Stockton Vs Nash vs Kidd

[G35]

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.

Yeah he is right, the Jazz were never a stacked team. Karl Malone was a top 15-20ish player, Stockton was a top 20ish player, but the rest of the team was very average. Thurl Bailey was decent, but they never really had a 3rd player or player that could create his own shot. Even Karl Malone earlier in his career was not a great creator of his own shot. They were missing an athletic perimeter player that can do something dynamic with the ball. Like Manu Ginobli, Trevor Ariza type player who augmented Stockton/Malone.

Also it's tiresome when people look at PG's and ONLY judge them for offense. Well of course Nash is going to look all world. If all he has to worry about is offense then he is the top PG. The Suns were usually average to poor on defense.

If all we have to do is worry about offense then James Harden is the best SG since Jordan. I mean shooting guards primary job is to SHOOT...so who cares how well they contribute on the defensive end. So if Harden looks like a turnstyle out there who cares, that's Dwight's job to carry the defense.

That's how Nash is looked at. He runs the offense and they put Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, Amare Stoudemire, and Quentin Richardson around a premiere PG that's going to lead to some good offense. There is no question that the Suns offense were one of the most, if not the most, lethal offenses in NBA history.

Yet the question has to be asked what coach would put Amare at C and expect any defense? What coach would put 3 defensive liabilities on the court at the same time; Nash, Amare, Richardson? The only team that is even similar to that is the Heat with Bosh at C and an undersized Battier at PF. But even then the Heat can play a swarming/trapping defense with Lebron/Battier/Wade/Bosh all being average or better defensively at their respective positions.

The Suns offense is an outlier because no one else would ever put a lineup out there similar to those Suns teams. With Stockton and Kidd they were great defenders at the PG position and they played for coaches that stressed defensive principles. It amazes me how this board can be so advanced at some analysis but not understand that defense is a mindset that Phoenix never had.....

[kerry kittles]

I think Kidd is getting undeservedly killed. Yes, he was never a great shooter, yes if you look at advanced offensive numbers the other two will rank ahead, but the intangibles that Kidd brings to a team are unmeasurable.

As mentioned earlier everywhere Kidd went the team he went to got better and the team he left got worse. Look at the Knicks even last year. Kidd was awful in the postseason and cooked by the point - I'll agree. But even at 39-40 he was a big reason for the Knicks regular season success. In the year prior to his arrival, 7th in the East, to 2nd his one year there, to out of the playoffs after he retires. Felton was much better play next to Kidd in his one year there than he was last year, JR Smith was better, etc. Kidd helps get the ball moving and always make smart play. This past year for the Knicks the ball just stuck so much and the offense was painful to watch. Kidd is responsible for getting guys like Kmart and RJ paid. He was the consummate teammate that made everyone around him better. Yes, Dirk was far and away the MVP of that Mavs championship team, but at age 38 he was still great that playoff run.
9.3 ppg, 7.3 apg, 4.5 rpg, 1.9 spg in finals is rock solid will bringing those intangibles.

Kidd completely changed the fortunes of the Nets franchise, made so many teams and teammates reach levels that they couldn't have reached without him. Looking at just numbers is a great disservice to the player that Jason Kidd was.

Even if you look at him as a coach. A rookie coach with no prior experience he did a decent job. There are number of coaches in the league who moved up through the ranks, have countless hours on the sideline, breaking down film who are worse than him. And that's a testiment to his basketball mind. One of the greatest basketball minds ever. He was a catalyst in the Nets turning it around in 2014. The team took on his identity as a player and started forcing turnovers at a very high rate and played more cohesive basketball. Sure he has downfalls and can be frustrating as a fan namely his hockey rotations, still not great at when to call timeouts, or executing late down the stretch out of turnouts. But I'm really just bringing up his coaching because you could see his handprints all over that team in 2014 and how they turned it around.

[Baller2014]

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......

