John Stockton or Steve Nash?

[raptorforlife88]

And Mcleod was the starting pg from utah jazz the first half of the season.

Nice of you completely ignore the first post regarding that 05/06 crap you were talking about.

[FJS]

Nash was playing a min per game high in 2005-06.
If he was not guarding starting pg of another teams, who was doing it? Who was guarding him? Kobe, Wade, Carter??? No, he was guarding pg and except Arroyo all the other guards were starting pg.

About the 1´3 +/- over Deron...
Bashing Deron or another PG don't make Nash a better defender. Deron is a better defender. He shut down Roy vs Portland in the last quarter the last time we meet them. +/- it's not only about how Deron does, it's about how Jazz do in deffense.
And last time I checked it was Nash vs Stockton, and Nash has 0 all defensive and Stockton have 5.

[bastillon]

Nash was playing a min per game high in 2005-06.
If he was not guarding starting pg of another teams, who was doing it? Who was guarding him? Kobe, Wade, Carter??? No, he was guarding pg and except Arroyo all the other guards were starting pg.

do you realize that your analysis is useless, because it doesn't show
1) how many times opposing PGs shot the ball
2) turnovers
3) assists
4) it doesn't compare him to his teammate nor to other PGs

so I showed you how opposing PGs did against Nash that year and neither Paul nor Deron nor Kidd had any kind of significant advantage. now if you wanna prove your point by saying Nash is a terrible defender based on that, then these other PGs (including Deron) are terrible too. I hope you understood.

About the 1´3 +/- over Deron...
Bashing Deron or another PG don't make Nash a better defender. Deron is a better defender. He shut down Roy vs Portland in the last quarter the last time we meet them. +/- it's not only about how Deron does, it's about how Jazz do in deffense.

no, it's about how Deron impacts team defense and his impact is pretty much the same as Nash's according to those numbers.

And last time I checked it was Nash vs Stockton, and Nash has 0 all defensive and Stockton have 5.

ok, and we acknowledged this advantage. if you wanna go by recognition then Nash trumps Stockton anyway.
MVP Shares:
70. John Stockton* 0.161
18. Steve Nash 2.383

if you're being consistent, then Nash is by far the better player. otherwise don't use all-defensive selections as your point at the same time diminishing data that doesn't support your point. if you're using reputation to show that Stock is a better defender than Nash, I'm ok with it - Nash wins overall anyway (and it's by far).

[raptorforlife88]

Nash was playing a min per game high in 2005-06.
If he was not guarding starting pg of another teams, who was doing it? Who was guarding him? Kobe, Wade, Carter??? No, he was guarding pg and except Arroyo all the other guards were starting pg.

How dense can you possibly get. I just showed you that Chauncey Billups has given up just as many 20 point games this year, as Nash did. I mean what the hell, does that not point out to you how absurdly stupid your analysis is. There's no worse way to judge defense, than to look at a boxscore and count the other teams 20 point games. Chauncey was guarding the other teams PG, does that mean he's ****. No. It just means you're post is useless.

And sure it happens, it happens all the times with teams. Nash is facing Chicago, and he'll probably be better off guarding Hinrich at SG than Rose at PG. It's done for Calderon as well.

[kooldude]

haha that Jazz mod is getting owned

[FJS]

No I am not...
We all know MVP votes don't tell all the truth. If not, it's simply mad Shaq have one mvp and Nash two.

MVP voting
18 Steve Nash 2.383

is ahead of
19. LeBron James 2.091
20. Jerry West* 2.090
21. Dirk Nowitzki 1.663
22. Elgin Baylor* 1.659
23. Allen Iverson 1.567
25. Patrick Ewing* 1.424
26. Julius Erving* 1.407
36. Gary Payton 0.823
38. Scottie Pippen* 0.716
66. John Havlicek* 0.217
70. John Stockton* 0.161

I mean by that logic MVP votes, all those guys are worse than Nash.

