RealGM Top 100 List: #21

[Bad Gatorade]

For those voting for Stockton, I like to ask a question. For his 20 years in the league, what did he accomplished to warrant being higher than Wade? Stockton didn't win any MVP, never came close to a Top 5 in MVP winshare. Didn't win any title. Only 2x all NBA 1st. Those resume fell short of Wade despite his short prime. Basically he voted #21 for playing really long, accumulating career stat rather than based on major accomplishment and impact ratio.

To be absolutely fair, Wade also never won an MVP, and he also comes up rather underwhelming in MVP award shares for a guy of his calibre. Each of them had mitigating circumstances preventing them from receiving more MVP voting attention (Wade had team success, Stockton had Malone usurping the plaudits). Really, MVP awards/shares are a metric that denote media perception at the time, rather than actually assessing how these guys played. In Wade's era, MVP voting is essentially worthless in assessing playing value. There's some inherent value pre-1997, where play-by-play didn't really exist (and MVP voting can be a minor supplement to other analysis) but it's a metric that shouldn't override other, better metrics.

After all, let's not vote Rose in because of his MVP shares, right?

Wade was also only 2x all NBA 1st team, and accrued fewer total selections than Stockton, so this actually favours Stockton (although, much like MVP shares, it's highly dubious in its usage).

FWIW, Wade's prime (2006-2011, sans 2008) is truly elite, and this type of play presents a very clear top 20 argument for him. But quite frankly, even a metric like VORP (which actually places Wade's career value a bit higher than impact metrics do) only places his accumulated season value in the top 10 four times. BPM only does so 6 times (thanks to the 2007 and 2012 injuries). NPI RAPM only places him in the top 10 five times, and that's not even dismissing borderline results - outside of these 5 seasons, his NPI RAPM isn't anywhere near the top 10. Note - PI is a better stat than NPI, but seasons like 2008 show a lot of distortion for some of these years.

Meanwhile, many metrics paint Stockton as a top 10 player for quite a long time. His accumulated career value is insane. He peaked lower, but he was a real good player for a real long time, and that's a different type of value that also increases championship odds quite a bit. He was an all star quality player (whether or not he was playing high minutes) for 16 years. That is a long time.

Now, it's perfectly ok to rank Wade above Stockton, because there's a very clear criteria (prime) where a reasonable case can be made. Wade's 4 best seasons (2006, 2009-2011) were amazing, and it's pretty hard to make a case that Stockton was better. So, if one values these seasons high enough to take Wade over Stockton, that's ok. It's a clear criteria, it's defensible, and there's a case to be made that higher peak seasons do more for championship odds than a lower quality, but more extended prime. The weighting of peak/prime vs longevity isn't easy.

But, ranking Stockton over Wade is just as defensible, IMO. After all, Wade's best was better, but I'd say that Stockton probably provided a greater volume of high-quality play than Wade did, and heck, although it might be easier for a high peak player to win a title within a single season, there's an argument that high level longevity (e.g. being an all star level player for 16 years) actually gives a player more chances to contribute to a ring! Think of a guy like Dirk - the Mavs were in contention for a long time, despite a rotating door of supporting casts, because Dirk was great for a long time. It gives a team lots of chances to build alongside its star players. And that's something that's definitely worth valuing highly. How much should everybody value them? Honestly, people can value them as much as they choose to, and that's perfectly ok.

Two completely different types of career value here, and both are worthy of being compared to one another.

[mischievous]

. And it's not like his peak and prime are that far away from D. Wade.

I kind of already illustrated that they are in fact not that close in prime, and especially not peak.

If Stockton's longevity means so much to some of you, I don't get what's stopping him from going even higher.

[Senior]

Those of you using formulas - can you post the formulas in these threads? Posting the final result of a formula means nothing to me without knowing what you value and how much you value them. Might as well just say "Stockton is better than Nash because I think he was better".

[dhsilv2]

. And it's not like his peak and prime are that far away from D. Wade.

I kind of already illustrated that they are in fact not that close in prime, and especially not peak.

If Stockton's longevity means so much to some of you, I don't get what's stopping him from going even higher.

What about say using something like VORP? Heavily weights great seasons over ok/good ones, but values longevity if you are consistently well above replacement. Stockton runs in right at 18, push a few of the 60's players above him, and the stat seems to have him right in where people are ranking him. VS say a WS which values longevity much more so than high peaks (ranks him 5th). Just a though and using a rather common stat everyone has seen and knows.

