Curry, Nash, or Stockton with a twist

[parsnips33]

Curry didn't score a single point in the 60s 70s 80s or 90s

And people still worship this chucker

[Ol Roy]

Stockton, comfortably. His toughness doesn't just factor into his defense, but also his durability.

[penbeast0]

Curry didn't score a single point in the 60s 70s 80s or 90s

And people still worship this chucker

Is this person actually making any sense in either a basketball or a humorous sense? I'm not seeing it.

[kcktiny]

Stockton defense at the guard spot is not relevant enough

Stockton one of the best defensive PGs ever - 5 time all-defensive team, career league leader in steals - is not relevant? Do you not think defense is of importance?

to make up for being a much worse scorer and playmaker

Do you know what the word "playmaker" means?

I'd pick Stockton in any situation, imo, he is the GOAT point guard.

He is clearly in the conversation for GOAT PG.

Furthermore, PG defense in the 60s/70s was much less valuable than it is today.

I can't even to begin to understand what this comment means. K.C. Jones was a key backbone of those 60s Celtics title teams first and foremost because of his excellent defense. Walt Frazier was a key backbone of the early 70s New York Knicks teams and their title because of his outstanding defense.

I don't think any of these 3 would be as good as West and Oscar were back then though.

This is likely true. These two today rarely seem get the recognition they truly deserve for their dominance at their positions. West/Robertson can easily be named the starting backcourt on the greatest NBA team of all-time.

Stockton, comfortably. His toughness doesn't just factor into his defense, but also his durability.

Curry hasn't played more than 2421 minutes in a season in 9 years. Nash played as many as 2800 minutes in a season just once in his career.

Stockton played an entire decade of 2800+ minutes/season, with 3 seasons of 3000+ minutes, while missing less than 1 game/season. That's another key reason for his GOAT candidacy.

[cpower]

Stockton because of the defense.

Absolutely.

Not only that, I wonder how many realize that Nash played 18 seasons, and Curry 16 seasons, but that Stockton in his career threw for almost as many assists (15806) as Nash and Curry did in their entire careers combined (16874). Nash also never threw for as many as 900 assists in a season. Stockton threw for 1000+ assists in a season 7 times, 900+ assists 9 times.

Alsos Stockton grabbed 800+ more steals than Nash and Curry did combined, blocked almost as many shots (315) and those two did combined (367).

so? despite his great career numbers, was the Jazz so far ahead of everyone in terms of assists and steals? what is the difference between Stockton getting the assist vs Malone getting the assist?

[kcktiny]

Not sure I understand your question. What does your question have to do with Curry vs. Nash vs. Stockton?

[migya]

Stockton because of the defense.

Absolutely.

Not only that, I wonder how many realize that Nash played 18 seasons, and Curry 16 seasons, but that Stockton in his career threw for almost as many assists (15806) as Nash and Curry did in their entire careers combined (16874). Nash also never threw for as many as 900 assists in a season. Stockton threw for 1000+ assists in a season 7 times, 900+ assists 9 times.

Alsos Stockton grabbed 800+ more steals than Nash and Curry did combined, blocked almost as many shots (315) and those two did combined (367).

so? despite his great career numbers, was the Jazz so far ahead of everyone in terms of assists and steals? what is the difference between Stockton getting the assist vs Malone getting the assist?

Stockton was responsible for almost all the primary playmaking, he was his team's assists. Stockton is undisputably among the best playmakers ever.

[theonlyclutch]

Absolutely.

Not only that, I wonder how many realize that Nash played 18 seasons, and Curry 16 seasons, but that Stockton in his career threw for almost as many assists (15806) as Nash and Curry did in their entire careers combined (16874). Nash also never threw for as many as 900 assists in a season. Stockton threw for 1000+ assists in a season 7 times, 900+ assists 9 times.

Alsos Stockton grabbed 800+ more steals than Nash and Curry did combined, blocked almost as many shots (315) and those two did combined (367).

so? despite his great career numbers, was the Jazz so far ahead of everyone in terms of assists and steals? what is the difference between Stockton getting the assist vs Malone getting the assist?

