Odinn21 wrote: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.
Sure, but I'm wondering why you're segmenting their careers into before/after Hornacek. What is it supposed to tell us that adding a quality floor spacer when they had none before made them better? Something negative? I hope not. I'm still not on board with calling their results underachievements in the era they played in. They made a conference finals before Hornacek joined and made 3 more including 2 finals. This while being by far the two most notable players on their team. Can't see how that's underachieving
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"...
I thought the point you were making was that Kidd and Fraizer have comparable achievements with inferior casts on average. In that case it would be relevant to bring up that Frazier's cast for those 3 years were better than Stockton's ever were, and that Kidd's greatest achievement wasn't extremely impressive against Stockton's becuase of competition faced. I think you emphazing the average part means you at least acknowledge that at their most fortunate, both guys had better team situations that Stockton, which while they may not have lasted long, pushed them to championship success more than Stockton's best team did.
Did Stockton not get enough All-NBA 1st team selections because he was not a #1 player on his team? That was my premise.
Yeah pretty much. His game doesn't lend itself to flashy plays and big numbers that attract such votes. He was an underrated player because people voted for clearly inferior players like KJ and Hardaway over him.
Career wise, sure, KJ and Hardaway are far down the road. Doesn't mean we can not look at year by year.
We can look at year by year and that wouldn't affect my point that Stockton's overall resume only looks inferior to No. 1 type guys at the all time level. Bringing KJ and Co into the discussion doesn't really answer that.
Magic and Thomas are Stockton's "contemporaries" and not KJ, Hardaway and Payton?..
The context was among candidates for GOAT PG. The latter 3 aren't in that discussion.
"had worse teammates than his contemporaries" Is this about Nash? Because Chris Paul, Walt Frazier, Jason Kidd had worse supporting casts on average.
I asked about that statement if you had Stockton vs. Nash in mind because it's just not something accurate to say when we compare Stockton to Paul, Frazier and Kidd. Turns out it was Stockton vs. Magic and Zeke for you.
Baski wrote:Sure, but I'm wondering why you're segmenting their careers into before/after Hornacek. What is it supposed to tell us that adding a quality floor spacer when they had none before made them better? Something negative? I hope not. I'm still not on board with calling their results underachievements in the era they played in. They made a conference finals before Hornacek joined and made 3 more including 2 finals. This while being by far the two most notable players on their team. Can't see how that's underachieving
From 1988 to 1993, 1 WCF in 6 playoffs doesn't make it successful either. They forced a game 7 against the Lakers in '88 and they reached the WCF in 1992. What else is there particularly as successful? Looking at how well they did in regular seasons and then the playoffs, I think it's safe to say Malone, Stockton and Sloan were underachievers prior to Hornacek's arrival. 6 seasons, 3 first round exits, 2 with the HCA, 51.5 wins per regular seasons (+3.74 srs) and 23-26 postseason w-l record.
Baski wrote:I thought the point you were making was that Kidd and Fraizer have comparable achievements with inferior casts on average. In that case it would be relevant to bring up that Frazier's cast for those 3 years were better than Stockton's ever were, and that Kidd's greatest achievement wasn't extremely impressive against Stockton's becuase of competition faced. I think you emphazing the average part means you at least acknowledge that at their most fortunate, both guys had better team situations that Stockton, which while they may not have lasted long, pushed them to championship success more than Stockton's best team did.
Already addressed this as we were looking at different players to compare with Stockton.
Also, you're going vague because Stockton never matched the level of 1972 Frazier (the team wasn't a powerhouse in that season, Reed was injured, Monroe was trying to adjust to the Knicks), I could easily make a case for Stockton getting way more help sometimes and at any point, Stockton never reached the level of Frazier. Similar to 2002 and 2003 Kidd. You're brushing off Kidd's quality and impact too easily due to the competition the Nets faced. The Nets were not a great team to begin with. They get Kidd, Kittles returns, Martin becomes a sophomore and they get rookie Richard Jefferson and the team improve by +9.7 NRtg (from 2000-01 to 2001-02). And Kidd was by far the biggest impact for it.
And what I mean by going vague, you can't point out Stockton's high points like this. Stockton was great for long, but almost all of the Stockton arguments do not want to address how great he was. "Kidd's greatest achievement wasn't extremely impressive against Stockton's becuase of competition faced." What is Stockton's peak? And how's that good enough for you to say this?
Baski wrote:Yeah pretty much. His game doesn't lend itself to flashy plays and big numbers that attract such votes. He was an underrated player because people voted for clearly inferior players like KJ and Hardaway over him.