[mischievous]

Those of you using formulas - can you post the formulas in these threads? Posting the final result of a formula means nothing to me without knowing what you value and how much you value them. Might as well just say "Stockton is better than Nash because I think he was better".

Not only this, I don't know how anyone can go by just a formula and not use the eye test at all.

[Joao Saraiva]

Those of you using formulas - can you post the formulas in these threads? Posting the final result of a formula means nothing to me without knowing what you value and how much you value them. Might as well just say "Stockton is better than Nash because I think he was better".

I've posted it before.

Btw I'll say it again, I don't follow it 100%. I understand numbers need context. But I trust it on tiers.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here

[THKNKG]

Vote:
1. Steve Nash
2. Chris Paul

Long story short, I'm not convinced of Pettit or Stockton's impact matching these guys. Pettit often was overshadowed by his own teammate in the playoffs, and I have not yet been convinced that he could elevate his play to the heights Nash and Paul did.

[Senior]

Those of you using formulas - can you post the formulas in these threads? Posting the final result of a formula means nothing to me without knowing what you value and how much you value them. Might as well just say "Stockton is better than Nash because I think he was better".

I've posted it before.

Btw I'll say it again, I don't follow it 100%. I understand numbers need context. But I trust it on tiers.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here

Thanks for the info.

I noticed that you used the best 5 statistical years for prime. Stockton was putting up about 14 APG in those years whereas Nash topped out at around 12. That and steals seem to be the major statistical difference between the two, and it's compounded by multiplying by 2. Stockton was a superior defender by far so no issues there.

My question is why should Stockton's assist advantage be treated as if he was X assists better than Nash? Both guys are in the upper echelon of playmakers, but Nash's chosen 5 years have him at around 11 APG whereas Stockton's have him closer to 14 APG. Representing the 2-3 assist difference as if that was the separation between Nash and Stockton as floor generals isn't justifiable because assists tend to be a function of the systems a player is in, not their capacity as a PG. When I watch Stockton and Nash play, both guys make amazing decisions, both guys have no problems getting the ball where it needs to go, and both guys get the ball to the right people at the right time.

And when I consider that Nash was the superior shooter, more willing to use his scoring skills to get baskets when his team needed it, and just as good as Stockton was otherwise...it's hard for me not to take him over Stock despite the longevity difference.

I see the case for Stockton all time, but it's on defense...which the formula doesn't really represent.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #128 (24 votes, requiring 13 for outright majority):

John Stockton - 8 (Doctor MJ, Dr Positivity, Hornet Mania, Joao Saraiva, LABird, pandrade83, RCM88x, trex_8063)
George Mikan - 6 (penbeast0, wojoaderge, Winsome Gerbil, oldschooled, janmagn, JoeMalburg)
Dwyane Wade - 4 (2klegend, mischievous, twolves97, JordansBulls)
Bob Pettit - 2 (Pablo Novi, scabbarista)
Chris Paul - 1 (Bad Gatorade)
Kevin Durant - 1 (andrewww)
Steve Nash - 1 (micahclay)
Elgin Baylor -1 (Outside)

@ euroleague - check your PM's later tonight.

So with the fewest 1st votes, Paul/Nash/Baylor/Durant are all eliminated; two votes transfer to Stockton, the other two become ghost votes (one having been for Paul, one having been for Curry).

Stockton - 10
Mikan - 6
Wade - 4
Pettit -2

So Pettit is eliminated; both votes become ghost votes (having been for Cousy and Havlicek). Wade is next eliminated; one vote transfers to Stockton, the other three are ghost votes (two having been for Pettit, one for Paul).

Stockton - 11
Mikan - 6

Stockton is the default winner (and fwiw, two of Mikan's votes would have transferred to John, giving him the 13 for majority). Will have the next thread up shortly.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Joao Saraiva]

Those of you using formulas - can you post the formulas in these threads? Posting the final result of a formula means nothing to me without knowing what you value and how much you value them. Might as well just say "Stockton is better than Nash because I think he was better".

I've posted it before.

Btw I'll say it again, I don't follow it 100%. I understand numbers need context. But I trust it on tiers.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here

Thanks for the info.

I noticed that you used the best 5 statistical years for prime. Stockton was putting up about 14 APG in those years whereas Nash topped out at around 12. That and steals seem to be the major statistical difference between the two, and it's compounded by multiplying by 2. Stockton was a superior defender by far so no issues there.

