Stockton Vs Nash vs Kidd

[Basketballefan]

John Stockton
Steve Nash
Jason Kidd

Name these guys from best to Worst career wise and also where each ranks on the Goat list if you would. Thanks

[Quotatious]

I currently have Nash at 20, Stockton at 26, and Kidd somewhere in the 35-40 range, so it's pretty clear for me that Nash is the best, then Stockton and then Kidd, although I think that I might put Nash and Stockton too far apart - actually consider moving John a few spots higher.

[Basketballefan]

I currently have Nash at 20, Stockton at 26, and Kidd somewhere in the 35-40 range, so it's pretty clear for me that Nash is the best, then Stockton and then Kidd, although I think that I might put Nash and Stockton too far apart - actually consider moving John a few spots higher.

Out of curiousity, what is your reasoning for nash over stockton?

[Hook_Em]

I currently have Nash at 20, Stockton at 26, and Kidd somewhere in the 35-40 range, so it's pretty clear for me that Nash is the best, then Stockton and then Kidd, although I think that I might put Nash and Stockton too far apart - actually consider moving John a few spots higher.

Low on Kidd because of shooting?

[Quotatious]

Out of curiousity, what is your reasoning for nash over stockton?

Offensive impact - Nash led (or at least was a key part of) best offensive teams in the NBA throughout pretty much his entire prime. Below are Nash's teams' ORtg numbers, for the time he was a starter/All-Star caliber player:

2001 - 4th
2002 - 1st
2003 - 1st
2004 - 1st
2005 - 1st
2006 - 2nd (and that's with Amare out for the entire season!!!)
2007 - 1st
2008 - 2nd
2009 - 2nd
2010 - 1st
2011 - 9th
2012 - 9th

So, as Amare left, and Nash was getting old, the Suns were still a top 10 offensive team, with guys like almost 40 year old Grant Hill, Jared Dudley or Channing Frye being key players...

For the sake of comparison, here are the Jazz ORtg numbers when Stockton was a starter (with prime Malone, who was an absolutely outstanding regular season performer, way better overall player than anyone Nash played with in Phoenix):

1988 - 16th
1989 - 17th
1990 - 10th
1991 - 11th
1992 - 4th
1993 - 7th
1994 - 7th
1995 - 4th
1996 - 2nd
1997 - 2nd
1998 - 1st
1999 - 3rd
2000 - 6th
2001 - 3rd
2002 - 10th
2003 - 9th


It's also not like Stockton and Malone only played with scrubs - they had Thurl Bailey (almost 20 PPG scorer on decent efficiency in 1988 and 1989, to pair him with already superstar Karl Malone inside), Jeff Malone, from 1990-91 to 1993-94 (at least for the majority of the '93-'94 season), who averaged over 18 PPG, and even more in the playoffs, and then Jeff Hornacek - a very intelligent and efficient offensive player.

Besides, Nash was a better playoff performer and a bit more capable of taking over as a scorer, when needed.

Stockton was certainly a better defender, and significantly so, but there's the question who much value defense coming from your PG really has...

Anyway, like I said, I think the gap might be smaller than I think right now. I'll have to look deeper into it, even though it's really been beaten to death on this board a lot of times before.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Stockton
Nash
Kidd

But if you asked me honestly, Kidd's all around game could easily bounce him above Nash. Steve was a strange beast, with a magic second half of his career overrated I think given how dependent his success was on a stat-inflating offensive system. He won two MVPs, one of them was even earned, and you have to respect that, but I don't think he was that caliber universally in any system for any coach. GOAT lists...I would have to see one, but Stockton is likely mid 20s. Just off the top of my head:


Jordan
Wilt
Russel
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Oscar
Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem
-----
Kobe
Mailman
West
Moses
Dr. J
Barkley
Garnett
Lebron
Baylor
Robinson
------
Nowitzki
Barry
Havlicek
Iverson
Drexler
Wade
...and somewhere from about this point onward Stockton can come in, around the range of Ewing and friends.

Nash is somewhat later. Not clear on Nash/Payton/Kidd ordering. Likely put Isiah slightly ahead of any of them.

P.S. don't hold me to the rankings. they are just rough, just wanted to confirm I could not come up with 30 names clearly ahead of him.

[Quotatious]

Low on Kidd because of shooting?

Yes, that's the main reason, besides he wasn't really close to Nash and Stockton as a creator in half-court, and his lack of consistent scoring ability really prevented him from being a top impact offensive player. Also, he never really led good offensive teams, usually middle of the pack or lower, except for the shortened 1998-99 season, when the Suns finished 4th in ORtg, despite not really having a personnel that would indicate such possibility - it's very impressive, I admit.

