RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #26 (John Stockton)

[eminence]

Plenty of the guys listed sure, Wade's got a different level peak (Stockton/Drexler/Thomas/Hondo/etc), but I'm not seeing the Harden inclusion there. Harden/Wade have got pretty comparable peaks to me, and longevity as well really.

[trex_8063]

Below are the 22 all-time greatest team defenses in all of NBA/ABA history (for simplicity, based just on rs rDRTG)....

'64 Celtics: -10.8
'65 Celtics: -9.4
'04 Spurs: -8.8
'08 Celtics: -8.6
'62 Celtics: -8.5
'63 Celtics: -8.5
'93 Knicks: -8.3
'94 Knicks: -8.1
'20 Bucks: -7.7
'61 Celtics: -7.6
'04 Pistons: -7.5 (*even better late-season after acquiring Sheed)
'16 Spurs: -7.4
'14 Pacers: -7.4
'05 Spurs: -7.3
'99 Spurs: -7.2
'11 Celtics: -7.0
'11 Bulls: -7.0
'07 Bulls: -6.9
'66 Celtics: -6.6
'06 Spurs: -6.6
'07 Spurs: -6.6
'70 Knicks: -6.6

Just wanted to note you're missing the '52 Lakers -7.6.

Damn! I didn't do so hot on first pass of the top D's. I even looked in the Laker franchise history, paying special attention [so I thought] to the Mikan era because I thought I remembered there being one or two REALLY elite ones. Somehow my eyes passed right over that figure and didn't recognize it.

Whenever I do something like that in front of my wife I say "Curse these man-eyes!"
Thanks for the correction....

[colts18]

John Stockton vs Peak Steve Nash

Nash played in a much more favorable offensive environment to Stockton. Nash's team played fast and had 3 point shooters spreading the floor. By contrast, Stockton's teams were slow and took the least amount of 3 pointers in the league. Nash's teammates scored over 15 more PPG from 3 pointers which inflated Nash's team O rating compared to Stockton's. Could you imagine Stockton getting to play in a fast offense with 3 point shooters to spread the floor?

No, I can not imagine Stockton playing in a fast offense because Stockton's strengths were not the same as Steve Nash's strengths just as I wouldn't imagine Chris Paul playing in Steve Nash's fast offense either. This notion that you have been pounding into the ground for 5+ threads about John Stockton being able to replicate Steve Nash's output and play-style has been disproven even by Stockton's biggest stans (Aside from you who can't seem to grasp this idea).

Stockton's strength as an offensive player comes from his methodical dissecting of a defense.
Nash's strength as an offensive player comes from his controlled chaotic nature.

2006 was clearly an easier environment for perimeter players than 1997. All 10 of the top 10 scorers in 2006 were perimeter players. All 10 of them scored 25+ PPG on 54+ TS%. Only 3 perimeter players accomplished that in 1997 and a total of 4 players reached 25+ PPG. In 2006, 3 players reached 30+ PPG while no player accomplished that feat in 1997, not even Michael Jordan. It was clearly a more favorable environment for Nash in the post handchecking NBA.

It was more favorable to a degree--the best teams from 2005-2007 still contained the 2005 Pistons and 2007 Spurs.

Keep in mind from 2005-2007 (I would prefer to use these 3 seasons as a whole for Nash as we get a larger sample size) the league average Offensive Rating was ~106.3 and the league Offensive Rating in 1997 was 106.7 (107.6 in 1996 and 105.0 in 1998, averaging out to 106.4 over the 3-year span)--right in line with 2005-2007.

League average pace from 2005-2007 was 91.1 and from 1996-1998 it was 90.7.

When we compare 2005-2007 and 1996-1998 the landscape, on average, wasn't as different as your preconceived and evidently misguided theories say they were, but such is an issue (and flaw) when you are coming from a corner of "I am right and I will prove I am right" instead of "I have an idea of what I think but let me look through the data and see what it tells me". A common mistake nonetheless, especially in something as un-objective as comparing our favorite basketball players of yesteryear.