My question is why should Stockton's assist advantage be treated as if he was X assists better than Nash? Both guys are in the upper echelon of playmakers, but Nash's chosen 5 years have him at around 11 APG whereas Stockton's have him closer to 14 APG. Representing the 2-3 assist difference as if that was the separation between Nash and Stockton as floor generals isn't justifiable because assists tend to be a function of the systems a player is in, not their capacity as a PG. When I watch Stockton and Nash play, both guys make amazing decisions, both guys have no problems getting the ball where it needs to go, and both guys get the ball to the right people at the right time.

And when I consider that Nash was the superior shooter, more willing to use his scoring skills to get baskets when his team needed it, and just as good as Stockton was otherwise...it's hard for me not to take him over Stock despite the longevity difference.

I see the case for Stockton all time, but it's on defense...which the formula doesn't really represent.

Numbers are just numbers, they are there and it should be done how you did it. With context.

I disagree largely on somethings you say.
- Stockton's longevity isn't enough to surpass Nash. Actually, the gap there is gigantic. It's not a bit more longevity or adding trash years, it's definitely a big diference on high impact seasons. Actually defining the prime as 5 years might hurt Stockton, who had a larger prime;

- You're making it seem like Stockton couldn't score as much as Nash. Looking at their best seasons on PPG. As much as that's true, it's not like Nash is in another tier in that regard. Stockton peaked at 17.2 PPG while Nash peaked at 18.8. The gap is definitely not big enough.

In the playoffs Stockton is arround 20 PPG on 4 seasons (one almost at 30 PPG but it was only one round). Nash has a bit more of them (5) but it's not like there is a major gap there.

- As playmakers it's not about the number of assists. Stockton put up tremendous numbers on Jazz teams that had no spacing at all. He had players like Bailey, Eaton, Bob Hansen all playing big minutes in the lineups and he delivered. Our offense actually was good because of Stockton in the late 80s and early 90s. With a bunch of bad scorers Stockton made wonders to our offense. That's often overlooked. Sure he had Karl Malone but come on... Nash had Dirk, Stoudemire, Marion, etc. and usually much better offensive support. I'm more impressed with STockton's playmaking, and I'd definitely put him up there with Magic for the best playmakers of all time. Feel free to disagree, but that's how I feel about it.

- On defense the gap is large, and fortunately steals cover up for that, and DBPM too (both are negative and it happens a lot, doesn't mean they're negatives on the defensive side... but Nash's numbers are definitely worse than Stockton's). I believe the formula doesn't even show how big the gap is on the defensive end... so that actually helps Stockton a lot.

- Nash being a better shooter is correct. But then again, scoring is what Nash has over Stockton. But let's not act like the gap is big again. When Stockton was scoring the highest PPGs of his career he constantly flirted with 60ts%. And on similar volume to prime NAsh. When Stockton reduced his role he did score constantly flirting with 65ts%. Those are elite numbers.

I really think some people don't appreciate how good Stockton was as a floor general. I get the MVPs and that, and it's included on the formula by a awards board. But it's still not enough, even tough that's where Nash has the advantage over Stockton.

[Pablo Novi]

.

Am quoting Pablo here, too, as he'd sort of asked about this.

1st Vote: Dwayne Wade
I am not sure what to do with my alternate as I have Curry (don't kill me before you hear my reasoning) next on my list but nobody is voting for him. My next choice would be Stockton and he is gaining traction here so I'm not sure if I should put him or Curry. Voting for Stockton kinda feels like cheating tho. Trex let me know what to do pls thx

Yeah, it's a definite grey area. The way I kind of look at it is like this:
Suppose your honest choice for your 1st (or 2nd) vote is Player A.....but Player A has absolutely no traction or support from the rest of the field (and perhaps doesn't show much sign of gaining support any time soon). And also suppose that of the players who are developing a little bit of buzz/discussion (and/or votes), the one among them that you rank the highest is Player B.....I would not object to you using your vote for Player B in that instance (even though you personally rank Player A ahead of him).

For example, I don't think Bob Cousy is going to get any serious support any time soon. So I'd hate, for example, to see Pablo Novi get frustrated casting his vote for Cousy for the next 30-40 threads straight. So I'd not have any problem at all if he decided to go one or two players further down on his personal list to the next player who IS generating a little buzz, and casting a vote for that.


