Stockton Vs Nash vs Kidd

[Notanoob]

If we're going to careers, Stockton comes ahead of Nash due to his absurd longevity advantage.

Stockton
Nash
Kidd

Kidd could have vaulted ahead of these guys with a half-decent shot early in his career. It would change how defenses played him, opening up the offense, and of course Kidd crushes Nash and Stockton on defense and the glass, especially since he can guard multiple positions.

The real question that should be asked is "better peak between Nash and Stockton", because that's what people are really wondering about IMO. Who really was the better basketball player when they were at the height of their powers?

And how does Stockton look if he wasn't in Sloan's system for practically his entire career? Stockton, like the whole Jazz team, was confined to that system, effective as it was, and had trouble when it didn't work. If Stockton is taken out of that system, does he re-learn to be a scorer, or to say "screw it, I've got this guys" when it came to crunch time?

[Baller2014]

Nash by a clear margin, then Kidd by a clear margin. Stockton last. People are getting too obsessed with advanced stats it seems to me. Stockton was never a franchise player, Kidd and especially Nash were. Stockton couldn't carry a team, whereas those guys could. People overrated Stockton historically because he played a long time (not that his prime is especially long), and therefore has the most assists, but his actual impact is not nearly as high as these two.

I just saw someone cite Stockton's "longevity advantage", but does he really have one? His prime is regarded as being from 1988 through to 1997. That's 10 years. Not unusual or impressive. The rest of his years are sub-prime (some by large margins). Nash has a similar number of prime years (though not all are peak years), and a much higher peak to boot. One can say the same for Kidd, even if he didn't shoot well until later in his career (who cares? It's about impact, not a pre-determined set of "rounded" skills).

[Jaivl]

Nash by a clear margin, then Kidd by a clear margin. Stockton last. People are getting too obsessed with advanced stats it seems to me. Stockton was never a franchise player, Kidd and especially Nash were. Stockton couldn't carry a team, whereas those guys could. People overrated Stockton historically because he played a long time (not that his prime is especially long), and therefore has the most assists, but his actual impact is not nearly as high as these two.

I just saw someone cite Stockton's "longevity advantage", but does he really have one? His prime is regarded as being from 1988 through to 1997. That's 10 years. Not unusual or impressive. The rest of his years are sub-prime (some by large margins). Nash has a similar number of prime years (though not all are peak years), and a much higher peak to boot. One can say the same for Kidd, even if he didn't shoot well until later in his career (who cares? It's about impact, not a pre-determined set of "rounded" skills).

1504 games, 1300 as a starter, over 19 seasons. 31.8 minutes per game. 15 seasons over 0.200 WS/48. That, my friend, is absurd longevity.

And that (+300 quality games) is why I have him over Nash.

[Baller2014]

That sort of thinking is a poor way of comparing players. Mark Jackson has over 10,000 assists, he must have been a comparably good player to guys with 10K assists, yes? Except in reality Mark Jackson was a role player who just happened to play a long time. Of course, any player who averages 15+ppg and 13+apg in a season, on 48+FG% must be a great player. Except that player is Kevin Porter, and Kevin Porter was not a great player. People in the past focused too much of Stockton's volume numbers, and now it seems win shares and plus minus are the new reasons to overrate Stockton.

Stockton had 10 prime years: 88-97. That's pretty much indisputable. Before 88 (except in the 87 playoffs) he was a bench player, and after 97 injuries caused him to miss a lot of time (and have a smaller impact, though the team didn't seem to miss him much at all).
Nash's prime was from about 2001 through to about 2011. That's actually 1 year more than Stockton's prime. Nash also peaked much higher, proving he could carry poorly constructed and misshapen team of small forwards to 54 wins and the WCFs in 2006. Stockton never hinted he could do anything similar with his impact. Kidd is in a similar position (albeit below Nash).

We could argue all day about whether Stockton played in a system that inflated stats (and rumours about scorers from Utah who helped him out), but in all honesty it's irrelevant. All that matters is his impact. I don't care if a guy averages 5 apg as a point guard, if his impact is bigger I'll take him. Stockton's impact of these 3 was clearly the smallest.

[ronnymac2]

Jason Kidd wasn't an elite shooter in his prime, but he wasn't Rajon Rondo either, and he knew to let it fly to let the offense continue to flow. Kidd gets underrated because people forget that.

[G35]

That sort of thinking is a poor way of comparing players. Mark Jackson has over 10,000 assists, he must have been a comparably good player to guys with 10K assists, yes? Except in reality Mark Jackson was a role player who just happened to play a long time. Of course, any player who averages 15+ppg and 13+apg in a season, on 48+FG% must be a great player. Except that player is Kevin Porter, and Kevin Porter was not a great player. People in the past focused too much of Stockton's volume numbers, and now it seems win shares and plus minus are the new reasons to overrate Stockton.