Advanced Stats:

Stockton- 6.6 BPM, 22.1 PER, .226 WS/48, 6.3 VORP
Nash- 5.0 BPM, 23.3 PER, .212 WS/48, 4.9 VORP

You are fixated on comparing one season for some reason--isn't the idea of 2005-2007 Nash being a similar player throughout that period a better indicator of his "peak" since the sample size is larger?

If we stretch it out to 2005-2007 and 1996-1998 Stockton:

Nash: 6.0 OBPM, 23.0 PER, .214 WS/48 on 22.3 USG%
Stockton: 5.7 OBPM, 22.0 PER, .217 WS/48 on 18.7 USG%

And, here in lies the issue here, Nash has a 25% higher usage rate--yes, USG% is not perfect but by it's model it is saying Nash was used 25% more.

Playoffs:[/b]

This is where Stockton shined. Stockton stepped up his game in the 97 Playoffs.

Per 75 Possessions:

Stockton- 18.2 PPG, 10.7 AST-3.7 TOV, 4.4 Reb,1.9 STL, 62.7 TS% (+9.5 rTS%)
Nash- 19.9 PPG, 10.0 AST-3.5 TOV, 3.6 Reb, 0.4 STL, 61.5 TS% (+7.9 r TS%)

Again, why are you using such a small sample size?

Nash (2005-07): 39.6 MPG, 21.2 PPG, 11.3 APG, 4.0 TOV, 3.9 REB, 60.2 TS%, 5.7 OBPM, 22.2 PER, .160 WS/48 on 24.9 USG%
Stockton (1996-98): 34.7 MPG, 12.8 PPG, 9.3 APG, 2.9 TOV, 3.4 REB, 58.5 TS%, 4.6 OBPM, 20.0 PER, .179 WS/48 on 19.2 USG%

Again, you are so fixated on using this one 20 game sample that when you try to zoom out just a smidge you get a completely different picture than you are attempting to capture. You are drawing up this giant theory like an Instagram Model is gearing up for a photo shoot.

Stockton (1996-98): In the playoffs, Stockton passed better, was more efficient, had 5x more steals than Nash, and outrebounded Nash too. The gap is scoring volume was reduced during the postseason.

Let's stop you here--The gap in scoring increased in the post-season. Look above, 12.8 PPG to 21.2 PPG. You are trying to adjust for pace? I already showed you that both bundles of years had the same pace. The fact is Stockton couldn't play the 40 MPG Nash could--don't try to paint this in a way it isn't.

Stockton was more efficient? No he wasn't, look above--60.2 TS% to 58.5 TS%.

Average opponent in the playoffs:

Stockton- 57.2 Wins, 4.88 SRS, 104.0 D Rating
Nash- 50.2 Wins, 3.29 SRS, 104.8 D Rating

Stockton played tougher opponents in the playoffs. He played a 56 win Lakers team, 57 win Rockets team, and a 69 win Bulls team. Nash played a 45 win Lakers team, 47 win Clippers team, and a 60 win Mavericks team. Stockton's numbers look better when you account for the stiff opposition.

Phoenix faced teams with the following SRS: 2.63 (4), 5.86 (6), 7.84 (5), 2.53 (7), 1.75 (7), 5.96 (6), 0.24 (5), 8.35 (6)
Utah faced the teams with the following SRS: 2.21 (5), 5.98 (6), 7.40 (7), -2.66 (3), 3.66 (5), 3.85 (6), 10.70 (6), -1.23 (5), 3.30 (5), 6.88 (4), 7.24 (6)

Was Stockton's competition really "stiffer"?

Phoenix average SRS faced: 4.92
Utah average SRS faced: 4.79

Stiffer, huh?

Clutch Play:[/b]

The nice thing about this is we get a statistical profile of Stockton and Nash over at NBA.com and we don't need to dive into some fanboy-ish narratives.

