John Stockton or Mark Price?

[Matt15]

In their prime, which PG would you rather have in today's league?

[UDRIH14]

mp is an underrated player man...he is equivalent or better then prime nash mvp b2b

[yoyoboy]

I love me some Mark Price. One of the most underrated players in league history IMO. In 1992, he posted per 36 averages of 17.5 ppg, 7.5 apg, and 2.5 rpg in under 30 mpg of play while shooting on 61% TS; and he ran the Cavs' 2nd ranked league offense en route to 57 wins. In the playoffs, he essentially maintained his averages from the RS and led the Cavs to the ECF where they took the threepeat, 67-win Bulls to 6 games. I wish we had full RAPM or just play-by-play data from back then because there's no doubt in my mind he would've been near the top of the list.

Despite all that I'm still going with Stockton mainly because of the defensive advantage, but in general I think this is a closer matchup than a lot of people will think.

[Timmaytime]

mp is an underrated player man...he is equivalent or better then prime nash mvp b2b

I love Mark Price as much as the next guy, but saying he was better than Steve Nash is bold man...

[UDRIH14]

mp is an underrated player man...he is equivalent or better then prime nash mvp b2b

I love Mark Price as much as the next guy, but saying he was better than Steve Nash is bold man...

took jordan to 6 games, what has nash done during his prime?

[Timmaytime]

mp is an underrated player man...he is equivalent or better then prime nash mvp b2b

I love Mark Price as much as the next guy, but saying he was better than Steve Nash is bold man...

took jordan to 6 games, what has nash done during his prime?

Took Duncan and Dirk to 6 games each? and probably should have been to the finals in '07 if not for a questionable Amare suspension? Because he took a 29-53 team and turned them into a 62-20 team with one of the best offenses ever? Because he shot the ball more efficiently and set his team up better? C'mon man

[GSP]

Price would peak higher in this era for sure. I see no reason why he cant have the overall impact in the same ballpark as Nash did at his best. Skillwise theyre very identical, running the pickandroll, finding angles/openings in defenses, ballhandling through the halfcourt effortlessly, finishing insise, scoring in a variety of ways inside and out, passing/playmaking is similar tho Nash caused more havoc with creativity that was different etc.

Nash has superior overall shooting so Price prolly wont anchor as strong offenses. He could still get damn close specially if he had those Suns teams that played out of position with Marion/Amare/Diaw. From the same token he wasnt terrible like Nash on defense so i think that would cancel out.

[DirtyDez]

I love Mark Price as much as the next guy, but saying he was better than Steve Nash is bold man...

took jordan to 6 games, what has nash done during his prime?

Took Duncan and Dirk to 6 games each? and probably should have been to the finals in '07 if not for a questionable Amare suspension? Because he took a 29-53 team and turned them into a 62-20 team with one of the best offenses ever? Because he shot the ball more efficiently and set his team up better? C'mon man

The Suns beat the Mavs in 05' and Nash averaged 30/12/6 on 55/42/96.

[Tim Lehrbach]

I love Mark Price and hate John Stockton, but Price is being misconstrued here, IMO. He was not quite the proto-Nash he's made out to be. He was really, really good, but Nash was a pick-and-roll and open court genius, whereas Price was more about making his other solid scorers beneficiaries of the gravity from his scoring (and he likewise benefited from playing with other great offensive talents). Which is not to say that there's anything whatsoever wrong with the latter -- hell, it's how Curry had a top ten peak -- but Price was neither spamming his shot like Curry nor breaking down defenses to historic effect like Nash, merely returning really darn good individual and team results. I suspect Price would be an amazing player today, but I can't give him credit for what he didn't do and am accordingly unwilling to project heights he never got the chance to show he could climb.

Stockton, too, seems like a player who might well thrive in this era where more responsibility to score would be thrust upon him, but how do we just assume he could do it? There is no shortage of posts here covering Utah's offensive successes when Stockton had more or less responsibility (hint: the more he became an ordinary initiator instead of constantly running the 1-4 P&R -- the latter leading to his and Malone's greatest statistical seasons -- the better the team's offense became). Yet, side-by-side, I can't help but think he just was a slightly better player than Price at the basketball they played in their day and would adapt just as well to today's game. And it pains me because he was a total dick of a player and a real menace to honest basketball, but that too has to be accounted for and, I guess, credited to Stockton. He'd find infuriating ways to get an edge today, too. He had a head for the physical subtleties, and that's always going to have its place. He'd defend well today even without the handcheck. He also coupled being a flawless tactician of the basic play with precision passing that stayed just ahead of recovering defenders, the latter of which has never been more important than against the defensive schemes of today. But he would have to be more assertive with the jumper, and that's the biggest concern for me.