LOL. Marion? What? From 05-11 the Suns were 10-23 in the games Nash was out. Basically they had the winning % of a 25 win team without Nash, and a 55 win % with Nash. If we exclude the year when crazy ole Terry Porter tried to run the offense through Shaq that shifts to 20 wins v.s 56 wins. It's very clear who was the engine of that team. It wasn't Amare, or they'd wouldn't have made the WCFs when he was hurt, and it wasn't Marion (or they wouldn't have won 54 games and made the WCF's once he left, after the Terry Porter insanity that is).

[Baller2014]

I've seen a few posters like this try and pass off Stockton as being handicapped by his "poor support cast". I'll tackle this post in a minute, but let me just get this off my chest first. It SHOULD NOT HAVE MATTERED if Stockton was only playing with bums and scrubs because HE HAD KARL MALONE!!!. I mean, all this "well, who was his 6th man" stuff is really a bizarre direction to go. Who was Shaq and Kobe's 6th man in 00-02? Nobody remembers or cares, because this is a star league, and when you've got two (supposedly) transcendent stars then it shouldn't matter much who was in your back-court, as long as they were NBA players. This would be an excuse if they were losing to only stacked teams, but they weren't (as I'll get to in a moment). The way some Jazz fans try to tell it though, it's like they think Stockton's career began in 1994 (when he was 32 years old), and only Hakeem and Jordan held him and Malone back. It's quite a different story in reality.

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

To emphasise again, you had Stockton and Malone. The other team had... um, Sleepy Floyd and Joe Barry Carroll leading them. Stockton may have only started 2 games, but he averaged 31 mpg for the series and was 25 years old. The Jazz weren't relying only on Stockton and Malone either, they had DPOY Mark Eaton at the 5 spot, very good role player (who was closer to an all-star than a role player) Thurl Bailey putting up 15-6 this series, a still solid post injury Dr Dunkenstein, and all-star Kelly Tripucka, still only 28 years old, who had agreed to play a lesser role for the Jazz in the hope of winning more with them. If Stockton is who people said he is (better than Kidd or Nash, a "Magic like" point guard) then it's a huge failure that the Jazz won this series. Actual Magic was finals MVP at age 20, on a team who won 60 games, not 44.

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.

If the Jazz hadn't won a mere 47 games, they wouldn't have been against actual Magic and the Lakers. That's completely their fault. They still had the players I alluded to before, when just Stockton and Malone alone (if they were as good as claimed) should have been able to win 55+ games on their own.

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

If Lebron put up big numbers and his team lost to these bums, nobody would be saying "well, he put up big numbers". They'd be asking why his big numbers didn't translate to wins, and they'd be right to do so. The Jazz had these guys completely outgunned, and lost. Stockton (and Malone) are 100% accountable.

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

See above. I don't care if he posted gaudy numbers that don't translate into wins. Plenty of NBA players have been able to do that over the years. I'm more interested in impact. Nash and Kidd didn't have the same gaudy numbers as some players, but we can see the evidence of their huge impact. Can't say the same with Stockton.

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

Like I said, if Stockton was who you guys make him out to be, there is no way they should have lost either series.

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.

Jeff Malone was an all-star. Very few (supposedly) transcendent greats can boast an all-star as their 3rd best man. Shaq and Kobe never could. Hakeem (and then Drexler) couldn't. Kobe and Lebron had that good fortune, but most star pairings don't. I'd understand if they lost to a great team, but they lost to the young Sonics with pup Payton. The team again won 47 games (why do they keep winning such modest totals in the regular season, when Nash and Kidd had no top 15 all-time player on their team, and had no trouble leading their teams to conference finals and bigger win totals?

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.

This sounds a lot like the usual Jazz fan narrative, where his career before he turned 32 doesn't count, and we are to focus only on 94 onwards. We even get a cute Jesus reference. Seriously though, what happened before 94 counts, and what happened after 94 counts too... like in 1998 when Stockton played 36% less minutes, due to injury, and was somewhat hobbled, and the Jazz were absolutely fine anyway. It seemed to confirm what everything prior to that point told us, that Karl Malone was the dominant force on this team, and Stockton was, well, just not that good. More of the top 8-17 type player he was typically voted as in MVP votes, rather than the top 5 one Nash and Kidd often were in their primes.

[G35]

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......