Stockton had 10 prime years: 88-97. That's pretty much indisputable. Before 88 (except in the 87 playoffs) he was a bench player, and after 97 injuries caused him to miss a lot of time (and have a smaller impact, though the team didn't seem to miss him much at all).
Nash's prime was from about 2001 through to about 2011. That's actually 1 year more than Stockton's prime. Nash also peaked much higher, proving he could carry poorly constructed and misshapen team of small forwards to 54 wins and the WCFs in 2006. Stockton never hinted he could do anything similar with his impact. Kidd is in a similar position (albeit below Nash).

We could argue all day about whether Stockton played in a system that inflated stats (and rumours about scorers from Utah who helped him out), but in all honesty it's irrelevant. All that matters is his impact. I don't care if a guy averages 5 apg as a point guard, if his impact is bigger I'll take him. Stockton's impact of these 3 was clearly the smallest.

Ok two things, this is what Jaivl said,

1504 games, 1300 as a starter, over 19 seasons. 31.8 minutes per game. 15 seasons over 0.200 WS/48. That, my friend, is absurd longevity.

And that (+300 quality games) is why I have him over Nash.

That year Porter put up 15/13 in a season was his career best and never came close to that ever again. He also had a TS% of .513. Stockton's career TS% average over 19 years is .608 which is 10th best all time. Btw Nash is at 15th. What people are saying is Stockton had a ridiculous length of consistent excellence. He had 9 straight years of at least 14.7ppg and 11.2 assists. No one else even comes close.

Second, for everyone saying that Sloan's system inflated Stockton's numbers, he put up 14.7 ppg and 13.8 ast playing under Layden. What I don't understand is someone who can say that Sloan's system inflated Stockton but D'Antoni and SSOL did nothing for Nash's numbers. That is as biased as you can get.

Finally your say so that Stockton had the lowest impact with no support for that opinion holds lil weight.....

[Baller2014]

*snipped*

He posted Stockton's career stats, etc, and I explained why I do not find those to be persuasive. Someone may have a tonne of career stats (like Mark Jackson) or a high apg (like K.Porter), or they may do it consistently (like Stockton), but I'm not interested in volume numbers (whether they're apg or ppg), I'm interested in how those numbers translate into wins. What was the guys impact on the game? Nash and Kidd were franchise players you could build a team around. Stockton wasn't. I noted some of the evidence for this too, such as the fact that Kidd and Nash actually carried teams as the #1 option, while Stockton never did. Stockton was a guy who was generally the 8-17th best player in the NBA during his prime. Nash and Kidd were top 5 guys in their day. I'd frankly have more confidence you could build a team around Damien Lillard or Westbrook than Stock. At least Lillard and Westie can create their own shot and break down the defense for their team. Stockton is a complimentary player. Those complimentary skills are great (and make him more valuable than someone like Lillard), but they don't help him in a comparison with guys like Kidd and Nash, who carried teams.

If Stockton was a secret franchise player, he was one of the worst performing ones of all-time. He got bumped in the 1st round 7 times, despite being teamed with a top 15 all-time player (and having a great all-time coach), and not to legendary teams either.

[The Infamous1]

Stockton has less offensive limitations then kidd does

[Joao Saraiva]

Stockton's playmaking is at Magic's level of greatness. Kidd is not even near Stockton here.

Stockton was a much better shooter than Kidd, therefore a better feat with many other superstars. If you have someone like Malone in the post you want them to have space to go to work. Kidd would not provide that.

Kidd is the better rebounder.

Stockton was good on D but Kidd was too. Still I give the edge to Stockton.

Stockton >>>> Kidd.


Against Nash... that's not so easy. Both players were huge playmakers (I think Stockton was the better one), both could shoot and spread the floor (Nash is better here) and Nash was the best one creating his own shot. Stockton only has the edge on D, but I don't know if that compensates Nash's impact on offence.

It's not easy for me to say who was the best between them. Probably because I see Nash more as a franchise player than Stockton I would say Nash > Stockton.

[Baller2014]

So why was Magic Stockton eliminated in the 1st round 7 times? Seriously, if he was Magic like on offense, and he was obviously very good on D, why were the Jazz constantly getting clubbed by seemingly weaker teams?

[Winsome Gerbil]

So why was Magic Stockton eliminated in the 1st round 7 times? Seriously, if he was Magic like on offense, and he was obviously very good on D, why were the Jazz constantly getting clubbed by seemingly weaker teams?

I'm not going to go pull the records again, but I think the Jazz only had 2 or 3 losses to putatively weaker teams in the first round. and one of those was to the 2nd Hakeem title team on its historic run.

