Where would Stockton rank as a point guard today

[Zetsword]

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.

I don't think people understand the importance of this in the current NBA. I'm just not buying his ability to self generate today. To be an elite guard that is 6'1" or under is absurdly difficult. I see people comparing him to CP but he does not have CP3 2015-2021 scoring package nor Brunson's from the last season or so. All the other guards are much bigger, faster, or skilled. But oh well. Difference of opinion.

[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.

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

You don't think so? I don't know if I'd say their exact style is the same (I think Kyle attacks more, esp in transition, and pulls up for 3 off the dribble more; Stockton more methodical in a half-court offense).

But I'd list all of the following as similarities:
- hustle
- sneaky/dirty intangibles
- ref baiting
- pass-first mentality
- physical, sneaky strong
- very good screen-setters
- very good shooting
- very good but not exceptional playmaking (although stronger in Stockton's case)
- high motors
- high bball IQ

In terms of output for your team they both d a ton on defense despite their size, and on offense they get the ball to the right places and make 3s.

What do you think is a better comparison?

[tsherkin]

You don't think so? I don't know if I'd say their exact style is the same (I think Kyle attacks more, esp in transition, and pulls up for 3 off the dribble more; Stockton more methodical in a half-court offense).

Kyle is a straight rim-or-three guy with more power and quickness than Stockton had, and with a considerably less cerebral approach to playmaking. He was a solid guy, reasonably efficient (if high variance) but didn't really have anything like Stockton's playmaking or help D. He also exerted considerably greater rim pressure, and wasn't quite the same level of PnR savant.

I don't know that there is another awesome comparison for him, to be honest. He isn't UNLIKE Mark Price. His playmaking/dribbling style was different than Nash's, although as a lower-scoring, volume PnR playmaker with a great shot, there are similarities. Wasn't quite the same in terms of the continuity dribble. Rajon Rondo with an actual jumper and competent from the FT line? Not quite there, but again, close. You see what I mean?

[SonicMcMahon]

You don't think so? I don't know if I'd say their exact style is the same (I think Kyle attacks more, esp in transition, and pulls up for 3 off the dribble more; Stockton more methodical in a half-court offense).

Kyle is a straight rim-or-three guy with more power and quickness than Stockton had, and with a considerably less cerebral approach to playmaking. He was a solid guy, reasonably efficient (if high variance) but didn't really have anything like Stockton's playmaking or help D. He also exerted considerably greater rim pressure, and wasn't quite the same level of PnR savant.

I don't know that there is another awesome comparison for him, to be honest. He isn't UNLIKE Mark Price. His playmaking/dribbling style was different than Nash's, although as a lower-scoring, volume PnR playmaker with a great shot, there are similarities. Wasn't quite the same in terms of the continuity dribble. Rajon Rondo with an actual jumper and competent from the FT line? Not quite there, but again, close. You see what I mean?

All fair points, although I'd argue Kyle's help D was excellent in its own way: deflecting passes, taking charges, directing teammates etc.. (Not the all-time STLs record good, perhaps)

[tsherkin]

All fair points, although I'd argue Kyle's help D was excellent in its own way: deflecting passes, taking charges, directing teammates etc.. (Not the all-time STLs record good, perhaps)

YEs, he was a high-hustle guy and he was also a pretty good man defender as well. I appreciated him a lot as a Raptor. Was noting differences between him and Stockton, not trying to talk deficiencies.

[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.

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."

I've been pretty clear about this; we can argue Stockton would use his skillset differently in the modern era, and for some of his skills that would work out great, but we can't give him skills he never had. It's too speculative. That's a problem because Stockton never showed anything resembling elite shot creation or even close, and that's more or less mandatory for star guards today. Stockton could not create separation like Shai or Luka or Nash or Harden; they all have some combination of athleticism/moves/shake that Stockton does not have. That's problem 1.