Anyway, I don't think I'm really lower on Kidd than many other posters here. Oddly enough, I'm actually learning to appreciate Kidd now, in retrospect, more so than during his career - I really want to focus on his great all-around game, rather than on his poor scoring/shooting, but that's still a really big flaw, for an elite point guard.

[Basketballefan]

Stockton
Nash
Kidd

But if you asked me honestly, Kidd's all around game could easily bounce him above Nash. Steve was a strange beast, with a magic second half of his career overrated I think given how dependent his success was on a stat-inflating offensive system. He won two MVPs, one of them was even earned, and you have to respect that, but I don't think he was that caliber universally in any system for any coach. GOAT lists...I would have to see one, but Stockton is likely mid 20s. Just off the top of my head:


Jordan
Wilt
Russel
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Oscar
Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem
-----
Kobe
Mailman
West
Moses
Dr. J
Barkley
Garnett
Lebron
Baylor
Robinson
------
Nowitzki
Barry
Havlicek
Iverson
Drexler
Wade
...and somewhere from about this point onward Stockton can come in, around the range of Ewing and friends.

Nash is somewhat later. Not clear on Nash/Payton/Kidd ordering. Likely put Isiah slightly ahead of any of them.

P.S. don't hold me to the rankings. they are just rough, just wanted to confirm I could not come up with 30 names clearly ahead of him.

If those are in order how do you have lbj 18th? Also how is iverson and drex above wade?

[Winsome Gerbil]

Stockton
Nash
Kidd

But if you asked me honestly, Kidd's all around game could easily bounce him above Nash. Steve was a strange beast, with a magic second half of his career overrated I think given how dependent his success was on a stat-inflating offensive system. He won two MVPs, one of them was even earned, and you have to respect that, but I don't think he was that caliber universally in any system for any coach. GOAT lists...I would have to see one, but Stockton is likely mid 20s. Just off the top of my head:


Jordan
Wilt
Russel
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Oscar
Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem
-----
Kobe
Mailman
West
Moses
Dr. J
Barkley
Garnett
Lebron
Baylor
Robinson
------
Nowitzki
Barry
Havlicek
Iverson
Drexler
Wade
...and somewhere from about this point onward Stockton can come in, around the range of Ewing and friends.

Nash is somewhat later. Not clear on Nash/Payton/Kidd ordering. Likely put Isiah slightly ahead of any of them.

P.S. don't hold me to the rankings. they are just rough, just wanted to confirm I could not come up with 30 names clearly ahead of him.

If those are in order how do you have lbj 18th? Also how is iverson and drex above wade?

I asked you specifically not to hold me to that order. It was a variety of thinking outloud. May have even forgotten a few in the haste. All that matters is that LBJ is already above Stockton's high end. He's probably Top 10 already. As for Wade, his exact placement is not really relevant. I think he's the #3 all time SG. But he is injury prone, and a bit of a political lockerroom lawyer/weasel type I have a hardtime excusing. Prefer more guts and less concern about the "brand" in my stars.

[Doctor MJ]

Low on Kidd because of shooting?

Here's how Phoenix ranked on offense in the following years, along with their point guard's name:

'00 - 16th (Kidd)
'01 - 22nd (Kidd)
'02 - 19th (Marbury)
'03 - 20th (Marbury)
'04 - 21st (Marbury/Barbosa)
'05 - 1st (Nash)

Basically, whether it was Kidd, or Marbury, or Barbosa, the Suns were a mediocre offense. Then Nash came and produced the greatest offensive run in NBA history.

This is the primary thing to understand: Kidd is not "almost Nash" on offense. Kidd is arguably closer to Barbosa than he is to Nash.

So now, is it because Kidd's a worse shooter? That's absolutely part of it. Defenses don't guard Kidd the way they guard Nash, and if they did, Kidd would be significantly more effective as a point guard.

There's also just the matter though that due to a variety of factors, one of them being Nash's shot, Nash is able to play the point guard position in a manner that could be described as "don't try this at home". He drives right into the heart of the defense, and then makes a decision about what to do next based on how the defense collapses around him. This is a terrible way to play if you're most people, but Nash is able to contort the defense enough that their are more openings to be found, and he's astonishingly good at finding them despite having his vision blocked by giants.

[Doctor MJ]

My general take here:

Nash > Kidd. Kidd is considerably better on defense, but it's just not enough to make up the difference.

Stockton is the unknown here. As with Kidd we can say he's worse than Nash on offense but better on defense, however we don't have as good of a window to really judge whether that happens to add up to more impact than Nash.

At the moment I'm inclined to rank:
1. Nash
2. Stockton
3. Kidd

However, I won't be surprised if I end up moving Stockton above Nash as we get access to more data from Stockton's period.