LOL. Marion? What? From 05-11 the Suns were 10-23 in the games Nash was out. Basically they had the winning % of a 25 win team without Nash, and a 55 win % with Nash. If we exclude the year when crazy ole Terry Porter tried to run the offense through Shaq that shifts to 20 wins v.s 56 wins. It's very clear who was the engine of that team. It wasn't Amare, or they'd wouldn't have made the WCFs when he was hurt, and it wasn't Marion (or they wouldn't have won 54 games and made the WCF's once he left, after the Terry Porter insanity that is).

You've come in with your own pov and that's cool but you cannot pick and choose what is included and what is not. The Terry Porter era is definitely part of Nash's legacy and the whole reason why Nash is not portable and capable of being elite in a variety of situations.

Also once Marion left, the Suns defense went in the toilet as did their championship window. Fact.....

[Baller2014]

Like I said, it was a 25 win team v.s a 55 win team even including the Terry Porter era, so it makes little difference. It is clearly worth noting though that Terry Porter was totally clueless, and ran the offense through Shaq, rather than through Nash, and it obviously didn't work. If you think that context is irrelevant I don't know what to say.

The Suns made the WCF's without Marion, and were only stopped by a stacked Lakers team in 6 games. Marion meanwhile looked totally exposed in Miami, and never regained his prominence again. This also seems pretty conclusive.

[G35]

Like I said, it was a 25 win team v.s a 55 win team even including the Terry Porter era, so it makes little difference. It is clearly worth noting though that Terry Porter was totally clueless, and ran the offense through Shaq, rather than through Nash, and it obviously didn't work. If you think that context is irrelevant I don't know what to say.

The Suns made the WCF's without Marion, and were only stopped by a stacked Lakers team in 6 games. Marion meanwhile looked totally exposed in Miami, and never regained his prominence again. This also seems pretty conclusive.

Bad coaching is a level playing for every player that has ever played so that is irrelevant. Plus, the players have the biggest impact for what happens on the floor, if not then you have to give a ton more credit for the Suns success to D'Antoni. This is a part of the Nash narrative that he is responsible for everything good and blame coaching when things go wrong.

And the Suns traded Marion for Shaq, who is not built to run the court like Amare. Which is another reason why those Suns teams were perfect for Nash and he wouldn't have been as successful with other players.

What those Suns teams did in 2010 is nothing different than what the Utah Jazz did in 2006/07 when they went to WCF. The Suns beat a Blazers team that would have beat them with a healthy Brandon Roy. They beat the Suns 2-1 in the regular season and they had split the first two games on the Suns home floor.

The Suns didn't lose in 2010 because the Lakers were stacked, they lost because of every other season they went home early, no defense. That Lakers team avg'd 113.5 ppg in that series. No team that gives up that many points is a serious contender. Also that team fell apart without Amare, they went from a 54 win team going to the WCF's to a 40 win team that did not make the playoffs. No Marion...no Amare...what happened?

You know what Nash did in 2011? He put up 14.7ppg and 11.4 asst....you know whose numbers look like that? John Stockton...but his teams all went to the playoff's. That's impact......

[Baller2014]

Nobody has said the players aren't responsible for what happens to a large degree. What we have done is tried to understand why the Suns sucked under Terry Porter (relatively speaking, they still won 46 games), but were good before and after he got there. The consensus, to those watching at the time as well as others, was that Porter sucked as a coach, and made a big mistake trying to run the offence through Shaq instead of Nash. That's not an excuse, it's called an explanation. If the real reason was that Marion was gone, then the Suns shouldn't have been able to turn around a year later and make the WCF's without him under a non-TerryPorteresque coach.