Problem 2 is that you talk about how Stockton played that way to win, and was only held back by Jordan. As was discussed at length, that is simply inaccurate. From 88 to 94 for example the Jazz averaged only 51 wins a year, lost in the 1st rnd three times, the 2nd rnd twice, and were soundly beaten in the WCFs the other 2 times. They were not beaten by legendary teams, one of the teams they lost to was a 43 win team that swept them in the 1st round, and there was a decent amount of help on those Jazz teams too. If Stockton was the MVP player he's being held out as, their resume shouldn't look like that. The Jazz were not 'held back by Jordan', they were losing to alot of teams in fact. Indeed, it's only when Stockton is older and has a lesser role that the Jazz go on a finals run. Stockton was playing a certain way to help his team win, but it didn't lead to as much winning as it should have if he was an MVP type player. Utah also would have won alot more if Stockton could have exploded to the basket and scored more easily; believe it or not alot of guards did that, even in Stockton's era.

There are other problems too, like the fact that the league today is much stronger than when he played, or that his shooting and D is being overrated a little due to the era he played in, or that the guys he's being compared to are mostly not that great (eg Lowry, Rondo, Conley were nice players, but wouldn't be top 5 PGs today); but these are all lesser issues.

[tsherkin]

I've been pretty clear about this; we can argue Stockton would use his skillset differently in the modern era, and for some of his skills that would work out great, but we can't give him skills he never had. It's too speculative.

You don't need to give him skills he never had. You just have to remind yourself that he was a smart, coachable player who would adapt to tactical differences pretty easily.

That's a problem because Stockton never showed anything resembling elite shot creation or even close, and that's more or less mandatory for star guards today. Stockton could not create separation like Shai or Luka or Nash or Harden; they all have some combination of athleticism/moves/shake that Stockton does not have. That's problem 1.

So, no. That isn't really the same thing. What you're talking about is individual isolation creation. Stockton was able to ply the pick and roll in order to create shots. He didn't need to have a devastating bag of iso dribble moves to create middies for himself or to attack the basket. He attacked in transition, he moved well without the ball, and he plied the PnR. That's more than enough to fill the type of role he did then in today's game.

It's also worth mentioning that no one is treating Stockton like a Shai or a Luka. He isn't being examined as a 1st option, so the type of scoring creation you're discussing is far less relevant.

[One_and_Done]

I've been pretty clear about this; we can argue Stockton would use his skillset differently in the modern era, and for some of his skills that would work out great, but we can't give him skills he never had. It's too speculative.

You don't need to give him skills he never had. You just have to remind yourself that he was a smart, coachable player who would adapt to tactical differences pretty easily.

That's a problem because Stockton never showed anything resembling elite shot creation or even close, and that's more or less mandatory for star guards today. Stockton could not create separation like Shai or Luka or Nash or Harden; they all have some combination of athleticism/moves/shake that Stockton does not have. That's problem 1.

So, no. That isn't really the same thing. What you're talking about is individual isolation creation. Stockton was able to ply the pick and roll in order to create shots. He didn't need to have a devastating bag of iso dribble moves to create middies for himself or to attack the basket. He attacked in transition, he moved well without the ball, and he plied the PnR. That's more than enough to fill the type of role he did then in today's game.

It's also worth mentioning that no one is treating Stockton like a Shai or a Luka. He isn't being examined as a 1st option, so the type of scoring creation you're discussing is far less relevant.

A guy can be smart and coachable, but assuming we limit them to the skills and abilities they actually had there are limits on Stockton.

Stockton would be a good player today, top 25-30ish, and his shooting, passing, defence and PnR skills, though overrated due to the era he was in where nobody defended the 3 properly and PnR was amateurish compared to today, would serve him well.

In today's game you do need to be able to create your own shot to be a star guard, because it unlocks everything else. If Harden or Shai or Luka couldn't do that, they would be far, far worse players.

[tsherkin]

A guy can be smart and coachable, but assuming we limit them to the skills and abilities they actually had there are limits on Stockton.

But when you say that, you eliminate any concept of adaptation, which is odd and not really sensible.

Stockton would be a good player today, top 25-30ish, and his shooting, passing, defence and PnR skills, though overrated due to the era he was in where nobody defended the 3 properly and PnR was amateurish compared to today, would serve him well.

It is faintly remarkable how you can never clearly acknowledge a strength of Stockton's without an attendant disparaging remark.

