All Time Franchise Players

[pipfan]

For Portland, it's a three way fight generally between Drexler and Walton, and to a lesser extent Dame (simply because he never made a Finals with Portland most have him just a hair behind)

Walton for peak, of course. But he wasn't there long-and most modern fans might remember him as a Celtic

[pipfan]

Most franchises have a clear top player of all time (Chi, Clev, Den, SA, GS, NY, Milw, Orl, Indy, Tor, ATL, Miami, Hou, Dallas, Minny)

Some franchises just don't have enough history to really have one all time great (Sac-not counting the Big O, Char, NO, Brk/NJ, and some others).

Others have many options-but of these 5 franchises, who is their top all time guy?

I'm a Knicks fan and I don't think the Knicks have a clear top player of all-time. By stats, I guess Ewing. But by winning (and with good stats and accolades), Frazier or Reed.

If I had to choose one, it would be Frazier. Is that who you had in mind?

It's Ewing for the Knicks. As a non Knicks fan, the first player that comes in mind it's him.

That's who I have-Ewing. Of course, Reed/Walt were awesome, but Ewing was there a LONG time as the star, and let them through the 90's

[druggas]

Where's Jerry West?

[MMyhre]

First of all you're the one that started nitpicking accolades on this thread.
Secondly, your definition of Stockton's assists is exactly this. Your own definition.
It doesn't count for anything.
Stockton is the all time leader in assists and he's not going to lose this record anytime soon.
Just like his steals record.
Malone isn't leading any meaningful stat category in history.
That doesn't mean much unless someone (yourself on this convo) is trying to downgrade another player by not recognising his accomplishments.

Yes, because you were unprecise in your comparison of accolades to make your post look better. So I wasn't going to let you lazily make your own argument look better because you are biased toward looking more "right" instead of presenting precise facts about Stocktons accolades.
All time leading categories and production in the regular season does not mean you are as good as MVP level players, or else James Harden has a top 10 all time case or better.
Stockton fell off in the playoffs, where it matters, nor would being a stat leader all time automatically mean you are as good as Malone.
Carmelo Anthony could have scored 25 pts and grabbed 10 rebounds for 25 years and be the NBA all time leading scorer and rebounder, while still being a poor contributor to winning basketball because he played **** defense and selfish, inefficient offense with bad playmaking etc.
So no, just listing that is not enough to prove anything.
I defined those assists and I shared an example of him throwing basic passes that inflate his assists numbers, where Malone does the heavy lifting in terms of making a move in the post and scoring. You posted nothing to prove your point except repeating words and denial of everything that was thrown at you, refusing to even comment on anything I wrote to make my case.
Stockton isn't leading any meaningful stat category in history in the playoffs either. And a difference of a couple of positions is not that impactful, especially when you consider that points is a more valuable stat than assists, because points ultimately win you the game, and you don't need an assist to score a point.
Also, the difference in accolades alone and lack of production in the playoffs, the fact Stockton was not even the 2nd option for part of the 90's, does not make your argument as good as my detailed points.
Where am I not recognizing Stocktons accomplishments or downgrading him? I am objectively looking deeper into it, and proving/making a very strong case for that one player was just better and more impactful over a long period than the other. While you put up amazing insight like "Stockton is the leader of stats thus he is as great as Malone".
What is next? Michael Jordan put ball in basket more than others so he good. I think you are the one downgrading the entire game of basketball by refusing to even acknowledge the insane amount of depth this game has when you dive into it, and trying to "win" an argument by listing the **** all time assists and steals list as the answer to basketball impact.

I do get the vibe that I am talking to someone who decides that they are right and sticks with it, regardless of anything else, so no point in arguing further.

I've voted for Malone on this thread too.
That doesn't mean i disrespect an all time great like Stockton. When I say it's close, it's exactly this. Stockton is one of the greatest guards of all time.
There's a difference between having a preference and trying to downgrade and disrespect another player because he's not of your liking.
Learn to respect.

I think you should learn to respect research, and stop being so biased towards your own subjective opinion on a matter, without being willing to dig deeper and acquire more knowledge about what you are arguing for or against.