[Baller2014]

Not really accurate Gerbil.
1) Stockton's Jazz lost to the 1989 GSW's, led by rookie Mitch Richmond and Mullin (who both didn't even shoot well this playoffs) and an undersized team of nobodies. In 1990 they lost to the Kevin Johnson Suns in the 1st round. In 1993 they lost to the Sonics in round 1 (with a kid Payton leading their offence). Really we should be asking why the Jazz lost in 1987 to an even more pathetic GSW team (Stockton did start that series, and was 25 years old at the time in his 3rd year in the NBA). Honestly, I don't understand why a team with a top 15 all-time player, plus a "Magic like" point guard (and often other good players too, like DPOY Eaton and Hornacek, or all-star Jeff Malone, and Thurl Bailey) was losing to the Blazers multiple years. Shouldn't such a team have blown them out of the water?
2) I see this "oh, but they had tough match-ups" a lot with players like KG on the Wolves. My question is "well, why didn't KG/Stockton help them win more regular season games like [player you just compared them to] did with a comparable (or worse) support cast? Then they wouldn't have had a tough match up." Sure enough, the Jazz from 87-94 won an average of 50.75 games a year. Hardly what I'd expect from the description of Stockton, even if he'd had Malone and nobody else (let alone all the other guys he often did have).

If Stockton was a "Magic like" point guard, then he was the most underachieving star of all time.

[Jonny Blaze]

Nash's prime was from about 2001 through to about 2011. That's actually 1 year more than Stockton's prime. Nash also peaked much higher, proving he could carry poorly constructed and misshapen team of small forwards to 54 wins and the WCFs in 2006. Stockton never hinted he could do anything similar with his impact. Kidd is in a similar position (albeit below Nash).

This is the #1 reason why I have Nash over Stockton.

In my heart I do not think Stockton could lead the Jazz to 50 wins and the Western Conference Finals if Karl Malone missed the entire season.

Nash


Stockton

Kidd

[JordansBulls]

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

Stockton
Kidd
Nash

[Ancalagon]

This topic comes up time and time again here and always makes me laugh. By peak, longevity, playoff performance-- any metric really-- Stockton comes out on top.

Those Jazz teams never featured the players listed by some posters here at the same time. By the time the Jazz acquired an aging Hornacek and an inexperienced Ostertag, the careers of guys like Jeff Malone and Mark Eaton were long over. The very best Jazz teams were extremely shallow with a lot of inferior pieces ... maybe if Rony Seikaly had come along in 1995 the Jazz could have won a title. If Stockton switched places with Nash or Kidd, undoubtedly his team performance would have improved.

WS WS/48
3.1 0.1
5.9 0.146
6.7 0.174
14.1 0.238
15.6 0.236
14.4 0.238
14 0.217
13.4 0.215
10.6 0.177
13.2 0.214
13.9 0.233
13 0.214
13.6 0.226
8 0.206
6.4 0.217
11.2 0.222
10.8 0.216
10.7 0.2
9 0.19


9 seasons with Win Shares over 13, 14 seasons with Win Shares/48 over .200

Playoffs:

WS WS/480.5 0.119
0.2 0.154
0.7 0.2
2 0.201
0.7 0.23
0.4 0.106
1.6 0.208
1.6 0.122
0.6 0.145
1.8 0.144
0.4 0.087
2.2 0.156
3.1 0.201
2.2 0.179
0.8 0.116
1 0.132
0.8 0.202
0.7 0.228
0.2 0.067


7 runs with over 1.5 Win Shares, 7 runs over .200 WS/48.

Now here is Nash ... never cracked 13 Win Shares in a regular season, cracked .200 WS/48 only 4 times

WS WS/48
0.7 0.047
4.8 0.137
1 0.037
3 0.094
8.4 0.169
9.9 0.167
11.6 0.206
8.8 0.162
10.9 0.203
12.4 0.212
12.6 0.225
10.5 0.181
7.3 0.14
9.9 0.178
7.9 0.153
5.9 0.144
4.3 0.127
0.1 0.017

Now here is his Postseason performance ... cracked 1.5 WS 3 times and never cracked .200 per 48

WS WS/48-0.1 -0.381
0.1 0.081
0.6 0.082
0.7 0.11
1.7 0.113
0.4 0.092
2.1 0.164
2.6 0.153
1.4 0.165
0.4 0.103
2 0.175
0 0.014


Also, has everyone forgotten he is also the All-Time Steals leader and an effective off-ball screener/defensive player? With the ball, he was a better player than Nash or Kidd. Without the ball, there is no comparison.

[G35]

Nash's prime was from about 2001 through to about 2011. That's actually 1 year more than Stockton's prime. Nash also peaked much higher, proving he could carry poorly constructed and misshapen team of small forwards to 54 wins and the WCFs in 2006. Stockton never hinted he could do anything similar with his impact. Kidd is in a similar position (albeit below Nash).