The Suns were not "specially built around Nash", trust me, Nash would have loved bigger stronger players in say 2006, rather than the 4 small forwards he had starting next to him that season. That wasn't an intentional plan by the front office. It was a result of their big men all getting hurt, and Nash being so good he could make it work anyway. I imagine Nash would have loved some better defensive players too, or some of the picks his front office kept trading away to save a few bucks, but thems the breaks. You're wrong about Shaq not fitting with Nash btw, they fit fine the previous season, actually posting great offensive numbers in Mike D's system. It was only the following year, when Porter came in and ruined the offence, that it didn't work as well. They dumped Porter, and things worked fine again

There is no shame in the Suns losing to the Lakers. They had a better support cast around Kobe, more depth and balance. The Lakers won the title that year for a reason. Nash did well getting that team to the WCFs. I almost don't know what more to say. We have ample evidence Nash was the engine of that team.
1) The team was hopeless in games he missed, but awesome when he played.
2) When Amare was hurt, the team was awesome anyway (see 2006)
3) Similarly, when Marion was traded, the team turned around and went to the WCFs without him (and were one of the best teams in the NBA).
4) Marion and Amare both underwhelmed after leaving the Suns. Marion looked lost on the Heat, who didn't want to retain him, then bounced around various teams. Amare went to NY and looked disappointing, prompting many to wonder how Nash had made him look so good. Even after both Marion AND Amare were gone, a post-prime Nash took a grossly weakened Suns support cast to a 71-66 record over the next 2 seasons (whereas if you remember, when Nash was hurt from 05-11 the Suns had the win% of a 25 win team).

Stockton clearly wasn't the reason his teams were in the playoffs, he was Robin to Karl Malone. Unlike Nash, whose team empirically collapsed without him, Stockton's team was fine when in 1998 Stockton played 36% less minutes than the previous season and was hobbled.

[Navas]

Kidd
Stockton
Nash

Kidd gets deservedly and undeservedly criticized for his offense, when the other traits get overlooked. People act like he was an average player when he really wasn't. Kidd at his best is a top 5 PG. Consistent triple double threat, great fast break starter, huge threat on the boards, great defender (His defense against LeBron for example) and could guard several positions, and great at setting people up (Kenyon Martin should be thanking Kidd for that contract). Kidd's biggest problem is that he didn't really have any great teams around him for most of his career. A Kidd with a dominant big (Shaq, Hakeem,) would be downright scary. Along with his weak offense but he made up for it with several things.

Stockton was good all around and his longevity is incredible, but he never really did anything that stuck out to me that made me think, "Whoa."

Nash, great offensive PG, like his game, but an old woman could defend better than him. When his college coach calls him the worst defender he had ever seen, that's quite bad.

[trex_8063]

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 basing a lot on just team offensive rating. Although depending on how you look at it, it's not exactly a yawning chasm. For instance: number of years team was among the top 7 in ORtg.......Nash--10, Stockton--10. Both players proved capable of leading a #1 rated offense, too.

Further, I don't think you can give total credit to Nash for so many great offenses. How much can be "blamed" on system? Don't think it can be denied that the emphasis in PHX was on offense; whereas Sloan's philosophy in Utah was more balanced.

Looking at the team DEFENSIVE ratings in the years they started.....
Nash:
2001--13th
2002--25th
2003--9th
2004--26th
2005--17th
2006--16th
2007--13th
2008--16th
2009--26th
2010--23rd
2011--25th
2012--24th
2013--20th

vs. Stockton:
1988--1st
1989--1st
1990--5th
1991--6th
1992--7th
1993--13th
1994--7th
1995--8th
1996--8th
1997--9th
1998--17th
1999--7th
2000--11th
2001--12th
2002--14th
2003--15th

The chasm there is even bigger. And it's not as though Nash played with only defensive scrubs (Marion, Bell, Hill). Obv PG's generally have more influence on offense than they possibly can on defense, not denying that. Just wanting to suggest that system may influence these things, too, and also that focusing only team offensive rating to base your ranking might be a touch narrow-sighted.

And I say focusing "only" on team offensive rating because it's basically the only thing other than MVP Award Shares that Nash has a clear edge in.
Even in total awards/accolades Stockton pretty well holds his own: Nash has 2 MVP's to Stockton's 0 (though one or both of Nash's awards are questionable), and 3 All-NBA 1st Team's to Stockton's 2. But Stockton has 10 All-Stars to Nash's 8 (and Stockton would have 11, if not for the 1999 player strike---no AS game), 6 All-NBA 2nd Team's to Nash's 2, and 3 All-NBA 3rd Team's to Nash's 2.