I dunno. I take Nash over both (since he's come up already), then Stockton, barely, over Price. But I am of a mind to vote Price just because I still hate Stockton after all these years.

[picc]

I love Mark Price and hate John Stockton, but Price is being misconstrued here, IMO. He was not quite the proto-Nash he's made out to be. He was really, really good, but Nash was a pick-and-roll and open court genius, whereas Price was more about making his other solid scorers beneficiaries of the gravity from his scoring (and he likewise benefited from playing with other great offensive talents). Which is not to say that there's anything whatsoever wrong with the latter -- hell, it's how Curry had a top ten peak -- but Price was neither spamming his shot like Curry nor breaking down defenses to historic effect like Nash, merely returning really darn good individual and team results. I suspect Price would be an amazing player today, but I can't give him credit for what he didn't do and am accordingly unwilling to project heights he never got the chance to show he could climb.

Yeah but nobody knew Nash was a PnR and open court genius until he was given the freedom to show us. Mark Price never got to play with the same offensive freedom that Nash got since the Cavs teams he played on ran their offense first and foremost through Brad Daugherty. Then later they started staggering Price's minutes with Terrell Brandon, in part because the way they ran their offense didn't require a ball-dominant distributor.

Its true that he never accomplished what Nash did, but it certainly wasn't for a lack of ability. He wasn't quite the same shooter Nash was, but was still very good. Around 40% from three annually, on a high number of attempts, especially for that era. Not quite as creative a passer but not a level below either. Couldn't do those reality-warping, physics-defying passes Nash would pull out of his ass sometimes, but that's only a small percentage of plays you're missing. Had the same if not better ballhandling and was a similar finisher around the rim. Price did everything on offense just a little bit worse than Nash did. But his defense was miles better, so much that Cleveland could play he and Brandon together since Mark could stick 2-guards and not get torched.

He didn't get to spam his shot or break down the defense to his content because that wasn't his role. He had a good scoring big on his team, but Daugherty was a back-down in the post player who took his sweet ass time, not an Amare or Karl Malone type where you could rack up assists knifing it to them on the PnR or in the open court. And the Cavs liked to play halfcourt anyway. Once Terrell Brandon started playing, they ran Mark off-ball since he was the better shooter. Just a lot of things going on to deflate his numbers and belie what he was really capable of.

His numbers on the Cavs were eerily similar to pre-Suns Nash, where he too was being used below his potential. And was also sharing the ball with another point (NVE) - though unlike the Cavs, Dallas ran two points together because Nellie was trying to run teams out of the gym and didn't care if one got torched.

Its absolutely reasonable to say you won't give him credit for what he didn't do, but I think its unfair to indicate he exhausted the extent of his abilities as a player, given the similarities in skillset to Nash, and what we know about how the perception of Nash changed so drastically with coaching and philosophy shifts.

Stockton, too, seems like a player who might well thrive in this era where more responsibility to score would be thrust upon him, but how do we just assume he could do it? There is no shortage of posts here covering Utah's offensive successes when Stockton had more or less responsibility (hint: the more he became an ordinary initiator instead of constantly running the 1-4 P&R -- the latter leading to his and Malone's greatest statistical seasons -- the better the team's offense became). Yet, side-by-side, I can't help but think he just was a slightly better player than Price at the basketball they played in their day and would adapt just as well to today's game. And it pains me because he was a total dick of a player and a real menace to honest basketball, but that too has to be accounted for and, I guess, credited to Stockton. He'd find infuriating ways to get an edge today, too. He had a head for the physical subtleties, and that's always going to have its place. He'd defend well today even without the handcheck. He also coupled being a flawless tactician of the basic play with precision passing that stayed just ahead of recovering defenders, the latter of which has never been more important than against the defensive schemes of today. But he would have to be more assertive with the jumper, and that's the biggest concern for me.

