Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
- nate33
- Forum Mod - Wizards
- Posts: 70,164
- And1: 22,581
- Joined: Oct 28, 2002
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
I think Nash's assists were higher quality than Stockton's. Many of Stockton's assists were merely passes to Malone and then Malone scored in isolation on an 18-foot jumper. Nash did a better job of getting real penetration, drawing defensive attention, and then setting up teammates for layups, dunks and catch-and-shoot 3's.
I'm not trying to bash Stockton or anything. He was an awesome player. But I really feel like Nash was a much better defense-bender. There were just too many plays where I saw Nash drive the lane and then watch help defenders dive AWAY from him in a desperate attempt to get into passing lanes so that Nash ended up taking an easy, uncontested layup.
I'm not trying to bash Stockton or anything. He was an awesome player. But I really feel like Nash was a much better defense-bender. There were just too many plays where I saw Nash drive the lane and then watch help defenders dive AWAY from him in a desperate attempt to get into passing lanes so that Nash ended up taking an easy, uncontested layup.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
- HomoSapien
- Senior Mod - Bulls
- Posts: 37,312
- And1: 30,348
- Joined: Aug 17, 2009
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
MMyhre wrote:JimmyPlopper wrote:HomoSapien wrote:This is actually a pretty tough question. I want to say Stockton because he was a more complete player, with no real weaknesses -- and was actually a plus defender. But the argument for Nash is that he was able to play at an MVP-level as the lead guy. Stockton was never used that way. When Nash played a secondary player to Nowitzki, Stockton was hands down the better player. He out-performed Nash in that type of role. You have to wonder how Stockton would have done if he was asked to be the lead in a D'Antoni-like system, but we never got a chance to see that. So because of that, it's really a close debate, IMO.
Perfect answer
No it wasnt. Stocktons best 3pt made seasons are 1.2 a game and 4.8 ftm a game, and those occurred at different points in his career. There is nothing that says Stockton had the potential to be as good as Nash offensively. Nothing.
Well, that's a ridiculous take.
Nash's 2nd MVP Season: 18.8 ppg, 10.5 apg, 4.2 rpg, 0.8 spg, 51% FG, 44% 3PT, 92% FT
Stockton 1989 Season: 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, 2.9 rpg, 2.7 spg, 51% FG, 42% 3PT, 82% FT
Stockton's best season really is comparable to Nash's. The big distinction is that Stockton was clearly the secondary player on the Jazz, whereas Nash was the team.
The 1.2 three's per game doesn't prove much. It was a different era, where three-point shooting wasn't viewed with the same importance as now. And if anything, the FTM hurts your point. Nash's career high in FTM a game was 4.1 and that was in Dallas.
ThreeYearPlan wrote:Bulls fans defend HomoSapien more than Rose.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
-
- Suspended
- Posts: 2,116
- And1: 902
- Joined: Jun 29, 2010
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
HomoSapien wrote:MMyhre wrote:JimmyPlopper wrote:
Perfect answer
No it wasnt. Stocktons best 3pt made seasons are 1.2 a game and 4.8 ftm a game, and those occurred at different points in his career. There is nothing that says Stockton had the potential to be as good as Nash offensively. Nothing.
Well, that's a ridiculous take.
Nash's 2nd MVP Season: 18.8 ppg, 10.5 apg, 4.2 rpg, 0.8 spg, 51% FG, 44% 3PT, 92% FT
Stockton 1989 Season: 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, 2.9 rpg, 2.7 spg, 51% FG, 42% 3PT, 82% FT
Stockton's best season really is comparable to Nash's. The big distinction is that Stockton was clearly the secondary player on the Jazz, whereas Nash was the team.
The 1.2 three's per game doesn't prove much. It was a different era, where three-point shooting wasn't viewed with the same importance as now. And if anything, the FTM hurts your point. Nash's career high in FTM a game was 4.1 and that was in Dallas.
