Where would Stockton rank as a point guard today

[One_and_Done]

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.

He wasn't rated as well as people in this thread seem to believe, which is the issue.

[theonlyclutch]

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.

Taking the accolades aside (defensively-focused players are always disadvantaged there), as Gobert not shown plenty of impact through his career?

He's been on a 9 SRS team, a 6 SRS team, and plenty of other 4-5 SRS teams where there are strong statistical arguments that he's the best/most impactful player on all of them. Even if you think he wasn't, its not like the equivalent focal stars were some amazing talents by that standard, Donovan Mitchell/Anthony Edwards are good but they're not winning much MVP votes, unlike Karl Malone who did, constantly.

On a per-season basis (obviously cumulative favors Stockton), the above does not strike me as a worse record than someone like Stockton did in his own time.

[Ol Roy]

Stockton played both ends of the court, had a high motor and BBIQ to go with strong fundamentals, ample passing and shooting skills, and was very effective in three decades...he went into the HOF with Michael Jordan and David Robinson.

What are we still doing here?

[chicago paxsons]

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.

He wasn't rated as well as people in this thread seem to believe, which is the issue.

My quote -
"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."

This is what i said in my post with all the "words" and is a main reason why people in this thread have voted the way they did to the question this thread posits.

His mastery of the pick and roll, all-time great passing, abilty to excel at a fast pace, shooting ability (even if in small volume), off-ball movement, ability at getting to the line, and defense (i know it's been suggested he's not as good of a defender as accolades say because some players had good games against him, but name an elite defender who hasn't had players go off on them?) all describe an extremely well rounded player whose strengths would be maximized in the current nba.

[One_and_Done]

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.

He wasn't rated as well as people in this thread seem to believe, which is the issue.

My quote -
"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."

This is what i said in my post with all the "words" and is a main reason why people in this thread have voted the way they did to the question this thread posits.

His mastery of the pick and roll, all-time great passing, abilty to excel at a fast pace, shooting ability (even if in small volume), off-ball movement, ability at getting to the line, and defense (i know it's been suggested he's not as good of a defender as accolades say because some players had good games against him, but name an elite defender who hasn't had players go off on them?) all describe an extremely well rounded player whose strengths would be maximized in the current nba.

I explained why I don't think Stockton would be able to benefit much in the first 5 pages of the thread. Primarily inability to get separation.

[chicago paxsons]

He wasn't rated as well as people in this thread seem to believe, which is the issue.

My quote -
"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."

This is what i said in my post with all the "words" and is a main reason why people in this thread have voted the way they did to the question this thread posits.

His mastery of the pick and roll, all-time great passing, abilty to excel at a fast pace, shooting ability (even if in small volume), off-ball movement, ability at getting to the line, and defense (i know it's been suggested he's not as good of a defender as accolades say because some players had good games against him, but name an elite defender who hasn't had players go off on them?) all describe an extremely well rounded player whose strengths would be maximized in the current nba.

I explained why I don't think Stockton would be able to benefit much in the first 5 pages of the thread. Primarily inability to get separation.

My quote -
"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."


There. I explained 9 pages in (and again in my post of "words" and again in this post) why that doesn't matter because of his play style. If he was playing like a high volume scorer your argument about shot creation and separation for himself would hold water, but since he wouldn't play that way your argument is moot.

Stockton style is to create looks for others, which he did exceptionally well for decades, and if that leads to an open look for himself only then would he take it and would usually make it anywhere on the court.

If you can't understand that stockton is looking to create for others first, not himself then others like most drive and kick facilitators that are so prominent in the league today, then you truly don't understand how and why he was so effective and why other people hold his game in such high esteem.

[One_and_Done]

Iverson had a style too. So does DeRozan. I don't really care about why they play a certain way, or what their intentions are, I only care about how their style/skillset impacts winning.