Just because one feels someone is greater, does not mean I "disrespect" the other by saying Malone is clearly superior as a basketball player. That's ridiculous, and I even gave Stockton tons of kudos for his genuinely great peak gameplay in 1987-1989. That was one of the best point guards of all time, but it doesn't mean I can't dissect and analyze whether or not someone was greater than him.
I think you are playing the victim card here, saying that I must be disrespectful because I took my time to find good arguments for why you were wrong in your assessment. So you are trying to shift the conversation over into me being "disrespectful" for arguing against Stockton being close to Malone.

It's actually a little bit pathetic, I am not going to lie. Like what is it disrespectful to Scottie Pippen that someone thinks he is outside of the top 25 all time as well? What are you even implying here, one is not allowed to share their opinion of basketball greatness? That's disrespectful?
I have said little to nothing about my preferences in playstyle, it's you claiming I have such intentions because you are being overly defensive.

I enjoyed watching peak John Stockton videos to learn about him, he was fun to watch. That doesn't mean I am disrespectful if I tell you that you are wrong in evaluating him close to Karl Malone in all time value as a basketball player. That's my opinion on the subject, and if I argue for that it does not imply in any way that I am "disrespectful", which is quite frank some soft bull anyways, lol.

Like someone is not allowed to have a strong opinion on the skill level of someone, because it's disrespectful, lol.

And now you gave me another statement that I am not sure I agree with.

Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Magic Johnson, Stephen Curry, Jerry West, Chris Paul, Steve Nash and Oscar Robertson are for me some of the greatest guards of all time. I think John Stockton at his peak belonged somewhere below or close to these bottom guys like Paul or Nash, but his peak play was pretty short, and a guy averaging 14.7 pts on 56 ts % and 10.7 assists with 3 to over the whole 1990's playoffs is not going to cut it in the conversation with these level of players who are capable of averaging 30 pts 5-7 assists on 56-60 ts % ++ as the primary option in their team, or be the main playmaker with 20 pts 12 assists 8-10 rebounds 2 steals on 60 ts % ++ with higher assist value and better playmaking like Magic.

It's just greater impact than what Stockton did, and these players did it more often at a higher level than him, Stockton has one run with more than 16 pts per game and a 10+ game sample size in the postseason. One run. Chris Paul has eight runs. Nash has four runs. Heck even Isiah Thomas which I am not sure if I would put in the conversation of greatest guards of all time because I would need to research that, has four runs. Stockton is just not a big enough scoring threat in the postseason or great enough playmaker to be called one of the greatest guards of all time for me. I think people like you are just refusing to think deeper, and will just take his leaderboard statistics at face value and leave it as that, but the numbers and the eye test does not add up when one dives down and looks deeper. It's not like getting steals at a higher level in the regular season, means you are a lockdown defender like Michael Jordan in the postseason. Monta Ellis had like 2.2 steals or something in 08/09 regular season, yet he was a terrible defender. And getting steals in the postseason is tougher.

Does that I mean disrespect Stockton? No, I just can't see the argument for him when he never had statistics or winning impact in the playoffs close to these guys, and over a larger playoff sample, playing with a guy who was First Team All NBA every season for like all of these runs.
I value my own opinion and my capacity to research stuff, over hurting someones feelings (?) about me arguing for why I believe I am right on a player not being as good as they think.

I know you don't rate Steve Nash as highly as Stockton, should I say you are being disrespectful and go in a victim role for that as well? He has two MVP's, how can you say anything against me? I must be right? Like that, I could play this game as well if I want to be as stubborn as you come across, however I just find that weird and unnecessary to be honest.

I'll leave it at this. I am happy you gave me some good brain practice and helped me learn more about Stockton and Malone.

[OrlandoMagic198]

For Portland, it's a three way fight generally between Drexler and Walton, and to a lesser extent Dame (simply because he never made a Finals with Portland most have him just a hair behind)

Walton for peak, of course. But he wasn't there long-and most modern fans might remember him as a Celtic

Fans remember Walton as a Blazer since Walton bought the Blazers their only championship and Walton was with Portland longer than the Celtics

[Stan]

These were honestly all easy to me, the only truly debatable one was the Wizards.