Look at how they play, there is nothing suggesting Stockton had the capacity to play like Nash. You talk as if Stockton plays like Stephen Curry, crossing people over and doing step back threes. He did not have that capacity. This is like saying Rajon Rondo could be as good offensively as Chris Paul because he had 15 pts to Pauls 17 in one season, when Rondo was shooting corner threes/spot up threes, and CP3 was shooting stepback 3s, iso 3s, fadeaway jumpers etc = clearly a superior scorer and thus offensive player, a carry player offensively. Stockton was not a carry scoring player offensively, Nash showed he had the potential to do that in some of his playoff outings which are on a different tier to Stockton.
And there were players who shot threes back then, you cant just give a player a skillset in the modern era because it was not common back then. If he was better at shooting threes off the dribble, and getting his own shot off the dribble - he would have been able to adapt and do that.
Stockton didnt have the skillset to play like Curry, Nash actually had some of that, he was a superior scorer, could score much better off the dribble and shooter, ft shooter etc. 9 + 30 pt games in the postseason, Stockton only with 2 over like 180 attempts with an MVP teammate.
Also its ridiculous that you talk as if Stockton was actually Stephen Curry but let Malone be the best player, and without he would be unlocked. Yeah, nice man, 2 30pt + games over 180 playoff games, he sure was capable of being AlphaMan.
FTM is whatever because it shows that Stockton would need to get more free throws to make up for his lesser offensive skillset compared to Nash offensively, and he didnt.
Stockton was a good second fiddle, he did not have the skillset to be a leading star like Nash. Like I said, nothing, says Stockton had potential to do more, or he would have shown it in those 180 playoff games.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
- Black Jack
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,654
- And1: 7,187
- Joined: Jan 24, 2013
- Location: In the stands kicking ass
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
Nash wasn't good enough to be #1 on a title winner and neither was Stockton. So the question is who do you want as #2?
I say the guy who went to 2 finals as #2, not the guy that failed to get out of the West despite playing with Dirk then Amare.
Nash had better scoring skills but Stockton could give you defense.
Seems clear to me that I'd prefer Stockton as my PG overall. Even if post retirement he's lost his mind.
I say the guy who went to 2 finals as #2, not the guy that failed to get out of the West despite playing with Dirk then Amare.
Nash had better scoring skills but Stockton could give you defense.
Seems clear to me that I'd prefer Stockton as my PG overall. Even if post retirement he's lost his mind.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
- cupcakesnake
- Senior Mod- WNBA
- Posts: 15,620
- And1: 32,105
- Joined: Jul 21, 2016
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
HomoSapien wrote:MMyhre wrote:JimmyPlopper wrote:
Perfect answer
No it wasnt. Stocktons best 3pt made seasons are 1.2 a game and 4.8 ftm a game, and those occurred at different points in his career. There is nothing that says Stockton had the potential to be as good as Nash offensively. Nothing.
Well, that's a ridiculous take.
Nash's 2nd MVP Season: 18.8 ppg, 10.5 apg, 4.2 rpg, 0.8 spg, 51% FG, 44% 3PT, 92% FT
Stockton 1989 Season: 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, 2.9 rpg, 2.7 spg, 51% FG, 42% 3PT, 82% FT
Stockton's best season really is comparable to Nash's. The big distinction is that Stockton was clearly the secondary player on the Jazz, whereas Nash was the team.
The 1.2 three's per game doesn't prove much. It was a different era, where three-point shooting wasn't viewed with the same importance as now. And if anything, the FTM hurts your point. Nash's career high in FTM a game was 4.1 and that was in Dallas.
I've never felt box score numbers tell the Steve Nash story.
When you look under the hood, and see things like:
- How much his team's rim attempts and rim FG% go up when he's on the floor.
- How much his teams open 3s increase with him on the floor.
- How much his team's turnovers go down when he's on the floor.
Then you start to see why some basketball experts think of him as one of the absolute greatest offensive players of all-time. Stockton is no slouch, but doesn't have this same big signal. I feel like Stockton's boxscore overrates him a bit, because fans see the assists and steals and think he's the best passer and defender ever (which anyone can watch a few games and see is not true), while Nash's hides his biggest impact.
