John Stockton is underrated here

[penbeast0]

Well the ringzzz effect is definitely there for Stockton and Malone. I get it they weren't the most consistent guys ever when it comes to playing great in the post season, but they had their ups too.

Jazz just were not strong enough prior to Hornacek entering the equation. Yeah yeah Jeff Malone could score. Mark Eaton had blocks. They were black holes and negatives in so many situations that even with the star duo playing well the Jazz got swept in the 1st round.

Stockton arguably outplayed prime Magic in 88. He was definitely a great PG and besides Curry and Magic I don't think any PG was as good as him career wise. He could shoot, defend and he orchestrated very well. Sometimes not too fancy with his passing but he could find you from anywhere, even from the top of the key and those are difficult passes to execute.

I might add I think Nash might have peaked higher on offense, but Stockton was a much better defender.

Love Stockton's game but I think you underestimate Oscar and (depending on valuable you feel health is) Jerry West in terms of the games' greatest PGs. I have Stockton in the next group with Frazier, Paul, etc.

[Joao Saraiva]

Well the ringzzz effect is definitely there for Stockton and Malone. I get it they weren't the most consistent guys ever when it comes to playing great in the post season, but they had their ups too.

Jazz just were not strong enough prior to Hornacek entering the equation. Yeah yeah Jeff Malone could score. Mark Eaton had blocks. They were black holes and negatives in so many situations that even with the star duo playing well the Jazz got swept in the 1st round.

Stockton arguably outplayed prime Magic in 88. He was definitely a great PG and besides Curry and Magic I don't think any PG was as good as him career wise. He could shoot, defend and he orchestrated very well. Sometimes not too fancy with his passing but he could find you from anywhere, even from the top of the key and those are difficult passes to execute.

I might add I think Nash might have peaked higher on offense, but Stockton was a much better defender.

Love Stockton's game but I think you underestimate Oscar and (depending on valuable you feel health is) Jerry West in terms of the games' greatest PGs. I have Stockton in the next group with Frazier, Paul, etc.

My bad about those two. I have Stockton ahead of Frazier and Paul tough. Didn't give too much thought about the 60s but yeah I'll give you that one. Big O was the complete package and Jerry was well ahead of his time.

[tsherkin]

Well the ringzzz effect is definitely there for Stockton and Malone. I get it they weren't the most consistent guys ever when it comes to playing great in the post season, but they had their ups too.

Jazz just were not strong enough prior to Hornacek entering the equation. Yeah yeah Jeff Malone could score. Mark Eaton had blocks. They were black holes and negatives in so many situations that even with the star duo playing well the Jazz got swept in the 1st round.

Stockton arguably outplayed prime Magic in 88. He was definitely a great PG and besides Curry and Magic I don't think any PG was as good as him career wise. He could shoot, defend and he orchestrated very well. Sometimes not too fancy with his passing but he could find you from anywhere, even from the top of the key and those are difficult passes to execute.

I might add I think Nash might have peaked higher on offense, but Stockton was a much better defender.

Love Stockton's game but I think you underestimate Oscar and (depending on valuable you feel health is) Jerry West in terms of the games' greatest PGs. I have Stockton in the next group with Frazier, Paul, etc.

My bad about those two. I have Stockton ahead of Frazier and Paul tough. Didn't give too much thought about the 60s but yeah I'll give you that one. Big O was the complete package and Jerry was well ahead of his time.

I have Paul ahead of Stockton, but I can very much see them in the same sort of tier. And I definitely have 05-10 Nash higher than Stockton on offense. I think Stockton's defense is a little overrated because people like steals. He hustled, for sure, but he also got worked pretty badly by his counterpart if they were bigger and/or more athletic, on the regular. Very good team defender, though, certainly (and obviously much better than Nash). I think the exceedingly large gap in dynamic play with a live dribble separates the two a lot on offense, though, even if the output averages aren't far different.

Fun to consider. Stockton's one of those guys who raises a lot of questions, but was unquestionably one of the best at what he did. Nice to see him getting a thread with a good mix of reasonable discussion, and then some of the other usual nonsense, heh.