Stockton was responsible for almost all the primary playmaking, he was his team's assists. Stockton is undisputably among the best playmakers ever.

It's a shame that 20 years of that playmaking with an absurdly healthy and competent running mate, decent/good supporting casts, stable coaching system led to... nothing.

Can't wait for the same old excuses to start.

[kcktiny]

It's a shame that 20 years of that playmaking with an absurdly healthy and competent running mate, decent/good supporting casts, stable coaching system led to... nothing. Can't wait for the same old excuses to start.

Stockton knock your team out of a few playoffs or something for you to have this grudge? What has Nash won? I don't see you saying the same thing about him.

The 19 years Stockton played Utah had the league's second best W-L record, the third most playoff wins, and went to two Finals, losing to Jordan's Bulls both times. All that time the Jazz averaged 52 wins a season, had three 60+ win seasons, NEVER had a sub .500 record all that time.

Get a life dude. Why don't you go ask some Clippers fans from those 19 years - who during that time had six different PGs with 150+ games started, averaged just 27 wins a season with only 4 playoff wins, played .500 ball just twice, all that time - if they wished they had Stockton as their PG.

Stockton was a great player to watch. Too bad you missed watching him play.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[migya]

so? despite his great career numbers, was the Jazz so far ahead of everyone in terms of assists and steals? what is the difference between Stockton getting the assist vs Malone getting the assist?

Stockton was responsible for almost all the primary playmaking, he was his team's assists. Stockton is undisputably among the best playmakers ever.

It's a shame that 20 years of that playmaking with an absurdly healthy and competent running mate, decent/good supporting casts, stable coaching system led to... nothing.

Can't wait for the same old excuses to start.

Read the post above this one.

[tsherkin]

It's a shame that 20 years of that playmaking with an absurdly healthy and competent running mate, decent/good supporting casts, stable coaching system led to... nothing. Can't wait for the same old excuses to start.

Stockton knock your team out of a few playoffs or something for you to have this grudge? What has Nash won? I don't see you saying the same thing about him.

The 19 years Stockton played Utah had the league's second best W-L record, the third most playoff wins, and went to two Finals, losing to Jordan's Bulls both times. All that time the Jazz averaged 52 wins a season, had three 60+ win seasons, NEVER had a sub .500 record all that time.

Get a life dude. Why don't you go ask some Clippers fans from those 19 years - who during that time had six different PGs with 150+ games started, averaged just 27 wins a season with only 4 playoff wins, played .500 ball just twice, all that time - if they wished they had Stockton as their PG.

Stockton was a great player to watch. Too bad you missed watching him play.

I think it's always a trial with someone like Stockton to balance criticism with acknowledgement, you know?

What often happens in these discussions is that you end up with two sides, the pro and con side, and there isn't a lot of intermingling, which isn't a full picture of the player.

So while we know Stockton couldn't score well enough to help Utah win a title, and we know he padded his assists a lot in a system designed for movement guys to come off screens, and that he struggled defensively with size and athleticism...

We also know he was one of the best PnR playmakers in the history of the league (basically top 3 with Paul and Nash). And that Utah failed pretty miserably to put a real second scorer on the roster, because it was always shooters like Jeff Malone or Jeff Hornacek, and they also didn't have it at the highest of levels. Excellent off hand, excellent pocket passer. Far more dangerous in transition than is often remembered. Great spatial awareness, excellent game management. Truly one of the best guys to have controlling your offense. You could see after he retired that Utah's system was able to produce a lot of assists with lesser talents (though surely not the same level of playmaking ability).