To me, that's a little different than conniving manipulation. True manipulation would involve thinking along the lines of: "Well, I really don't like Player C" (who has a lot of support) "and don't want to see him voted in yet.....so I'll vote for Player B because he seems to have the best chance of beating Player C." (even though there are other players----who DO have buzz/traction----you rank ahead of Player B)


I realize the line between these two things can be somewhat blurry at times. Just use your best judgment, and I'll advise as best as I can if asked.


I would say if Curry is your honest feeling for the alternate, I'm going to advise making him your official 2nd pick (he is already getting discussion, if not votes; so he's likely not far from having some traction in the project).

Since my 1st vote is likely to go to Stockton, I must admit I'm reluctant to offer any OTHER advice as that might look like I'm colluding to get the result I want .

trex,
Thanx for taking the time & effort to spell this out.
It's pretty weird for me. Of all the players remaining, Cousy is both my highest ranked AND the one I care the least about. imo, he was the #3 PG of all time (after Magic & "O" - and treating Jerry West as a SG). He's tied for THE highest ranking remaining player in terms of ALL-NBA 1st-Team (with 10, along with Elgin Baylor & Bob Pettit) (and if we include 2nd-Team selections - he's the #1 remaining player) and even though I penalize him significantly for most of his greatness playing out in the 1950's - he still comes in 4th of the remaining players (after Baylor, Pettit & Rick Barry - all of whom I liked a good deal more than Cousy).

I've said before in these threads that I attended a number of Celtics' games in the mid-1960s at the Gaaaden - and the racist nastiness of the fans towards even the great Bill Russell - just killed my love for that team. So, fighting for Cousy over everybody else is not easy for me - still, I DO think he's the best remaining player, vis-à-vis his own position, PG - and we've only picked two so far - so this is overdue.

[trex_8063]

Been updating as much as I can. Gotta tell you I didn't study Petit much. With Mikan it's a matter of longevity, that makes him not be nearly as on top as you'd expect. I can make my rank of him if that's interesting.

Mikan, Pettit, maybe even Arizin and Cousy should be looked at, yes.

What penbeast said.
In fact, if your criteria is largely formula-based, I'm going to require that you run those guys thru your formula (as this is supposed be the greatest NBA/ABA/BAA/(NBL where Mikan is concerned) players of all-time) as soon as possible; highest priority on Pettit (imo), who is definitely worthy of consideration at this point.

I'd also bring up Dolph Schayes as someone who needs to be run thru the formula, and probably Neil Johnston at some point, too.

[Joao Saraiva]

Been updating as much as I can. Gotta tell you I didn't study Petit much. With Mikan it's a matter of longevity, that makes him not be nearly as on top as you'd expect. I can make my rank of him if that's interesting.

Mikan, Pettit, maybe even Arizin and Cousy should be looked at, yes.

What penbeast said.
In fact, if your criteria is largely formula-based, I'm going to require that you run those guys thru your formula (as this is supposed be the greatest NBA/ABA/BAA/(NBL where Mikan is concerned) players of all-time) as soon as possible; highest priority on Pettit (imo), who is definitely worthy of consideration at this point.

I'd also bring up Dolph Schayes as someone who needs to be run thru the formula, and probably Neil Johnston at some point, too.

I wouldn't say my criteria is that largely based on my formula. I waited a ton of spots to put Karl Malone in, I voted Kobe earlier than my formula suggests...

I think I've explained my votes quite fairly besides my formula. Even on the Stockton vs Nash debate.

Dwight Howard is not that far according to my formula but I'll put quite a few guys above him too.

The formula is more like a guidance about tiers.

But yes I'll update those guys. I'll start with Mikan, Pettit and Scottie Pippen. It's also not impossible that I vote for someone who is not included if I don't have the time to update it all. I've done that before.

[2klegend]

For those voting for Stockton, I like to ask a question. For his 20 years in the league, what did he accomplished to warrant being higher than Wade? Stockton didn't win any MVP, never came close to a Top 5 in MVP winshare. Didn't win any title. Only 2x all NBA 1st. Those resume fell short of Wade despite his short prime. Basically he voted #21 for playing really long, accumulating career stat rather than based on major accomplishment and impact ratio.