In today's game you do need to be able to create your own shot to be a star guard, because it unlocks everything else. If Harden or Shai or Luka couldn't do that, they would be far, far worse players.

I think you're failing to appreciate to whom Stockton is being compared and what relevance there is for that skillset.

[One_and_Done]

A guy can be smart and coachable, but assuming we limit them to the skills and abilities they actually had there are limits on Stockton.

But when you say that, you eliminate any concept of adaptation, which is odd and not really sensible.

Stockton would be a good player today, top 25-30ish, and his shooting, passing, defence and PnR skills, though overrated due to the era he was in where nobody defended the 3 properly and PnR was amateurish compared to today, would serve him well.

It is faintly remarkable how you can never clearly acknowledge a strength of Stockton's without an attendant disparaging remark.

In today's game you do need to be able to create your own shot to be a star guard, because it unlocks everything else. If Harden or Shai or Luka couldn't do that, they would be far, far worse players.

I think you're failing to appreciate to whom Stockton is being compared and what relevance there is for that skillset.

This is why I asked earlier "who is the archetype for a player with Stockton's skillset in today's league?" That's because none of the comparisons are indicative of a top 5 PG today. It's 'a worse version of Chris Paul who couldn't create his shot or score or defend as well' or 'Conley if he was better at passing but worse at individual creation'. Even 'Rondo with a 3pt shot' (which I'm not entirely on board with) isn't a top 5 point guard today if he can't create his own shot.

I just flat out disagree with you, mainly because you're using adaptation to mean 'develop new skills', whereas I mean he could use his existing skills differently. You also have Stockton 'top 15-20' today vs my ranking of 25-30, so it's not that big a difference anyway.

[tsherkin]

Even 'Rondo with a 3pt shot' (which I'm not entirely on board with) isn't a top 5 point guard today if he can't create his own shot.

Rondo with competent shooting would be an actual terror in this league, tbf. He was just incompetent at scoring, and it really hurt his utility.

I just flat out disagree with you, mainly because you're using adaptation to mean 'develop new skills', whereas I mean he could use his existing skills differently.

What "new skills" have I stated he would develop?

[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."

I've been pretty clear about this; we can argue Stockton would use his skillset differently in the modern era, and for some of his skills that would work out great, but we can't give him skills he never had. It's too speculative. That's a problem because Stockton never showed anything resembling elite shot creation or even close, and that's more or less mandatory for star guards today. Stockton could not create separation like Shai or Luka or Nash or Harden; they all have some combination of athleticism/moves/shake that Stockton does not have. That's problem 1.

Problem 2 is that you talk about how Stockton played that way to win, and was only held back by Jordan. As was discussed at length, that is simply inaccurate. From 88 to 94 for example the Jazz averaged only 51 wins a year, lost in the 1st rnd three times, the 2nd rnd twice, and were soundly beaten in the WCFs the other 2 times. They were not beaten by legendary teams, one of the teams they lost to was a 43 win team that swept them in the 1st round, and there was a decent amount of help on those Jazz teams too. If Stockton was the MVP player he's being held out as, their resume shouldn't look like that. The Jazz were not 'held back by Jordan', they were losing to alot of teams in fact. Indeed, it's only when Stockton is older and has a lesser role that the Jazz go on a finals run. Stockton was playing a certain way to help his team win, but it didn't lead to as much winning as it should have if he was an MVP type player. Utah also would have won alot more if Stockton could have exploded to the basket and scored more easily; believe it or not alot of guards did that, even in Stockton's era.

There are other problems too, like the fact that the league today is much stronger than when he played, or that his shooting and D is being overrated a little due to the era he played in, or that the guys he's being compared to are mostly not that great (eg Lowry, Rondo, Conley were nice players, but wouldn't be top 5 PGs today); but these are all lesser issues.

"we can argue Stockton would use his skillset differently in the modern era, and for some of his skills that would work out great, but we can't give him skills he never had. It's too speculative."

Everything you and i are doing (and every single person on this forum frankly) is speculative. Both our arguments are speculative because we can't test our theories.