[penbeast0]

I have both Paul and Frazier ahead of Stockton for prime (and Frazier ahead of Paul for his finals heroics) but Stockton's longevity of prime and health are a factor neither of the other two approach.

[SHAQ32]

Chris Paul missed too many games to be ahead of Stockton. Less than 70 GP for half his career.

[lessthanjake]

Love Stockton's game but I think you underestimate Oscar and (depending on valuable you feel health is) Jerry West in terms of the games' greatest PGs. I have Stockton in the next group with Frazier, Paul, etc.

My bad about those two. I have Stockton ahead of Frazier and Paul tough. Didn't give too much thought about the 60s but yeah I'll give you that one. Big O was the complete package and Jerry was well ahead of his time.

I have Paul ahead of Stockton, but I can very much see them in the same sort of tier. And I definitely have 05-10 Nash higher than Stockton on offense. I think Stockton's defense is a little overrated because people like steals. He hustled, for sure, but he also got worked pretty badly by his counterpart if they were bigger and/or more athletic, on the regular. Very good team defender, though, certainly (and obviously much better than Nash). I think the exceedingly large gap in dynamic play with a live dribble separates the two a lot on offense, though, even if the output averages aren't far different.

Fun to consider. Stockton's one of those guys who raises a lot of questions, but was unquestionably one of the best at what he did. Nice to see him getting a thread with a good mix of reasonable discussion, and then some of the other usual nonsense, heh.

For me, I think Chris Paul vs. John Stockton could go either way. Which is probably a good measure of the extent to which I think Stockton is underrated.

I look at the relevant data, and they’re fairly close but Chris Paul probably looks a slight bit better to me. Old Stockton was more impactful than old CP3, but I have a bit more confidence in how good the earlier impact data for prime CP3 is than I do for the various snippets of impact data we have for prime Stockton. By itself, that might be a wash overall, but I think the box measures look a little bit better for CP3. So the data picture for CP3 is slightly better IMO.

But that’s largely just an analysis of data that goes to their per-possession impact. Stockton had greater availability. That said, that gets tempered by the fact that Stockton had more years where he wasn’t playing many minutes. Indeed, despite being an iron man that played 19 seasons, Stockton actually only played like 2,000 more regular season minutes than CP3 has. So there’s a gap there, but it’s not actually *that* big. The gap in availability is more stark when it comes to the playoffs—where CP3 often was injured. I probably think CP3 was a slightly better playoff performer when he played, but the playoff injuries are a significant factor.

That basically leaves me thinking CP3 was a slightly better player, but Stockton played a little longer and tended to be more healthy in the playoffs. I could go either way on my conclusion between them. In a situation like this, normally my eye test would determine it. But I don’t really have a strong eye-test preference here. I guess *maybe* my eye test leans towards CP3, but then I have to step back and wonder whether that’s just because I don’t really like Sloan’s offense.

____________

EDIT: As for Nash, I am definitely of the view that Nash was a notably superior offensive player to Stockton. And I like Nash more. But Stockton was undeniably a way better player defensively. So, while my heart says Nash, I kind of think Stockton may have been the better player.

[tsherkin]

For me, I think Chris Paul vs. John Stockton could go either way. Which is probably a good measure of the extent to which I think Stockton is underrated.

I look at the relevant data, and they’re fairly close but Chris Paul probably looks a slight bit better to me. Old Stockton was more impactful than old CP3, but I have a bit more confidence in how good the earlier impact data for prime CP3 is than I do for the various snippets of impact data we have for prime Stockton. By itself, that might be a wash, but I think the box measures look a little bit better for CP3. So the data picture for CP3 is slightly better IMO.

But that’s largely just an analysis of data that goes to their per-possession impact. Stockton had greater availability. That said, that gets tempered by the fact that Stockton had more years where he wasn’t playing many minutes. Indeed, despite being an iron man that played 19 seasons, Stockton actually only played like 2,000 more regular season minutes than CP3 has. So there’s a gap there, but it’s not actually *that* big. The gap in availability is more stark when it comes to the playoffs—where CP3 often was injured. I probably think CP3 was a slightly better playoff performer when he played, but the playoff injuries are a significant factor.