I rather all nba teams to measure how good they were in their carreers
Nash 6 all-nba teams
James 5 all-nba teams
West 12 all-nba teams
Nowitki 9 all-nba teams
Baylor 10 all-nba teams
Iverson 7 all-nba teams
Ewing 7 all-nba teams
Dr J 7 all-nba teams (plus 5 all ABA teams)
Payton 9 all-nba teams
Pippen 7 all-nba teams
Havlicek 11 all-nba teams
Stockton 10 all-nba teams


That MVP logic makes Nash better than all those guys...
Make Stojakovic better than Stockton... Makes Paul already better than Payton , Drexler and Wilkins (Probably he'll finish better, but in 5 years he has not done more than those guys in their carreers).
Makes Ben Wallace better than Amare Stoudamire, Vince Carter or Dennis Rodman.

So your recognicion in MVP shares is laughable.

[KaneSFFL]

jazz mod getting owned because of dumb stats that don't mean anything.

nash>stockton...stockton is one of the most overrated players of all time. nash=better at everything except getting steals. stats aren't the only thing that matter.

[FJS]

I don't think I'm getting owned.

Dumb stats don't mean anything... it is ok.

Then, what mean something?
Not to be able to play a final?
Mvp shares? Sure, Nash is the 18 most valuable player in NBA history. He is the 18th best player in NBA history, because MVP shares say that.
And Yao Ming is the 218 best player in NBA history, because MVP shares say that.
Did you know 156 were more valuable than James Worthy?
Oh yeah, MVP share say the truth and it's the best way to caliber every player.

If i'm focused in defense it's because in offense they were pretty similar. Small point guards, who shoot pretty well from FG, FT and 3pt, assisted pretty well, and rebounded not too much. Then, what's the diference?
Stockton was a good defender and Nash is under the average defender.

But seems like only is important offense in this game and Suns and every run and gun team has showed it is not, because the titles uses to go with the team with more balanced deffense.
2005 4-1 WCF loss vs Spurs
2006 4-2 WCF loss vs Mavericks
2007 4-2 WC semifinals vs Spurs
2008 4-1 First round vs Spurs
2009 No playoff

Spurs and Mavericks, two team well balanced owned those teams. (and it's not Nash fault, but my point it's defense it's important and ignore that it's ignore the half of the game)

[bastillon]

Then, what mean something?
Not to be able to play a final?

that argument is in Nash's favor as Stockton never led his team to the playoffs. being 2nd, arguably 3rd best player on finals team is by no means better than leading your team to ~55W avg over 6 seasons while putting on a clinic in the playoffs and losing to Duncan's Spurs.

Mvp shares? Sure, Nash is the 18 most valuable player in NBA history. He is the 18th best player in NBA history, because MVP shares say that.
And Yao Ming is the 218 best player in NBA history, because MVP shares say that.
Did you know 156 were more valuable than James Worthy?
Oh yeah, MVP share say the truth and it's the best way to caliber every player.

the whole idea of MVP Shares is to put into perspective how each player was perceived by his peers. in other words we're going by reputation. now whether you like it or not, you can't mention defensive teams (which is also reputation) and then dismiss MVP Shares. if you're pointing out to all-defensive selection then ok, but Nash wins by far anyway, even after including this. apparently reputation is no longer your argument because it doesn't fit your agenda.

If i'm focused in defense it's because in offense they were pretty similar. Small point guards, who shoot pretty well from FG, FT and 3pt, assisted pretty well, and rebounded not too much. Then, what's the diference?
Stockton was a good defender and Nash is under the average defender.

yeah, I agree at least partly. Stockton was a good defender and Nash was below average. that being said, PG defense isn't very important in the context of team defense unless you can big time impact on mismatches or be extremely disruptive in opponent's offense. that's not the case with Stockton so the difference between below average defensive PG and a good one isn't very big.

on offense though, Nash clearly seperates himself from Stockton. John was merely above average shooter and Nash is arguably GOAT shooter (Bird, Reggie, Dirk, Ray). Nash is far more valuable scorer because he can create spontaneously off the dribble which Stockton fails to do. Nash is much better offensive anchor as well, because his offenses were consistently ranked higher than Stockton's when both were at least clear-cut #2 on their teams.

Nash does seperate himself offensively. Stockton's teams didn't have as great offensive results as Nash's teams (only Magic and maybe MJ are comparable here) and he didn't have as much impact either. Stockton wasn't even the best offensive player on his own team and his teams still weren't as succesful offensively, when Nash was paired with a player of Malone's caliber his teams were posting the best offensive ratings ever (Mavs 02-04). Nash is much better scorer than what PPG would indicate. he's scoring 25-30 whenever the Suns need him to do that. Stockton was not capable of that. Nash is also much better at raising teammates abilities. Stockton was awesome but he's no Nash in that regard.