To be absolutely fair, Wade also never won an MVP, and he also comes up rather underwhelming in MVP award shares for a guy of his calibre. Each of them had mitigating circumstances preventing them from receiving more MVP voting attention (Wade had team success, Stockton had Malone usurping the plaudits). Really, MVP awards/shares are a metric that denote media perception at the time, rather than actually assessing how these guys played. In Wade's era, MVP voting is essentially worthless in assessing playing value. There's some inherent value pre-1997, where play-by-play didn't really exist (and MVP voting can be a minor supplement to other analysis) but it's a metric that shouldn't override other, better metrics.

After all, let's not vote Rose in because of his MVP shares, right?

Wade was also only 2x all NBA 1st team, and accrued fewer total selections than Stockton, so this actually favours Stockton (although, much like MVP shares, it's highly dubious in its usage).

FWIW, Wade's prime (2006-2011, sans 2008) is truly elite, and this type of play presents a very clear top 20 argument for him. But quite frankly, even a metric like VORP (which actually places Wade's career value a bit higher than impact metrics do) only places his accumulated season value in the top 10 four times. BPM only does so 6 times (thanks to the 2007 and 2012 injuries). NPI RAPM only places him in the top 10 five times, and that's not even dismissing borderline results - outside of these 5 seasons, his NPI RAPM isn't anywhere near the top 10. Note - PI is a better stat than NPI, but seasons like 2008 show a lot of distortion for some of these years.

Meanwhile, many metrics paint Stockton as a top 10 player for quite a long time. His accumulated career value is insane. He peaked lower, but he was a real good player for a real long time, and that's a different type of value that also increases championship odds quite a bit. He was an all star quality player (whether or not he was playing high minutes) for 16 years. That is a long time.

Now, it's perfectly ok to rank Wade above Stockton, because there's a very clear criteria (prime) where a reasonable case can be made. Wade's 4 best seasons (2006, 2009-2011) were amazing, and it's pretty hard to make a case that Stockton was better. So, if one values these seasons high enough to take Wade over Stockton, that's ok. It's a clear criteria, it's defensible, and there's a case to be made that higher peak seasons do more for championship odds than a lower quality, but more extended prime. The weighting of peak/prime vs longevity isn't easy.

But, ranking Stockton over Wade is just as defensible, IMO. After all, Wade's best was better, but I'd say that Stockton probably provided a greater volume of high-quality play than Wade did, and heck, although it might be easier for a high peak player to win a title within a single season, there's an argument that high level longevity (e.g. being an all star level player for 16 years) actually gives a player more chances to contribute to a ring! Think of a guy like Dirk - the Mavs were in contention for a long time, despite a rotating door of supporting casts, because Dirk was great for a long time. It gives a team lots of chances to build alongside its star players. And that's something that's definitely worth valuing highly. How much should everybody value them? Honestly, people can value them as much as they choose to, and that's perfectly ok.

Two completely different types of career value here, and both are worthy of being compared to one another.

It's pretty much about sticking around longer to collect accumulated stat. There is certainly some argument to be made for player with good health and low injury risk playing style contribute to the team being good but less likely to win a championship. Wade is the opposite. His game and style is a high risk, high reward type. His 7 best seasons offer the team higher chance of winning titles than Stockston 7 best. However if team looking to make the playoff every year but not in contention, then Stockton +18 years longevity can provide that.

At this point, I expect people who value longevity at a higher percentage than peak/prime, please be consistent!.

[monojoli]

i personally like Stockton

[WestGOAT]

Stockton over Wade, I thought I liked longevity, but this is going overboard

This guy got consistently out-played in the playoffs by the likes of Kevin Johnson and Terry Porter (great PGs in their own right), are you seriously telling me if you would rather have him instead of Wade leading your team in the playoffs?

Completely agree with poster below

It's pretty much about sticking around longer to collect accumulated stat. There is certainly some argument to be made for player with good health and low injury risk playing style contribute to the team being good but less likely to win a championship. Wade is the opposite. His game and style is a high risk, high reward type. His 7 best seasons offer the team higher chance of winning titles than Stockston 7 best. However if team looking to make the playoff every year but not in contention, then Stockton +18 years longevity can provide that.

At this point, I expect people who value longevity at a higher percentage than peak/prime, please be consistent!.

[trex_8063]

Stockton over Wade, I thought I liked longevity, but this is going overboard

This guy got consistently out-played in the playoffs by the likes of Kevin Johnson and Terry Porter (great PGs in their own right), are you seriously telling me if you would rather have him instead of Wade leading your team in the playoffs?