That basically leaves me thinking CP3 was a slightly better player, but Stockton played a little longer and tended to be more healthy in the playoffs. I could go either way on my conclusion between them. In a situation like this, normally my eye test would determine it. But I don’t really have a strong eye-test preference here. I guess *maybe* my eye test leans towards CP3, but then I have to step back and wonder whether that’s just because I don’t really like Sloan’s offense.

Yeah, I mean, you can conclusively argue that Stockton had greater availability than Paul, sure. I don't think that makes him a better player, though. Paul is a better shooter, better at ball protection, better scorer in general. Also a pretty good defender himself, and a high-volume playmaker.

Now, is there a humongous gap between the two? Mmmm. Pre-injury Paul? I think he was conclusively better than Stockton. Dunno about "humongous gap," to reuse my own phrasing, but a clear separation. Post-injury, they look quite similar to me, but Paul was a much better shooter and much better with ball protection, so I struggle to see major advantage for Stockton. But I certainly can see that it's a lot closer.

[tihsad]

Love Stockton's game but I think you underestimate Oscar and (depending on valuable you feel health is) Jerry West in terms of the games' greatest PGs. I have Stockton in the next group with Frazier, Paul, etc.

My bad about those two. I have Stockton ahead of Frazier and Paul tough. Didn't give too much thought about the 60s but yeah I'll give you that one. Big O was the complete package and Jerry was well ahead of his time.

I have Paul ahead of Stockton, but I can very much see them in the same sort of tier. And I definitely have 05-10 Nash higher than Stockton on offense. I think Stockton's defense is a little overrated because people like steals. He hustled, for sure, but he also got worked pretty badly by his counterpart if they were bigger and/or more athletic, on the regular. Very good team defender, though, certainly (and obviously much better than Nash). I think the exceedingly large gap in dynamic play with a live dribble separates the two a lot on offense, though, even if the output averages aren't far different.

Fun to consider. Stockton's one of those guys who raises a lot of questions, but was unquestionably one of the best at what he did. Nice to see him getting a thread with a good mix of reasonable discussion, and then some of the other usual nonsense, heh.

I certainly agree that Stockton is one of those fun players that can drive someone crazy trying to evaluate and skew the norms on this board (and elsewhere). For example, I have John above Paul and Nash - but I can easily start to question things. Yes, Nash is offensively higher than Stockton from 05-10 but there has to be context (akin to holding Russel's FG% against him). There was a clear rule change starting in 05' spearheaded by the owner of the Suns (whose teams were always O orientated) who the year before it happened hired a weirdo nobody who had been coaching high octane offenses in Italy. If we time machine early 90s Stockton to 05' Suns does he replicate Nash, I don't think thing so - but it's close. More than any other players I can think of off my head "system" is brought up for both Nash and Stockton.

As for the D, sure Stockton got worked over from time to time, and struggled against bigger/athletic players. Nash got worked over by bench players (I recall having a fantasy team at the team and always knew it was a feast against the Suns). There is always the "PG D don't matter" argument that started, uncannily enough, with Nash's evaluation as an all time great PG - given the wide gulf, no, it mattered. Man D, help D, what have you.

Obviously there is the longevity argument (and Nash wasn't a slouch in those regards, just not John). And then there is the metrics, which over and over again favor Stockton. To end where I started he's one of those fun players that make statisticians worry and fret about their own conclusions (then again, so is Mookie Blaylock).