Stockton is a significantly better defensive player, as you already noted. Stockton wins the longevity comparison. Stockton has the bigger statistical footprint.
And imo Stockton has the greater playoff presence as far as career wholes-->neither has a title, but Stockton has two finals appearances (that's two more than Nash). Stockton has 182 playoff games played vs. just 120 for Nash. Stockton has 89 playoff wins to his credit, 89-93 playoff record (.489); vs. Nash's 58 playoff wins-->58-65 (.472). And in the playoffs-->Nash 19.8 PER, .133 WS/48 in 35.7 mpg; Stockton 19.8 PER, .160 WS/48 in 35.2 mpg.

Overall, I rate Stockton higher than Nash (or if you are going to rate Nash ahead, I certainly don't think there's sufficient reason to rank him a full 6 places ahead of Stockton).

[trex_8063]

Oh, and I rank them:
Stockton
Kidd
Nash (Kidd and Nash very close, though)

[Doctor MJ]

It's basing a lot on just team offensive rating.

The thing with Nash is that his run involves him being on the single most dominant stretch of team offensive success in history while having individual +/- data that pegs him as the best of the data-savvy era. Arguments based on his lack of defense are certainly reasonable, and of course there's more than any particular offensive stat can say, but Nash's offensive impact is astonishing.

Although depending on how you look at it, it's not exactly a yawning chasm. For instance, number of years team was among the top 7 in ORtg.......Nash--10, Stockton--10. Both players proved capable of leading a #1 rated offense, too.

Stockton wasn't leading that offense though. Malone was. Malone was the one getting the accolades. Malone was the one playing the minutes. Malone was the one with superior offensive box score stats. Malone we're now seeing is the one the offense lived & died with. That's much of the point relating to the more balanced perspective on Stockton.

And as mentioned, that's still overselling Stockton's run. The reality is that he not only wasn't a #1 on a run comparable to Nash's #1 run, he wasn't on a team making such a run at all even while being the sidekick.

You'll see me say in many threads that the rebuttal to that last point is that Stockton may have only scratched the surface of his potential due to Sloan's micromanaging - I'm not trying to claim I know with a certainty what Stockton can't do - but attempting to see the two contexts here as even remotely analogous is putting one's head in the sand.

The argument for Stockton is that his two-way impact gives him the edge and/or that if he'd been used properly he'd have the edge. The argument over who actually had more offensive impact isn't one with legs.

[trex_8063]

Stockton wasn't leading that offense though. Malone was. Malone was the one getting the accolades. Malone was the one playing the minutes. Malone was the one with superior offensive box score stats. Malone we're now seeing is the one the offense lived & died with.

For the first three seasons of #1 rated offense (in Nash's career), Nash wasn't the clear leader with whom the offense lived and died with, either: Dirk was.

And as mentioned, that's still overselling Stockton's run. The reality is that he not only wasn't a #1 on a run comparable to Nash's #1 run, he wasn't on a team making such a run at all even while being the sidekick.

You'll see me say in many threads that the rebuttal to that last point is that Stockton may have only scratched the surface of his potential due to Sloan's micromanaging - I'm not trying to claim I know with a certainty what Stockton can't do - but attempting to see the two contexts here as even remotely analogous is putting one's head in the sand.

Well, I'm not saying I'm going to hang my hat on that argument, but you must admit it's a bit compelling. However......

The argument over who actually had more offensive impact isn't one with legs.

I don't believe I tried to make that argument; I merely suggested the offensive gap may not be that big.

The argument for Stockton is that his two-way impact gives him the edge

This is the argument that has some legs, imo. Considering for instance that in 2001 (post-prime, nearly twilight of his career) Stockton's Off/Def combined +/- was 5.6 (3rd in league) by one source I'm looking at, 7.0 (4th in league) by the other source. And in 2002 (twilight era Stockton), I got one source saying combined +/- at 5.7 (8th in league), another source showing RAPM of 2.2 (12th in league)/NPI RAPM at 3.0 (17th in league).........sure makes me wonder if in the late 80's/early 90's he was routinely putting up combined +/- stats that were every bit as impressive as anything Nash did.

And again, Stockton wins the longevity comparison, too. jsia......

