picc wrote:Tim Lehrbach wrote:I love Mark Price and hate John Stockton, but Price is being misconstrued here, IMO. He was not quite the proto-Nash he's made out to be. He was really, really good, but Nash was a pick-and-roll and open court genius, whereas Price was more about making his other solid scorers beneficiaries of the gravity from his scoring (and he likewise benefited from playing with other great offensive talents). Which is not to say that there's anything whatsoever wrong with the latter -- hell, it's how Curry had a top ten peak -- but Price was neither spamming his shot like Curry nor breaking down defenses to historic effect like Nash, merely returning really darn good individual and team results. I suspect Price would be an amazing player today, but I can't give him credit for what he didn't do and am accordingly unwilling to project heights he never got the chance to show he could climb.
Yeah but nobody knew Nash was a PnR and open court genius until he was given the freedom to show us. Mark Price never got to play with the same offensive freedom that Nash got since the Cavs teams he played on ran their offense first and foremost through Brad Daugherty. Then later they started staggering Price's minutes with Terrell Brandon, in part because the way they ran their offense didn't require a ball-dominant distributor.
Its true that he never accomplished what Nash did, but it certainly wasn't for a lack of ability. He wasn't quite the same shooter Nash was, but was still very good. Around 40% from three annually, on a high number of attempts, especially for that era. Not quite as creative a passer but not a level below either. Couldn't do those reality-warping, physics-defying passes Nash would pull out of his ass sometimes, but that's only a small percentage of plays you're missing. Had the same if not better ballhandling and was a similar finisher around the rim. Price did everything on offense just a little bit worse than Nash did. But his defense was miles better, so much that Cleveland could play he and Brandon together since Mark could stick 2-guards and not get torched.
He didn't get to spam his shot or break down the defense to his content because that wasn't his role. He had a good scoring big on his team, but Daugherty was a back-down in the post player who took his sweet ass time, not an Amare or Karl Malone type where you could rack up assists knifing it to them on the PnR or in the open court. And the Cavs liked to play halfcourt anyway. Once Terrell Brandon started playing, they ran Mark off-ball since he was the better shooter. Just a lot of things going on to deflate his numbers and belie what he was really capable of.
His numbers on the Cavs were eerily similar to pre-Suns Nash, where he too was being used below his potential. And was also sharing the ball with another point (NVE) - though unlike the Cavs, Dallas ran two points together because Nellie was trying to run teams out of the gym and didn't care if one got torched.
Its absolutely reasonable to say you won't give him credit for what he didn't do, but I think its unfair to indicate he exhausted the extent of his abilities as a player, given the similarities in skillset to Nash, and what we know about how the perception of Nash changed so drastically with coaching and philosophy shifts.Stockton, too, seems like a player who might well thrive in this era where more responsibility to score would be thrust upon him, but how do we just assume he could do it? There is no shortage of posts here covering Utah's offensive successes when Stockton had more or less responsibility (hint: the more he became an ordinary initiator instead of constantly running the 1-4 P&R -- the latter leading to his and Malone's greatest statistical seasons -- the better the team's offense became). Yet, side-by-side, I can't help but think he just was a slightly better player than Price at the basketball they played in their day and would adapt just as well to today's game. And it pains me because he was a total dick of a player and a real menace to honest basketball, but that too has to be accounted for and, I guess, credited to Stockton. He'd find infuriating ways to get an edge today, too. He had a head for the physical subtleties, and that's always going to have its place. He'd defend well today even without the handcheck. He also coupled being a flawless tactician of the basic play with precision passing that stayed just ahead of recovering defenders, the latter of which has never been more important than against the defensive schemes of today. But he would have to be more assertive with the jumper, and that's the biggest concern for me.
All good points. But this is my problem in regards to Price vs Stockton - Stockton and Price were thought of as on the same general level in the early 90's. But then I consider that Stockton was in a situation catered to his strengths, and Price was in one going away from his. Almost nobody has spent more time pounding the ball and probing around the court than John Stockton. He was an incredible passer, but there was no way he wasn't going to accumulate massive amounts of assists the way he played. And few have had a more productive recipient for their passes. John had all the time in the world to make a play, and one of the best finishers ever to help him do it.
Price was in a system that afforded him nowhere near the same production potential, and yet was still barely behind Stockton in the annual All-NBA teams. And he made first team in '93 over John anyway, in a year where the first team looked like this: Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Jordan, Price. He made 4 all-star teams on a squad that went out of its way to play against his skillset.
People talk about how the Suns' win total skyrocketed after Nash arrived. The Cavs won 33 games in '91 when Price got hurt, playing in only 16 total that year. The next year he's healthy again and they win 57. And that was with everyone else on the team healthy the year prior, unlike the Suns, who had missed both Marbury and Amare for nearly half the year the season before.
Mark Price was a classic case of unexplored talent that was so deep it came bubbling out anyway. There's no doubt in my mind given the same leeway other point guards have, he would have been thought of much differently and much more highly. That he was good enough to warrant topics like this in spite of everything is astonishing, imo.
I would just barely take Nash over Price for a Suns-style team, but I wouldn't build a Suns-style team in the first place. I think Price offers solidly more value to a less PG-reliant club, where fewer of his skills are minimized.
Price was about as scrappy as Stockton, maybe not as smart a player though. But one thing I do like is I don't think he'd be as reticent to score as John could be, given the reins were taken off. So I'd probably take him over Stockton too.
Saying all this, I understand its probably fruitless trying to statistically prove that Mark Price was on these guys' levels. Not something that could be argued extensively on a quantitative level. Still, I've seen a ton of all of them and the only difference to me is circumstances, coaching and system. I'd actually prefer him to both of them on my team, although I do understand arguments otherwise.
I also had no idea I'd be talking about Mark Price when I woke up this morning, but the opportunity is appreciated. +1 to you, and to OP for starting the topic.
I know this is quite an old post but you'll notice it's my thing to bump old posts. Not my intention but I love reading other people's opinions on great players from past eras and debating who would be ideal to in the "stat-flation" offensive era that is today.
I couldn't scroll past this comment without commending you for one of the best takes and interesting view points I've seen in regards to past point guards. I couldn't agree more with your take on Price and how he was underutilized and more specifically how if he was given the keys to a system like Nash was in PHX, that his skillsets would absolutely thrive just like they did for Nash.
Id take it even a step further today and say that if both Nash and Price were given the keys to a team like, let's say Indiana by replacing Halliburton, they would be even better! strictly offensively) then Nash was during his MVP seasons. Id argue that because of their scoring abilities, they'd be even better than Halliburton.
Nash is a much more creative and better passer than Halli despite the size advantage that Halli has while Price might be a step behind Tyrese yet not far. Price would be able to get to the free throw line significantly more in today's era which Halli has not shown. I think they are both better shooters than Halli and even though the hand checking argument can be overblown, Price was consistently prevented from entering the paint when slower guards used their hands to impede hos progress. This obviously negated his obvious quickness and elite handle advantage which wouldn't be the case today. That's important.
Defensively Nash would arguably be just as bad as Trae Young and it would be harder to hide him today. Still, his offense is a level or two above Trae so just imagine. Price is obviously tiny. Still, he was tough as nails and wanted to get stops. He has excellent screen navigation and I see those things making him slightly better than the like of Garland, Maxey or even Jamal Murray as well as the two already mentioned.
With all that being said, I see Price as someone who would put up significantly better offensive numbers today and be a hell of a player in the pace and space era
