockton, it isn't just about longevity. He has the 2nd highest apg for his career, 10.51, behind only magic johnson with 11.19. Usually longevity hurts a player's career stats per game, but not stockton. That is supreme consistency.

It's also about peak. Stockton has 8 of the 20 highest apg seasons in nba history. Magic has 7 seasons and isiah thomas, kevin porter, kevin johnson, russell westbrook and rajon rondo round out the rest with 1 season of the top 20 apg seasons.

Stockton is one of the best, if not the best, faciliators whether we're talking about longevity, consistency or peak. It doesn't matter which one we talk about, stockton is at or next to the top in each criteria.

[JRoy]

Mark Jackson must have a similar chance of success too then, after all he's 6th all-time in Assists.

You clearly aren't aware of the massive gap between 6th all time and 1st all time in assists. 15,806 vs 10,334. That's a whole player's career of a gap. You could add garnett's assist total, 5,445 assists, 56th all time and it would still be less than stockton's total. Stockton is on a whole other level as a facilitator to mark jackson.

Hell, the gap between stockton and the no.2, jason kidd is 3,715 assists which is exactly the number of assists paul pressey had for his career. That gap is greater than the career assist totals of guys like luke ridnour, boris diaw, pete maravich, dirk nowitzki, vlade divac and chris webber.

I guess that's my point; longevity and peak performance are different things. Who cares that he's the assist leader. That speaks to the former more than the latter.

10 consecutive years years with 10+ assists speaks to the latter.

[SelfishPlayer]

Why wouldn't Mark Jackson have success in this era? The entire league is spamming his teardrop. Did you see his playmaking that partial season in Denver? That's who he would be today. The game didn't develop to make good perimeter players from the past obsolete across the board. Hitting three point shots is easy, that's why you witness so many people like Tyrese Maxey gain that skill as a pro and become one of the best.

[One_and_Done]

You clearly aren't aware of the massive gap between 6th all time and 1st all time in assists. 15,806 vs 10,334. That's a whole player's career of a gap. You could add garnett's assist total, 5,445 assists, 56th all time and it would still be less than stockton's total. Stockton is on a whole other level as a facilitator to mark jackson.

Hell, the gap between stockton and the no.2, jason kidd is 3,715 assists which is exactly the number of assists paul pressey had for his career. That gap is greater than the career assist totals of guys like luke ridnour, boris diaw, pete maravich, dirk nowitzki, vlade divac and chris webber.

I guess that's my point; longevity and peak performance are different things. Who cares that he's the assist leader. That speaks to the former more than the latter.

Except with stockton, it isn't just about longevity. He has the 2nd highest apg for his career, 10.51, behind only magic johnson with 11.19. Usually longevity hurts a player's career stats per game, but not stockton. That is supreme consistency.

It's also about peak. Stockton has 8 of the 20 highest apg seasons in nba history. Magic has 7 seasons and isiah thomas, kevin porter, kevin johnson, russell westbrook and rajon rondo round out the rest with 1 season of the top 20 apg seasons.

Stockton is one of the best, if not the best, faciliators whether we're talking about longevity, consistency or peak. It doesn't matter which one we talk about, stockton is at or next to the top in each criteria.

I think you're confusing volume with value. Stockton's MVP vote results give us a much more objective sense of where he was rated by contemporaries.

[tsherkin]

By the end of his rookie year Wemby looked better than Stockton has ever been and going into this year it's clear who you'd take. Morant is better than Stockton on every level.

I expect Wemby to be considerably beyond Stockton starting this season, yes.

And no, Morant is very much a worse shooter and a considerably less effective playmaker than Stockton. "Every level" is wild hyperbole. He's an athletic north-south player, sure. He applies more rim pressure. But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves in your quest to diminish Stockton, lol.

If Morant played in an era where nobody guarded the 3 seriously, and cherry picked so most of his 1.5 threes a game would be wide open, he'd have shot as well as Stockton probably.

I doubt that. He isnt a particularly good open 3pt shooter either...

[chicago paxsons]

I guess that's my point; longevity and peak performance are different things. Who cares that he's the assist leader. That speaks to the former more than the latter.

Except with stockton, it isn't just about longevity. He has the 2nd highest apg for his career, 10.51, behind only magic johnson with 11.19. Usually longevity hurts a player's career stats per game, but not stockton. That is supreme consistency.

It's also about peak. Stockton has 8 of the 20 highest apg seasons in nba history. Magic has 7 seasons and isiah thomas, kevin porter, kevin johnson, russell westbrook and rajon rondo round out the rest with 1 season of the top 20 apg seasons.

Stockton is one of the best, if not the best, faciliators whether we're talking about longevity, consistency or peak. It doesn't matter which one we talk about, stockton is at or next to the top in each criteria.

I think you're confusing volume with value. Stockton's MVP vote results give us a much more objective sense of where he was rated by contemporaries.

Stockton got votes for mvp in 12 of his 19 seasons. It does give us a sense of where he was rated by contemporaries and he was rated very well. Players not rated well don't get mvp votes for more than half of their career.