I'm not a Stockton hater. He was one of my early favorite players, and I still think he's an absolute all-time great. I do think people misunderstand his game when they talk about him as an offensive playmaker in the same realm as Magic or Nash or Jokic. Stockton was more about how ridiculously rock-solid he was, how perfect his PnR reads were, how TOUGH he was, and how he could really go buck wild in transition. He was also one of those ultimate competitors who found all sorts of extra points for his team through hustle, grit, (and a bit of dirtiness).
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."
Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,878
- And1: 1,868
- Joined: Sep 19, 2021
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
cupcakesnake wrote:HomoSapien wrote:MMyhre wrote:No it wasnt. Stocktons best 3pt made seasons are 1.2 a game and 4.8 ftm a game, and those occurred at different points in his career. There is nothing that says Stockton had the potential to be as good as Nash offensively. Nothing.
Well, that's a ridiculous take.
Nash's 2nd MVP Season: 18.8 ppg, 10.5 apg, 4.2 rpg, 0.8 spg, 51% FG, 44% 3PT, 92% FT
Stockton 1989 Season: 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, 2.9 rpg, 2.7 spg, 51% FG, 42% 3PT, 82% FT
Stockton's best season really is comparable to Nash's. The big distinction is that Stockton was clearly the secondary player on the Jazz, whereas Nash was the team.
The 1.2 three's per game doesn't prove much. It was a different era, where three-point shooting wasn't viewed with the same importance as now. And if anything, the FTM hurts your point. Nash's career high in FTM a game was 4.1 and that was in Dallas.
I've never felt box score numbers tell the Steve Nash story.
When you look under the hood, and see things like:
- How much his team's rim attempts and rim FG% go up when he's on the floor.
- How much his teams open 3s increase with him on the floor.
- How much his team's turnovers go down when he's on the floor.
Then you start to see why some basketball experts think of him as one of the absolute greatest offensive players of all-time. Stockton is no slouch, but doesn't have this same big signal. I feel like Stockton's boxscore overrates him a bit, because fans see the assists and steals and think he's the best passer and defender ever (which anyone can watch a few games and see is not true), while Nash's hides his biggest impact.
I'm not a Stockton hater. He was one of my early favorite players, and I still think he's an absolute all-time great. I do think people misunderstand his game when they talk about him as an offensive playmaker in the same realm as Magic or Nash or Jokic. Stockton was more about how ridiculously rock-solid he was, how perfect his PnR reads were, how TOUGH he was, and how he could really go buck wild in transition. He was also one of those ultimate competitors who found all sorts of extra points for his team through hustle, grit, (and a bit of dirtiness).
well stockton is the one with the high RAPM's in his later years. I think it's Engelmann 97-24 where nash is only 40th or so and in the Cheema set, Nash's number drops a decent amount in the playoffs, as does his raw on/off. So despite the glowing team offensive results, he doesn't seem to necessarily show the impact those numbers would imply.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
- cupcakesnake
- Senior Mod- WNBA
- Posts: 15,620
- And1: 32,105
- Joined: Jul 21, 2016
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
f4p wrote:cupcakesnake wrote:HomoSapien wrote:
Well, that's a ridiculous take.
Nash's 2nd MVP Season: 18.8 ppg, 10.5 apg, 4.2 rpg, 0.8 spg, 51% FG, 44% 3PT, 92% FT
Stockton 1989 Season: 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, 2.9 rpg, 2.7 spg, 51% FG, 42% 3PT, 82% FT
Stockton's best season really is comparable to Nash's. The big distinction is that Stockton was clearly the secondary player on the Jazz, whereas Nash was the team.
The 1.2 three's per game doesn't prove much. It was a different era, where three-point shooting wasn't viewed with the same importance as now. And if anything, the FTM hurts your point. Nash's career high in FTM a game was 4.1 and that was in Dallas.
I've never felt box score numbers tell the Steve Nash story.
When you look under the hood, and see things like:
- How much his team's rim attempts and rim FG% go up when he's on the floor.
- How much his teams open 3s increase with him on the floor.
- How much his team's turnovers go down when he's on the floor.
Then you start to see why some basketball experts think of him as one of the absolute greatest offensive players of all-time. Stockton is no slouch, but doesn't have this same big signal. I feel like Stockton's boxscore overrates him a bit, because fans see the assists and steals and think he's the best passer and defender ever (which anyone can watch a few games and see is not true), while Nash's hides his biggest impact.