Stockton doesn't separate himself from Nash offensively but Nash doesn't separate himself offensively from Stockton either.

Disagreed. As the clever post by bastillon indicated, Nash > Stockton as a scoring threat. Stockton's big "I've been to the Finals" crow is marred by how impotent he was in 98 and how generally ineffective he was at injecting life into the offense. If it wasn't an open drive in transition or a shot around a screen, he frequently couldn't do anything. He didn't have awesome handles, he certainly didn't have great athleticism for his position and he wasn't as good a shooter as Nash, so his ability to take the reins of the game into his own hands on the offensive end was considerably less than Nash's, even at similar ages.

They are both extremely efficient scorer with Nash slightly better as a shooter

You're better than this. "Slightly?" Nash has shot less than 40% from downtown exactly once in his career. Stockton managed to do it, if you do NOT count the seasons with the shortened line, only 4 times. There's also a 7.5% difference in career FT% that favors Nash, and the fact that Nash's mid-range shooting is up there all-time as incredibly efficient. There's a lot more than being "slightly" better going on there. Nash owns Stockton as a shooter.

As far as team achievements and such, having Malone instead of Amare Stoudemire and Jerry Sloan instead of Mike D'Antoni or Alvin Gentry makes a big difference. Also, Larry Miller >>>>> Robert Sarver as a team owner. Sarver's been doing nothing but sacrificing draft picks and making cost-cutting moves since he got there because he can't actually afford to run the franchise owning it without assistance.

So team achievements, that one extra round, fly right out of the window in the comparison (for whoever mentioned that, I forget who).

pen, the only reason I'm bothering to argue here is that you are seriously misrepresenting the difference between Stockton and Nash on the offensive end. At the end of the day, if you have a STAR forward who can take the game into his own hands as a scoring threat, you obviously want Stockton... but you want him as a third option behind your forward and some kind of scoring wing (SG or SF), because Stock wasn't very good at doing anything aside from running the pick-and-roll and playing the passing lanes (and screening illegally, of course).

If you have any other team set up, you deal with Nash's weakness as an individual defender and you take the noticeably more valuable offensive player instead. PG defense is valuable, but it's much more valuable to have a greater offensive player at the 1 than a better defender there, IMO.

It's not like Stockton didn't get face-owned by Isiah, Payton, KJ and Tim Bug during his career anyway.

Remember that the point I'm making is that Nash is a noticeably better offensive player because while he is a similar distributor in the pick-and-roll, his skills (handles and shot) allow him to be a much greater scoring threat in situations where his team needs another CREATOR.

Stockton was a great opportunistic scorer; he made the most out of transition opportunities, getting space off of screens and using guile to get a half second to get his shot away while Malone was busy rolling to the rim and dragging a few defenders with him.

But he didn't really ATTACK all that well, and that's the big separation. For me, when I look at these guys (as I said before), I evaluate it like this:

If you've got TWO good scorers (one dominant, one at 18+ ppg), then you can choose Stockton and very much enjoy his superior defense and great playmaking and not see a tangible benefit to selecting Nash.

If you have the kind of lineup the Jazz did in the 90s, though, you'd be better off with Nash. Stockton got face-owned in isolation sets anyway, and Nash is still a good team defender. Not nearly as good as Stockton, but the moments in the playoffs where he could ease the burden on Malone and take over when Malone was dealing with double-teams from, say, Rodman and Pippen, that's when the benefit comes in. Stockton and Hornacek sucked in the 97 and 98 Finals, alternately. Whenever it counted, they came up short... especially in 98.

And you can't even use the age argument, because Nash is the same age now as was Stockton in the 98 season.

That's the big difference for me; to have that kind of elite shot coupled with his handles means that even in his mid-30s, he's a nearly 19 ppg scorer, which is far more valuable offensively than Stockton and his "I can hit open 3s" routine.

[oaktownwarriors87]

I guess I will touch this thread a little.

Spurs and Mavericks, two team well balanced owned those teams. (and it's not Nash fault, but my point it's defense it's important and ignore that it's ignore the half of the game)

Like I have always said, stick Nash on a real title contending team and he's barley an All-Star. He can post great stats playing gimmick ball (stats that are still inferior to Stocktons), but he will never lead a legit threat. Nash is dependent on a certain type of player, and that type of player tends to be undersized and they get owned on the defensive end by elite teams. Because of this, teams run by Steve Nash have always been notorious for their inability to hold a lead and win close games.