[SactoKingsFan]

Stockton (20-24)
Nash (25-30)
Kidd (27-35)

Nash was too much of a defensive liability for me to rank him ahead of Stockton. Kidd with a reliable jumper would probably be top 20.

[NormanTwain]

Limited peak, played in a gimmick system with a pace that inflated his numbers, phoned it in for half of the game (defense), and no significant playoff series wins. Nash is incredibly overrated.

Stockton

V

Kidd

V

Nash

[Doctor MJ]

Limited peak, played in a gimmick system with a pace that inflated his numbers, phoned it in for half of the game (defense), and no significant playoff series wins. Nash is incredibly overrated.

You say "gimmick system", I say "attacking the defense intelligently".

ftr, because I know it's on people's minds in a thread like this, the Nash Suns offense was not a regular season thing. They were a dominant offensive team in the playoffs as well. Their defensive issues (along with some other things) made them not quite able to top the eventual champ Duncan Spurs in their 2 healthy seasons, and Nash deserves some blame for that...or he would if he were in a thread here competing with guys who were better than Tim Duncan.

NONE of these guys ever won a title in their prime, so it's just bizarre to try to single out Nash as the one who is somehow suspect based on the lack of title.

[Jaivl]

Stockton
Nash

Kidd

[Witzig-Okashi]

Having Stockton over Nash isn't entirely unreasonable, but I am struggling with seeing the reasoning with placing Kidd over Nash. Nash's seasons in PHX have harped upon as much as they have been lauded, but the argument can be made that Kidd while in New Jersey as well (I think I can recall a user months ago bringing up how one of the J. Collins helped 'inflate' Kidd's rebounding numbers to be some akin for the rebounding rate for the perimeter players for the Pacers thanks to Hibbert during this RS, for example). Not so sure if I can say exactly the same for Stockton regarding Sloan's system making his stats appear better than they should be (and if I hear anything bad regarding those Jazz teams, it's usually that Malone wouldn't be the player he was w/o Stockton, and I think that that statement can come off as disingenuous).


I understand that Kidd is more versatile defensively (considerably so), but not having a jumpshot in his prime I think was detrimental, too. Don't have an AT list, but Kidd would be behind those two PGs as well, though the gap would not be as large as some other users

[Texas Chuck]

I still maintain that if people evaluated Kidd as a basketball player and not a point guard he would be more appreciated. Very little gets discussed about him except his flaws as a shooter/scorer and his non-elite team offenses. And if he was just a PG I agree those would be devastating to him in comparison.

But Kidd wasnt really just a PG, and regardless of how he did it, his influence on his team's success goes almost without saying. Every team he joined got better and every team he left got worse and in most cases by a significant number of games.

He contributes to winning games in a ton of ways from his rebounding to his defense to his leadership to his high IQ at both ends of the floor to his passing to his shooting(yes shooting) in the 2nd half of his career.

I actually believe that if his position didnt say PG, his average ranking would go up 10-12 places.

[Doctor MJ]

I still maintain that if people evaluated Kidd as a basketball player and not a point guard he would be more appreciated. Very little gets discussed about him except his flaws as a shooter/scorer and his non-elite team offenses. And if he was just a PG I agree those would be devastating to him in comparison.

But Kidd wasnt really just a PG, and regardless of how he did it, his influence on his team's success goes almost without saying. Every team he joined got better and every team he left got worse and in most cases by a significant number of games.

He contributes to winning games in a ton of ways from his rebounding to his defense to his leadership to his high IQ at both ends of the floor to his passing to his shooting(yes shooting) in the 2nd half of his career.

I actually believe that if his position didnt say PG, his average ranking would go up 10-12 places.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Were Kidd labeled any other position no one would see him as more than a role player on offense. He gets massive points for being a "brilliant point guard" after all.

Perhaps you agree but think the rest of his game would warrant his superstar status, but I certainly disagree there. By any other position his rebounding totals aren't a big deal, and there are other defenders with superior reputations that never make all-star status.

[Texas Chuck]

But Doc,

How many guys are there that do everything that he does? Sure there are a couple 2 guards that rebound like him, tho not many at his size. And sure there are specialists who defend at his level, and yes there are a couple other guys with his vision(2 itt for example). And there might even be one or two guys with his B-ball IQ or his leadership. But almost nobody else brings all of it. I don't get the point of saying there are role players who can do some of what he does. Calderon does some of what Nash does, but I would never suggest Nash to be less valuable because of it.

Yes, this forum tends to label non-scorers as role players, and maybe that's what he should be. But he was absolutely a superstar whatever else you want to label him.

[magicmerl]

But he was absolutely a superstar whatever else you want to label him.

I think he's only a superstar if you consider him a point guard. He's not quite well rounded a scorer in his pre-Dallas days to be a positionless player, since he was an offensive liability. He's more of a poor man's Tony Allen.