I'm not a Stockton hater. He was one of my early favorite players, and I still think he's an absolute all-time great. I do think people misunderstand his game when they talk about him as an offensive playmaker in the same realm as Magic or Nash or Jokic. Stockton was more about how ridiculously rock-solid he was, how perfect his PnR reads were, how TOUGH he was, and how he could really go buck wild in transition. He was also one of those ultimate competitors who found all sorts of extra points for his team through hustle, grit, (and a bit of dirtiness).
well stockton is the one with the high RAPM's in his later years. I think it's Engelmann 97-24 where nash is only 40th or so and in the Cheema set, Nash's number drops a decent amount in the playoffs, as does his raw on/off. So despite the glowing team offensive results, he doesn't seem to necessarily show the impact those numbers would imply.
I'm not really a big RAPM guy, so I don't have strong feelings about this, but a lot of Stockton's RAPM value comes from his defense. Nash has a higher offensive RAPM (5.7 to 4.4). We're not really capturing Stockton's younger or prime years with RAPM though, and I think RAPM has never been a helpful number for understanding Nash either. Utah had extremely weak benches in Stockton's late career, which give him a boost in terms of on/off.
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."
Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
Co-hosting with Harry Garris at The Underhand Freethrow Podcast
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
- HomoSapien
- Senior Mod - Bulls
- Posts: 37,312
- And1: 30,348
- Joined: Aug 17, 2009
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
MMyhre wrote:HomoSapien wrote:MMyhre wrote:No it wasnt. Stocktons best 3pt made seasons are 1.2 a game and 4.8 ftm a game, and those occurred at different points in his career. There is nothing that says Stockton had the potential to be as good as Nash offensively. Nothing.
Well, that's a ridiculous take.
Nash's 2nd MVP Season: 18.8 ppg, 10.5 apg, 4.2 rpg, 0.8 spg, 51% FG, 44% 3PT, 92% FT
Stockton 1989 Season: 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, 2.9 rpg, 2.7 spg, 51% FG, 42% 3PT, 82% FT
Stockton's best season really is comparable to Nash's. The big distinction is that Stockton was clearly the secondary player on the Jazz, whereas Nash was the team.
The 1.2 three's per game doesn't prove much. It was a different era, where three-point shooting wasn't viewed with the same importance as now. And if anything, the FTM hurts your point. Nash's career high in FTM a game was 4.1 and that was in Dallas.
Look at how they play, there is nothing suggesting Stockton had the capacity to play like Nash. You talk as if Stockton plays like Stephen Curry, crossing people over and doing step back threes. He did not have that capacity. This is like saying Rajon Rondo could be as good offensively as Chris Paul because he had 15 pts to Pauls 17 in one season, when Rondo was shooting corner threes/spot up threes, and CP3 was shooting stepback 3s, iso 3s, fadeaway jumpers etc = clearly a superior scorer and thus offensive player, a carry player offensively. Stockton was not a carry scoring player offensively, Nash showed he had the potential to do that in some of his playoff outings which are on a different tier to Stockton.
And there were players who shot threes back then, you cant just give a player a skillset in the modern era because it was not common back then. If he was better at shooting threes off the dribble, and getting his own shot off the dribble - he would have been able to adapt and do that.
Stockton didnt have the skillset to play like Curry, Nash actually had some of that, he was a superior scorer, could score much better off the dribble and shooter, ft shooter etc. 9 + 30 pt games in the postseason, Stockton only with 2 over like 180 attempts with an MVP teammate.
Also its ridiculous that you talk as if Stockton was actually Stephen Curry but let Malone be the best player, and without he would be unlocked. Yeah, nice man, 2 30pt + games over 180 playoff games, he sure was capable of being AlphaMan.
FTM is whatever because it shows that Stockton would need to get more free throws to make up for his lesser offensive skillset compared to Nash offensively, and he didnt.
Stockton was a good second fiddle, he did not have the skillset to be a leading star like Nash. Like I said, nothing, says Stockton had potential to do more, or he would have shown it in those 180 playoff games.