[HeartBreakKid]

Stockton wasn't leading that offense though. Malone was. Malone was the one getting the accolades. Malone was the one playing the minutes. Malone was the one with superior offensive box score stats. Malone we're now seeing is the one the offense lived & died with.

For the first three seasons of #1 rated offense (in Nash's career), Nash wasn't the clear leader with whom the offense lived and died with, either: Dirk was.

Sure, but I think it is strange when people NEVER bring up Nash in Dallas, it's as if the dude didn't do anything there.

I think citing Nash having the #1 rated offense in Dallas is worth pointing out, because it shows consistency. It shows that with multiple teams with different attributes, one thing is usually constant, and that's Nash brings up big time offense. He did it with Dirk (as he should since Dirk is one of the offensive goats), he did it in D'Antoni's SSOL system as he should, he did it after D'Antoni left, he did it when he played with a bunch of d leaguers while Nash was past his prime (not #1 offense good, but still really good).

Nash's impact is certainly very very tangible, Stockton's is much....harder to decipher, because he played much of his career in only one system along with one player who was his clear superior while we've seen Nash with many different looks and come out strong (which is really weird why a common argument against Nash is that he is a system PG who had a stacked team, when we've seen Nash do great things with many different teammates).

[therealbig3]

I think I've got:

1. Nash
2. Stockton
3. Kidd

But as Doctor MJ said, I'm unsure about Stockton. I still think Nash was the superior player peak vs peak, but Stockton has great longevity, and there's more and more evidence that Stockton was a better player on both ends of the court than he gets credit for. Seemed to be a pretty solid impact defender, and even though subjectively, he seemed to be a bit passive as an offensive player, he was still an excellent floor general.

I don't think Stockton could do what Nash did from 05-10 as the primary offensive weapon on his team...but we saw Nash in a role similar to Stockton's from 01-04, and I don't think Nash played that role as well as Stockton.

I love Kidd's game, and I think he gets very underrated now, but Nash and Stockton were better imo. Not really going to get into the details why though, it's kind of been beaten to death.

[therealbig3]

Although, I'll also agree that I find the complaints about Stockton's team situation to be really weird, because he played his entire career with Karl Malone. And his coach was Jerry Sloan, an all-around excellent coach who is notorious for getting the most out of his PGs. A coach that cut down on ISO play and emphasized ball and player movement, as well as a heavy dose of PnR...which Stockton and Malone excelled at.

How many more pieces did the Jazz need? Sure, they could have used better scoring wings, but come on, how many teams are going to have literally everything? That was the Jazz's weakness, just like every team has some weakness that they need to overcome. I think the Jazz's top-end talent and coaching should have been able to lead them to more playoff series wins than they actually had, and for that, the Jazz deserve criticism. Is it Stockton's fault? Is it Malone's fault? Is it Sloan's fault? That's up for debate, but I think it's pretty clear that the Jazz underachieved quite a few times.

[FJS]

1 stockton
2 nash
3 kidd

[Jonny Blaze]

Kidd
Stockton
Nash

Kidd gets deservedly and undeservedly criticized for his offense, when the other traits get overlooked. People act like he was an average player when he really wasn't. Kidd at his best is a top 5 PG. Consistent triple double threat, great fast break starter, huge threat on the boards, great defender (His defense against LeBron for example) and could guard several positions, and great at setting people up (Kenyon Martin should be thanking Kidd for that contract). Kidd's biggest problem is that he didn't really have any great teams around him for most of his career. A Kidd with a dominant big (Shaq, Hakeem,) would be downright scary. Along with his weak offense but he made up for it with several things.

For most of his career Jason Kidd could not shoot an open jumper. Thats why I have him 3rd.

Kidd came back to Dallas in 2008 and the Mavs could no longer run the Dirk/Nash, Dirk/Jason Terry, Dirk/Devin Harris pick and roll that they had been killing teams with for years.

Why?

Because Jason Kidd could not hit a wide open jumper from the top of the key. He was not good at creating his own shot. Put Nash or Stockton in that same play and its almost an automatic two points because those two are superb shooters.

