How much better was Steve Nash than John Stockton

[SDChargers#1]

"How much better was Steven Nash than John Stockton?"

He wasn't better.

Steve Nash is better at volume scoring, and that is it. Stockton is the MUCH better defender, better passer, MUCH more durable. Stockton was just as good of a shooter as Nash as well.

A couple big games in the playoffs does not make Nash better than Stockton. I always thought it was ridiculous when people said Nash was better than Stockton. I am glad some on this site are starting to recognize that.

[therealbig3]

Stockton wasn't the offensive force that Nash was. He was good, Nash was great. That's really the difference here.

Seems to me Stockton's defense is once again getting VASTLY overrated. It's only recently that Stockton has all of a sudden been described as a "great" defender...he was considered solid during his playing days and just solid until a few years ago, when all of a sudden he started getting treated like Kidd or Payton on defense.

And Nash's defensive deficiencies have always been hugely overblown as well. The fact is, Nash is more or less neutral on defense, Stockton is more or less above average. That's not enough to overcome the fact that Nash is clearly better as an offensive anchor.

[JordansBulls]

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

4. Stockton
8. Nash

Way to back up your argument, JB.

Was just listing where the top 10 pg's all time are ranked.

[trainwreckog]

it was nash and dantoni that spearheaded the methodology of offense initiation via the dribble (as opposed to the pass).

this spearheading was enabled by the lax rules that made it easier on dribblers to get where they wanted on the floor.

however, over time it was proven that while their more dribble-intensive screen rolls work in the regular season when teams play each other once at a time, in the playoffs, the suboptimal dribble-intensive nature of the style was exposed repeatedly, and was always defeated.

chris paul is continuing the trend now that nash isn't in the playoffs anymore, although now with doc there, he'll have that team galavanized and everyone will be naturally more involved in the offense. they will contend to go to the Finals.

anyway, i take stockton over nash easily. stockton employed a less dribble-intensive style that was more optimal/harder to stop at the highest levels (playoffs).

nash was the better ballhandler, but ballhandling is not basketball, it is just ballhandling.

the offensive rating of nash's teams set records for the regular season, but in order to do so, they had to sacrifice defense.

stockton's style and approach did not make this sacrifice, and his teams offensive rating was still #1 in the league and comparable to nash's teams.

[trainwreckog]

so to answer op's question...nash is a better dribbler but not a better basketball player.

you have to understand the level of comp that stockton defeated...

the 1998 utah team beat a pop/duncan/drob-led 56-win spurs team in 5 games.

then, they SWEPT one of the most loaded laker teams ever - they had 4 all-stars that year including shaq, kobe, eddie jones, and nick van exel, to go along with elden campbell, rick fox, derek fisher and robert horry!!!

then in a classic, they bowed out to mj's bulls in 6. no shame there.

[Joao Saraiva]

People just rank Nash ahead cause he won two MVP awards. Guess what that doesn't mean everything.

Shaq has ONE MVP. He's better tham almost every multiple MVP winner.

[nolunch]

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

4. Stockton
8. Nash

True, especially in the defensive end. Nash is ZERO in defense.

[nolunch]

Since Stockton was to scared to shoot the ball late in games, I"ll go with Nash

Hah ? Stockton hit winning shots in playoffs though.

[Texas Chuck]

Seems to me Stockton's defense is once again getting VASTLY overrated. It's only recently that Stockton has all of a sudden been described as a "great" defender...he was considered solid during his playing days and just solid until a few years ago, when all of a sudden he started getting treated like Kidd or Payton on defense.

And Nash's defensive deficiencies have always been hugely overblown as well. The fact is, Nash is more or less neutral on defense, Stockton is more or less above average.

You couldnt be more incorrect on both counts. Stockton's contemporaries certainly knew he was a great defender. All the advanced stats we have at the end of his career show his defensive impact yet you want to believe he somehow wasnt during his prime? He's not Kidd because he cant guard bigger wings like Kidd nor does he have his elite defensive rebounding. He's not Kidd because he could still guard pgs in his mid to late 30s when Kidd no longer could. I think Payton is a great comparison. Again Payton had the catchy nickname and was constantly yapping in people's faces. That's the kind of thing that inflates a reputation--not people getting good old-day syndrome over Stockton.*

Nash is a negative defender. Period. As a Mavs fan I know this all too well. Does he alleviate a lot of it by the offensive pressure he puts on? Absolutely. Is part of the problem the two coaches he primarily played for in Nellie and Dantoni? Absolutely. Did Steve Nash ever defend as well as the average starting pg in the league? No. He didnt. He had significant defensive flaws and a lack of commitment at that end.

Now if you want to still make the case that Nash's offensive advantages are enough to offset everything else Stockton brought to the table, by all means go for it. But the difference defensively is enormous.


*Please note Im not claiming Payton to be overrated defensively. But people are kidding themselves if they think this sort of thing doesnt affect perception.

[inDe_eD]

I was a huge fan of John Stockton and those 90's Jazz teams. I remember dying inside when they lost to MJ in the back to back 97 and 98 finals. That being said, Nash is a hell of an offensive force.