[Doctor MJ]

Most franchises have a clear top player of all time (Chi, Clev, Den, SA, GS, NY, Milw, Orl, Indy, Tor, ATL, Miami, Hou, Dallas, Minny)

Some franchises just don't have enough history to really have one all time great (Sac-not counting the Big O, Char, NO, Brk/NJ, and some others).

Others have many options-but of these 5 franchises, who is their top all time guy?

Answered this previously without seeing the actual poll. Regarding the poll:

Celtics - I believe most Celtic fans would say Russell over Bird at this point. There was absolutely a time when they'd have said Bird, but Russell's accomplishments age like wine.

Lakers - I believe most Laker fans would say Kobe right now, but there's a distinct possibility that Magic will reclaim that title with time.

Blazers - No Walton in the survey?!!! He needs to be, he was the best Blazer, and the chip cements what he did all over other Blazers until one of them wins a chip. Drexler vs Lillard is tough and still in flux, but my guess is that if Dame has a good retirement in Portland he'll be the one getting the nod.

Wizards - Wes all the way. Some will choose Hayes as the superior peak, but he was just a hired gun compared to Wes.

Jazz - I think most any group would still side with Malone here, though many would want to emphasize how close it is.

[Doctor MJ]

These were honestly all easy to me, the only truly debatable one was the Wizards.

Funny, I thought the Wizards was the easiest one.

[kcktiny]

Malone's impact isn't the same without Stockton (and the other way around).

Just speculation, there's no way of proving that.

Oh there is, but people just don't want to hear it. Great players are great players - they don't all of a sudden get lousy when the PG is changed or when they are traded.

The same nonsense was said in the early 2000s when Nash left Dallas. People pointed to the high ratio of Nowitzki's FGM that were assisted on, said he would not be the same without Nash.

Jason Terry stepped into the Dallas PG role, threw for far fewer assists than Nash did, and Nowitzki was just as good as before, maybe even better, had a much lower ratio of his FGM being assisted on yet still scored the same. Compare Nowitzki's stats his last 3 seasons with Nash (2001-02 to 2003-04) to his first 3 seasons (2004-05 to 2006-07) with Terry - pretty much the same, even a tad better.

[NZB2323]

The fact that Stockton is so close to Malone is crazy. Yeah he is an ****, but in terms of their impact it's not really close, Malone is a 2 time MVP, 11 time All NBA 1st team and has 3 first team All Defensive awards + 14 time all star ++++.. it's not close.

Yeah, but how well did Malone play in the playoffs for the years he won MVP?

97: 26, 11, and 3, 50.1 TS%, 22.2 PER,

99: 22, 11, and 5, 49.2 TS%, 21.2 PER

Both years he won MVP he played substantially worse in the playoffs.

Compare how well they played in 88 against the Lakers.

Malone: 29, 12, and 1, 1 steal, 53.5 TS%, 19.4 PER
Stockton: 20, 16, and 3, 4 steals, 58.8 TS%, 24.5 PER

It’s not crazy to have Stockton ahead. Karl Malone was basically the power forward James Harden.

[MMyhre]

The fact that Stockton is so close to Malone is crazy. Yeah he is an ****, but in terms of their impact it's not really close, Malone is a 2 time MVP, 11 time All NBA 1st team and has 3 first team All Defensive awards + 14 time all star ++++.. it's not close.

Yeah, but how well did Malone play in the playoffs for the years he won MVP?

97: 26, 11, and 3, 50.1 TS%, 22.2 PER,

99: 22, 11, and 5, 49.2 TS%, 21.2 PER

Both years he won MVP he played substantially worse in the playoffs.

Compare how well they played in 88 against the Lakers.

Malone: 29, 12, and 1, 1 steal, 53.5 TS%, 19.4 PER
Stockton: 20, 16, and 3, 4 steals, 58.8 TS%, 24.5 PER

It’s not crazy to have Stockton ahead. Karl Malone was basically the power forward James Harden.

