HomoSapien wrote:MMyhre 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.
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.
I am going to ignore your gigantic victim complex and focus on the details here, you have a lot of weaknesses in your defense/research/observational capacity that I will expose. Stockton did not have the game to be a 3pt threat like Nash, thus his offensive carry potential is less. I talked about their capacity to be the offensive star/lead guards, I dont know why you are mentioning their overall games to me as if that was relevant for my argument. Everyone knows Stockton was a better defensive player, but you can mention that if it makes you feel better about yourself.
As for answering your claims : No, Stockton did not have the same potential to play like Nash on the Suns because his jumpshot and self creation game was limited compared to Nash, you need to look at how they play to realize their capacities instead of just citing stats as the easy answer.
If you take into account the postseasons, Stocktons best offensive output wasnt as good as Nash, its comparable but not on the same level in terms of scoring when you factor per 100 poss etc. Also, the problem with Stockton is that his 3pt spot up threat does not occur at the same time at his athletic peak, so you can't give him that 3pt value when he is a much lesser athletic player in his 30's and thus he does not combine his offensive potential. Also as I will explain later, he was a spot up shooter. Not an on ball 3pt self creation threat like Nash and Curry, huge difference in terms of offensive potential and thats my biggest gripe with your comparison as if stats can tell the whole picture.
If you actually look at the footage of the season you linked, instead of just linking basic stats as if that proves anything and now misses all the context of Stocktons playstyle and thus offensive potential compared to Nash. Young Stockton is a quicker player than Nash, he gets to spots easier with less advanced/creative passing and way less spacing in his game. He even has a wide open three against the Lakers in 1990 and he just passes it, he looks for open midrange shots or easy layup opportunities as his main go to scoring moves, he is like a lesser version of Chris Paul in 08/09 in terms of his offensive capacity. Nowhere near a scoring star or offensive carry player, and the lack of volume three pointers and high free throw volume makes his own scoring potential less than Chris Paul or Nash, who in Pauls case had better speed, vertical athleticism and more reliable self creation. In Nash case he was a better self creator and a far superior three point shooter, jump shooter off the dribble, both of them are really, and if you dont have that as a lead scoring guard you need to get to the line much more often than Stockton to compensate. That was the point you just seem to not want to comprehend, because you are more focused on being "right" on some irrelevant detail that does not really change the whole picture at all, really.
Of course, you also failed to check the postseason statistics of that season you oh so confidently linked as the easy answer to all of this.
90 playoffs Stockton had 5 games of : 38.8 min, 15 pts on 48.2 TS%, 0.2 threes/3.2 ftm, 15 ast/2.8 to.
06 playoffs Nash had 20 games of : 39.9 min, 20.4 pts on 61.5 TS%, 1.6threes/4.2 ftm, 10.2 ast/3.4 to, +71 +/-.
No star offensive scoring player, loses in five games with such pathetic volume output like Stockton had there. Why does that happen? Because he is LIMITED at self creation as a scoring player, do you understand this? He does not have the capacity to create reliable self-scoring like better offensive players like Nash or Paul, there is a difference and that makes him not capable of being the star sole creator of volume scoring in your hypotetical "where it was just era that made him not hit tons of threes a game". And yes, I am exagerrating but its still truthful. There is no fantasy world where he could average 25 points on 2-4 threes a game, he did not have that capacity to dribble and pull up from three. He was an off ball spot up shooter from three. Thats a role player, not a volume scoring lead guard. And the season you linked was his first baby steps of hitting those shots at a good percentage, they sagged off him big time in 1988 like he was peak Rajon Rondo. This is a small sample size, but I will compare and prove the superiority of Nash at his best later.
You think Dwyane Wade or Kobe Bryant puts up 15 pts on 48TS% in 5 games in the FIRST ROUND, against a 54 win Suns team (Jazz had 55 btw) that lost 2-4 in the conference finals? **** no they don't, because they HAVE RELIABLE SELF CREATION in terms of their scoring, you can't reliably stop them from scoring the ball because their offensive games are too good. Stockton does not have that, and the Suns were just the 7th best team in the postseason in terms of points allowed, so its not like they were an elite defensive team either, Stockton just isnt that kind of carry scoring player.
And now you are going to desperately cling to straws as you say, and say oh but Wade and Kobe aren't Nash, sure, that was just a point to get it in your head about the importance of reliable self-scoring. I have not said Nash was perfect, he was shut down in Dallas and in one PHX postseason after his prime, but he also showed levels AT HIS BEST that Stockton could not reach as an offensive lead guard and that is my point so stop being so stubborn and beside the point.