[tsherkin]

I certainly agree that Stockton is one of those fun players that can drive someone crazy trying to evaluate and skew the norms on this board (and elsewhere). For example, I have John above Paul and Nash - but I can easily start to question things. Yes, Nash is offensively higher than Stockton from 05-10 but there has to be context (akin to holding Russel's FG% against him). There was a clear rule change starting in 05' spearheaded by the owner of the Suns (whose teams were always O orientated) who the year before it happened hired a weirdo nobody who had been coaching high octane offenses in Italy. If we time machine early 90s Stockton to 05' Suns does he replicate Nash, I don't think thing so - but it's close. More than any other players I can think of off my head "system" is brought up for both Nash and Stockton.

I don't think the rules changes were that important to what Nash was doing. He was a huge impact player in his last couple years in Dallas anyway. The difference was possession volume and unrestricted control over the offense. And I definitely don't think Stockton replicates what Nash did in Phoenix, though obviously I suspect he'd have done pretty well regardless, certainly in the RS. He definitely knew what to do with a PnR big with a pop jumper, and how to hit guys in the corner, and he was a strong transition playmaker. The difference between them is the pressure Nash created with his continuity dribbling, which predates the rules change. Nash wasn't heavily impeded by the pre-05 environment, he was stuck behind volume isolation players and didn't have full privileges to run the offense in Dallas.

[One_and_Done]

It's a subject for another thread, but Nash was clearly superior to Stockton. Point guard is the position where D is least important, and this exercise where people try to balance out O and D as worth 50% each kind of misses the point. Stockton couldn't create for himself like the offensive maestro that was Nash, and Stockton's supposed defensive rep seems to have done little even in his own era when he should have had an easier time defending. If he was so good on D we wouldn't constantly be seeing guys like Mitch Richmond and Terry Porter lighting up his team, as others have pointed out.

[lessthanjake]

It's a subject for another thread, but Nash was clearly superior to Stockton. Point guard is the position where D is least important, and this exercise where people try to balance out O and D as worth 50% each kind of misses the point. Stockton couldn't create for himself like the offensive maestro that was Nash, and Stockton's supposed defensive rep seems to have done little even in his own era when he should have had an easier time defending. If he was so good on D we wouldn't constantly be seeing guys like Mitch Richmond and Terry Porter lighting up his team, as others have pointed out.

I’m totally with you that weighing individual offense and defense as worth 50% each is a bad approach in a lot of instances (because the actual impact gaps between star players in offense tends to be larger). This is a bit of a special case though. Usually, star players are at least pretty neutral on defense, so it’s hard to really out-impact them by a lot on that end unless you’re an historically elite defending big. But, while I hate to admit it, Nash was abnormally bad on defense. The way I conceptualize Stockon and Nash is that it goes something like this (the exact numbers aren’t super important, it’s more about the general concept): Nash is +7 on offense and -2 on defense, while Stockton is +4 on offense and +2 on defense.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, I disagree. Nash is better and it's not remotely close. Nash is closer to Magic (another bad defender) than Stockton is to Nash.

[Cavsfansince84]

Chris Paul missed too many games to be ahead of Stockton. Less than 70 GP for half his career.

While I agree that missed games in the rs and ps works in Stockton's favor here I don't think that in itself excludes CP3 from being ranked ahead of Stockton. It's just one thing to consider.

[lessthanjake]

Yeh, I disagree. Nash is better and it's not remotely close. Nash is closer to Magic (another bad defender) than Stockton is to Nash.

Unfortunately (since Nash is one of my favorite players), RAPM doesn’t agree with you, and instead consistently indicates Nash was an awful defensive player. And that’s quite consistent with his reputation at the time. While we don’t have a ton of impact data for Magic Johnson (and what we do have doesn’t actually indicate Magic was a bad defender), I really don’t think there’s any reasonable parallel between the two on defense. Magic had his weaknesses on defense, but he also had plenty of positives defensively: he was hard to post up, forced a lot of turnovers, was a great rebounder for his position, etc. It’s just not the same at all with Nash. There’s very few all-time greats who were nearly as bad on defense as Nash—I could see a plausible argument that Barkley was similarly bad, but off the top of my head that’s about it. Even Harden was probably a little less bad IMO.

[One_and_Done]

That would be problematic if I cared about RAPM.