You also don't seem to understand my argument at a rudimentary level since i'm not giving stockton new skills, i'm saying the skills he had in the 80s, 90s and 2000s are transferable and would be maximized in the current era.

"That's a problem because Stockton never showed anything resembling elite shot creation or even close, and that's more or less mandatory for star guards today."

No it's not mandatory. Dead stop. Having a scoring first guard is a current trend. This is the problem with nba throughout history. It's a copycat league, meaning if a team has major success other teams try to copy that teams skillset/style. Then, people say you can't win without this, that, etc... Until another team wins without that requirement, then every team tries to copy that team. Then the same thing happens, over and over. Nba history is a history of this type of flawed thinking.

It used to be said you can't win with a small guard as your best player, then isiah thomas happened. It also used to be said you can win without an elite center, then 80s celtics and 90s bulls happened. It was said that you can't win with a team that relies on shooting (that was an argument of why nash never won a championship), then curry happened. This line of thinking has been refuted for decades, but some people still believe this lie.

Problem 1 solved.

"From 88 to 94 for example the Jazz averaged only 51 wins a year, lost in the 1st rnd three times, the 2nd rnd twice, and were soundly beaten in the WCFs the other 2 times."

It's hilarious that you argue making the conference finals twice, the second round twice and made the 1st round 3 times in a 7 year stretch is somehow bad. They averaged 51 win a year, as you said, in that stretch. Do you know how many teams would kill for stretch of success. The only teams that would scoff at that are the lakers and celtics. Every other team and it's fans would love to see their team play that well.

"If Stockton was the MVP player he's being held out as, their resume shouldn't look like that. The Jazz were not 'held back by Jordan', they were losing to alot of teams in fact."

Still an excellent resume, again. Every team in the 90s lost to a lot of teams, except the bulls. The suns lost, is barkley overrated?, the blazers lost, is drexler overrated?, aside from jordan's retired years, the rockets lost, is olajuwon overrated?, the sonics lost, is payton overrated?, the knicks lost, is ewing overrated?, the magic lost, is shaq overrated?, the pacers lost, is miller overrated? These were all still excellent teams even if they were beaten. Someone has to lose in sports, that doesn't make the losing team bad, just not as good that year.

"Indeed, it's only when Stockton is older and has a lesser role that the Jazz go on a finals run.

Stockton was only in a "lesser role", in the jazz 2nd finals run. He was playing at the same level and role he had for years, to major success, in 97 and only played worse in 98 because he was injured, the only stretch where he missed significant games in his career.

"Stockton was playing a certain way to help his team win, but it didn't lead to as much winning as it should have if he was an MVP type player."

His teams when to the finals twice, the conference finals 3 times, the 2nd round 4 times and never missed the playoffs. Your sentence is a lie.

"Utah also would have won alot more if Stockton could have exploded to the basket and scored more easily; believe it or not alot of guards did that, even in Stockton's era.""

Maybe, but they still had major success because he knew how to excel without being an elite scorer, since you don't have to be an elite scorer to impact the game at an elite level.

Problem 2 solved.

"There are other problems too, like the fact that the league today is much stronger than when he played, or that his shooting and D is being overrated a little due to the era he played in, or that the guys he's being compared to are mostly not that great (eg Lowry, Rondo, Conley were nice players, but wouldn't be top 5 PGs today); but these are all lesser issues."

The league is played faster, is more spaced out because of more good shooters at every position and allows zone defenses, so teams can use switching as they please. Those are the primary differences between the 90's and today's leagues. Players aren't just magically better. The league is played differently and in such a way that stockton would thrive in the league today with the skillset that he had in his prime.

Stockton had good enough 3pt shooting that if he was on a team with modern spacing he could up his 3pt attempts to maybe 4 a game (not unreasonable) while maintain his efficiency. He wouldn't take high volume 3s like doncic, curry, etc... and wouldn't have to to excel individually while having team success.

The modern league relies more on team defense than man to man most of the time, and stockton was an excellent team defender. Again, with the defensive freedom teams are allowed now (they were mostly forced to play man to man in the 80s and 90s), modern defenseive strategies would play to stockton's strengths.