If you look at my post above, I go through their data together over a bigger sample size than one or two series. Peak wise, Stockton is up there, but production wise over the 90's it's not really close.

Also if you don't highlight one of the series where Malone looks worse compared to Stockton (and it's not like 29 and 12 is terrible either and he could have played elite defense for all we know), it's easy to turn the narrative around by selecting other games from that same playoff run.
In the earlier series vs Portland in 1988 he finished the series off in game 4 with 38 pts, 17-29 fg, 4-8 ft, 10 reb, 2 ast, 2 stl, 1 blk, 3 ast. And he had 37 pts on 21 shots with 16 reb, 1 ast and 1 stl in the game 2 win, albeit 7 turnovers. 35 pts on 21 shots in a game 3 win, 9 reb, 3 ast, 1 blk, 3 to.

So it's easy to nitpick a small sample size and create a narrative, but over the whole of the 1990's playoff runs, Malone was at 27.1 pts, 11.4 reb, 3.2 ast, 1.4 stl and 0.9 blk on 53.2 ts %. Not the perfect efficiency, but very solid overall production, while Stock was 2nd, 3rd or the 4th option at times and had 14,1 pts on 56.6 ts %, 10.7 ast and 1.7 steals.

So I would say no, it is crazy to have Stockton ahead. If 1988 Stockton was the guy playing those 114 games in the playoffs from 1990 to 1998? Sure, but he did not sustain that athleticism and level for long, while Malone was the go to guy and made 1st team all defensive three times from 97-99 so his value was apparently not only offensively, even if I have no way to know if he truly deserved being first team, he must have shown some defensive value to the public at least.

[pipfan]

I put Stockton/Malone into the poll for a few reasons. I think everyone would have Malone over Stockton in a GOAT poll.

But, for the Jazz franchise I figured
Malone went to the Lakers, Stockton only played for Jazz
Malone raped a 14 year old (Stockton is apparently not universally loved, but not a criminal)
Stockton being white and an underdog success story might hold weight in Utah

[HMFFL]

Orlando has 4 candidates
Shaq
Penny
TMac
Howard

Personally, I vote Penny. I appreciate I might be in the minority, but Shaq is a Laker in his own heart and Dwight created.the Dwightmare and years of mediocrity. Tmac was flashy but realistically not much more.

Penny was a class act and an uber talent.

Dwight Howard did more for Orlando than any of the other three options. 8 seasons, 3 straight DPOY, 5 NBA first teams, and 4x defensive first team.

The franchise needed to do more for Dwight during his tenure with them but blame "Dwightmare" all you want.

[maverick_41]

Let's make it Alexander Ovechkin for Washington as nothing worth mentioning has happened to the Wizards since Jimmy Carter term.

[NZB2323]

The fact that Stockton is so close to Malone is crazy. Yeah he is an ****, but in terms of their impact it's not really close, Malone is a 2 time MVP, 11 time All NBA 1st team and has 3 first team All Defensive awards + 14 time all star ++++.. it's not close.

Yeah, but how well did Malone play in the playoffs for the years he won MVP?

97: 26, 11, and 3, 50.1 TS%, 22.2 PER,

99: 22, 11, and 5, 49.2 TS%, 21.2 PER

Both years he won MVP he played substantially worse in the playoffs.

Compare how well they played in 88 against the Lakers.

Malone: 29, 12, and 1, 1 steal, 53.5 TS%, 19.4 PER
Stockton: 20, 16, and 3, 4 steals, 58.8 TS%, 24.5 PER

It’s not crazy to have Stockton ahead. Karl Malone was basically the power forward James Harden.

If you look at my post above, I go through their data together over a bigger sample size than one or two series. Peak wise, Stockton is up there, but production wise over the 90's it's not really close.