All good points. But this is my problem in regards to Price vs Stockton - Stockton and Price were thought of as on the same general level in the early 90's. But then I consider that Stockton was in a situation catered to his strengths, and Price was in one going away from his. Almost nobody has spent more time pounding the ball and probing around the court than John Stockton. He was an incredible passer, but there was no way he wasn't going to accumulate massive amounts of assists the way he played. And few have had a more productive recipient for their passes. John had all the time in the world to make a play, and one of the best finishers ever to help him do it.

Price was in a system that afforded him nowhere near the same production potential, and yet was still barely behind Stockton in the annual All-NBA teams. And he made first team in '93 over John anyway, in a year where the first team looked like this: Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Jordan, Price. He made 4 all-star teams on a squad that went out of its way to play against his skillset.

People talk about how the Suns' win total skyrocketed after Nash arrived. The Cavs won 33 games in '91 when Price got hurt, playing in only 16 total that year. The next year he's healthy again and they win 57. And that was with everyone else on the team healthy the year prior, unlike the Suns, who had missed both Marbury and Amare for nearly half the year the season before.

Mark Price was a classic case of unexplored talent that was so deep it came bubbling out anyway. There's no doubt in my mind given the same leeway other point guards have, he would have been thought of much differently and much more highly. That he was good enough to warrant topics like this in spite of everything is astonishing, imo.

I would just barely take Nash over Price for a Suns-style team, but I wouldn't build a Suns-style team in the first place. I think Price offers solidly more value to a less PG-reliant club, where fewer of his skills are minimized.

Price was about as scrappy as Stockton, maybe not as smart a player though. But one thing I do like is I don't think he'd be as reticent to score as John could be, given the reins were taken off. So I'd probably take him over Stockton too.

Saying all this, I understand its probably fruitless trying to statistically prove that Mark Price was on these guys' levels. Not something that could be argued extensively on a quantitative level. Still, I've seen a ton of all of them and the only difference to me is circumstances, coaching and system. I'd actually prefer him to both of them on my team, although I do understand arguments otherwise.

I also had no idea I'd be talking about Mark Price when I woke up this morning, but the opportunity is appreciated. +1 to you, and to OP for starting the topic.

[FJS]

I'm biased, but I think John is the answer. He was not as good shooter as Mark, but he was pretty good by himself, and his peak in scoring it's near to Mark, with similar %fg.
John was better in passing, and altough he had Malone, he shared a lot of game time with players like Hansen, Iavaroni, Eaton, Rudd, Edwards to name a few in his peak. Price was playing with Nance, Daugherty, Elho for example.
Then, there's a margin in deffense.
Stockton would give more worries deffending (even with his dirty tricks) to the pg of today, in my opinion, and I think he could score more than he did. He scored 13.4 ppg with 39 years in 2002 when he did not surprass 12.0 since 97. Only because this year his team needed him to score more.

[Ron Swanson]

Lol at Mark Price being even or surpassing peak-Nash in terms of offense based on Nash's pre-Suns numbers. Even if you think those back-to-back MVP years were overrated because of his poor defense, peak-Nash (2004-2007) was basically the GOAT in terms of offensive PG production in the modern era (basically 19/11/4/1 on 63% TS). You could give Price the slight edge defensively but that's about it.

Stockton by a good margin here. Price was stylistically closer to Curry than he was to Stockton or Nash, as you could argue he was a better pure shooter, but not nearly as masterful in the pick & roll as either of those two guys.

[Texas Chuck]

The Suns beat the Mavs in 05' and Nash averaged 30/12/6 on 55/42/96.

I thought we all agreed never to speak of this again.

The ultimate stick it to a team series maybe ever. And as absurd as those numbers are they really don't even do justice to how much Nash dominated that series.

[Texas Chuck]

His numbers on the Cavs were eerily similar to pre-Suns Nash, where he too was being used below his potential. And was also sharing the ball with another point (NVE) - though unlike the Cavs, Dallas ran two points together because Nellie was trying to run teams out of the gym and didn't care if one got torched.

I

the idea that Nash wasn't an elite offensive PG in Dallas or that he wasn't given freedom to run PNR is just well incorrect. The Nash/Dirk PNR was a staple of the Dallas offense and as unstoppable as any action in the league. Yes NVE played a lot of minutes because he was clearly the 4th best player on the Mavs and as you say Nellie is going to play scorers. But Nash was very effective with NVE.