Stockton's legit an all-time great. And while single-game/series impact with him varies, he was an insane ironman. And as the saying goes, availability is one of the best abilities, right? He played forever, he created no drama, and he just kept grinding away at you. His greatest sin? Not being a top-15 player all-time, essentially. Because that's what he would have been had he possessed more scoring ability. So as far as criticisms go, that isn't bad, man. You could do a lot worse than having Stockton on your team. He isn't the guy who's going to lead you to the promised land, but he's one hell of a #3 and a pretty bad-ass #2 even. I imagine he would have feasted in today's environment. Instead of having Adam Keefe, Greg Ostertag and Greg Foster platooning his frontcourt, he would probably have a lob threat 5 who could defend and a legitimate spacing 3. Instead of having Howard Eisley and Jeff Hornacek, he'd hopefully have a little more legit perimeter talent. And all of a sudden, things look a little different for his outlook, depending on if he was still able to get his Karl Malone.

Regardless, he'd do very well in today's environment, as he did in his own. Stockton specifically was a player type which would translate well. He'd probably be asked to shoot more today, which isn't ideal, but the PnR spam would be RIGHT up his alley. It's been almost a quarter century since he retired and his skill set is still of a sort which is in HIGH demand.

So while I'm a huge Nash and Paul fan and I have my thoughts about Stockton's limitations, it IS always important to recognize that he was a truly remarkable player.

[penbeast0]

...

So while we know Stockton couldn't score well enough to help Utah win a title, and we know he padded his assists a lot in a system designed for movement guys to come off screens, and that he struggled defensively with size and athleticism...

We also know he was one of the best PnR playmakers in the history of the league (basically top 3 with Paul and Nash). And that Utah failed pretty miserably to put a real second scorer on the roster, because it was always shooters like Jeff Malone or Jeff Hornacek, and they also didn't have it at the highest of levels. Excellent off hand, excellent pocket passer. Far more dangerous in transition than is often remembered. Great spatial awareness, excellent game management. Truly one of the best guys to have controlling your offense. You could see after he retired that Utah's system was able to produce a lot of assists with lesser talents (though surely not the same level of playmaking ability).

Stockton's legit an all-time great. And while single-game/series impact with him varies, he was an insane ironman. And as the saying goes, availability is one of the best abilities, right? He played forever, he created no drama, and he just kept grinding away at you. His greatest sin? Not being a top-15 player all-time, essentially. Because that's what he would have been had he possessed more scoring ability. So as far as criticisms go, that isn't bad, man. You could do a lot worse than having Stockton on your team. He isn't the guy who's going to lead you to the promised land, but he's one hell of a #3 and a pretty bad-ass #2 even. I imagine he would have feasted in today's environment. Instead of having Adam Keefe, Greg Ostertag and Greg Foster platooning his frontcourt, he would probably have a lob threat 5 who could defend and a legitimate spacing 3. Instead of having Howard Eisley and Jeff Hornacek, he'd hopefully have a little more legit perimeter talent. And all of a sudden, things look a little different for his outlook, depending on if he was still able to get his Karl Malone.

Regardless, he'd do very well in today's environment, as he did in his own. Stockton specifically was a player type which would translate well. He'd probably be asked to shoot more today, which isn't ideal, but the PnR spam would be RIGHT up his alley. It's been almost a quarter century since he retired and his skill set is still of a sort which is in HIGH demand.

So while I'm a huge Nash and Paul fan and I have my thoughts about Stockton's limitations, it IS always important to recognize that he was a truly remarkable player.

I don't think we know Stockton couldn't score well enough to win a title. I think a more accurate statement is that Jerry Sloan didn't utilize him as a scoring point despite his outstanding scoring efficiency and shooting range. Whether his scoring could have scaled up, it generally didn't.

Second, I'm not fond of the idea that he "padded his assists a lot." From what I saw of Utah, his assists came in the context of the offense; he wasn't getting cheap assists outside the offense the way Moses or McGinnis were accused of rebounding the ball to themselves to get their numbers up or any number of the great scorers were accused of playing hero ball to pad their scoring totals, even (or maybe especially) in meaningless games.

I do agree that athletic points could and did beat his man defense pretty solidly.