Also if you don't highlight one of the series where Malone looks worse compared to Stockton (and it's not like 29 and 12 is terrible either and he could have played elite defense for all we know), it's easy to turn the narrative around by selecting other games from that same playoff run.
In the earlier series vs Portland in 1988 he finished the series off in game 4 with 38 pts, 17-29 fg, 4-8 ft, 10 reb, 2 ast, 2 stl, 1 blk, 3 ast. And he had 37 pts on 21 shots with 16 reb, 1 ast and 1 stl in the game 2 win, albeit 7 turnovers. 35 pts on 21 shots in a game 3 win, 9 reb, 3 ast, 1 blk, 3 to.

So it's easy to nitpick a small sample size and create a narrative, but over the whole of the 1990's playoff runs, Malone was at 27.1 pts, 11.4 reb, 3.2 ast, 1.4 stl and 0.9 blk on 53.2 ts %. Not the perfect efficiency, but very solid overall production, while Stock was 2nd, 3rd or the 4th option at times and had 14,1 pts on 56.6 ts %, 10.7 ast and 1.7 steals.

So I would say no, it is crazy to have Stockton ahead. If 1988 Stockton was the guy playing those 114 games in the playoffs from 1990 to 1998? Sure, but he did not sustain that athleticism and level for long, while Malone was the go to guy and made 1st team all defensive three times from 97-99 so his value was apparently not only offensively, even if I have no way to know if he truly deserved being first team, he must have shown some defensive value to the public at least.

If you want a larger sample size Stockton has a higher career playoff VORP and BPM. Stockton also made more all-defensive teams in his career.

Malone playing worse in the playoffs was not a small sample size. His career TS% is 57.7% and 52.6% in the playoffs. It’s hard to win in the playoffs when your first option isn’t as efficient as the other team’s.

[MMyhre]

Yeah, but how well did Malone play in the playoffs for the years he won MVP?

97: 26, 11, and 3, 50.1 TS%, 22.2 PER,

99: 22, 11, and 5, 49.2 TS%, 21.2 PER

Both years he won MVP he played substantially worse in the playoffs.

Compare how well they played in 88 against the Lakers.

Malone: 29, 12, and 1, 1 steal, 53.5 TS%, 19.4 PER
Stockton: 20, 16, and 3, 4 steals, 58.8 TS%, 24.5 PER

It’s not crazy to have Stockton ahead. Karl Malone was basically the power forward James Harden.

If you look at my post above, I go through their data together over a bigger sample size than one or two series. Peak wise, Stockton is up there, but production wise over the 90's it's not really close.

Also if you don't highlight one of the series where Malone looks worse compared to Stockton (and it's not like 29 and 12 is terrible either and he could have played elite defense for all we know), it's easy to turn the narrative around by selecting other games from that same playoff run.
In the earlier series vs Portland in 1988 he finished the series off in game 4 with 38 pts, 17-29 fg, 4-8 ft, 10 reb, 2 ast, 2 stl, 1 blk, 3 ast. And he had 37 pts on 21 shots with 16 reb, 1 ast and 1 stl in the game 2 win, albeit 7 turnovers. 35 pts on 21 shots in a game 3 win, 9 reb, 3 ast, 1 blk, 3 to.

So it's easy to nitpick a small sample size and create a narrative, but over the whole of the 1990's playoff runs, Malone was at 27.1 pts, 11.4 reb, 3.2 ast, 1.4 stl and 0.9 blk on 53.2 ts %. Not the perfect efficiency, but very solid overall production, while Stock was 2nd, 3rd or the 4th option at times and had 14,1 pts on 56.6 ts %, 10.7 ast and 1.7 steals.

So I would say no, it is crazy to have Stockton ahead. If 1988 Stockton was the guy playing those 114 games in the playoffs from 1990 to 1998? Sure, but he did not sustain that athleticism and level for long, while Malone was the go to guy and made 1st team all defensive three times from 97-99 so his value was apparently not only offensively, even if I have no way to know if he truly deserved being first team, he must have shown some defensive value to the public at least.

If you want a larger sample size Stockton has a higher career playoff VORP and BPM. Stockton also made more all-defensive teams in his career.

Malone playing worse in the playoffs was not a small sample size. His career TS% is 57.7% and 52.6% in the playoffs. It’s hard to win in the playoffs when your first option isn’t as efficient as the other team’s.