I think a lot of people were basically of the mindset that they'd [marginally] take the ~16 "Stockton-level good-to-elite" seasons over the ~9 "Wade-level good-to-elite" years (some of which contained significant missed games).

wrt to "consistently outplayed in the playoffs by.....KJ and Terry Porter"; below are the boxes from each time he met either of them in the playoffs during his prime......

'88 WCSF
Stockton: 20.0 ppg, 5.25 rpg, 12.0 apg, 2.25 spg, 5.5 topg, 67.5% TS
Porter: 17.0 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 7.0 apg, 2.5 spg, 3.25 topg, 58.9% TS

'90 WC 1st Rd
Stockton: 15.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 15.0 apg, 1.2 spg, 2.8 topg, 48.2% TS
Johnson: 19.8 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 9.2 apg, 0.8 spg, 4.4 topg, 49.2% TS

'91 WC 1st Rd
Stockton: 18.0 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 12.75 apg, 1.5 spg, 4.5 topg, 71.0% TS
Johnson: 12.75 ppg, 3.25 rpg, 9.75 apg, 0.5 spg, 3.0 topg, 38.5% TS

'91 WCSF
Stockton: 18.4 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 14.6 apg, 2.8 spg, 2.8 topg, 60.0% TS
Porter: 22.2 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 6.8 apg, 1.8 spg, 2.2 topg, 62.9% TS

'92 WCF
Stockton: 14.3 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 11.2 apg, 1.3 spg, 3.3 topg, 53.5% TS
Porter: 26.0 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 8.3 apg, 1.0 spg, 1.3 topg, 72.4% TS


I see precisely one series [of five] where he was notably out-played by one of them.

[WestGOAT]

First, I appreciate you putting your time in your post and replying to me in to this old thread.

wrt to "consistently outplayed in the playoffs by.....KJ and Terry Porter"; below are the boxes from each time he met either of them in the playoffs during his prime......
I see precisely one series [of five] where he was notably out-played by one of them.

I admit it's not as bad as I imagined, but his teams got eliminated in these series because he wasn't a big enough scoring threat and lacked impact in that aspect. You have to ask your self how much weight you should put in raw assist numbers. Players that command double-teams straight off the bat because they are intimidating, like Curry, are under-appreciated in that regard because they generate so many hockey assists from 4 on 3 situations. Whereas players like Rondo and Westbrook rack up assist numbers because of their ball dominance. Which type of player really has the bigger type of impact? I think a good measure would be looking at their team TS%. So in this case:

'90 WC 1st Rd
Overall series TS%
Suns TS%: .555
Jazz TS%: .518

The Jazz lost by two points in game 5.

Kevin Johnson had 26 points on 11/22 shooting and went 4/7 FTs.
Stockton had 9 points on 3/11 shooting and went 3/4 FTs.

Stockton had 17 assists though compared to KJs 9. But were the Jazz really better offensively?
Sun TS%: .609
Jazz TS%: .493

Again the question, what is the value of assists generated by one player if it doesn't lead to higher team TS%?
Despite this the Jazz only lost by two points? Can you really argue for an offensive perimeter player (point-guard at that) that only has 9 points in an elimination game?

'91 WCSF
Overall series TS%
Portland TS%: .548
Jazz TS%: .535

Stockton had a 60.0% TS like you mentioned. If you are so efficient as scoring, why not look for your own shot? I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but what's the true value of all these assists as one player? The total team assists for the Jazz in the series was +7 compared to Portland, which is 1.4 per game

'92 WCF
I don't think I need to go in detail here

The fact is Jazz was 1-2 against Portland, and 1-1 against the Suns in those series, and looking at the bigger picture never made the finals in this period. With Wade as your primary ball-handler, being such a huge scoring threat and drawing double teams you don't think the Jazz don't do better in these series?

Also forgot to mention Kenny Smith.. I mean Stockton didn't get out-played either, but he didn't outshine Kenny in either. It's another mark against Stockton in the playoffs.

I think a lot of people were basically of the mindset that they'd [marginally] take the ~16 "Stockton-level good-to-elite" seasons over the ~9 "Wade-level good-to-elite" years (some of which contained significant missed games).

