How much better was Steve Nash than John Stockton

[ChiLA Bullkers]

think stockton is the better player, i actually think steve nash is highly overrated, but those MVPs in my criteria puts him above stockton in my book, much to my dismay

Let's compare Nash's MVP year statistics to Stockton's two best years, just for fun.

2004-2005
Nash scored 15.5 and averaged 11.5 assists.

1989-1990
Stockton averaged 17.2 and 14.5. (Magic Johnson MVP)

2005-2006
Nash scored 18.8 and had 10.5 assists.

1990-1991
Stockton scored 17.2 and had 14.2 assists (Michael Jordan got his second MVP that year)

Now go back and look at history. MJ and Magic were at their peaks during Stockton's best seasons. Can you say that Nash was definitively better than Magic or Michael at their peak?

Stockton had 12 MVP Award Shares during his career. Nash had 8. Stockton ran into Magic and Michael.

I'm agreeing with basically EVERYTHING you're saying about Stockton -- very good analysis (and for those moderators -- yes, I And1'ed him).

It's interesting how many great players didn't get rings because of Michael Jordan. Stockton, Malone, Barkley, Reggie Miller, Shawn Kemp pre 400 pounds. I wonder where Stockton would be in people's all-time PG lists if Michael Jordan was never born...

If you saw Stockton play, you watched the Dennis Rodman of PGs. He was gritty, tough as nails, pulled shorts and wrists and stepped on feet (and got away with it). His game was about as clean as you could get -- perfect passes, beautiful shot, footwork on defense, etc. He was a very efficient shooter and he could score when he needed to, but that wasn't his game. He was the greatest setup man in the history of the sport -- the perfect PG.

And I hated him in '97 & '98. Despised him.

Comparing him to Nash -- it's tough because we're comparing a guy in Stockton who played his best basketball in the late-80's/early-90's, before a lot of these fans were born (I'm assuming). His day-to-day is what made him so special. Ironman, yes. But consistent as anyone the game has ever seen.

I'd pick Stockton all day long, although I love Nash's game too. But Stockton's got a 10-year peak, had a winning record every single year he played save his rookie season when UTA went 41-41, and he played on both sides of the ball.

[TheChosen618]

I take issue with this post because I think it paint's an incorrect picture of Nash. Notice the year. 2005. Nash came into the league with Kobe in 1996. Where was Nash's "take over" ability in the eight years prior?

He played with a Dirk Nowitzki in Dallas, so it wasn't necessary for him to take over. The Mavericks didn't feature the offense around Nash the same way the Suns did either.

However, during his time in Dallas he was not the 50/40/90 shooter he is celebrated for. In fact he was closer to 47% FG%, 40% 3P%, and his TS% hovered around 60%.

His TS% has always been around 60%+ and that was the case in Dallas too. The reason why his efficiency was a bit worse in Dallas had more to do with the rule changes and had to do with how defenses were much better then.

1999-2004 was an ugly time for basketball due to how great defenses were and that was why they took away hand-checking.

If you look at Nash's TS% and efficiency relative to league average, it was essentially the same in Dallas as it was in Phoenix

Dallas
2001 - +8.5%
2002 - +8.2%
2003 - +5.7%
2004 - +7.4%

Phoenix
2005 - +7.6
2006 - +9.6%

Obviously it got better in Phoenix but nevertheless he was still amazingly efficient in Dallas.

He also only made the All Star team twice in eight years prior to 2005. So what happened? How did Steve Nash become a two-time MVP and top 5 PG all time?

As stated, he was featured more of the offense in Phoenix.

You will hear that Nash took over scoring so much but you don't see it against the Spurs. No big shots to advance in the playoff's. Nash did over 20/10 twice in his career in the playoff's. For a team that makes it's living on offense that is....disappointing for a "takeover scoring" PG. What Nash did best was make others better but when teams i.e. the Spurs took away the Suns three pt shooting the Suns were quite vulnerable because Nash could not beat you on his own. Period.

Were you not watching basketball in 2010 when Nash took over Game 4 despite essentially playing with one eye?

Nash always showed up in the playoffs but his teammates didn't always do the same primarily Shawn Marion. Yes, the Spurs took away their 3 point shot, but Nash was still dominant out there. The only Spurs series where he looked below his standard was in 2008, but he was fine in 2005, 2007, and 2010.