Stockton RS PER 100(1997): 26-14 Record, 23.8 Pts, 3.2 Reb, 13.0 Ast, 2.6 Tov, +4.3
Stockton RS PER 100(1998): 23-9 Record, 30.0 Pts, 4.5 Reb, 12.3 Ast, 4.5 Tov, +29.6

Nash RS Per 100(2005): 25-9 Record, 32.9 Pts, 3.0 Reb, 15.0 Ast, 5.6 Tov, +22.2
Nash RS Per 100(2006): 21-20 Record, 35.7 Pts, 6.7 Reb, 12.8 Ast, 3.3 Tov, +7.0
Nash RS Per 100(2007): 26-13 Record, 34.4 Pts, 4.1 Reb, 12.4 Ast, 4.1 Tov, +12.1

The common theme, once again, is Nash is a superior scorer to Stockton.

Head to Head
Stockton: 14-8 W-L, 12 PPG, 9 AST-2.1 TOV, 3 Reb, 1.7 STL, 47 FG%, 44 3P%
Nash: 8-14 W-L, 11 PPG, 6 AST-3.0 TOV, 3 Reb, 0.5 STL, 40 FG%, 39 3P%

Stockton destroys Nash head to head despite being an old man. Nash struggled vs Stockton in a physical handchecking league.

This should be a reportable offense. Nash wasn't in his prime until 2002 where the Jazz went 1-3 against the Mavericks and then 2-2 in 2003. Obviously these don't matter because the Primes don't line-up but the fact that you tried to use this as an argument brings my entire post to completion--you aren't here for knowledge or objectivity--you are here because of your infatuation with John Stockton being better than Nash.

Stockton's biggest strengths was not being methodical. Sloan had him playing like CP3. Stockton always wanted to push the tempo and play fast but Sloan made him play slow because his system relied on creating in the halfcourt. When Stockton played with a fast coach, he was the best player on the court against the champion Showtime Lakers. He is the only player in history to have 2 20 point, 20 assist games in the same series.

You can't compare the league averages for 1997 and 2006 and say they are the same offensive environment. 2006 was a very perimeter friendly era. While the 90s was friendly to big men. The rules and style of play was different. For example, there were 108 different 40+ point games in 2006. In 1997 there were only 49. In 2006, 107 out of 108 out of those 40+ games came from Perimeter players. Pau Gasol was the only interior player to score 40 points that season. Whereas in 1997, 10 out of those 49 games came from interior players. That list includes Rik Smits and Elden Campbell scoring 40. They would never sniff 40 points in the post-handchecking NBA.

I'm comparing one season because its called PEAK for a reason. Peak is generally referred to 1 year on this board. I'm comparing 1 year because Stockton's 10th best season is on par with MVP Steve Nash. His 10th best statistical season. If you wanna compare 3 year runs, then you should actually compare Stockton at his best to 2005-2007 Nash. Not old Stockton when he turned 36 years old in 1998. I'm not sure why you are including 1998 which is Stockton's worst prime season because of his knee injury. A fairer comparison is 1988-1990 or 1990-1992 Stockton or even 1995-1997.

You have to pace adjust because Nash played on the fastest team while Stockton played on the slowest team. Nash simply had more opportunities to put up stats. Stockton's pace adjusted numbers close the gap with Nash. And I don't why you are fixated on OBPM ignoring the fact that defense is HALF of the game. Defense is just as important as offense. Yes, Nash has an advantage over Stockton on offense (due to his circumstances, buts thats for another post). When you account for defense, Stockton surpasses Nash. That's why Stockton Total BPM laps Nash's.

And the Jazz was beating stiffer competition. Using a large sample size which you like, the Jazz beat 7 55+ win teams in the 90s. The 2001-2012 Nash beat just 2 55+ win teams. That's why Stockton made the finals while Nash didn't.

[penbeast0]

Also, if you are arguing larger sample size, why not go for their full 8+ year or so primes and compare them rather than just 3. I agree the larger sample size is valuable, so why not pick a decade since both have long and outstanding primes.

[penbeast0]

...

Whenever I do something like that in front of my wife I say "Curse these man-eyes!"
Thanks for the correction....

You don't just Mansplain to her what you really meant?

[trex_8063]

...

Whenever I do something like that in front of my wife I say "Curse these man-eyes!"
Thanks for the correction....

You don't just Mansplain to her what you really meant?