Huh? You're putting words in my mouth that I never said, nor implied. Either you're confusing me with someone else or you're purposely creating strawmen to support your arguments. I'll summarize my points over the past few posts for you.
1.) Stockton is the more complete player, with fewer weaknesses.
2.) Nash was able to play at an MVP-level in a lead role, whereas Stockton never played a lead role. Because of that, it's a tough comp. That's not to say he could handle a lead role, all it means is that we have no idea how he'd do.
3.) In a secondary role, Stockton's best seasons are comparable to Nash's MVP seasons.
Now to quote specific points:
Look at how they play, there is nothing suggesting Stockton had the capacity to play like Nash.
No one on the planet thought Steve Nash, prior to his run with the Suns, had that capacity either. He was completely written off by Mark Cuban and the Mavs and thought to be entering the twilight of his career. I do agree that Nash was a better scorer, but in terms of actually points per game, the difference between Nash in his prime Dallas years and Stockton in his prime is negligible. What happened? Nash found the perfect system for his strenghths and thrived. Again, there's no guarantee that Stockton could do that. Some players simply aren't lead guys. Stockton may not be one. But the debate between these two players is pretty close.
Also its ridiculous that you talk as if Stockton was actually Stephen Curry but let Malone be the best player, and without he would be unlocked. Yeah, nice man, 2 30pt + games over 180 playoff games, he sure was capable of being AlphaMan.
Please point me to where I said anything remotely like this? You won't be able to, because I never made such an argument. BTW, Nash only had two 30pt playoff performances prior to rejoining the Suns too.
FTM is whatever because it shows that Stockton would need to get more free throws to make up for his lesser offensive skillset compared to Nash offensively, and he didnt.
YOU are the one that introduced FTM into the argument and you brought it up to discredit Stockton. Terrible point, considering he was better at getting to the line than Nash.
ThreeYearPlan wrote:Bulls fans defend HomoSapien more than Rose.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
-
- Forum Mod - Clippers
- Posts: 50,955
- And1: 33,769
- Joined: Jun 23, 2004
- Location: NBA Fan
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
No one on the planet thought Steve Nash, prior to his run with the Suns, had that capacity either. He was completely written off by Mark Cuban and the Mavs and thought to be entering the twilight of his career. I do agree that Nash was a better scorer, but in terms of actually points per game, the difference between Nash in his prime Dallas years and Stockton in his prime is negligible. What happened? Nash found the perfect system for his strenghths and thrived. Again, there's no guarantee that Stockton could do that. Some players simply aren't lead guys. Stockton may not be one. But the debate between these two players is pretty close.
I don't think completely written off is the right statement here about Nash and the Mavs.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
- HomoSapien
- Senior Mod - Bulls
- Posts: 37,312
- And1: 30,348
- Joined: Aug 17, 2009
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
og15 wrote:No one on the planet thought Steve Nash, prior to his run with the Suns, had that capacity either. He was completely written off by Mark Cuban and the Mavs and thought to be entering the twilight of his career. I do agree that Nash was a better scorer, but in terms of actually points per game, the difference between Nash in his prime Dallas years and Stockton in his prime is negligible. What happened? Nash found the perfect system for his strenghths and thrived. Again, there's no guarantee that Stockton could do that. Some players simply aren't lead guys. Stockton may not be one. But the debate between these two players is pretty close.
I don't think completely written off is the right statement here about Nash and the Mavs.
The Suns beat Cuban's offer by less than $3m a year. They were unwilling to match it. They didn't match it because they were certain his body was going to break down. We can quibble about the wording "completely written off", but I stand by my point that no one was expecting Steve Nash to become an MVP candidate or an all-time great at that point in his career.