Kidd intangibles work great on teams that are already deep (see 2011 Mavs) but his lack of scoring ability is a detriment on a team lacking with talent.

[G35]

Kidd
Stockton
Nash

Kidd gets deservedly and undeservedly criticized for his offense, when the other traits get overlooked. People act like he was an average player when he really wasn't. Kidd at his best is a top 5 PG. Consistent triple double threat, great fast break starter, huge threat on the boards, great defender (His defense against LeBron for example) and could guard several positions, and great at setting people up (Kenyon Martin should be thanking Kidd for that contract). Kidd's biggest problem is that he didn't really have any great teams around him for most of his career. A Kidd with a dominant big (Shaq, Hakeem,) would be downright scary. Along with his weak offense but he made up for it with several things.

For most of his career Jason Kidd could not shoot an open jumper. Thats why I have him 3rd.

Kidd came back to Dallas in 2008 and the Mavs could no longer run the Dirk/Nash, Dirk/Jason Terry, Dirk/Devin Harris pick and roll that they had been killing teams with for years.

Why?

Because Jason Kidd could not hit a wide open jumper from the top of the key. He was not good at creating his own shot. Put Nash or Stockton in that same play and its almost an automatic two points because those two are superb shooters.

Kidd intangibles work great on teams that are already deep (see 2011 Mavs) but his lack of scoring ability is a detriment on a team lacking with talent.

I agree, Kidd on a team lacking talent would not win a title but it would be more competitive than Nash leading a team without talent.

Nash on those Nets teams does not go to the finals. Nash doing a pick and roll with say a Kwame Brown or Roy Hibbert is not an automatic two points.

People look at Nash and say, "Look at the great offenses!"....he played with Dirk....Amare, Marion, Joe J, and under coach's Don Nelson and Mike D'Antoni. Coach's known for playing mish mash lineups trying to gain an offensive advantage and not playing any defense.

It's like some black hole when discussing Nash where only offense is discussed and people wonder why his teams lost in the playoff's. It's not that they went up against a lot better teams, but NONE of his teams ever played great defense. I mean not one team was he a part of that was top 5 in defense.

Look at the teams left in the playoff's and their Drtg

MIA 10th
IND 1st
SAS 3rd
OKC 6th

Nash played on 8 teams that were ranked in the 20's. Twice he was a part of a top ten defensive team and one of those were when he was a back up to Jason Kidd. People can stress offense all they want to but that is the #1 reason why those Suns teams (and Maverick teams) underachieved in the playoff's. Your best player cannot be a one way player....just can't....it doesn't happen.....

[Texas Chuck]

Kidd came back to Dallas in 2008 and the Mavs could no longer run the Dirk/Nash, Dirk/Jason Terry, Dirk/Devin Harris pick and roll that they had been killing teams with for years.

Why?

Because Jason Kidd could not hit a wide open jumper from the top of the key. .

This is just flat wrong. Dallas still ran tons of Dirk/JET pick and rolls after Kidd arrived and Dallas Kidd could and did hit open jumpers including some absolutely huge 3s. You do realize Kidd has the 3rd most made 3-pointers in the history of the NBA, right? Now that hardly makes him a great shooter, but it also kills your argument that Kidd can't make shots.

Kidd's 3P% in Dallas:

08 46%
09 41%
10 43%
11 34%
12 35%

and Kidd didnt feast on corner 3's either taking well under 20% of his 3's from there and shot a worse percentage when he did. He actually shot extremely well from the top of the key.

Kidd had his offensive flaws in Dallas--mainly finishing at the rim which got so bad that he would sometimes pass up layups to kick it out, but he was absolutely a positive at that end and clearly an upgrade over Devin Harris. And Kidd didn't ever try to do those things he wasnt good at. He played within his own offensive limitations.

And Dallas was still a top 10 offense every year Kidd was there except 12 which obviously had other major issues beyond Kidd. And this with Dallas playing non-offensive players at the 2 and the 5 and Marion, mostly a garbage man at the 3. Dirk is great and obviously the biggest factor, but Kidd deserves some due. This meme that Kidd is a negative offensively is a joke. He's no Nash to be sure, but he's not George Hill either.