How on earth KJ was clearly inferior to Stockton in 1990-91 regular season? Really? You're saying these things because your mind's set on Stockton.
Here are the All-NBA team results. I want you to select a season as Stockton was underrated and should've earned a higher place. The results;
Spoiler:
Odinn21 wrote:in 1991 he lost to KJ and Drexler. (KJ 212, Drexler 202, Stockton 160 points) in 1992 he lost to Drexler and Tim Hardaway. (Drexler 408, Hardaway 288, Stockton 269) in 1993 he lost to Price, almost tied with Dumars. (Price 344, Stockton 294, Dumars 290) (finally a clear cut result in 1994 when there was no good competition) (another good result in 1995, a better competition than 1994 but still not so great) in 1996 he lost to Penny and Payton. (Penny 516, Payton 294, Stockton 258) in 1997 he lost to Tim Hardaway, Payton, Richmond. (Hardaway 435, Payton 386, Richmond 198, Stockton 142) in 1998 he lost to Payton, Tim Hardaway, Strickland, Richmond, Miller. (Payton 561, Hardaway 245, Strickland 173, Richmond 139, Miller 124, Stockton 64) in 1999 he lost to Iverson, Kidd, Payton, Tim Hardaway and tied with Bryant. (Iverson 532, Kidd 516, Payton 440, Hardaway 168, Stockton and Bryant 75)
Stockton got well deserved All-NBA selections in 1988, 1989 and 1990. As you can see the sources in the following sources, it was obvious that he'd get overtaken with KJ emerging and he was. He lost to KJ, Tim Hardaway, Price and Dumars. Then the only times he made All-NBA 1st teams were in a very weak positional competition. Again, just look at the results in the links. Then he was beaten by Payton on a constant basis but I think we should draw the line at 1997 for Stockton's prime.
If All-NBA teams are a good measure to rely on, I'd ask you why the hell on earth Stockton was beaten by a healthy Tim Hardaway on a constant basis?
Does Stockton look underrated for not being a #1 player for real in those results?
Baski wrote:The context was among candidates for GOAT PG. The latter 3 aren't in that discussion.
If Tim Duncan was behind Elton Brand for 3 more seasons like he was in 2006, (assuming Brand would stay healthy), that still be a knock on Duncan even though Brand was nowhere close to being the goat pf... What make a goat is his superiority over his peers. And you're not happy with me bringing the positional competition Stockton faced in his time?..
The issue with per75 numbers; 36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins? The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine. Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
colts18 wrote:You can't bring up Nash's O ratings without mentioning the defense. His teams sacrificed defense for offense. That's why when he left the Mavs, the Mavs became a better team despite having a worse offense.
2004 Mavs with Nash: 52-30, 4.86 SRS
2005 Mavs w/o Nash: 58-24, 5.86 SRS
2003 Mavs with Nash: 60-22, 7.90 SRS This team had the #1 offense and #9 defense and lost 4-2 Spurs in the WCF with Nowitzki injured in game 3. The year after that, the Mavs made the misguided move to bring in the Antawn/Antoine and discarded their defensive role players or dropped them from the rotation (Bradley, Najera, Griffin, Lafrentz, Walt Williams). The result was their defense dropping from 9th to 26th, from 102 to 107, and a forgettable first round loss to Sacramento.
With Nash playing a major role, the Mavs built one of their best teams ever. (You can choose between this team, the 2011 title team, and the 2007 team that won 67 games but lost in the first round.) After the failed 2004 experiment, the Mavs built a series of teams that tried to strike a better offensive/defensive balance, with a wide variety of results. But all these results had everything to do with team building, and only somewhat to do with Nash. With Nash in a prominent role, the defense finished: 13th, 25th, 9th and 26th. The offense finished 4th, 1st, 1st, 1st. The Mavs cycled through lots of players and shaped their teams in different ways. Making an argument that there's some kind of proof the Mavs were a better team without him feels like a stretch.
Cherry picking 2 years, rather than looking at the entire eras before and after him feels like that: cherry picking to prove a point.
"Being in my home. I was watching pokemon for 5 hours."
Guys (Colts) you can't say "Stockton could have been so much more if built around properly or if he had played in the modern era" and then ignore that for Nash and his teams defense.
If you choose to play the hypothetical game of what Stockton could have been then you should be doing the same about assessing Nash with a competent cast of defenders around him.
Jordan Syndrome wrote:I'm a fan of Miller, what can I say. Not many players left (if any) have sustained peaks and Millers prime id extremely long.
I think there're still a few sustained peaks left around.