I compared stockton to nash in an earlier post, not lowry, rondo, or conley. They would have some similarities in play style, rondo and conley more than lowry though. Stockton is a player with offensive skills but didn't force them when he could find teammates easier shots, which he usually did. That is more reminiscient of nash than lowry, rondo or conley. Stockton was also on another level as a player than lowry, rondo or conley.

No "new" skills are given to stockton in my arguments. If you think i have given stockton "new" skills, read this post again more thoroughly.

[chicago paxsons]

A guy can be smart and coachable, but assuming we limit them to the skills and abilities they actually had there are limits on Stockton.

But when you say that, you eliminate any concept of adaptation, which is odd and not really sensible.

Stockton would be a good player today, top 25-30ish, and his shooting, passing, defence and PnR skills, though overrated due to the era he was in where nobody defended the 3 properly and PnR was amateurish compared to today, would serve him well.

It is faintly remarkable how you can never clearly acknowledge a strength of Stockton's without an attendant disparaging remark.

In today's game you do need to be able to create your own shot to be a star guard, because it unlocks everything else. If Harden or Shai or Luka couldn't do that, they would be far, far worse players.

I think you're failing to appreciate to whom Stockton is being compared and what relevance there is for that skillset.

This is why I asked earlier "who is the archetype for a player with Stockton's skillset in today's league?" That's because none of the comparisons are indicative of a top 5 PG today. It's 'a worse version of Chris Paul who couldn't create his shot or score or defend as well' or 'Conley if he was better at passing but worse at individual creation'. Even 'Rondo with a 3pt shot' (which I'm not entirely on board with) isn't a top 5 point guard today if he can't create his own shot.

I just flat out disagree with you, mainly because you're using adaptation to mean 'develop new skills', whereas I mean he could use his existing skills differently. You also have Stockton 'top 15-20' today vs my ranking of 25-30, so it's not that big a difference anyway.

"who is the archetype for a player with Stockton's skillset in today's league?"

This is a nonsense question. Real basketball is not 2k. Players don't need an archetype to excel in the league. Players don't need to "be like" another player to have success. Who is jokic an archetype of? He has similarities to certain players, but he is his own archetype and won a championship and 2 mvps as his own player.

[One_and_Done]

If you aren't giving Stockton new skills then you either:
1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today, or
2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched.

You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal), and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98).

If Stockton was an MVP type player then Stockton's career was a failure. How would the 88-94 run, averaging 51 wins and getting bounced out of the playoffs early all the time, be a good showing for 2 MVP players on the same team? What would our reaction be if Lebron and Wade, or Shaq and Kobe, had this resume. They would be rightly ripped on.

[chicago paxsons]

If you aren't giving Stockton new skills then you either:
1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today, or
2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched.

You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal), and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98).

"1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today".

No you're overvaluing scoring guards. Having a scoring guard is valuable, but not essential. Like is said, it's the current trend. Don't confuse a trend with a fundamental requirement.

"2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched."

Good, you've finally caught up.

"You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal)"

Getting to the playoffs isn't a failure, since he never missed the playoffs, and you completely ignore stockton's playoff success to shoehorn in your argument.

"and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98)."

Not "especially in 98", solely in 98. I emphasized 1 appearance where stockton's role was reduced. In 98, when he was injured and missed the only significant time in his career. In 97 stockton was playing at the usual role and minutes that he had in his earlier years to his typically excellent team success.

[One_and_Done]

If you aren't giving Stockton new skills then you either:
1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today, or
2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched.

You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal), and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98).

"1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today".

No you're overvaluing scoring guards. Having a scoring guard is valuable, but not essential. Like is said, it's the current trend. Don't confuse a trend with a fundamental requirement.

"2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched."

Good, you've finally caught up.

"You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal)"

Getting to the playoffs isn't a failure, since he never missed the playoffs, and you completely ignore stockton's playoff success to shoehorn in your argument.

"and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98)."

Not "especially in 98", solely in 98. I emphasized 1 appearance where stockton's role was reduced. In 98, when he was injured and missed the only significant time in his career. In 97 stockton was playing at the usual role and minutes that he had in his earlier years to his typically excellent team success.