See this is the thing, Wade has simply more elite seasons than Stockton, despite the latter having more "good" seasons. And when I'm talking about elite I'm talking about MVP-calibre seasons. And for guards like Stockton and Wade it is about dominating the game on the offensive end by being a number #1 option. Stockton never proved he was capable of that. Wade has proven he can put up 34.7 / 7.8 / 3.8 with a .572 TS% on the biggest stage.

In the end it doesn't make sense how people prefer Stockton despite having such limited impact in the playoffs compared to someone like Wade.

I've gone to old threads like below in the mean time:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1342635&start=180
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1343477&start=200
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1425139

And also read Elgee's analysis http://www.backpicks.com/2018/01/25/backpicks-goat-25-john-stockton/

And both highlight Stockton's faults very well, so I'm happy to see it's not only me thinking Wade > Stockton. In fact the top 100 of 2014 listing had Wade higher. I know there were most likely different posters, but it doesn't make sense how Stockton can jump 5 spots, with Wade actually playing more additional years (adding to his own longevity).

[iggymcfrack]

I would have Wade over Stockton, but I also would have had Stockton ahead of several people that went early to the point I'd have him ranked higher than this. He was actually an incredibly impactful player. If you look at some of the forerunner impact stats before play-by-play data he was one of the very most impactful players in the league on par with a LeBron. And for the late years we do have play-by-play data, he was a very impactful and positive defender even into his late 30s and early 40s. He has a legit argument as the greatest defensive PG of all-time. There's a reason he's the all-time steals king by a massive margin and it's not just longevity. He was a disruptor without having to gamble. All in all, I've gained a lot of respect for Stockton's game over time as I've looked at more data. Of the players voted ahead of him, I'd say he should be ranked ahead of:

Moses Malone
Charles Barkley
Julius Erving
Jerry West
Karl Malone
Oscar Robertson
Kobe Bryant
Larry Bird

(And yes, I realize I'm very much in the minority on the last three. )

[Owly]

First, I appreciate you putting your time in your post and replying to me in to this old thread.

wrt to "consistently outplayed in the playoffs by.....KJ and Terry Porter"; below are the boxes from each time he met either of them in the playoffs during his prime......
I see precisely one series [of five] where he was notably out-played by one of them.

I admit it's not as bad as I imagined, but his teams got eliminated in these series because he wasn't a big enough scoring threat and lacked impact in that aspect. You have to ask your self how much weight you should put in raw assist numbers. Players that command double-teams straight off the bat because they are intimidating, like Curry, are under-appreciated in that regard because they generate so many hockey assists from 4 on 3 situations. Whereas players like Rondo and Westbrook rack up assist numbers because of their ball dominance. Which type of player really has the bigger type of impact? I think a good measure would be looking at their team TS%. So in this case:

'90 WC 1st Rd
Overall series TS%
Suns TS%: .555
Jazz TS%: .518

The Jazz lost by two points in game 5.

Kevin Johnson had 26 points on 11/22 shooting and went 4/7 FTs.
Stockton had 9 points on 3/11 shooting and went 3/4 FTs.

Stockton had 17 assists though compared to KJs 9. But were the Jazz really better offensively?
Sun TS%: .609
Jazz TS%: .493

Again the question, what is the value of assists generated by one player if it doesn't lead to higher team TS%?
Despite this the Jazz only lost by two points? Can you really argue for an offensive perimeter player (point-guard at that) that only has 9 points in an elimination game?

'91 WCSF
Overall series TS%
Portland TS%: .548
Jazz TS%: .535

Stockton had a 60.0% TS like you mentioned. If you are so efficient as scoring, why not look for your own shot? I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but what's the true value of all these assists as one player? The total team assists for the Jazz in the series was +7 compared to Portland, which is 1.4 per game

'92 WCF
I don't think I need to go in detail here

The fact is Jazz was 1-2 against Portland, and 1-1 against the Suns in those series, and looking at the bigger picture never made the finals in this period. With Wade as your primary ball-handler, being such a huge scoring threat and drawing double teams you don't think the Jazz don't do better in these series?

Also forgot to mention Kenny Smith.. I mean Stockton didn't get out-played either, but he didn't outshine Kenny in either. It's another mark against Stockton in the playoffs.

I think a lot of people were basically of the mindset that they'd [marginally] take the ~16 "Stockton-level good-to-elite" seasons over the ~9 "Wade-level good-to-elite" years (some of which contained significant missed games).