I think if I were to start a franchise with either PG, you have to lean towards Stockton. He doesn't win it for you as the best player on the team, but you're borderline contending, no matter what the rest of the roster looks like, for at least 15 years.

If I want to win it this year, I'd take prime Nash. Give Nash a good coach like Popovich, and I do think you have a 5 year window (Nash's Prime) of winning with Nash as the best player on your team (I don't think Stockton could do this as the de facto best player on the team, even with a Popovich).

[The59Sound]

Since Stockton was to scared to shoot the ball late in games, I"ll go with Nash

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcVzcPOP0Sw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADlvxFVt8k[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-MzHZus43s[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgq1MBRyl8I[/youtube]

[Mr MoJo Risin]

Since Stockton was to scared to shoot the ball late in games, I"ll go with Nash

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcVzcPOP0Sw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADlvxFVt8k[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-MzHZus43s[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgq1MBRyl8I[/youtube]

Really doesn't convince me though. Thanks for trying. Yes at the tail end of his career he did do a better job in not defering, but he was to passive down the stretch of games, he didn't have that killer instinct and depended on Malone too much.

[The59Sound]

Since Stockton was to scared to shoot the ball late in games, I"ll go with Nash

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcVzcPOP0Sw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADlvxFVt8k[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-MzHZus43s[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgq1MBRyl8I[/youtube]

Really doesn't convince me though. Thanks for trying.

It's cool; some people don't like evidence.

[Mr MoJo Risin]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcVzcPOP0Sw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADlvxFVt8k[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-MzHZus43s[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgq1MBRyl8I[/youtube]

Really doesn't convince me though. Thanks for trying.

It's cool; some people don't like evidence.

Depending on a couple of videos on youtube isn't evidence. I l like mine better, seeing his career with my own eyes

[The59Sound]

Really doesn't convince me though. Thanks for trying.

It's cool; some people don't like evidence.

Depending on a couple of videos on youtube isn't evidence. I l like mine better, seeing his career with my own eyes

Tell you what: let's look at some more indisputable numbers if you prefer those.

Let's look at shots taken by a player when tied, trailing by one, or trailing by two points in the final 24 seconds of a playoff game. These numbers only go back to 1996-1997. That means we're capturing 7 years of Stockton's career and Nash's entire career.

Stockton: 3 FG / 11 FGA
Nash: 3 FG / 13 FGA

[nolunch]

It's cool; some people don't like evidence.

Depending on a couple of videos on youtube isn't evidence. I l like mine better, seeing his career with my own eyes

Tell you what: let's look at some more indisputable numbers if you prefer those.

Let's look at shots taken by a player when tied, trailing by one, or trailing by two points in the final 24 seconds of a playoff game. These numbers only go back to 1996-1997. That means we're capturing 7 years of Stockton's career and Nash's entire career.

Stockton: 3 FG / 11 FGA
Nash: 3 FG / 13 FGA

Owned. Nash's defense is a joke. Nash's teams in playoffs are jokes too.

[Winglish]

Tell you what: let's look at some more indisputable numbers if you prefer those.

Let's look at shots taken by a player when tied, trailing by one, or trailing by two points in the final 24 seconds of a playoff game. These numbers only go back to 1996-1997. That means we're capturing 7 years of Stockton's career and Nash's entire career.

Stockton: 3 FG / 11 FGA
Nash: 3 FG / 13 FGA

I'll add to that a little bit. Here is the list of game winners John Stockton hit from 1995-1999. It's six. This is proving to be a most difficult stat to track prior to 1996.

Game 1 1995 Western Conference First Round - Jazz 102, Rockets 100 - 02.4 - Jazz 102, Rockets 100
December 21, 1995 - Jazz 89, Cavaliers 87 - 00.0 - Jazz 89, Cavaliers 87
January 8, 1996 - Jazz 94, Heat 92 - 00.0 - Jazz 94, Heat 92
Game 6 1997 Western Conference Finals - Jazz 103, Rockets 100 - 00.0 - Jazz 103, Rockets 100
December 28, 1997 - Jazz 89, Grizzlies 88 - 02.3 - Jazz 89, Grizzlies 88
Game 4 1999 Western Conference First Round - Jazz 90, Kings 89 - 00.7 - Jazz 90, Kings 89

[The59Sound]

Tell you what: let's look at some more indisputable numbers if you prefer those.

Let's look at shots taken by a player when tied, trailing by one, or trailing by two points in the final 24 seconds of a playoff game. These numbers only go back to 1996-1997. That means we're capturing 7 years of Stockton's career and Nash's entire career.

Stockton: 3 FG / 11 FGA
Nash: 3 FG / 13 FGA

I'll fix that a little bit. Here is the list of game winners John Stockton hit from 1995-1999. It's six, not three.