Nah, why annoy her? I like sex.
Happy wife--->happy life, as they say.

The irony is she's getting damn near legally blind without her glasses/contacts, while I've still got better than 20/20 as I get good and settled into middle-age....

Spoiler:

[No-more-rings]

Plenty of the guys listed sure, Wade's got a different level peak (Stockton/Drexler/Thomas/Hondo/etc), but I'm not seeing the Harden inclusion there. Harden/Wade have got pretty comparable peaks to me, and longevity as well really.

Wade has more notable accomplishments and more big moments in the playoffs than Harden that seems pretty inarguable. Not that it’s a big difference but I don’t see how he’d get the benefit of the doubt even if you thought they were about even. Not saying that applies to you, but he seems to have fallen clearly from the Curry/Cp3/Durant pack when he should be right in that group.

[Cavsfansince84]

Plenty of the guys listed sure, Wade's got a different level peak (Stockton/Drexler/Thomas/Hondo/etc), but I'm not seeing the Harden inclusion there. Harden/Wade have got pretty comparable peaks to me, and longevity as well really.

I'd say prime wise that Harden's is better in terms of the rs. The issue is that Wade is seen as much harder to stop in the ps and also adds a defensive component that Harden doesn't add.

[No-more-rings]

Plenty of the guys listed sure, Wade's got a different level peak (Stockton/Drexler/Thomas/Hondo/etc), but I'm not seeing the Harden inclusion there. Harden/Wade have got pretty comparable peaks to me, and longevity as well really.

I'd say prime wise that Harden's is better in terms of the rs. The issue is that Wade is seen as much harder to stop in the ps and also adds a defensive component that Harden doesn't add.

I'm not that convinced Harden was better in the regular season at least looking at their top seasons. They look comparable by box score numbers, but Wade seemed to fare better by impact stuff.

For example according to the google sites RAPM which seems to be pretty reliable up until 2013.

2006: 1st in RAPM and NPI RAPM +15.2 on/off
2007:ranked 9th, but this is likely skewed some by his injury
2009: ranked 4th, +14.2
2010: Ranked 2nd with only Nash having a higher ORAPM over the span of years that this source has, +13.5 on/off
2011: ranked 9th, +7.8 on/off but i think his adjustment next to Lebron hurt him here
2013: Ranked 10th

And the 02-11 RAPM has him 3rd behind Lebron and KG, maybe not a lot to make of that since he wasn't playing those first two years but still.

Maybe someone has a good source for RAPM from say 2015 onward, but Harden doesn't look that good by on/off

2014: +7.6
2015: +8.6
2016: +7.2
2017: +3.3
2018: +5.3
2019: +5.5
2020: +9

Again compared to Wade's:

2006: +15.2
2007: +6.4
2008: +5.2 though this isn't a healthy Wade year at all
2009: +14.2
2010: +13.5
2011: +7.8
2012: +8.4

You can't compare RAPM across a decade or whatever, but Wade did better by on/off. Not saying that's gospel at all but i don't see a ton of reason to say Harden is definitely better in the regular season unless we just look at how their teams did overall.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm not that convinced Harden was better in the regular season at least looking at their top seasons. They look comparable by box score numbers, but Wade seemed to fare better by impact stuff.

For example according to the google sites RAPM which seems to be pretty reliable up until 2013.

2006: 1st in RAPM and NPI RAPM +15.2 on/off
2007:ranked 9th, but this is likely skewed some by his injury
2009: ranked 4th, +14.2
2010: Ranked 2nd with only Nash having a higher ORAPM over the span of years that this source has, +13.5 on/off
2011: ranked 9th, +7.8 on/off but i think his adjustment next to Lebron hurt him here
2013: Ranked 10th

And the 02-11 RAPM has him 3rd behind Lebron and KG, maybe not a lot to make of that since he wasn't playing those first two years but still.