ThreeYearPlan wrote:Bulls fans defend HomoSapien more than Rose.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
-
- Forum Mod - Clippers
- Posts: 50,955
- And1: 33,769
- Joined: Jun 23, 2004
- Location: NBA Fan
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
HomoSapien wrote:og15 wrote:No one on the planet thought Steve Nash, prior to his run with the Suns, had that capacity either. He was completely written off by Mark Cuban and the Mavs and thought to be entering the twilight of his career. I do agree that Nash was a better scorer, but in terms of actually points per game, the difference between Nash in his prime Dallas years and Stockton in his prime is negligible. What happened? Nash found the perfect system for his strenghths and thrived. Again, there's no guarantee that Stockton could do that. Some players simply aren't lead guys. Stockton may not be one. But the debate between these two players is pretty close.
I don't think completely written off is the right statement here about Nash and the Mavs.
The Suns beat Cuban's offer by less than $3m a year. They were unwilling to match it. They didn't match it because they were certain his body was going to break down. We can quibble about the wording "completely written off", but I stand by my point that no one was expecting Steve Nash to become an MVP candidate or an all-time great at that point in his career.
I agree with your main point, it's the completely written off part that I don't agree with, as they did like him, but his health was a concern.
He was known as a partier in Dallas. I don't know if that changed in Phoenix, might have. What did change was that he significantly improved how he took care of his body and his conditioning when he went to Phoenix. Maybe he would have done that in Dallas too and they would have reaped the benefits, but we'll never know.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
- Jamaaliver
- Forum Mod - Hawks
- Posts: 45,467
- And1: 17,285
- Joined: Sep 22, 2005
- Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
- Contact:
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
Both Nash and Stockton are great players. Either answer is acceptable.
I would probably go with Stockton. He was a better defender and had greater longevity.
Caveats to consider:
John Stockton was putting up elite assist numbers in the run-and-gun 1980s and also in the slow, grind it out 1990s.
He also played alongside Karl Malone -- the greatest play finisher of the era. That undoubtedly inflated Stockton's assist totals a bit.
Nash undoubtedly benefitted from the NBA rule changes that allowed for more freedom of movement.
The faster pace undoubtedly inflated Nash's assist totals a bit.
But it really is eye of the beholder. They were both great players.
I would probably go with Stockton. He was a better defender and had greater longevity.
Caveats to consider:
John Stockton was putting up elite assist numbers in the run-and-gun 1980s and also in the slow, grind it out 1990s.
He also played alongside Karl Malone -- the greatest play finisher of the era. That undoubtedly inflated Stockton's assist totals a bit.
Nash undoubtedly benefitted from the NBA rule changes that allowed for more freedom of movement.
The faster pace undoubtedly inflated Nash's assist totals a bit.
But it really is eye of the beholder. They were both great players.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
- Jamaaliver
- Forum Mod - Hawks
- Posts: 45,467
- And1: 17,285
- Joined: Sep 22, 2005
- Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
- Contact:
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
-
- Freshman
- Posts: 89
- And1: 81
- Joined: Aug 04, 2024
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
- Jamaaliver
- Forum Mod - Hawks
- Posts: 45,467
- And1: 17,285
- Joined: Sep 22, 2005
- Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
- Contact:
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
JinKaz69 wrote:Nash played for Nelson and D'Antoni who are both heavy offensive oriented.
Sloan was more balanced between offense and defense.
Oh no doubt. Sloan was an old school coach who got the most out of limited players through grit and scheme.
It still boggles the mind that a starting five with John Stockton (at age 35), Jeff Hornacek (at age 34) and Greg Ostertag used to regularly beat a young Lakers Team that featured Shaq, Kobe, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel.
It's cause Stockton and Hornacek played hard nosed, team defense -- and Jerry Sloan was an elite coach.
(But seriously, those late 90s Jazz teams are some of the least athletic, least talented teams to ever grace an NBA Finals.)

Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
-
- Senior Mod
- Posts: 53,595
- And1: 22,560
- Joined: Mar 10, 2005
- Location: Cali
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
Black Jack wrote:Nash wasn't good enough to be #1 on a title winner and neither was Stockton. So the question is who do you want as #2?
I say the guy who went to 2 finals as #2, not the guy that failed to get out of the West despite playing with Dirk then Amare.
Nash had better scoring skills but Stockton could give you defense.
Seems clear to me that I'd prefer Stockton as my PG overall. Even if post retirement he's lost his mind.