Stockton's 'style' was very suited to his times. Some aspects of it (shooting and passing) would continue to be valuable today. Other aspects would be detrimental (lack of ability to create his own shot/get separation/handle/shake, etc). Overall, this and the improved quality of the league would drop Stockton's relative value some for the reasons I have explained.

[chicago paxsons]

Iverson had a style too. So does DeRozan. I don't really care about why they play a certain way, or what their intentions are, I only care about how their style/skillset impacts winning.

Stockton's 'style' was very suited to his times. Some aspects of it (shooting and passing) would continue to be valuable today. Other aspects would be detrimental (lack of ability to create his own shot/get separation/handle/shake, etc). Overall, this and the improved quality of the league would drop Stockton's relative value some for the reasons I have explained.

Your quote -
"I don't really care about why they play a certain way, or what their intentions are, I only care about how their style/skillset impacts winning."

That's the problem. That's a contradiction. You don't care why they play that way, but care about why it affects winning. Many players play a certain way because it does affect winning, including in stockton's case. But you don't care to know why stockton plays the way he does.

The jazz while stockton was playing went to the playoffs every year, made it out of the 1st round 10 out of 19 years, and made it to the finals twice. A lot of teams would kill for that level of consistency and success.

Stockton's style/skillset did affect winning and if he didn't run into the dynasty bulls twice, we could be having this conversation about a 2 time champion. Acting like you care about how his style/skillset leads to winning, but not caring enough to understand why his style/skillset leads to winning is why you aren't able to evaluate stockton properly.

And i'll say it again, his style/skillset fits perfectly with the modern nba. In fact, style/skillset fits the modern nba better than his own era.

My quote -
"His mastery of the pick and roll, all-time great passing, abilty to excel at a fast pace, shooting ability (even if in small volume), off-ball movement, ability at getting to the line, and defense (i know it's been suggested he's not as good of a defender as accolades say because some players had good games against him, but name an elite defender who hasn't had players go off on them?) all describe an extremely well rounded player whose strengths would be maximized in the current nba."

[SelfishPlayer]

You know what, this thread proves that there is simply a group of people that hate on older players. Why? Because how can Stockton AND Iverson be trash in this era? Stockton would supposedly be trash in this era because he doesn't have shake, but Iverson being an isolation specialist would also be trash? This era is filled with pick and roll basketball, who ran more pick and rolls than John Stockton?
People need to get over the fact that the game has been made easier to play. Good perimeter players from the past would find the rules appealing. Jimmy Butler has taken teams to the Finals in this era. He is made from the same stuff as players from the past.

[Ancalagon]

He wasn't rated as well as people in this thread seem to believe, which is the issue.

My quote -
"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."

This is what i said in my post with all the "words" and is a main reason why people in this thread have voted the way they did to the question this thread posits.

His mastery of the pick and roll, all-time great passing, abilty to excel at a fast pace, shooting ability (even if in small volume), off-ball movement, ability at getting to the line, and defense (i know it's been suggested he's not as good of a defender as accolades say because some players had good games against him, but name an elite defender who hasn't had players go off on them?) all describe an extremely well rounded player whose strengths would be maximized in the current nba.

I explained why I don't think Stockton would be able to benefit much in the first 5 pages of the thread. Primarily inability to get separation.

This feels very much like someone who primarily watched Stockton in 1997-98, which is unfortunately true for most NBA fans, particularly on the East Coast. He was two steps slower by that point of his career, particularly vs. pre-1990. He had a great first step and a lethal hesitation move early in his career.

[tsherkin]

Taking the accolades aside (defensively-focused players are always disadvantaged there), as Gobert not shown plenty of impact through his career?

Yes, but I also didn't describe him as a "no impact player," so that isn't really equivalent.

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.

While I feel your broader point, I don't think that description does justice to the argument. Also, I was trying to provide the contrast to support your side of the argument anyway, yeah? But as theonlyclutch noted, it's sometimes harder to get love for the defense-only guys. Took forever and a day to get Ben Wallace some love, for example. So it becomes more of an argument about Stockton's O versus Rudy's D, and then Stockton's D versus Rudy's O, and the magnitudes thereof, I suppose.