Game 1 1995 Western Conference First Round - Jazz 102, Rockets 100 - 02.4 - Jazz 102, Rockets 100
December 21, 1995 - Jazz 89, Cavaliers 87 - 00.0 - Jazz 89, Cavaliers 87
January 8, 1996 - Jazz 94, Heat 92 - 00.0 - Jazz 94, Heat 92
Game 6 1997 Western Conference Finals - Jazz 103, Rockets 100 - 00.0 - Jazz 103, Rockets 100
December 28, 1997 - Jazz 89, Grizzlies 88 - 02.3 - Jazz 89, Grizzlies 88
Game 4 1999 Western Conference First Round - Jazz 90, Kings 89 - 00.7 - Jazz 90, Kings 89

The statistics I provided were playoffs-only (since that's when Stockton would be most terrified to shoot, while Nash leaps tall buildings in a single bound, of course). But, yeah, there's more when you add the regular season.

[Gideon]

While I think the criticism that Stockton deferred too much offensively in an overall sense may have some validity, the idea that he especially deferred at the end of close games is completely off the mark.

Actually, at the end of close games, Stockton would start to look for his own shot more and/or look to really make something happen instead of just running the standard offense. The fact that he has famous PS game-winners and clutch plays (and even missed shots that he had the courage to attempt, such as the last-second missed three against the Bulls) should actually be pretty good evidence -- but I remember a number of instances in the RS, as well -- both makes and misses -- when Stockton took the last shot. I even remember a couple where he had trouble getting a good shot and ended up forcing something and missing badly (late in his career, there was a fall-away airball from the corner that AK tipped in at the buzzer). He absolutely wasn't reluctant to shoot in those moments.

I think what happens is that people view Stockton, quite reasonably, as the archetypal pass-first fundamentally sound PG. Going along with that feeling, they may think he didn't score quite enough himself to maximize his potential positive impact -- hell, I actually feel sorta that way (although I don't think it was extreme by any means). Then people start thinking -- well, if this guy was "afraid" to shoot enough, I bet he really was afraid when it counted. And that's when the analysis goes off the tracks... because whatever Stockton's reasons were for not looking to score more overall, he actually looked to score quite often at the end of close games.

This makes sense in a basketball-philosophy way if you really think about it -- as a PG, getting everybody else involved, and getting a rhythm going on offense for the team is important. Early in the game, those are things you want to establish. If a play where you keep the ball yourself and shoot is worth, for example, 1.2 points on average, and a play where multiple guys get involved and somebody else shoots is worth 1.1 points on average, it may still be more valuable to run the latter play in the first quarter. With 1 second left and the score tied, that stuff stops mattering, and it's just about giving your team the best chance of getting the ball in the hoop. Not only that, but because of Stockton's style of play earlier in the game, he could sometimes catch opposing teams by surprise when he looked to score aggressively towards the end of a close game.

[G35]

While I think the criticism that Stockton deferred too much offensively in an overall sense may have some validity, the idea that he especially deferred at the end of close games is completely off the mark.

Actually, at the end of close games, Stockton would start to look for his own shot more and/or look to really make something happen instead of just running the standard offense. The fact that he has famous PS game-winners and clutch plays (and even missed shots that he had the courage to attempt, such as the last-second missed three against the Bulls) should actually be pretty good evidence -- but I remember a number of instances in the RS, as well -- both makes and misses -- when Stockton took the last shot. I even remember a couple where he had trouble getting a good shot and ended up forcing something and missing badly (late in his career, there was a fall-away airball from the corner that AK tipped in at the buzzer). He absolutely wasn't reluctant to shoot in those moments.

I think what happens is that people view Stockton, quite reasonably, as the archetypal pass-first fundamentally sound PG. Going along with that feeling, they may think he didn't score quite enough himself to maximize his potential positive impact -- hell, I actually feel sorta that way (although I don't think it was extreme by any means). Then people start thinking -- well, if this guy was "afraid" to shoot enough, I bet he really was afraid when it counted. And that's when the analysis goes off the tracks... because whatever Stockton's reasons were for not looking to score more overall, he actually looked to score quite often at the end of close games.

This makes sense in a basketball-philosophy way if you really think about it -- as a PG, getting everybody else involved, and getting a rhythm going on offense for the team is important. Early in the game, those are things you want to establish. If a play where you keep the ball yourself and shoot is worth, for example, 1.2 points on average, and a play where multiple guys get involved and somebody else shoots is worth 1.1 points on average, it may still be more valuable to run the latter play in the first quarter. With 1 second left and the score tied, that stuff stops mattering, and it's just about giving your team the best chance of getting the ball in the hoop. Not only that, but because of Stockton's style of play earlier in the game, he could sometimes catch opposing teams by surprise when he looked to score aggressively towards the end of a close game.

I agree with this completely. During the course of the game John ran the offense according to the gameplan. When the game was on the line he freelanced a little more looking for his own shot. Wow, what a coincidence that is that maybe coaching affected the way John played. Perhaps if Nash played for Jerry Sloan Nash isn't winning two MVP's.

I don't understand how people give Nash so many excuses and run with a narrative that could apply to a lot players. Nash got lucky and signed with PHX at the right time, with the right coach, and the right combination of players that fit his talents. That's how it works, you get lucky and strike lightning in a bottle. Stockton might have been able to run all time offenses to if his coach sacrificed the defense for offense and let Stockton dictate the offense.....