So just jumping back in here. I don't think people are crazy for choosing Stockton, but:
This whole "#1 on a title winner" thing doesn't really make sense.
Was Nash good enough to be the best offensive player on the greatest offensive dynasty in the history of the sport? Yes.
So was offense the problem? No.
Perfectly fine to say you'd like to have an all-around player better than Nash on Nash's team, but not because you need Nash to take on a sidekick's role on offense, but because of defensive concerns.
Hence why it makes sense to favor Stockton because of defense, but when people talk about "#1 on a title winner", they're generally talking about offensive primacy.
As in "DeMar DeRozan is a very skilled volume scorer, but he's not good enough on offense to realistically be the offensive star on an offense good enough to win a title. Hence he would need to take on a lesser primacy to be a champion-worthy player, but because he can't actually do anything else, you can't win a champion with DeRozan in your core."
With Nash, there are absolutely no valid concerns about whether he could lead an offense that would be better than whoever they faced, and so the idea he should consider a lesser offensive role while remaining in your core doesn't make sense. You'd just be making the team offense worse with no benefit.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
-
- Freshman
- Posts: 89
- And1: 81
- Joined: Aug 04, 2024
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
Jamaaliver wrote:JinKaz69 wrote:Nash played for Nelson and D'Antoni who are both heavy offensive oriented.
Sloan was more balanced between offense and defense.
Oh no doubt. Sloan was an old school coach who got the most out of limited players through grit and scheme.
It still boggles the mind that a starting five with John Stockton (at age 35), Jeff Hornacek (at age 34) and Greg Ostertag used to regularly beat a young Lakers Team that featured Shaq, Kobe, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel.
It's cause Stockton and Hornacek played hard nosed, team defense -- and Jerry Sloan was an elite coach.
(But seriously, those late 90s Jazz teams are some of the least athletic, least talented teams to ever grace an NBA Finals.)
They were not top heavy but they were deep.
Most important, they were smart and played intelligent team basket-ball.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,679
- And1: 2,101
- Joined: Feb 13, 2019
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
Again I ask this question.
Will the fact that another Jazz PG under Jerry Sloan ALSO posted really good stats like 19pts/10.5 points helping Utah to post an impressive 53-29 record hurt Stockton's legacy esp with a lesser Caliber Partner in Boozer?
I also try to imagine if they switch places, which player makes his team better overall?
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
-
- Sophomore
- Posts: 151
- And1: 65
- Joined: Mar 10, 2018
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
tamaraw08 wrote:
Again I ask this question.
Will the fact that another Jazz PG under Jerry Sloan ALSO posted really good stats like 19pts/10.5 points helping Utah to post an impressive 53-29 record hurt Stockton's legacy esp with a lesser Caliber Partner in Boozer?
I also try to imagine if they switch places, which player makes his team better overall?
Deron Williams was really good, but he never averaged 19 pts and 10.5 points at the same time.
Utah needed a 4th piece with Stockton and Malone. They had decent players other than Stock/Horny/Malone, but not great. Their owner didn't want to spend, and maybe couldn't afford to. Imagine if Malone took the cut in pay he did with the Lakers (chasing a ring) when he was with the Jazz and allowed them to add a 4th weapon.
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,679
- And1: 2,101
- Joined: Feb 13, 2019
-
Re: Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton
TheSeeker wrote:tamaraw08 wrote:
Again I ask this question.
Will the fact that another Jazz PG under Jerry Sloan ALSO posted really good stats like 19pts/10.5 points helping Utah to post an impressive 53-29 record hurt Stockton's legacy esp with a lesser Caliber Partner in Boozer?
I also try to imagine if they switch places, which player makes his team better overall?
Deron Williams was really good, but he never averaged 19 pts and 10.5 points at the same time.
Utah needed a 4th piece with Stockton and Malone. They had decent players other than Stock/Horny/Malone, but not great. Their owner didn't want to spend, and maybe couldn't afford to. Imagine if Malone took the cut in pay he did with the Lakers (chasing a ring) when he was with the Jazz and allowed them to add a 4th weapon.
ok fine, 18.7/10.5 assissts 09-10 season.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/2010.html