See this is the thing, Wade has simply more elite seasons than Stockton, despite the latter having more "good" seasons. And when I'm talking about elite I'm talking about MVP-calibre seasons. And for guards like Stockton and Wade it is about dominating the game on the offensive end by being a number #1 option. Stockton never proved he was capable of that. Wade has proven he can put up 34.7 / 7.8 / 3.8 with a .572 TS% on the biggest stage.

In the end it doesn't make sense how people prefer Stockton despite having such limited impact in the playoffs compared to someone like Wade.

I've gone to old threads like below in the mean time:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1342635&start=180
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1343477&start=200
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1425139

And also read Elgee's analysis http://www.backpicks.com/2018/01/25/backpicks-goat-25-john-stockton/

And both highlight Stockton's faults very well, so I'm happy to see it's not only me thinking Wade > Stockton. In fact the top 100 of 2014 listing had Wade higher. I know there were most likely different posters, but it doesn't make sense how Stockton can jump 5 spots, with Wade actually playing more additional years (adding to his own longevity).

"Not as bad as [you] imagined" ...

I see exactly one series in which he was outplayed. At all. The turnover gap vs Porter in 88 is a little worrying but a big efficiency edge, the ever-present clear assists lead, rebounding and points advantage more than outdo that. And every other series it's a clear advantage to Stockton. I'd say the series in your head must have been imagined.

Changing the goalposts from his series to his team's offense ... hmmm well that's something very different and not something one player can single-handedly control. But you ask about ... "Which type of player really has the bigger type of impact?" and rather than team TS% (lumping together data with the player both on and off) I'd look at the player's "impact" numbers. Stockton has tended to look impressive in the impact family of metrics (and this from years clearly into his 30s).

"Again the question, what is the value of assists generated by one player if it doesn't lead to higher team TS%?" Which leads to the question, why are you begging the question. Why are you assuming a premise of your argument. And, fwiw, the assists almost necessarily do lead to a higher TS% because otherwise there is a basket that wouldn't have been made and at best a possible basket. There's an assumption of a 1-way causal relationship whereby Stockton's playmaking is 100% responsible for all Utah's offense with neither any obvious attempt at looking at better measures of impact nor any entertaining of other possible relationships [e.g. many of the Utah's players are bad offensive players, yet Stockton is still making passes that lead to made baskets].

There's a viable argument that Utah's offensive predictability caused them problems in the playoffs. It seems odd to blame that on Stockton rather than a limited number of viable scoring options (perpetual gaps at SF and especially C and always a weak bench) or even the player whose numbers sunk more in the playoffs, Malone (though this seems harsh, the Jazz never went more than 3 decent offensive players deep).

It's an extremely limited sample and so huge grain of salt with this but talk of "Stockton despite having such limited impact in the playoffs" when the three years we have his numbers for spit out an on-off of ... +12.4 [Wade's ... +3.4].

You speak of "for guards like Stockton and Wade it is about dominating the game on the offensive end by being a number #1 option."
1) Either you missed some commas here and you mean "guards, like Stockton and Wade," or you're putting Wade and Stockton as in the same bucket and type of player which seems ... weird.
2) Why is it specifically about them playing in a way you decided? I would think it's about helping your team win in whatever manner you can.

"In fact the top 100 of 2014 listing had Wade higher. I know there were most likely different posters, but it doesn't make sense how Stockton can jump 5 spots, with Wade actually playing more additional years (adding to his own longevity)."
1) There were mostly different posters so yes there are substantial inconsistencies between the lists.
2) What does Stockton's jump have to do with Wade playing more years?
3) What are you arguing Wade added in 2015-17? During that time he retained a high usage (and so a relatively high PER, though substantially off his prime numbers) but a below average .094 WS/48 an in raw on-off terms, his teams were better when he was off the floor. So it's hard to argue that he added anything that would move you up on an all time list (those few who took into account salaries would likely have seen those years as a negative). It would be odd enough to argue that as an internal consistency point [i.e. that the people who found value in Stockton at 40 posting a 21PER, .190 WS/48, +6.2 on-off season should see value in these mediocre Wade seasons] but given that such consistency isn't mentioned it comes across as you genuinely positing for yourself that these seasons are adding something meaningful, which seems odd from someone advocating for "elite" seasons.

I can see, otoh, depending on ones preferences and criteria preferring Wade. But I'm not convinced by the arguments offered directly here.