Also, historically, you don't win mvp without being a high scorer, yet he consistently got votes for mvp despite not being a high scorer. Stockton's contemporaries thought very highly of him. The only ones who seem not to is you and theonlyclutch...

[One_and_Done]

Except with stockton, it isn't just about longevity. He has the 2nd highest apg for his career, 10.51, behind only magic johnson with 11.19. Usually longevity hurts a player's career stats per game, but not stockton. That is supreme consistency.

It's also about peak. Stockton has 8 of the 20 highest apg seasons in nba history. Magic has 7 seasons and isiah thomas, kevin porter, kevin johnson, russell westbrook and rajon rondo round out the rest with 1 season of the top 20 apg seasons.

Stockton is one of the best, if not the best, faciliators whether we're talking about longevity, consistency or peak. It doesn't matter which one we talk about, stockton is at or next to the top in each criteria.

I think you're confusing volume with value. Stockton's MVP vote results give us a much more objective sense of where he was rated by contemporaries.

Stockton got votes for mvp in 12 of his 19 seasons. It does give us a sense of where he was rated by contemporaries and he was rated very well. Players not rated well don't get mvp votes for more than half of their career.

Also, historically, you don't win mvp without being a high scorer, yet he consistently got votes for mvp despite not being a high scorer. Stockton's contemporaries thought very highly of him. The only ones who seem not to is you and theonlyclutch...

He was rated by MVP votes as between 7-17, with the 7 being a huge outlier, in a far worse league. Today his resume would look more like Gobert.

[MavsDirk41]

No he does not have a greater impact on winning. And no he is not going to finish with the better career. Compare Stockton and Goberts accolades……its not even close.

If you're looking to make an argument here, look at MVP voting. Gobert has registered in the vote twice, at 10th and 11th. He's a 3x All-Star and 4x DPOY. He never made it out of the second round with Utah and this year was his first with Minny advancing past the first round. He has evident defensive impact, but is shockingly limited on offense. He has a rebounding title, a BPG title (and also led in total BLK 2x), 3 FG% titles, and that's about the scope of his accolades and achievements.

Stockton, by contrast, led the league in APG in 9 straight seasonss. He led the league in SPG twice. He DIDN'T play 82 games in 3 seasons, and one of those was due to it only being 50 games long (he played all 50). He was a 10-time All-Star. He registered in the MVP vote 12 times, top-10 5 times. 7th, 8th and 9th were his highest rankings. He was All-NBA 3rd Team as late as 1999 (his 5th-last season). He was All-NBA 2nd Team 6x and 1st team in 94 and 95. He made it out of the first round 9 times, made it to the WCFs or later 5 times and made the Finals in 97 and 98.

So Stock has a little more going on for him than Gobert as a secondary player behind a focal star. And of course he has that absurd longevity. You can make arguments about style impact ported into different eras and all that stuff, but Stockton was a pretty useful player. His greatest sin seems to be that he couldn't score more and Utah languished for lack of that dynamic perimeter creation. But for a 6'1 dude without S-tier fast-twitch athleticism, he did remarkable things, even as an old guy.

I think the sense that Gobert is a higher-impact guy smells off to me a little, particularly since he's so one-dimensional.

I honestly dont see any argument for Gobert to be talked about in the same discussion of a player like John Stockton. Stockton had one of the highest basketball IQs we have probably ever seen in the nba. Played both sides of the court. Clutch as hell. Played 82 games 16 seasons. True point guard who brought out the best in everybody he played with. Gobert is only 31 but it looks as though his best days are behind him. Only effective on the defensive side of the court. Low basketball IQ.

[chicago paxsons]

I think you're confusing volume with value. Stockton's MVP vote results give us a much more objective sense of where he was rated by contemporaries.

Stockton got votes for mvp in 12 of his 19 seasons. It does give us a sense of where he was rated by contemporaries and he was rated very well. Players not rated well don't get mvp votes for more than half of their career.

Also, historically, you don't win mvp without being a high scorer, yet he consistently got votes for mvp despite not being a high scorer. Stockton's contemporaries thought very highly of him. The only ones who seem not to is you and theonlyclutch...

He was rated by MVP votes as between 7-17, with the 7 being a huge outlier, in a far worse league. Today his resume would look more like Gobert.

Wait... First it's about whether stockton can be impactful when compared to mark jackson since jackson was 6th all time in assists. I show that stockton is on another level when it comes to all time assists, but that's just longevity, you say.

Then it's about stockton's peak as a passer. To which, i give facts as to his passing peak being as good as the best ever. Then, peak and longevity don't matter since it's just volume, you say.

Then we're onto mvp votes, which i show that his contemporaries value him enough to give him mvp votes for most of his career. Then it isn't about his contemporaries at all. His league is worse, you say. He's gobert, you say.

The amount you're changing the goalposts is laughable, but useful, since we're back to my prior argument with you, you may remember, or not since you run from facts like the plague.

I'll refresh your memory.


Your quote -
"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.

Also your quote -
"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.


I leave you with this information, do with it what you will, but desperately running from facts and being unwilling to learn from others who might have insight you don't will only hurt your ability to evaluate the players, the league, and the sport we love enough to devote so much time on this forum to.