Maybe someone has a good source for RAPM from say 2015 onward, but Harden doesn't look that good by on/off

2014: +7.6
2015: +8.6
2016: +7.2
2017: +3.3
2018: +5.3
2019: +5.5
2020: +9

Again compared to Wade's:

2006: +15.2
2007: +6.4
2008: +5.2 though this isn't a healthy Wade year at all
2009: +14.2
2010: +13.5
2011: +7.8
2012: +8.4

You can't compare RAPM across a decade or whatever, but Wade did better by on/off. Not saying that's gospel at all but i don't see a ton of reason to say Harden is definitely better in the regular season unless we just look at how their teams did overall.

I'm not convinced he was better either but Wade from 05-12 which I would say is his true prime missed roughly 100 games while Harden has been very durable. Otherwise I would probably favor Wade in the rs. I've also been fairly impressed with Houston's record in recent years.

[No-more-rings]

I'm not that convinced Harden was better in the regular season at least looking at their top seasons. They look comparable by box score numbers, but Wade seemed to fare better by impact stuff.

For example according to the google sites RAPM which seems to be pretty reliable up until 2013.

2006: 1st in RAPM and NPI RAPM +15.2 on/off
2007:ranked 9th, but this is likely skewed some by his injury
2009: ranked 4th, +14.2
2010: Ranked 2nd with only Nash having a higher ORAPM over the span of years that this source has, +13.5 on/off
2011: ranked 9th, +7.8 on/off but i think his adjustment next to Lebron hurt him here
2013: Ranked 10th

And the 02-11 RAPM has him 3rd behind Lebron and KG, maybe not a lot to make of that since he wasn't playing those first two years but still.

Maybe someone has a good source for RAPM from say 2015 onward, but Harden doesn't look that good by on/off

2014: +7.6
2015: +8.6
2016: +7.2
2017: +3.3
2018: +5.3
2019: +5.5
2020: +9

Again compared to Wade's:

2006: +15.2
2007: +6.4
2008: +5.2 though this isn't a healthy Wade year at all
2009: +14.2
2010: +13.5
2011: +7.8
2012: +8.4

You can't compare RAPM across a decade or whatever, but Wade did better by on/off. Not saying that's gospel at all but i don't see a ton of reason to say Harden is definitely better in the regular season unless we just look at how their teams did overall.

I'm not convinced he was better either but Wade from 05-12 which I would say is his true prime missed roughly 100 games while Harden has been very durable. Otherwise I would probably favor Wade in the rs. I've also been fairly impressed with Houston's record in recent years.

Well said...

[Jordan Syndrome]

Also, if you are arguing larger sample size, why not go for their full 8+ year or so primes and compare them rather than just 3. I agree the larger sample size is valuable, so why not pick a decade since both have long and outstanding primes.

I choose those because Colt originally wanted 2006 for some reason, I am a big fan of multi-year peaks to get a larger sample size of a "peak" and Colt originally brought up a 3-year period for post-season in his post.

I'm all for looking at a 10-year prime as well--but the biggest thing for me in the Nash vs Stockton discussion is Nash had a noticeable higher Peak.

[Baski]

1. John Stockton
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Steve Nash

I've had a good fill of Stockton's case vs these other two over the last few threads. I'm picking him based on the following:
1. He had it tougher to play his role than most of the other candidates for best PG. He had much less spacing than his more recent counterparts and had worse teammates than his contemporaries, with the exception of Oscar early on. And yet:
2. He was very good and (available) for a long time. The completely unbreakable assist and steal records are enough proof of that.
3. He was very good, if not elite defensively for a PG. PG defense may not be as valuable as C defense, but having someone who can stifle opponents at the point of attack and do the little things like ball denial and random bumping is far more valuable than having someone who can't do any of those things at the same position.
4. Stockton looks inferior accolades-wise to historically great No. 1 guys, whereas he himself is obviously a No. 2 type of guy, and one that doesn't have a crowd pleasing style. You need somebody better than Stockton next to him (like Malone) if you wanna go far, but that's not a knock at this range.

[Odinn21]

4. You need somebody better than Stockton next to him (like Malone) if you wanna go far, but that's not a knock at this range.

Isn't it?
I mean this is 26th spot. How many times a team gets 2 of top 25/30 players with overlapping primes, especially for 7+ seasons? It's asking too much luck to have.
If you need that much luck, maybe you're not that good?..