This is the #1 reason why I have Nash over Stockton.

In my heart I do not think Stockton could lead the Jazz to 50 wins and the Western Conference Finals if Karl Malone missed the entire season.

Nash


Stockton

Kidd

That would be a great reason if Nash led that Suns team by himself, but it's arguable that Marion was even more valuable than Nash that year. He anchored that Suns defense and was the leading rebounder and scorer for that team. Who on the Jazz could have done that......

[The Infamous1]

Baller is right. The jazz lost to all different types of teams though. Not just contenders or champions

If you were around during that time, they weren't a team people feared. Nobody was ever really surprised when they lost and who they lost to.

[Ancalagon]

Not really accurate Gerbil.
1) Stockton's Jazz lost to the 1989 GSW's, led by rookie Mitch Richmond and Mullin (who both didn't even shoot well this playoffs) and an undersized team of nobodies. In 1990 they lost to the Kevin Johnson Suns in the 1st round. In 1993 they lost to the Sonics in round 1 (with a kid Payton leading their offence). Really we should be asking why the Jazz lost in 1987 to an even more pathetic GSW team (Stockton did start that series, and was 25 years old at the time in his 3rd year in the NBA). Honestly, I don't understand why a team with a top 15 all-time player, plus a "Magic like" point guard (and often other good players too, like DPOY Eaton and Hornacek, or all-star Jeff Malone, and Thurl Bailey) was losing to the Blazers multiple years. Shouldn't such a team have blown them out of the water?
2) I see this "oh, but they had tough match-ups" a lot with players like KG on the Wolves. My question is "well, why didn't KG/Stockton help them win more regular season games like [player you just compared them to] did with a comparable (or worse) support cast? Then they wouldn't have had a tough match up." Sure enough, the Jazz from 87-94 won an average of 50.75 games a year. Hardly what I'd expect from the description of Stockton, even if he'd had Malone and nobody else (let alone all the other guys he often did have).

If Stockton was a "Magic like" point guard, then he was the most underachieving star of all time.

Not really buying that it is Stockton's fault the Jazz lost these series between 1987 and 1994 ... These were some woeful Jazz teams aside from Stockton and Malone (remember how bad the Jazz were when led by Dantley and Griffith?):

Vs. Golden State in 1987: only started the final two games after going 6 for 8 off the bench in Game 3. Averaged 14.5 and 12 on 10 of 17 shooting and 3 for 4 from three ... also 4.5 steals and only 2.5 turnovers ... I'm gonna go ahead and say that this isn't Stockton's fault

Vs. all-time great Lakers team and Magic himself in 1988: only averaged a mere 19.3 points and 16.4 assists on 50.5% shooting with 4 steals and 3.7 turnovers in a grueling 7 game series ... Oh, what's that you say? He went for 29 and 20 in Game 7 and 23 and 24 in Game 5? Two 20 and 20s? Yeah, definitely his fault they lost. (By the way, Malone averaged 28.7 and 11.7 in that series and went for 31 and 15 in Game 7 ... the rest of the team was God-awful.

Golden State sweep in 1989: A bad sweep, no doubt, but Stockton averaged 27.7 and 13.7 ... Those are legendary numbers.

1990 vs. Suns: first "bad" playoff performance for Stockton (his shot was off). He still averaged 15 and 15.

1991 vs. Portland: averaged 18.1 and 14.6 after avenging his poor performance against KJ the year before with a scorching 18 and 12.8 shooting 62.2%

1992 WCF vs. Portland: grueling playoff run ended with averaging 14.3 and 11.2 vs. Portland ... he had some bad games where he disappeared and then shot 5 of 19 in the final. Terry Porter and Clyde Drexler really hounded him (he had some trouble as an older player in 1998 against the similarly long Pippen and Harper). Probably his most indefensible playoff series but the Jazz' longest run yet

1993 vs. Seattle: outplayed a very young Gary Payton, averaged 13.4 and 11 ... not the best series but not the worst. The need for Hornacek was becoming apparent by this point. The Jazz were starting Jeff Malone and David Benoit.

1994 WCF vs. Houston: 14.4 and 9.4 in fewer minutes ... Stockton seemed to be on the downside of his career, but the Jazz made it to the WCF. Once Hornacek joined the team and Ostertag was added to play a little defense against Olajuwon, Stockton was reborn against Houston. A much older Stockton averaged 20.5 and 10.3 against the Rockets three years later.

[Sasaki]

A much older Stockton averaged 20.5 and 10.3 against the Rockets three years later.

He was reborn because he got to play against freaking Matt Maloney.

[Ancalagon]

A much older Stockton averaged 20.5 and 10.3 against the Rockets three years later.

He was reborn because he got to play against freaking Matt Maloney.

A very fair observation. Still, Stockton was 35 in that series.