Prime Stats: Stockton
Overall Stats: Stockton
Durability: Stockton
Wins: Stockton
MVP votes: Steve Nash and Peja Stojakovic

Maybe had Nash played with studs like Ostertag he could have gone a little further. Maybe had he gone against a healthy MJ and not an injured Kobe we could have seen his true greatness... but I guess we will never know.

I would love to hear Charles Barkley laugh at the idea of Nash being better than Stockton.

[Sonoran Lion]

I hope people don't mind me joining the discussion. I enjoy these types of discussions, but rarely am I ever active when the discussion is active (the whole Stockton v. Nash seemed more popular back when Nash won his MVPs).

"Score" comes to mind. Stockton wasn't a particularly dangerous scoring threat, nor was he a guy who was a significant threat to break down a defense with an isolation set. There's much to be said for fostering ball movement and not pounding the pall too long, but there's a reason lead guards have always been important, all the way back to Cousy and before. At some point, you need a guy who can create a shot without the aid of another teammate in order to change the look a defense is seeing. You need a guy who can pop off for a bunch of points to get the team going when the system is floundering, and Stock just wasn't that guy.

What is the justification that Stockton was not "a particularly dangerous" scoring threat? What is the criteria for "a particularly dangerous" scoring threat? Once I understand what you mean by this term I'll be better informed to either agree or disagree.

That's the thing, that's what makes me so skeptical of Stockton's "value" as a truly elite playmaker; they got not just better, but WAY better once his role was actually LIMITED. Hornacek started 9 of the 27 games he played for the Jazz in 93-94 (remember, this is when they were still getting owned by the Rockets, before Malone decided to illegally screen Barkley for the win in 97). They took the ball out of his hands just a little bit, gave Hornacek more responsibility in 94-95 and immediately won 60 games. Stockton played like 2 fewer minutes per game, but that was 5 better than their previous franchise record, right as they took the ball away from Stockton a little bit.

Then boom, 55 wins, 64 wins, 62 wins. 62 wins? But Stockton only played 64 games at 29 mpg that year, averaging 8.5 apg when he did play!

See what I mean? His minutes declined from his peak, his usage went down, he actually had his first season with a major injury... and it didn't matter. The Jazz clicked along as the best offense in the league that year.

I do not see the justification in the importance of the correlation of taking the ball out of Stockton's hands "just a little bit" with the Jazz winning more games. Stockton averaged 1.2 minutes less per game in 94-95 than he did in 93-94. Could the rise in the wins Utah had in 94-95, and the next three years, be attributed to Utah putting together a better team than in previous years? During the last four seasons of Stocktons career, his minutes per game were 29.7, 29.2, 31.3, and 27.7 respectively. The Jazz offense during Stocktons last four years ranked 20th, 10th, 14th, and 17th respectively and won 53, 44, 47, and 42 games respectively. Could the fall in Stockton's minutes be correlated to the Jazz only having average scoring teams those four years and the fall in number of wins from previous years? Would this correlation be valid like the one drawn from Stockton's minutes between the years of 94-95 and 97-98? Or could there be other variables that are not being considered?

If we look at the 97-98 season, during the games Stockton didn't play due to injury, the Jazz won 11 games and lost 7 games (a winning percentage of 61.1%). The winning percentage of teams for that year, that the Jazz played during the first 18 games of the season, was a combined 43.8%. If we count only the wins and losses by all those teams previous to the day they played the Jazz (and not counting wins and losses twice for teams that played the Jazz twice during that 18 game span), their winning percentage is a combined 38.6%. The Jazz averaged 96.8 points during this span. Once Stockton returned to the team, the Jazz went 51-13 (winning percentage of 79.7%) and averaged over 102 points per game. This shows me that with Stockton, Utah had one of the highest scoring offenses in the league that year, but without Stockton the Jazz barely averaged over a point higher than the league average of 95.6 points per game (at 96.8 points per game, the Jazz would've been ranked 9th while at 102.1 points per game, the Jazz would've ranked 2nd).