[One_and_Done]

Stockton got votes for mvp in 12 of his 19 seasons. It does give us a sense of where he was rated by contemporaries and he was rated very well. Players not rated well don't get mvp votes for more than half of their career.

Also, historically, you don't win mvp without being a high scorer, yet he consistently got votes for mvp despite not being a high scorer. Stockton's contemporaries thought very highly of him. The only ones who seem not to is you and theonlyclutch...

He was rated by MVP votes as between 7-17, with the 7 being a huge outlier, in a far worse league. Today his resume would look more like Gobert.

Wait... First it's about whether stockton can be impactful when compared to mark jackson since jackson was 6th all time in assists. I show that stockton is on another level when it comes to all time assists, but that's just longevity, you say.

Then it's about stockton's peak as a passer. To which, i give facts as to his passing peak being as good as the best ever. Then, peak and longevity don't matter since it's just volume, you say.

Then we're onto mvp votes, which i show that his contemporaries value him enough to give him mvp votes for most of his career. Then it isn't about his contemporaries at all. His league is worse, you say. He's gobert, you say.

The amount you're changing the goalposts is laughable, but useful, since we're back to my prior argument with you, you may remember, or not since you run from facts like the plague.

I'll refresh your memory.


Your quote -
"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.

Also your quote -
"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.


I leave you with this information, do with it what you will, but desperately running from facts and being unwilling to learn from others who might have insight you don't will only hurt your ability to evaluate the players, the league, and the sport we love enough to devote so much time on this forum to.

You've typed alot of words, but all you've really said is the long version of 'I disagree'. Me rating Stockton differently to you doesn't mean I never saw him play, it just means I disagree with you about how good he was.

[MavsDirk41]

You lost me at 'he's better than Ja Morant and Wemby'

Morant has been in the nba for 5 seasons. Has yet to play even 70 games in any of the seasons. Averages over 3 turnovers a game ever year he has played. 32% 3 point shooter. Yea he is explosive and dynamic. Pretty sure he could beat Stockton in a game of one on one. But how is he a better overall player than one of the best point guards to ever play?

[MavsDirk41]

He was rated by MVP votes as between 7-17, with the 7 being a huge outlier, in a far worse league. Today his resume would look more like Gobert.

Wait... First it's about whether stockton can be impactful when compared to mark jackson since jackson was 6th all time in assists. I show that stockton is on another level when it comes to all time assists, but that's just longevity, you say.

Then it's about stockton's peak as a passer. To which, i give facts as to his passing peak being as good as the best ever. Then, peak and longevity don't matter since it's just volume, you say.

Then we're onto mvp votes, which i show that his contemporaries value him enough to give him mvp votes for most of his career. Then it isn't about his contemporaries at all. His league is worse, you say. He's gobert, you say.

The amount you're changing the goalposts is laughable, but useful, since we're back to my prior argument with you, you may remember, or not since you run from facts like the plague.

I'll refresh your memory.


Your quote -
"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.

Also your quote -
"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.


I leave you with this information, do with it what you will, but desperately running from facts and being unwilling to learn from others who might have insight you don't will only hurt your ability to evaluate the players, the league, and the sport we love enough to devote so much time on this forum to.

You've typed alot of words, but all you've really said is the long version of 'I disagree'. Me rating Stockton differently to you doesn't mean I never saw him play, it just means I disagree with you about how good he was.

How many games on youtube have you seen Stockton play?

[chicago paxsons]

He was rated by MVP votes as between 7-17, with the 7 being a huge outlier, in a far worse league. Today his resume would look more like Gobert.

Wait... First it's about whether stockton can be impactful when compared to mark jackson since jackson was 6th all time in assists. I show that stockton is on another level when it comes to all time assists, but that's just longevity, you say.

Then it's about stockton's peak as a passer. To which, i give facts as to his passing peak being as good as the best ever. Then, peak and longevity don't matter since it's just volume, you say.

Then we're onto mvp votes, which i show that his contemporaries value him enough to give him mvp votes for most of his career. Then it isn't about his contemporaries at all. His league is worse, you say. He's gobert, you say.

The amount you're changing the goalposts is laughable, but useful, since we're back to my prior argument with you, you may remember, or not since you run from facts like the plague.

I'll refresh your memory.


Your quote -
"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.

Also your quote -
"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.


I leave you with this information, do with it what you will, but desperately running from facts and being unwilling to learn from others who might have insight you don't will only hurt your ability to evaluate the players, the league, and the sport we love enough to devote so much time on this forum to.

You've typed alot of words, but all you've really said is the long version of 'I disagree'. Me rating Stockton differently to you doesn't mean I never saw him play, it just means I disagree with you about how good he was.

A lot of words, yes. Words with meanings and information behind them that you ignore because stockton doesn't feel like the kind of player that would do well. I wouldn't be surprised if you're baffled as to how he's valued so highly in his own era. If you don't understand that then you won't understand why people think he could excel today.

You do disagree, but not for any factual our quantifiable reason. You just have a bone to pick with stockton, for what reason, i don't have a clue.