So choosing only two advanced stats, and mentioning all defensive teams without context is enough. First and firemost, Karl Malone has three All Defensive first teams, Stockton none. That's higher value. And he has another second team as well. One more 2nd team to 3x 1st and 1x 2nd is not higher value.

Karl Malone has more winshares, per. It's not like just these prove anything, regardless.

Stockton goes down from 60.8 ts % to 56.8 ts % in the postseason. It's hard to win in the playoffs when your second or third option isn't as efficient as the other teams and averages 13 pts.

Do you want to keep going like this or do you want to build real, deep arguments for why Stockton is as good as Malone? You're not going to find them, his production in the playoffs is too low and he peaked too early and too short.

Malone is 8th all time in MVP voting, Stockton 108.
Those who watched the 90's say there was never a discussion as to who was better, Karl Malone just was even if he was not perfect.

In the Nash vs Stockton thread I link two games where Stockton sets up Malone, and where Nash sets up Stoudemire. It also shows how much Nash affected Stoudemires efficiency before and after he played with Nash. A real valuable creator has that effect, so Malone having a lower ts % just reflects poorly onto Stockton, who is responsible for creating better looks and pressure on the defense like Nash did for Stoudemire.

The difference in terms of how much more and better Nash creates for Stoudemire, giving him easy dunks, layups or free throws, is huge.

Stockton just isn't as good as you and some people think he is by just nitpicking some stats.

Stockton was not capable of elevating his volume scoring and assist value in the postseason.
Nor was he always a positive defender:
https://youtu.be/fc4SxdYmIu0?si=B1Tdv_hCfGBCTIVO

Terry Porter shooting over Stockton, driving past Stockton, posting up Stockton and passing over Stockton.

Terry Porter 92 playoffs vs Jazz:
26 pts on 72.4 ts%, 8.3 ast/1.3 to , 4 reb, 1 stl.
Stockton:
14.3 pts on 53.5 ts%, 11.2 ast/3.3 to, 2.2 reb, 1.3 stl.

Karl Malone had 28.2 pts and 11.7 reb, 2.7 ast, 1 stl, 0.8 blk. Even if he would not have been efficient, Malone always produced numbers, unlike Stockton here. 24 and 11 for his career in the postseason.

Malone had a 62.8 ts % in that series. I just didn't want to use it as an argument, because it doesn't matter. Stockton is not close to him all time, and if he did better here the Jazz would have reached the finals. Jeff Malone was the second option with 18.7 pts. If Stockton was so good, why is he not the second option? Because he couldn't. Hence only one playoffs above 16 pts in any of the deep Jazz playoff runs.

Stockton has become overrated due to guys reading the All Time Leaderboards, it's a shame because the young, peak version of him was a fun player that I will watch more of. Just can't put him close to players in MVP discussions and on high All NBA +/- levels.

[Warspite]

Most franchises have a clear top player of all time (Chi, Clev, Den, SA, GS, NY, Milw, Orl, Indy, Tor, ATL, Miami, Hou, Dallas, Minny)

Some franchises just don't have enough history to really have one all time great (Sac-not counting the Big O, Char, NO, Brk/NJ, and some others).

Others have many options-but of these 5 franchises, who is their top all time guy?

For NJ/BKN it's Kidd

Julius Erving and its not even close.

[Kittles02]

Most franchises have a clear top player of all time (Chi, Clev, Den, SA, GS, NY, Milw, Orl, Indy, Tor, ATL, Miami, Hou, Dallas, Minny)

Some franchises just don't have enough history to really have one all time great (Sac-not counting the Big O, Char, NO, Brk/NJ, and some others).

Others have many options-but of these 5 franchises, who is their top all time guy?

For NJ/BKN it's Kidd

Julius Erving and its not even close.

Aba agreed. NBA no. Erving is linked to the 76ers because that's who he played for in the nba. Kidd took a twenty something win franchise from the previous season to back to back finals. That cemented it imo.

[Jamaaliver]

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter