Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ
Joao Saraiva wrote: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.
JordansBulls wrote:Joao Saraiva wrote: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.
I think they rank him ahead because of how the offenses were led for the teams he was on.
Joao Saraiva wrote:JordansBulls wrote:Joao Saraiva wrote: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.
I think they rank him ahead because of how the offenses were led for the teams he was on.
I think the defensive gap between Stockton and Nash is much bigger than at the other of the court.
Also it's not like Nash played with crap teams.
therealbig3 wrote: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.
Texas Chuck wrote:"scrappy" doesnt begin to describe Stockton as a defender.
And please stop telling Stockton supporters to not use raw assists totals None of us have tho when a guy laps the field as soundly as Stockton did its not something that should just be brushed aside either. This forum in attempting to understand the true value of an assist has now gone over the edge to where assists are somehow a negative...... Im old enough to have watched Stockton play in his prime and he's not just some system pg. His assists arent meaningless stat padding. Is he a creative playmaker at Nash's level? No I dont think anyone thinks he was. Is there still tremendous value in having a guy who can run your offense to perfection time after time? Is there value to a guy who makes the right pass to the right guy at the right time repeated ad nauseum? Some of you seem to be suggesting otherwise.
The Infamous1 wrote:Nash craps on stockton in the playoffs
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Doormatt wrote:Damn this thread was awful. Some guy got seven And 1s for literally just listing Stocktons career numbers as his argument. I thought the PC board was better than that.
Not a single person has mentioned that Nash ran some of the greatest offenses ever or really what he accomplished as a Sun. Stockton never came close to the levels of offensive dominance Nash had. Really this thread was nothing but Stockton fans circle jerking each other.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
nurseryc wrote:He wasn't better than Stockton, the leading assist and steals leader in NBA history.
Yes Nash has more MVP awards however MVP's are media driven and have alot to do with popularity rather than who is most deserving of the award. The MVP award has been awarded to many many undeserving winners (some almost criminally wrong choices). Similar to comparing who made the all star team more when again it;s the voting process is media driven and a popularity contest.
Stockton was a better pure point guard than Nash.
G35 wrote:Gideon wrote: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.....
HeartBreakKid wrote:Well, hey, it's not like Stockton was dealt a bad hand. John was given a great coach, the GOAT PF (Duncan came later), spent the vast majority of his long career in the weaker conference & had the luxury of never getting seriously injured (and strangely enough, so did his partner in Malone). Let's not make Nash vs Stockton a question of who is more fortunate.
Well, yeah, but that is 15 seasons worth of having Jerry Sloan.G35 wrote:
Stockton was drafted in 1984 and Sloan didn't become the Jazz coach until the 88-89 season.
Hm? During that same time there were the Celtics who were as relevant for nearly as long. Bad Boy Pistons. Jordan. What's so great about the West in the 80s?Playing against the juggernaut of the Lakers with their stacked team is not being given the weaker conference.
But some of those West teams were stronger at different points. Like the Blazers and Suns had already fizzled out by the mid 90s.That is unless you want to say that the Bulls during the 90's had the weaker conference because the West was much stronger at that time with
Blazers Drexler/Porter/Buck/Duckworth
Suns KJ Barkley
Sonics Payton/Kemp
Rockets Hakeem admittedly not the strongest team but an ATG C with decent parts
Spurs see the Rockets but insert DRob and lesser parts
These teams were winning 50+ games annually in the 90's. Not the easier conference. That would be the East. The Knicks and Miami were flawed defensive teams with lesser stars.
Out of 20 seasons thats not too bad, aye?It's not a luxury of never getting injured. He was injured for the first time when the Jazz made the finals for the 2nd time.
Who cares about stuffing stats? Aside from that, Stockton fills up the statlines pretty well. Also, many would say that Sloan's offense does lead to a lot of assist, there are people who have called Deron Williams a system PG for that very reason.That offense that the Jazz ran was not perfect for boxscore stat stuffing.
True enough.It was a safe, predictable, efficient offense but that safe and predictable doesn't produce all time great offenses.
Hm..maybe - regardless Nash has proven himself in the pick and roll with stellar results.Nash would not be physiaclly capable of setting those screens that helped make the Jazz offense so effective.
[/quote]Really? He was damn good before he ever got to Phoenix. Maybe he was overlooked and what not, but you can't say he didn't have star talent or potential.Nash was in the league for several years and never showed that he could be an effective ball dominant PG.