"had worse teammates than his contemporaries"
Is this about Nash? Because Chris Paul, Walt Frazier, Jason Kidd had worse supporting casts on average.

"Stockton looks inferior accolades-wise to historically great No. 1 guys"
Stockton lost against Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway whenever Hardaway was healthy and Gary Payton more often than not. Those are the names we won't be considering for the top 40.
I don't think that's about being #1 player.

[penbeast0]

4. You need somebody better than Stockton next to him (like Malone) if you wanna go far, but that's not a knock at this range.

Isn't it?
I mean this is 26th spot. How many times a team gets 2 of top 25/30 players with overlapping primes, especially for 7+ seasons? It's asking too much luck to have.
If you need that much luck, maybe you're not that good?..

"had worse teammates than his contemporaries"
Is this about Nash? Because Chris Paul, Walt Frazier, Jason Kidd had worse supporting casts on average.

"Stockton looks inferior accolades-wise to historically great No. 1 guys"
Stockton lost against Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway whenever Hardaway was healthy and Gary Payton more often than not. Those are the names we won't be considering for the top 40.
I don't think that's about being #1 player.

Frazier? Reed and DeBusschere should make the top 100 and Earl Monroe has an outside chance at it. One of the strength of Frazier is that he was able to blend all those talents and egos (and Bill Bradley and Cazzie Russell were both college superstars too) to make Red Holzman's teams work. He had a ton of talent around him.

[Baski]

4. You need somebody better than Stockton next to him (like Malone) if you wanna go far, but that's not a knock at this range.

Isn't it?
I mean this is 26th spot. How many times a team gets 2 of top 25/30 players with overlapping primes, especially for 7+ seasons? It's asking too much luck to have.
If you need that much luck, maybe you're not that good?..

I don't think it is. And they didn't exactly underachieve or anything. They went to the finals twice and were consistently one of the best teams in the league for close to a decade. That's a very good outcome for drafting 2 top 30 players in the Magic/Bird/Jordan era. You can want more than that, but sometimes you get shafted by 6 pt swings that cost you a title.

"had worse teammates than his contemporaries"
Is this about Nash? Because Chris Paul, Walt Frazier, Jason Kidd had worse supporting casts on average.

Contemporaries being those he played at the same time as. Mainly Magic and Isiah. Nash and Paul would fall under the more recent counterparts that benefitted from better spacing.
Not on board with Frazier and Kidd at all. The Knicks were very talented especially for that time, and Kidd faced garbage competition when he was a star and wasn't playing at an all time level when he actually won a title

"Stockton looks inferior accolades-wise to historically great No. 1 guys"
Stockton lost against Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway whenever Hardaway was healthy and Gary Payton more often than not. Those are the names we won't be considering for the top 40.
I don't think that's about being #1 player.

If you're talking about accolades, "losing to them" in any particular year doesn't put them in his tier historically. I'm talking about his entire package of individual accolades vs Wade's for example. KJ and Hardaway haven't done anything to warrant that kind of comparison to Stockton. Or else we'd be comparing Kyle Lowry and Klay Thompson to James Harden because he's "lost to them".

If you mean in PO series, it's a team game and it's never as simple as Player A lost to Player B.

[Odinn21]

4. You need somebody better than Stockton next to him (like Malone) if you wanna go far, but that's not a knock at this range.

Isn't it?
I mean this is 26th spot. How many times a team gets 2 of top 25/30 players with overlapping primes, especially for 7+ seasons? It's asking too much luck to have.
If you need that much luck, maybe you're not that good?..

"had worse teammates than his contemporaries"
Is this about Nash? Because Chris Paul, Walt Frazier, Jason Kidd had worse supporting casts on average.

"Stockton looks inferior accolades-wise to historically great No. 1 guys"
Stockton lost against Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway whenever Hardaway was healthy and Gary Payton more often than not. Those are the names we won't be considering for the top 40.
I don't think that's about being #1 player.

Frazier? Reed and DeBusschere should make the top 100 and Earl Monroe has an outside chance at it. One of the strength of Frazier is that he was able to blend all those talents and egos (and Bill Bradley and Cazzie Russell were both college superstars too) to make Red Holzman's teams work. He had a ton of talent around him.