Also whatever Nash gave you on offense he damn sure gave back on defense. And it wasn't just through his own lack of effort on defense, his laissez faire attitude towards defense permeated throughout the team. Only Raja Bell and Shawn Marion gave any effort on defense and it was when Marion was traded away that his real value was seen. The Suns defense fell off a cliff, and Nash's ability to create offense could not offset the difference.....

I would actually like to see some proof that Nash is actually a bad/liability on defense. It seems like people just keep repeating it but have literally no way of proving it.

I always thought Nash was just an average defender and wasn't some horrible one like everyone made him out to be. He was great at taking charges and it's not like players constantly had big games against him.

Mike D'Antoni was a bad defensive coach and that was why the Suns were bad on defense. PGs don't make much an impact on defense, in a positive or negative way.

[Dr Pepper]

From the few published NBA rankings I've seen, Stockton usually ranks above Nash. Stockton ranks in the top 20-30, while Nash ranks in the 30-50 GOAT range.

What I think hurts Stockton in online rankings is that in addition to playing in pre-HD/RAPM days, Stockton intentionally stayed out of the spotlight and still does (small towner), whereas Nash is charismatic and brand building in Hollywood. In the case of RealGM, it also has a pretty sizable Canadian fanbase which imo affects Nash's perception

[TheOUTLAW]

Seems like the OP started off with an enormous assumption.

[penbeast0]

I take issue with this post because I think it paint's an incorrect picture of Nash. Notice the year. 2005. Nash came into the league with Kobe in 1996. Where was Nash's "take over" ability in the eight years prior?

He didn't play with a Dirk Nowitzki with Dallas, so it wasn't necessary for him to take over. The Mavericks didn't feature the offense around Nash the same way the Suns did either.

I must admit I don't understand this quote. Maybe it should be "He played with Dirk Nowitzki" . . . of course Stockton played with Karl Malone so it shouldn't have been necessary for Stockton to have to take over games either? Not sure what the argument is here.

[TheChosen618]

I take issue with this post because I think it paint's an incorrect picture of Nash. Notice the year. 2005. Nash came into the league with Kobe in 1996. Where was Nash's "take over" ability in the eight years prior?

He didn't play with a Dirk Nowitzki with Dallas, so it wasn't necessary for him to take over. The Mavericks didn't feature the offense around Nash the same way the Suns did either.

I must admit I don't understand this quote. Maybe it should be "He played with Dirk Nowitzki" . . . of course Stockton played with Karl Malone so it shouldn't have been necessary for Stockton to have to take over games either? Not sure what the argument is here.

You are correct, that was a typo on my part, so my bad.

Stockton played with Malone, but Malone was not a particularly reliable closer. Malone is more similar to Amare than Dirk as a player and as a closer. Dirk is probably the best closing big man of all-time.

Stockton was just generally too passive and not assertive enough, whereas Nash never had a problem imposing his will.

[penbeast0]

Dirk has become one but sure didn't have that rep early in his career when Nash was there. And I disagree about exerting his will; just did it differently.

The main difference between Nash in Dallas and Nash in Phoenix was the system. Dallas was one of the most iso heavy offensive systems in the NBA; focused on clearing space to take advantage of mismatches. Phoenix put in a PG focused playmaking offense focused around Nash and a bunch of shooters.

But you can't credit the system for Nash without accepting that Utah also had a PG focused playmaking offense that spotlighted not only Stockton but that his backups put up good numbers in and that later made Deron Williams look like an all-star (which he may yet be; this year will be interesting for him).

[G35]

I take issue with this post because I think it paint's an incorrect picture of Nash. Notice the year. 2005. Nash came into the league with Kobe in 1996. Where was Nash's "take over" ability in the eight years prior?

He didn't play with a Dirk Nowitzki with Dallas, so it wasn't necessary for him to take over. The Mavericks didn't feature the offense around Nash the same way the Suns did either.

I must admit I don't understand this quote. Maybe it should be "He played with Dirk Nowitzki" . . . of course Stockton played with Karl Malone so it shouldn't have been necessary for Stockton to have to take over games either? Not sure what the argument is here.

I was just about to make the same point to Chosen618. Karl Malone was the focus of the offense for the Jazz so what is the difference? Yes the offense was run differently in Dallas than in Phoenix. That is coaching which in this case with Nash/D'Antoni the offense featured Nash so naturally he is going to look better.