EDITED: fixed quote and for clarification

[Optms]

Little leaves me to believe Nash could have had the same success and productivity in any other offense besides the Phoenix's. As evident by his numbers as a Maverick. John Stockton arguably is the greatest point guard in league history. Right up there with Magic, Payton, Kidd, and Thomas as my top 5 all time. Nash is a notch or two below.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Stockton and Nash in Win Share per 48 minutes. Not that this is "THE ULTIMATE STAT," but it definitely says something.

0.238
0.238
0.236
0.233
0.226
0.225
0.222
0.217
0.217
0.216
0.215
0.214
0.214
0.212
0.206
0.206
0.203
0.200
0.190
0.181
0.177
0.176
0.174
0.169
0.167
0.162
0.146
0.140
0.137
0.100
0.094
0.047
0.037

[Doctor MJ]

Little leaves me to believe Nash could have had the same success and productivity in any other offense besides the Phoenix's.

Think more about what the Phoenix offense is. It's not micromanagement from a coaching genius, it's basically just letting Nash create for himself and his teammates, and Nash is very creative. If you put him in a system that doesn't let Nash create, of course he's going to get worse, you're taking away one of his strengths. Tell Wade he isn't aloud to drive, and he gets worse too, does that say anything meaningful about Wade?

[oaktownwarriors87]

Stockton and Nash playoff per 48 Win Share

0.230
0.228
0.208
0.202
0.201
0.201
0.200
0.179
0.165
0.164
0.156
0.154
0.153
0.145
0.144
0.132
0.122
0.119
0.116
0.113
0.110
0.106
0.103
0.092
0.087
0.082
0.081
0.067
-0.381

[FJS]

the whole idea of MVP Shares is to put into perspective how each player was perceived by his peers. in other words we're going by reputation. now whether you like it or not, you can't mention defensive teams (which is also reputation) and then dismiss MVP Shares. if you're pointing out to all-defensive selection then ok, but Nash wins by far anyway, even after including this. apparently reputation is no longer your argument because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Here is where you are wrong.

Do you know what is the difference between earn 5 all defensive nba teams and 10 all nba selections and MVP shares???

That having a one fantastic year you'll be higher than other people who has played great in a whole carreer.
Let's see: Chris Paul
Years voted to MVP: 2
Right now, Number 33 of all history.
With that I mean yes, he is a great player... but that two season cannot be better than Payton's or Stockton's carreers. (I don't doubt he will finish very high, but c'mon, right now, not)

To earn allnba teams or defensive nba teams you have to be a great player in a whole career.

Stojakovic was vote 4th one year and 16 another one... with only that he is above Stockton, Pierce, Carmelo Anthony and a lot of guy who were better players than him.

So don't compare all nba awards who show how good you were in the league and how many years with MVP shares.

[bastillon]

oaktown

nobody is arguing here that Stockton's boxscore numbers are better than Nash's. most of us are arguing whether his numbers translate into wins. if that was the case, Jazz wouldn't have been a 50W team in Stockton's prime alongside prime Malone, DPOY Mark Eaton and 22/3/3 Jeff Malone. someone's overrated here - my money is on Stockton.

Nash on the other hand is significantly underrated by Win Shares. he's like 3rd best players on those Suns according to Win Shares and this is just garbage, because it doesn't take into account how much other players improved their WS with him. that's where his value is. not in the boxscore. not in the 11 APG. not in the 20 PPG in the playoffs. it's in making teammates better and having huge impact on the offense while orchestratic historically great offensive teams at the same time.

this can be proven by
1) comparing teammates stats with or w/o Nash
2) comparing Suns offense with and w/o Nash
3) comparing Suns offense relative to lg avg to other top offensive teams in history.

20/11 is meaningless when you consider those things.

[Doctor MJ]

To Sonoran Lion, welcome to RealGM! If your other posts are as thoughtful as that one, you'll be a great poster. I'm not quoting your post because I realize I'm not really answering your question - but here are my related thoughts:

-Re: "What is the justification.." (your first response to tsherkin), honestly it seems to me like he's already being pretty specific. Maybe you could ask some more specific questions to help others understanding exactly what you're wondering.

-Regarding the causes of Utah's offense getting better & worse. First off, it looks to me like you're going by PPG. You should be going by ORtg (Offensive Efficiency) which estimates points scored per 100 possessions.