The issue came the next year when they traded NVE for Jamison and Rafe for Walker. Nellie insisted on starting the year running the offense through Walker a lot because he always loved point forwards. But 2004 isn't representative of Nash' tenure in Dallas by any means. Elite offense were the order of the day and Nash was a huge part of that.

The single biggest issue holding Nash back in Dallas was Steve Nash. He didn't work hard enough. He partied a lot and was into dating supermodels and going out. He was never remotely in the kind of shape he got himself into when Cuban chose not to pay him. But the idea that Don freaking Nelson didn't know how to use Steve Nash is just silly.

MDA obviously used him well, maybe even better, tho I think a much larger key is the cast fit him better. Dirk benefited from Nash, but didn't need him to the degree the Suns guys did. Dirk could get his own far better than Amare/Marion/Richardson etc. So Nash was able to lift those players better.

[Joao Saraiva]

John Stockton for me. When needed to score he showed to be at least close to Mark Price.

He's one of the best playmakers ever. He can compete with Magic for the better playmaker, and while Price was good he was not in that category. Not even close.

Better in PnR situations, better in the open court.

Better defender for sure.

I think people might be underrating Stockton here.

[Quotatious]

Stockton is at least as good offensively and clearly better defensively, so he was certainly better overall. Price was excellent, often forgotten/overlooked/underrated, but Stockton is one of the top 5 PGs of all-time career wise.

[lorak]

I disagree Stockton was at least as good offensively. One of his biggest flaw was creating own shot and Price is better than him here as well as he is better shooter and at least at the same level as playmaker.

[JustNBATingz]

Stock due to longevity, defense, better play-making and the clutch factor

[PDX MM]

I would take Stockton and it wouldn't even be a close pick IMO.

[picc]

the idea that Nash wasn't an elite offensive PG in Dallas or that he wasn't given freedom to run PNR is just well incorrect. The Nash/Dirk PNR was a staple of the Dallas offense and as unstoppable as any action in the league. Yes NVE played a lot of minutes because he was clearly the 4th best player on the Mavs and as you say Nellie is going to play scorers. But Nash was very effective with NVE.

I don't remember saying any of that.

The issue came the next year when they traded NVE for Jamison and Rafe for Walker. Nellie insisted on starting the year running the offense through Walker a lot because he always loved point forwards. But 2004 isn't representative of Nash' tenure in Dallas by any means. Elite offense were the order of the day and Nash was a huge part of that.

The single biggest issue holding Nash back in Dallas was Steve Nash. He didn't work hard enough. He partied a lot and was into dating supermodels and going out. He was never remotely in the kind of shape he got himself into when Cuban chose not to pay him. But the idea that Don freaking Nelson didn't know how to use Steve Nash is just silly.

This either.

MDA obviously used him well, maybe even better, tho I think a much larger key is the cast fit him better. Dirk benefited from Nash, but didn't need him to the degree the Suns guys did. Dirk could get his own far better than Amare/Marion/Richardson etc. So Nash was able to lift those players better.

That's fine and all, but all I said was he wasn't being used to his potential. Of course an all-star point guard got to run PnR and orchestrate fastbreaks on a Don Nelson team. If it sounded like I was saying otherwise, like they were running the triangle or something, that was a miscommunication.

But I don't feel like its nutty to assert that a guy who was an all-star on one team and a multiple MVP on another got to strut his stuff more on the latter. He raised his ppg average in Phoenix, his assist numbers skyrocketed, public sentiment changed radically... I mean, Its blatantly obvious in order to extract the totality of his talent, he needs autonomous control of an offense built specifically around him, and he wasn't getting that in Dallas.

Tbh, I don't care at all that he wasn't given total control of the Mavs, and I don't think it would have made them better if he was. He was probably used to the full extent he could be while not diminishing Dirk. Understood.

Just stating the reality of the situation. Steve Nash wasn't "Steve Nash" as we know him until he got the keys with no other drivers - fact. Until then, he was just a very good offensive player many never paid attention to, on a team with another guy who people did. Partying and banging supermodels probably didn't help but its all but irrelevant in the grand scheme of what we know.

That's really the main difference between he and Mark Price.

....

I'm talking about the banging supermodels, in case that wasn't clear. Mark never let that stuff affect his game.