I will agree that his main running partners at guard before Hornacek, Darrell Griffith and an aging Jeff Malone, were not particularly effective scorers nor were either good secondary playmakers. Hornacek was both, though not a guy that created for himself that well. And with Hornacek, Utah was always one of the top offensive teams in the league even though they still had weak offensive players at the 3 (mainly Byron Russell) and the 5 (mainly Greg Ostertag if I remember it right). In fact, during his whole career, I don't think he consistently started with anyone at the 3 or the 5 who would be considered even close to average for their position offensively (as opposed to Phoenix which sacrificed defense for offense during much of Nash's tenure).

I don't think he was ever dominant physically; he was quicker than given credit for but he didn't have the strength/leap athleticism of even a Deron Williams. It's probably why Sloan didn't try to get him more shots and why there's a lot of skepticism about his numbers.

But I have him above both Nash and Paul all-time (all around game and health respectively) and I think there were definitely seasons he was top 15 in the league. Just not top 15 in scoring in the league and a level below Magic/West/Oscar/Curry as the GOAT tier PGs.

[tsherkin]

I don't think we know Stockton couldn't score well enough to win a title. I think a more accurate statement is that Jerry Sloan didn't utilize him as a scoring point despite his outstanding scoring efficiency and shooting range. Whether his scoring could have scaled up, it generally didn't.

Watching him, it always felt clear to me. But yes, Sloan didn't love running shots to him. He had that one series against Golden State the year Sloan took over where he took 19.7 FGA/g in over 46 mpg, and then never took 14 on a series thereafter. But by then, they had other guys filling the scoring role. Poorly, mind, but they did it. Thurl Bailey, Jeff Malone, etc.

Second, I'm not fond of the idea that he "padded his assists a lot." From what I saw of Utah, his assists came in the context of the offense; he wasn't getting cheap assists outside the offense the way Moses or McGinnis were accused of rebounding the ball to themselves to get their numbers up or any number of the great scorers were accused of playing hero ball to pad their scoring totals, even (or maybe especially) in meaningless games.

I don't mean to suggest Stockton was stat-padding intentionally. What I mean specifically is that he shot so little and so many of his assists required nothing from him. He waited there and hit a guy with a chest pass coming around some screens. That padded raw volume output. I think his raw assist output is overdiscussed, though that doesn't mean I believe he was anything less than an ATG playmaker. Watching him hit pocket passes and use his left hand was enough to foster than notion.

I will agree that his main running partners at guard before Hornacek, Darrell Griffith and an aging Jeff Malone, were not particularly effective scorers nor were either good secondary playmakers. Hornacek was both, though not a guy that created for himself that well. And with Hornacek, Utah was always one of the top offensive teams in the league even though they still had weak offensive players at the 3 (mainly Byron Russell) and the 5 (mainly Greg Ostertag if I remember it right).

They were, until they were athletically outclassed in a playoff series. Horny had a bum knee, no size and wasn't much of an isolation guy, so he had serious limitations.

And I do think that if Stockton had a real wing running mate, he'd be remembered differently. I suspect he was a SF away from a title in 1998, and maybe 1992.

I don't think he was ever dominant physically; he was quicker than given credit for but he didn't have the strength/leap athleticism of even a Deron Williams.

Agreed. He did, however, have very good end to end speed with the ball. And he certainly wasn't immobile, he just didn't have an insane first step.

But I have him above both Nash and Paul all-time (all around game and health respectively) and I think there were definitely seasons he was top 15 in the league. Just not top 15 in scoring in the league and a level below Magic/West/Oscar/Curry as the GOAT tier PGs.

Mmmm. I can see the pro-Stockton argument over Nash in an all-time sense because Nash wasn't Nash until his second tour with Phoenix. And even then, it's like 5 seasons. I think Nash's style of play was more effective because he was so much more dynamic with the ball and more of a threat to score than Stockton (even if that didn't always come out in raw average, he pressured the D in different ways with his continuity dribbling), but it becomes an interesting discussion, no doubt. I don't think Stockton was really ever as good as 05 or 06 Nash, but it becomes more interesting thereafter to me.

And I don't think Stockton was ever as good as Chris Paul, personally. But he WAS considerably more durable. They share some of the same weaknesses, but Paul was a superior scorer.