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.

TBF, Stockton didn't either. Leastwise, not over his prime. 88-98, he averaged 3.3 tpg and then after that, he played a half-dozen seasons between 27-29 mpg and one at 31. He averaged 3.2 TOV36 on his career and only averaged less than 3 over 4 of his final 5 seasons, never prior. He was a 20.8% TOV guy, which tracks with most non-Chris Paul volume assist producers.

[tsherkin]

This feels very much like someone who primarily watched Stockton in 1997-98, which is unfortunately true for most NBA fans, particularly on the East Coast. He was two steps slower by that point of his career, particularly vs. pre-1990. He had a great first step and a lethal hesitation move early in his career.

He was also post microfracture surgery that year, wasn't he? And 35 years old, 36 by the playoffs.

[Bergmaniac]

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.

Most of the threes Morant takes are wide open.

[G R E Y]

I voted top 10, easily.

[E-Balla]

This feels very much like someone who primarily watched Stockton in 1997-98, which is unfortunately true for most NBA fans, particularly on the East Coast. He was two steps slower by that point of his career, particularly vs. pre-1990. He had a great first step and a lethal hesitation move early in his career.

He was also post microfracture surgery that year, wasn't he? And 35 years old, 36 by the playoffs.

He had microfracture during the season and it was the first time in his career missing significant PT.

Funny part is you can still find Gilbert Arenas and Baron Davis clips talking about how amazing he was ever AFTER 98. GP says he's the toughest guard he's ever had.

Hilariously the best anti-Stockton argument IMO is the opposite of the one being taken here, if anything Stockton was TOO physical for today's game.

[tsherkin]

He had microfracture during the season and it was the first time in his career missing significant PT.

Yeah, like I said earlier, the number of times he DIDN'T play 82 games is... three seasons. One of which was a 50-game season where he played every game, and another of which was a 78-game season. Insane durability, especially for a little dude.

Hilariously the best anti-Stockton argument IMO is the opposite of the one being taken here, if anything Stockton was TOO physical for today's game.

I mean, I"m sure he'd adapt. But he was also cunning, and played the refs like fiddles xD

[SonicMcMahon]

I put top-10. Guy was a beast and his contemporaries know it.

Imagine if prime Kyle Lowry had improved passing and shooting skills, never missed any games, and did it consistently for ~20 years.

That's John Stockton.

[tsherkin]

I put top-10. Guy was a beast and his contemporaries know it.

Imagine if prime Kyle Lowry had improved passing and shooting skills, never missed any games, and did it consistently for ~20 years.

That's John Stockton.

They... didn't play anything alike, though?

[Catchall]

The game is very different today. Stockton would be asked to shoot 8+ 3s. There wouldn't be anywhere near the physicality he had to deal with coming off screens. He'd be one of the best passers and shooters at the guard position in the league. He was a bonafide three-level scorer. He'd also be a tough on-ball defender.

I think he'd be like a tougher, more offensively versatile version of Mike Conley with 30-ft. shooting range.

[tsherkin]

The game is very different today. Stockton would be asked to shoot 8+ 3s. There wouldn't be anywhere near the physicality he had to deal with coming off screens. He'd be good though. He'd be one of the best passers and shooters at the guard position in the league. He as a bonafide three-level scorer. He'd also be a tough on-ball defender.

I doubt he'd be asked to shoot 8+ 3s. THe idea behind that assumes he'd be a focal scorer, which he was never. The likelihood that he'd do that is quite low. Also, "bonafide three-level scorer" is probably a little aggressive, especially for a dude who never managed a 20 ppg season and couldn't really get it going in the postseason when they needed it from him. Stockton was brilliant, but scoring pressure wasn't his thing.