Lets look at it in numbers in games with more sample sizes, with Nash we have two runs to choose from, 2005 or 2010. He was 35 years old in 2010 btw with 17.8 pts on 63.4 TS% and 27.8 pts per 100 possessions, Stockton averaged 11 pts on 56.9 TS % and 20.9 pts per 100 possessions in the 1998 playoffs at 35 years old. There are levels to this. And Stockton fell apart in the postseason compared to the regular season that year in terms of production, because his offensive package was, and would always be much more limited compared to Nash as he aged because he was not the same self-creator, jump shooter and spacer, had a worse shooting touch than Nash etc.
Nash 2005 playoffs: 15 games, 40.7 min, 23.9 pts on 60.4 TS%, 1.4 3pm/3.8 ftm, 11.3 ast/4.7 to.
Nash was the Curry before Curry, he even has reflected back on his time that he should have shot more, and more threes at that. He had that capacity, reliable on ball self creation/jumpers ++ with 3pt threat, Stockton did not. It gives him dimensions to his offensive game that Stockton could not reach, and the difference in points is noticeable, even with less minutes he produces more points than Stockton. Per 100 possessions its 26.5 pts in favor of Nash to 20 pts of Stockton, and Nash was the main offensive engine, Stockton was not, Nash also had passing levels and complexity to his playmaking that easily surpasses the solid, fundamental entry passing of Stockton into the post for inflated assists, akin to the Rondo vs CP3 debate in the early 2010's.
Stockton has only one run with 10+ games in his seemingly best offensive years, the later Stockton was not a carry player and had too low ppg to compare to Nash. And by the way, this run is before he had even developed an off ball three point shot so his ceiling as an offensive player is even lower compared to the spacing and 3pt threat of Nash.
Stockton 1988 playoffs: 11 games, 43.5 min, 19.8 pts, 61.8 TS %, 0.4 3pm/6.8 ftm, 14.8 ast/4.4 to.
Stockton picks his shots excellently, but he does not have the capacity to force points or self create reliably, thus he needs a Karl Malone to be the main, reliable scoring option. He is an excellent SECOND option for his time, but lacks spacing and spacing the gravity that Nash started and Curry finished, which would have given Malone more space to work with, especially at this time in 1988 since his 3pt was not developed yet so defenses sagged off him like Rondo in 2009.
People need to stop disrespecting Steve Nash, but I suspect its the american bias so you turn a blind eye to the deep research and go for the easy wins like the defense and say Stockton was actually Stephen Curry in disguise if he had his own team like Nash. Its just objectively false if you look at the actual gameplay of the man and stop citing raw stats as if that proves anything.
What I will say is, younger John Stockton was an interesting offensive player with his quickness and tenacity, solid ball handling fundamentals and consistent decision making he was a very good offensive player, but Nash was an MVP level offensive player and that has to be respected more by you americans. Stockton did not develop anything resembling Curry or Nash in terms of producing points on the ball using jump shots and 3pt range, he used his quickness to get into the lane and cause havoc with dimes, mid range shots or layups ++, but due to his lack of verticality, lack of elite to very good free throw drawing and jump shot package he was not a reliable high volume scorer at the levels Nash reached, and Curry would take further later on.
Do I think Stockton was a good player? He was a really good player in his younger years, and I think the older version gets a bit overrated because he lost that quickness and reliable penetration into the paint, and his jump shot/self creation/3pt ability was more that of a role player than a star scoring guard in the later years - thus his offensive potential as I said, was much lower than Nash and their outputs at 35 years old proves that.
I will retract my statement that Nash was far superior though, younger Stockton was very quick and in the modern era he could have been a very interesting player. But so would Nash, and as their playstyles developed relative to their time Nash was a superior offensive player.
If I would draft today, I am taking Nash as he provides a higher offensive ceiling to my team. Oh, and btw the Jazz only had the 10th best offensive rating in the season you said was comparable, while we all know the Suns were 1# and 2# in the league in offense in 04 to 06, so that even shows how Stockton did not have the same overall impact on the offense, because he is a basic, fundamental and solid point guard. Nash was a transcendental point guard that pushed the limits of what a point guard could do, inspiring the Stephen Curry revolution.
It would be fun to see both of them grow up and play in the modern era, and see the differences in how their games would shape compared to back then - maybe that version of Stockton has a higher offensive ceiling, it could be, but for how it panned out it's Nash.