But the bottom line for the TEAM is winning a championship. Featuring the PG as the focus of the offense isn't necessarily the best way to go. In fact for the Suns it wasn't a winning theory. Nash was not the #1 option in the offense either; he handled the ball looking to set someone else up for the shot. Nash is not a volume scorer as people are trying to perpetuate.

Stockton played in a structured offense that didn't feature him taking over in the Jazz pnr offense. His job was to get the ball to Karl Malone and......well until Hornacek came along there wasn't any consistent second option. Stockton made it work with what he had.

The way I see Nash had to play with certain types of players in D'Antoni's system. It didn't work for Nash when he had Shaq and that's why Shaq got traded after a year and Terry Porter got fired. Nash's style works for the advanced stats but as far as actually team accomplishments his ceiling is lower than Stockton's style.....

[TheChosen618]

Yes the offense was run differently in Dallas than in Phoenix. That is coaching which in this case with Nash/D'Antoni the offense featured Nash so naturally he is going to look better.

As penbeast stated in the post you quoted, Stockton also played on a system/coach that was predicated on PG play. Nash doesn't have some exterior advantage over Stockton. They were both great PGs that played on systems where the PG could dominate.

But the bottom line for the TEAM is winning a championship. Featuring the PG as the focus of the offense isn't necessarily the best way to go. In fact for the Suns it wasn't a winning theory. Nash was not the #1 option in the offense either; he handled the ball looking to set someone else up for the shot. Nash is not a volume scorer as people are trying to perpetuate.

Nobody is saying Nash is a volume scorer. They are saying he could take over and close out a game with his scoring and he clearly can, the 2005 WCSF is the perfect example of this. If you want another one, go look at what he did in Game 4 against the Spurs in the 2010 playoffs.

Stockton on the other hand could not do this and knowing Malone's reputation as a closer, it probably would have been helpful if he could.

Stockton played in a structured offense that didn't feature him taking over in the Jazz pnr offense. His job was to get the ball to Karl Malone and......well until Hornacek came along there wasn't any consistent second option. Stockton made it work with what he had.

The point is that Nash was capable of being this 2nd scoring option on a team and Stockton wasn't able to. Stockton was more of a 3rd option and beyond guy.

The way I see Nash had to play with certain types of players in D'Antoni's system. It didn't work for Nash when he had Shaq and that's why Shaq got traded after a year and Terry Porter got fired. Nash's style works for the advanced stats but as far as actually team accomplishments his ceiling is lower than Stockton's style.....

Porter didn't do a good job utilizing anyone on the Suns except Shaq.

The only actually championship contending team that Nash truly ever played on was in 2010 with Alvin Gentry as their coach. The Suns were never serious contenders or a serious team that could win it all because D'Antoni was the head coach. If 2005-2008 Suns had Gentry as coach instead, they probably could have won a title or two, but he only had one shot and that was in 2010.

There is no proof that Nash doesn't help a team win anymore than Stockton does. It's not like Stockton has any more rings than Nash to brag about. To act like Stockton automatically gives you a better chance of winning is nothing more than a baseless assumption.

[Texas Chuck]

To act like Stockton automatically gives you a better chance of winning is nothing more than a baseless assumption.

Its hardly a baseless assumption. Its clear you disagree but people making a case for Stockton have provided plenty of evidence no matter how hard you try and pick it apart.

[Tubal]

Stockton played with Malone, but Malone was not a particularly reliable closer. Malone is more similar to Amare than Dirk as a player and as a closer. Dirk is probably the best closing big man of all-time.

Stockton was just generally too passive and not assertive enough, whereas Nash never had a problem imposing his will.

I think this is a ridiculous statement, and probably made by someone who never saw Stockton and Malone play.

[Texas Chuck]

how is stating that Dirk is a better closer than Mailman evidence they didnt see Malone play? Of course Dirk is better at this. I think you can make a strong argument against the idea that Stockton is somehow a passive player, but Dirk is the superior closer to Malone. Period. Doesnt mean Malone wasnt a hell of a player because he obviously was but this is Dirk we are talking about who is among the elite of the elite at crunch-time and 4th quarter scoring.

[penbeast0]

Nash played for Dallas in 99-04.