As I said, not really answering your question, but I want to give some more food for thought. The two greatest offensive dynasties of the past 40 years are Magic's Showtime Lakers, and Nash's Suns. Both Magic & Nash get knocked a bit because of their talented teammates, and I'm not going to say that's unreasonable. The thing is though that the greatness of those two offenses came simultaneously with Magic & Nash putting up their big numbers. So it's not the case that great offense means that a distributor has to take on a smaller role.

With Stockton, the years where he was putting up jaw dropping numbers just don't correlate with the Jazz having a great offense. A few facts to consider:

-The Jazz put up big assist numbers even before Stockton was a starter. The team's offense was frankly bad (21st out of 23rd in efficiency in '87) but the assists still came (6th in the league). There's a disconnect: The Jazz ran a system that generated assists without actual overall competence. This is an indication that assists by Jazzmen shouldn't be taken that seriously.

-When Stockton became a starter, he immediately put up jawdropping assists, but the team only got slightly better. More evidence that he wasn't having impact like you might think.

-The Jazz offense didn't become really strong until '95, and it stayed an absolute power house from there through the Jazz two finals appearances as Stockton took on a smaller and smaller role on the team.

So we've got ample evidence that you should not look at Stockton's peak assists and say "This is the peak of what a point guard can do." This doesn't necessarily damn Stockton, but anyone who sides with Stockton based primarily on the gaudy numbers should re-evaluate.

Now though the question should also be asked: If the two greatest offenses in history were built around dominant point guards at their peak, and that whatever supporting talent was there wasn't good enough to reduce their role, what does it say about Stockton and his role that the same wasn't true for him?

[Jimmy76]

I cant find the article now but the jazz homecourt assist counters were by far one of the worst in the nba

the phoenix assists counters exaggerate assists the least

Nash is the only elite point to average more assits on the road than at home for most of his career

edit: just checked career splits and Paul, Magic, Stockton, Kidd, Isiah all average more assists at home career while Nash is the only one to average more assists on the road

assists aren't an objective stat anymore so using them as some kind of absolute measure is ridiculous

they're a general indicator nothing more

unless you think Stockton had more offensive impact than Magic when he was putting up 14.5 assists a game

[Doctor MJ]

Here is where you are wrong.

Do you know what is the difference between earn 5 all defensive nba teams and 10 all nba selections and MVP shares???

That having a one fantastic year you'll be higher than other people who has played great in a whole carreer.
Let's see: Chris Paul
Years voted to MVP: 2
Right now, Number 33 of all history.
With that I mean yes, he is a great player... but that two season cannot be better than Payton's or Stockton's carreers. (I don't doubt he will finish very high, but c'mon, right now, not)

To earn allnba teams or defensive nba teams you have to be a great player in a whole career.

Stojakovic was vote 4th one year and 16 another one... with only that he is above Stockton, Pierce, Carmelo Anthony and a lot of guy who were better players than him.

So don't compare all nba awards who show how good you were in the league and how many years with MVP shares.

k, I want to jump in on this. Different accolades try to cast different size nets. The MVP basically looks to capture the top 5 players. All-NBA roughly the top 15, all-star the top 25 - though they do it more flat, there aren't different classes of all-stars. If you're comparing GOAT candidates, it's pretty silly to put much weight in a metric like All-Star, if you're comparing players who were never really superstars, All-Star maybe more meaningful than MVP.

Where does that leave us in a Stockton/Nash discussion? Well on the most superficial level it's simple. Nash was an MVP candidate level guy, Stockton wasn't. Silly to ignore that - so relative to their own contemporaries, the only argument for Stockton is longevity.

Of course there a couple deeper issues:

1) Was Stockton hurt because he was a sidekick to Malone in the MVP voting? I don't really think so. In Stockton's first year as a starer, he was within a couple spots of Malone in MVP voting, and when Malone started getting more MVP love, Stockton's love didn't really go down. Beyond Malone's big award share years come from '95 onward when it was clear that the team was improving despite Stockton's role decreasing (and Malone taking on a bigger role as distributor and general focal point of the offense).

2) There are different levels of competition in different years. Obviously Nash wouldn't have had 2 MVPs if he'd gone up against peak Jordan, so when you adjust for that, is Nash really someone you'd see as an MVP candidate level guy? While my answer would be yes, I'd say that's the real justification a Stockton supporter has.