[Warspite]

Both PHX and POR had much better supporting players than UTA.

This may be true but the simple fact is that both coaches and just about every other coach in the NBA changed his game plan and exploited the greatest single mismatch that they could and that was to isolate against Stockton. Every scoring PG circled the calendar for the Jazz visit because they knew that was there night to go off. We Pistons fans couldnt wait for the Jazz to come to the Palace because we knew Isiah Thomas was going to put on a show. Stockton was elite at double-team defense and maybe the GOAT at baseline screens and double-teaming post players.

For the most part we don't know how truly great Stockton was because he played for Jerry Sloan who only had 4 plays and demanded that everyone be robots on the floor and didn't allow any creativity.


On a side note: Any stat like RAPM or VORP that is so off that allows you to draw a conclusion that no sane person at the time did is most likely not valid. If you can't find the correlation and causation between the stat and the W/L record, then it's irrelevant. As Herm says, "You play to win the game."

RAPM is literally the best tool we have to measure "winning". Winning is what it measures!!!

It's like if we were like "X player got traded and his old team got 15 wins worse and his new team got 20 wins better" and you were like "change in wins upon a trade is a noisy stat. Sometimes, people get traded and their new team gets better even though they're bad. Therefore, this stat sucks! I only care about winning!"

How many rings does Stockton have again? How many FMVPs did he win? The answer is zero. You show me a stat that says Stockton and Malone were both top 5 players and the team cant reach the Finals and Ill call your stat fugazi every time. Stats are supposed to tell how the game was won or lost. If the stat disagrees with the scoreboard its worthless. Stockton and Malone have inflated stats because of Sloans system. They are still all-time greats it's just that they have the potential to be overrated because of said inflation. Posters who are too young/lazy to watch the players will look at stats alone and draw incomplete conclusions. Stats are nice but they are no substitute for the eye test.

[lessthanjake]

This may be true but the simple fact is that both coaches and just about every other coach in the NBA changed his game plan and exploited the greatest single mismatch that they could and that was to isolate against Stockton. Every scoring PG circled the calendar for the Jazz visit because they knew that was there night to go off. We Pistons fans couldnt wait for the Jazz to come to the Palace because we knew Isiah Thomas was going to put on a show. Stockton was elite at double-team defense and maybe the GOAT at baseline screens and double-teaming post players.

For the most part we don't know how truly great Stockton was because he played for Jerry Sloan who only had 4 plays and demanded that everyone be robots on the floor and didn't allow any creativity.


On a side note: Any stat like RAPM or VORP that is so off that allows you to draw a conclusion that no sane person at the time did is most likely not valid. If you can't find the correlation and causation between the stat and the W/L record, then it's irrelevant. As Herm says, "You play to win the game."

RAPM is literally the best tool we have to measure "winning". Winning is what it measures!!!

It's like if we were like "X player got traded and his old team got 15 wins worse and his new team got 20 wins better" and you were like "change in wins upon a trade is a noisy stat. Sometimes, people get traded and their new team gets better even though they're bad. Therefore, this stat sucks! I only care about winning!"

How many rings does Stockton have again? How many FMVPs did he win? The answer is zero. You show me a stat that says Stockton and Malone were both top 5 players and the team cant reach the Finals and Ill call your stat fugazi every time. Stats are supposed to tell how the game was won or lost. If the stat disagrees with the scoreboard its worthless. Stockton and Malone have inflated stats because of Sloans system. They are still all-time greats it's just that they have the potential to be overrated because of said inflation. Posters who are too young/lazy to watch the players will look at stats alone and draw incomplete conclusions. Stats are nice but they are no substitute for the eye test.

RAPM definitionally does not disagree with the scoreboard. The only input into it is what happens on the scoreboard.

[kcktiny]

It's a subject for another thread, but Nash was clearly superior to Stockton.

Since you've made it part of this thread, let's discuss.

You are clearly wrong. Last I checked Stockton was named to an all-NBA team 11 times, 2 times all-NBA 1st team. Nash was all-NBA 7 times, 3 times all-NBA 1st team. You clear on that?