We just disagree. It's not a trend, it's a feature. You literally can't be a star guard today without scoring creation. There's no archetype for it, and there is no logical way it would work. When star guards like C.Paul lose their ability to create separation, they stop being stars.

[MavsDirk41]

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.

John Stockton would have no issues creating his own shot in todays nba. His handle was second to none and he had deceptive speed once he got in the open court. He would most certainly be an all star candidate year. Utah made 5 conference finals, 2 finals, and won 50 or more games 12 seasons that Stockton played there. Stockton would most certainly be in the conversation for top 5 point guard in todays nba. Guys like Morant, Ball, and Young are coming off injury plagued seasons. Harden is a chucker who plays no D. Luka, Curry, and Brunson are the only point guards who would definitely be above him. I would take him over Fox, Lilliard, and Maxey. You need to look at the poll and take a hint. At worst he is top 10 top PG.

[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.

John Stockton would have no issues creating his own shot in todays nba. His handle was second to none and he had deceptive speed once he got in the open court. He would most certainly be an all star candidate year. Utah made 5 conference finals, 2 finals, and won 50 or more games 12 seasons that Stockton played there. Stockton would most certainly be in the conversation for top 5 point guard in todays nba. Guys like Morant, Ball, and Young are coming off injury plagued seasons. Harden is a chucker who plays no D. Luka, Curry, and Brunson are the only point guards who would definitely be above him. I would take him over Fox, Lilliard, and Maxey. You need to look at the poll and take a hint. At worst he is top 10 top PG.

His handle and separation ability looks like what TJ McConnell could do. It looks nothing like the guys you just named.

[MavsDirk41]

If you aren't giving Stockton new skills then you either:
1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today, or
2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched.

You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal), and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98).

"1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today".

No you're overvaluing scoring guards. Having a scoring guard is valuable, but not essential. Like is said, it's the current trend. Don't confuse a trend with a fundamental requirement.

"2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched."

Good, you've finally caught up.

"You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal)"

Getting to the playoffs isn't a failure, since he never missed the playoffs, and you completely ignore stockton's playoff success to shoehorn in your argument.

"and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98)."

Not "especially in 98", solely in 98. I emphasized 1 appearance where stockton's role was reduced. In 98, when he was injured and missed the only significant time in his career. In 97 stockton was playing at the usual role and minutes that he had in his earlier years to his typically excellent team success.

We just disagree. It's not a trend, it's a feature. You literally can't be a star guard today without scoring creation. There's no archetype for it, and there is no logical way it would work. When star guards like C.Paul lose their ability to create separation, they stop being stars.

Chris Paul lost it because he couldn’t stay healthy anymore and he wasnt nearly efficient shooting the ball like he was in the past.

[One_and_Done]

"1) Don't understand the importance of scoring creation for a lead guard today".

No you're overvaluing scoring guards. Having a scoring guard is valuable, but not essential. Like is said, it's the current trend. Don't confuse a trend with a fundamental requirement.

"2) Are seeing a different skillset to the Stockton I watched."

Good, you've finally caught up.

"You are also skimming over Stockton's many failures (the 7 years I cited gets about a sentence of rebuttal)"

Getting to the playoffs isn't a failure, since he never missed the playoffs, and you completely ignore stockton's playoff success to shoehorn in your argument.

"and emphasise a bunch of accolades and finals appearances that came when Stockton's role was reduced (especially in 98)."

Not "especially in 98", solely in 98. I emphasized 1 appearance where stockton's role was reduced. In 98, when he was injured and missed the only significant time in his career. In 97 stockton was playing at the usual role and minutes that he had in his earlier years to his typically excellent team success.

We just disagree. It's not a trend, it's a feature. You literally can't be a star guard today without scoring creation. There's no archetype for it, and there is no logical way it would work. When star guards like C.Paul lose their ability to create separation, they stop being stars.

Chris Paul lost it because he couldn’t stay healthy anymore and he wasnt nearly efficient shooting the ball like he was in the past.

That's basically what I just said. His body broke down, which caused him to lose his ability to get separation and create offense efficiently.