"On average". Frazier had that solid team for 3 seasons.

[70sFan]

I also wouldn't use accolades against Stockton, because they often were simply inaccurate. I mean, what's the case for Tim Hardaway over Stockton?

[Odinn21]

4. You need somebody better than Stockton next to him (like Malone) if you wanna go far, but that's not a knock at this range.

Isn't it?
I mean this is 26th spot. How many times a team gets 2 of top 25/30 players with overlapping primes, especially for 7+ seasons? It's asking too much luck to have.
If you need that much luck, maybe you're not that good?..

I don't think it is. And they didn't exactly underachieve or anything. They went to the finals twice and were consistently one of the best teams in the league for close to a decade. That's a very good outcome for drafting 2 top 30 players in the Magic/Bird/Jordan era. You can want more than that, but sometimes you get shafted by 6 pt swings that cost you a title.

"had worse teammates than his contemporaries"
Is this about Nash? Because Chris Paul, Walt Frazier, Jason Kidd had worse supporting casts on average.

Contemporaries being those he played at the same time as. Mainly Magic and Isiah. Nash and Paul would fall under the more recent counterparts that benefitted from better spacing.
Not on board with Frazier and Kidd at all. The Knicks were very talented especially for that time, and Kidd faced garbage competition when he was a star and wasn't playing at an all time level when he actually won a title

"Stockton looks inferior accolades-wise to historically great No. 1 guys"
Stockton lost against Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway whenever Hardaway was healthy and Gary Payton more often than not. Those are the names we won't be considering for the top 40.
I don't think that's about being #1 player.

If you're talking about accolades, "losing to them" in any particular year doesn't put them in his tier historically. I'm talking about his entire package of individual accolades vs Wade's for example. KJ and Hardaway haven't done anything to warrant that kind of comparison to Stockton. Or else we'd be comparing Kyle Lowry and Klay Thompson to James Harden because he's "lost to them".

If you mean in PO series, it's a team game and it's never as simple as Player A lost to Player B.

Stockton, Malone an Sloan were underachieving until Hornacek's arrival. Their depth also improved, it was still average for a contending team but their depth improved nonetheless.
Looking at the results with Hornacek would ignore the first half of Stockton's and Malone's primes.

Again with "on average". Frazier had that talent around him for 3 seasons.
Kidd faced garbage competition in the East, sure. But he did not have a loaded team. I'd like to see Stockton playing with sophomore Kenyon Martin as his best help on a team...
There's always a ratio between competition they faced and help they got. Peak to peak, Stockton is not getting close to Kidd.
One last time "on average"...

Did Stockton not get enough All-NBA 1st team selections because he was not a #1 player on his team? That was my premise.
Career wise, sure, KJ and Hardaway are far down the road. Doesn't mean we can not look at year by year.
Magic and Thomas are Stockton's "contemporaries" and not KJ, Hardaway and Payton?..

[iggymcfrack]

Don't know if I need to be approved to vote and I probably won't be in here consistently, but my vote would be as follows:

1. Dwyane Wade- Supernova peak that was enough to pretty much carry his team to a ring in 2006 and easily could have in several of the following years if he'd had a better supporting cast. He was THE second best player in the league behind LeBron until he joined up with him and his 2006, 2009, and 2010 seasons were all-timers, on par with the best seasons from anyone in history. He was still massively valuable in LeBron's Miami run and his proven ability to get you a title has to count over the slow but steady guy that never got there.

2. John Stockton- Another amazing player. Known for his shooting and passing, but also an incredibly underrated defender, maybe even the best of all-time at the position depending on how you look at it. At ages where 99.9% of NBA players are out of the league like 39 and 40, he was still making a major impact on defense ranking toward the top of the DRAPM charts. He had 579 more steals than any other player in league history. There's a larger gap between 1st and 2nd than there is between 2nd and 11th, and he somehow made all those steals without really gambling and putting himself out of position. He really deserves to be ranked higher than this, but I still can't quite put him ahead of Flash.