Do the 96-98’ Jazz win a title with 05-07’ Nash?

[Hawk Eye]

Replace Stockton with Nash on the Jazz for each of the following seasons:

1995-96’ Jazz —> 2004-05’ Steve Nash
1996-97’ Jazz —> 2005-06’ Steve Nash
1997-98’ Jazz —> 2006-07’ Steve Nash

Do the Jazz win a title during any of these seasons? Do they win more than one?

Edit: I think it’s pretty much a given that they would win in 1998 so let’s add a 100% healthy Scottie Pippen to the 98’ Bulls to help balance things out a little better.

[coastalmarker99]

Replace Stockton with Nash on the Jazz for each of the following seasons:

1995-96’ Jazz —> 2004-05’ Steve Nash
1996-97’ Jazz —> 2005-06’ Steve Nash
1997-98’ Jazz —> 2006-07’ Steve Nash

Do the Jazz win a title during any of these seasons? Do they win more than one?

Yes, 1998 Stockton was downright horrible in that series and averaged 9 points while shooting 20 per cent from three and he also choked away game 2 of that series with an awful turnover in the last minute that led to a MJ and one and from there the bulls won the game and stole homecourt.

If Stockton even averages 14 to 15 points a game in that series considering how close the games were besides game 3 the Jazz win in 5 I don't blame him for losing in 1997 as he played great but 1998 was an embarrassment of a series for a player of his skill level he and his jazz teammates gave no help to Malone offensively. It is a miracle that the Jazz nearly took the bulls to 7 with everyone besides Malone being useless offensively with a prime nash they are winning that series in 5 or 6 games and Mj has a loss in the finals.

[No-more-rings]

Probably not.

[G35]

No they do not....

[Jack Dempsey]

I think the better question would be how the Bulls would do against Houston in '97 and Shaq's Lakers in '98. I don't think the Jazz would have had a realistic chance at making the finals with Nash instead of Stockton. Nash didn't become an MVP player until the rule changes in the early 2000s. He was good but nowhere near John Stockton's level.

[RCM88x]

I think they get better, their best chance is in 98 I would say. Stockton wasn't great in 98, especially in the Finals. Nash would really add another dynamic to the Jazz offense that Stockton couldn't bring at that point. However, he probably wouldn't take as many 3s which would lower his offensive impact a bit.

[Lost92Bricks]

Yes they do. In 1998. Stockton was 36 and wasn't the same guy anymore. He had like 4 games in the finals where he scored in single digits. Nash would be a huge improvement. I'm not sure in 1997 though.

[DirtyDez]

Most likely in 98’. He’s a big upgrade over older/hurt Stockton and they definitely average more than 80 ppg. Not sure what Stockton’s defensive impact/role was that series.

[Dmkorc23]

No, the Jazz would do a lot worse.

Firstly, Stockton was a far better player than Nash ever was. Stockton could play on both ends of the court. Nash was a huge liability on defense. Secondly, do you guys think Nash's way of playing would gel well with Karl Malone?

[HeartBreakKid]

No, the Jazz would do a lot worse.

Firstly, Stockton was a far better player than Nash ever was. Stockton could play on both ends of the court. Nash was a huge liability on defense.

John Stockton was older than Steve Nash during these years. 2/3 of those years Stockton only averaged 11 points per game in the playoffs. The Jazz needed offense not defense.

Secondly, do you guys think Nash's way of playing would gel well with Karl Malone?

Pick and roll basketball? I certainly would think so. Can't really think of a player who couldn't play well with Steve Nash.

[TheGOATRises007]

They'd probably win in '98.

[tihsad]

Hard to call, but I'll go no. 07' Nash wasn't dealing with the type of defenses 98' Stockton was, and I'm not sure there is much debate to have there. I'll take that version of Nash over Stockton, but still not enough to get by the Bulls. I'd gander the Jazz score more, but the lack of D (in a very defensive series) isn't doing the Jazz any favors. I'd say pushes to 7 instead of 6 games, but no, not a series changer.