In 99, Dirk averaged 8 pts a game . . . He doesn't even become an All-Star until '02 and although a very good player, from 02-04 (so only half the years Nash played there), actually has a rep as a choker and poor closer in that period . . . deserved or not. 05, after Nash is gone, he starts making 1st team All-NBA and getting top 5 MVP support.

So, no, probably not a better closer than Malone during Nash's tenure although I can't see that as particularly important to Nash's legacy. I don't think there's any doubt that Nash in Dallas was a large step below Stockton; it's only in Phoenix where Nash stepped up to compete with Stockton's prime whichever way you fall on this question.

[Jase]

Nash wasn't better, Stockton was the better player.

4. Stockton
8. Nash

Way to back up your argument, JB.

[Tubal]

how is stating that Dirk is a better closer than Mailman evidence they didnt see Malone play? Of course Dirk is better at this. I think you can make a strong argument against the idea that Stockton is somehow a passive player, but Dirk is the superior closer to Malone. Period. Doesnt mean Malone wasnt a hell of a player because he obviously was but this is Dirk we are talking about who is among the elite of the elite at crunch-time and 4th quarter scoring.

I wish we had advanced stats for Malone's career so we could compare "closer stats". But what's the definition of "closer"? I'd be willing to bet Malone averaged more points than Dirk in the 4th quarter.

Dirk was an awesome player, and had one of the best playoff performances of all time. But Dirk has been playing for 13 years. Not 1 playoff series.

Malone had a playoff game where he missed 2 free throws that cost them the game. But Malone played for 19 years. Not 1 game.

If you compare career to career, you can't say "Malone was a weak closer" or "Dirk was the best closer of all time". I honestly couldn't tell you if I'd rather have Malone or Dirk close a game out for me and I've watched them both play their entire careers.

As for Stockton being passive, that's bull. He didn't NEED to score a majority of the time because the system had Malone scoring. If the system required him to score, he could. Nash and Stockton are both in the top 25 all time eFG. Both in the top 25 all time TS%. Stockton beats Nash quite handily in PER and most other stats. Nash's first 6-7 years in the league, he was an above average point guard, but not a star at all. It wasn't until he got into D'Antoni's system that he excelled.

There's an argument for Nash over Stockton (I personally choose Stockton) but Stockton wasn't passive. At all.

[Texas Chuck]

if you think Dirk has only been good in the 4th quarter of the 2011 PS you are the one who desperately needs to go back and review Dirk.

You will take care to note I didnt offer any kind of criticism of Malone who I hold in high regard. Im simply saying Dirk has been elite at this almost his entire career, RS and PS. Im not sure how you could possibly be unaware of this?

edit: and again if you actually read my post instead of jumping to conclusions you will notice I posted against the idea of Stockton being passive and have been defending him throughout the thread.

[jman23]

Stockton was so much better than Nash, not only defensively but also play making abilities.... Yes, Nash has 2 MVP's(Shaq got robbed in 04-05 in my opinion) but I just don't consider him better than Stockton....

[UN-Owen]

Gary Payton said Stockton was the toughest PG he played against because of his relentless defensive pressure

[Winglish]

Much ado is made of double-double players. John Stockton AVERAGED a double-double for 1504 games. Steve Nash did not.

I don't know how this turned into Dirk vs Malone. I think we can call case closed on Stockton vs Nash.

Stockton wins.

[Tubal]

if you think Dirk has only been good in the 4th quarter of the 2011 PS you are the one who desperately needs to go back and review Dirk.

I didn't say that at all. My point was that the 2011 playoffs is why he has a reputation for being clutch. Like penbeast said earlier, earlier in his career he was known as a choker. Same thing with Malone. He didn't get a reputation for being a choker until that one set of free throws.

You can't base a career on a small window of play.

You will take care to note I didnt offer any kind of criticism of Malone who I hold in high regard. Im simply saying Dirk has been elite at this almost his entire career, RS and PS. Im not sure how you could possibly be unaware of this?

You will take care to note I am the same with Dirk. I hold him in high regard, but I don't know that I would pick him over Malone if I needed to close a game out. They were both great.

edit: and again if you actually read my post instead of jumping to conclusions you will notice I posted against the idea of Stockton being passive and have been defending him throughout the thread.

Yes I realize. That was more in response to the earlier post that said Stockton was passive.