Point guard is the position where D is least important

Just like Jokic fanboys Nash fanboys are now going to take the thing that they know their favorite player is worst at and say it has little or no meaning. What a surprise.

Defense is important at every position, and by position PGs have historically forced the most turnovers through steals and offensive fouls drawn.

Gee, and who do you think has - historically - one of the lowest/worst rates for steals among PGs? Of the 204 PGs that have played 10,000+ minutes since 1973-74, the first season steals were tracked, guess who has the 5th lowest/worst per minute steal rate? Yep, good ole' Steve Nash.

Meanwhile the all-time steals leader in NBA history was named to the NBA all-defensive team 5 times. Care to guess how many PGs in league history were named to an all-defensive team 5 or more times?

and this exercise where people try to balance out O and D as worth 50% each kind of misses the point.

Clearly it is you who are missing the point. Defense is important at all positions.

Just because you have no clue how defense affects the winning of games you choose to ignore it.

But, while I hate to admit it, Nash was abnormally bad on defense.

Anyone who has watched Nash on a regular basis knows this.

Stockton couldn't create for himself

Another dumb statement you continue to profess and to which you are clearly clueless.

From 1987-88 to 1996-97, a full decade, Stockton scored the most points (12732) and attempted the 2nd most FTAs (3626) among all PGs.

Care to explain how he did this without creating offense for himself?

and Stockton's supposed defensive rep seems to have done little even in his own era when he should have had an easier time defending.

NBA coaches voted for the all-defensive teams up to the 2012-13 season. They are the ones that voted Stockton to the all-defensive team 5 times.

You on the other hand did not vote, and did not watch him play.

If he was so good on D we wouldn't constantly be seeing guys like Mitch Richmond and Terry Porter lighting up his team, as others have pointed out.

Who is we? I watched him play - a lot. It's clear you have not. And what others have pointed this out? NBA coaches have pointed out he was one of the very best PG defenders over a 9 year period.

Yeh, I disagree. Nash is better and it's not remotely close.

Because you are clueless, have no concept of NBA defense, how to measure it, how to account for it.

It's not remotely close for you because you do not even remotely know who John Stockton is.

Nash is closer to Magic (another bad defender)

Another clueless statement on your part.

Magic's first decade in the league he lead all PGs in defensive rebounds (3975, no other PG had more than 2300) and was 2nd in steals (1464, only Cheeks had more).

Care to explain your erroneous statement? How did you come to the conclusion Magic Johnson was a bad defender? Or is just more of your NBA know-it-all bluster?

[penbeast0]

We've done Nash v. Stockton a LOT, and a lot of rudeness in that response. Let's stick to Stockton over or underrated and not derail the thread either with Nash comps or with responses to the rudeness. Thank you.

[penbeast0]

I don't think the rules changes were that important to what Nash was doing. He was a huge impact player in his last couple years in Dallas anyway. The difference was possession volume and unrestricted control over the offense. And I definitely don't think Stockton replicates what Nash did in Phoenix, though obviously I suspect he'd have done pretty well regardless, certainly in the RS. He definitely knew what to do with a PnR big with a pop jumper, and how to hit guys in the corner, and he was a strong transition playmaker. The difference between them is the pressure Nash created with his continuity dribbling, which predates the rules change. Nash wasn't heavily impeded by the pre-05 environment, he was stuck behind volume isolation players and didn't have full privileges to run the offense in Dallas.

I feel the same way about Stockton in the Jerry Sloan system which was both rigid in terms of autonomy and defensively focused (at least in terms of the players he used at C and SF). I think Stockton could have been more of a scorer and more creative in a d'Antoni type system. As good as Nash in Phoenix, maybe but Nash is not a maybe, he proved it while Stockton didn't so I rate Phoenix Nash a little over Stockton. I don't think the continuity dribbling issue is a major plus (and when I coach, I actually discourage it, much preferring a quick read and react system . . . though if I had a Nash/Stockton caliber playmaker I might change systems).