[TheGOATRises007]

Hard to call, but I'll go no. 07' Nash wasn't dealing with the type of defenses 98' Stockton was, and I'm not sure there is much debate to have there. I'll take that version of Nash over Stockton, but still not enough to get by the Bulls. I'd gander the Jazz score more, but the lack of D (in a very defensive series) isn't doing the Jazz any favors. I'd say pushes to 7 instead of 6 games, but no, not a series changer.

To be honest, this is a good point.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

[JordansBulls]

Nash has issues beating legit bigs. He would have to go thru Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan in 1998 alone.

[DirtyDez]

Nash has issues beating legit bigs. He would have to go thru Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan in 1998 alone.

Nash has beat KG, Dirk and Duncan in the playoffs. Malone has beat Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan. That’s a weird argument.

[DavidDunn21]

I understand the point the OP is making, and Nash was a great player to be sure, but it's hard to make a really strong case for Steve (who never made a Finals) being an upgrade over tough, hard nosed, dirty Stockton against the Bulls in the 90s.

Nash was just too much of a turnstile

Sent from my moto g(7) power using RealGM mobile app

[Odinn21]

Nash at his best is a big upgrade to that version of Stockton. But not the kind of upgrade the Jazz needed. From Stockton to Nash leaves a huge defensive gap to fill.

[Matt15]

Id say they win one title in ‘98. ‘07 Nash is much better than ‘98 Stockton.

[lakers2020]

Looking at bball reference I was shocked at how good Stockton's advanced stats were.

In an 8 year span for VORP he was 2nd place 4 times and 3rd place 3 times!

He had many other top ten finishes.

[penbeast0]

Seems there are two questions here. (1) Was 05-07 Nash better than 96-98 Stockton generally speaking? and (2) Would Utah have won the title in 98 with better play from Stockton?

(1) I have Stockton generally above Nash, not offensively where Nash has a slight edge, but because of defense where Stockton has a strong edge. On the other hand, 98 is the beginning of post-prime Stockton. You can see his minutes drop considerably after 10 years of playing roughly 35mpg or more, he only played 29/game in 98 and continued this lesser role to the end of his career. Yes, he's one of the most consistent and reliable guys in NBA history but Utah lessened his role in 98. On the other hand 05-07 is prime Nash including his two MVPs then his career best shooting year. It evens the field from a clear Stockton edge to pick 'em. I don't think Nash is going to generally do any better with Utah than Stockton did, however. The team wasn't built to have the offensive power of the SSOL Suns, not with virtually no offense from the C or SF positions (Felton Spencer, Greg Ostertag, Adam Keefe, and Greg Foster were the starting centers over that 3 year stretch) and they needed Stockton's toughness and defense next to Hornacek, his best offensive two guard. One more note: others have brought up the era isseus but also, whileJerry Sloan's system was very good for PGs, he allowed a lot less freelancing than Mike D'Antoni, not sure Nash would be allowed to do his signature dribble clear down and through the lane then out the other side creating a gap elsewhere type offense. Does he play as well for Sloan?

(2) Was Stockton a disaster in 98? People have brought up his poor finals against the Bulls where he averaged only 9.7/2.5/8.7 on a ts% of .539. Note that he still led both teams in assists though clearly below his own standards and that his ts% is 38 points higher than that of his team. Not a disaster but not stepping up either. Assuming Nash could get Utah through the 1st two round where Stockton played like Stockton, could Nash have elevated a team that shot .501 ts% to shoot significantly better or was it Chicago's defense? Trying to run the offense while Ron Harper backed up by Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen are harassing you is a much stronger lineup defensively than most teams can run out against a PG. Nash was only slightly more efficient than Stockton for their full respective playoff runs in 07 and 98 (.569 v. 587) though with more volume (mitigated by a faster pace). Also, the finals were close because Utah also held Chicago down defensively, limiting the Bulls to .510 ts% for the series, Nash is an exploitable hole in Utah's otherwise strong defense so while Nash's extra scoring might have helped the offense, his lesser defense might have hurt the offense. Overall, it's possible but far from the sure thing some people are making it out to be.

(3) If Stockton 98 was replaced by Stockton 97, would they have won the NBA championship? I leave this extra question to you to think about. Was it just one bad series or was it the two teams involved rather than the individual brilliance of the PG that tipped the balance?