Frazier from '70 to '73 Ewing from '90 to '94 Baylor from '60 to '63 Havlicek from '67 (or '70 depending on your preference) to '74 Picking a certain time frame for Rick Barry is also hard. He was quite good for like a decade minus 1973 playoffs.
I love the Miller mention though. We're getting close to his tier if we haven't reached yet. I'd definitely prefer Miller over Stockton who got far more traction than Miller due to having a similar longevity. Stockton was a better defender but Miller being one of the best playoffs performers and top off-ball players ever certainly makes up for more than the gap on defense for me.
The issue with per75 numbers; 36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins? The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine. Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Nash -Strong support guy in Dallas, posting some Allstar seasons -Got the keys in Phoenix and was an MVP/GOAT tier offensive guy -Didn't fit as well when they transitioned to a more traditional team build (Shaq), but continued to pump out All-NBA level seasons -All around offensive beast, weak defender
Stockton -Arrived in '88 under Layden, under the defensive dynasty of Eaton. His fastest paced season, a transition demon. Wish we'd seen him develop more under this system. Is immediately a strong All-NBA guy, arguably his best season -'89 Sloan arrives and the pace plummets. Transition opportunities dry up, more limited (though still very good) in the half court -Eaton ages out and the team transitions from defense first to a second tier offensive dynasty. All-NBA guy through '97 -'98 onwards drops to 30 mpg (in an era where that wasn't the norm for stars), still high impact, but more limited, the Jazz as a whole age out to mediocrity. Still an Allstar guy (probably not '03) -Underused in transition, strong but not elite half-court offensive guy, strong defender - somewhat limited by size (much like Paul)
Wade -Comes in strong for a modern rookie and quickly develops into an MVP guy from '04-'06. -Injuries mid-prime leave him lacking a bit in prime longevity. -Returns in '09 with a vengeance, but doesn't have the team to really support him. -The GOAT arrives in his town and... they fit alright, shows some limitations for each in terms of fit, but they make it work well enough. Injuries to Wade another limiting factor. -Sticks around for awhile, but nothing major after '13. -Strong offense carrier, somewhat limited scalability, great defender, one of the more impactful help defending guards ever.
-A note on Harden: Seems likely to pass all these guys if he can keep racking up prime longevity, but to date is more equal and has too many times in the playoffs where he failed to capitalize on an opportunity ('16 when Curry goes down he still gets smacked by Draymond, in '17 he has an alltime stinker vs the Spurs in game 6, '18 the Rockets have the famous 0/27, '19 can't capitalize on KD going down).
Pippen is also a contender for next in line (I think behind Harden), need to look more at Ewing and maybe a couple of others.
iggymcfrack wrote: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.
I can add you to the voter panel. We're doing at THREE-choice ranked vote system, though. It probably won't matter this round [given the picks you've offered, your 3rd choice is likely moot], but for future rounds....
Please take a look at OP of this thread for more details.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
John Stockton - 5 (Baski, Clyde Frazier, Joao Saraiva, penbeast0, trex_8063) Dwyane Wade - 4 (Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, iggymcfrack, Odinn21) Steve Nash - 2 (eminence, Jordan Syndrome) James Harden - 2 (DQuinn1575, Magic Is Magic) Elgin Baylor - 1 (Hal14)
About 4-5 hours remaining for this thread; don’t leave it to the last second.
Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.
Ambrose wrote:.
Baski wrote:.
bidofo wrote:.
Blackmill wrote:.
Cavsfansince84 wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
Doctor MJ wrote:.
DQuinn1575 wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
drza wrote:.
Dutchball97 wrote:.
Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.
eminence wrote:.
Franco wrote:.
Gregoire wrote:.
Hal14 wrote:.
HeartBreakKid wrote:.
Hornet Mania wrote:.
Jaivl wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
Joey Wheeler wrote:.
Jordan Syndrome wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
lebron3-14-3 wrote:.
limbo wrote:.
Magic Is Magic wrote:.
Matzer wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
Odinn21 wrote:.
Owly wrote:.
O_6 wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
penbeast0 wrote:.
PistolPeteJR wrote:.
RSCD3_ wrote:.
[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.
SeniorWalker wrote:.
SHAQ32 wrote:.
Texas Chuck wrote:.
Tim Lehrbach wrote:.
TrueLAfan wrote:.
Whopper_Sr wrote:.
ZeppelinPage wrote:.
2klegend wrote:.
70sFan wrote:.
876Stephen wrote:.
90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
On Harden: On paper, Harden has an argument for getting traction at this stage. Great individual offensive player who can score from anywhere, is a good-not-great passer, upped his defense to a respectable level (still not a game change by any means), and is an all time great at drawing fouls.
His playoff outings are tricky to evaluate because: 1. RS numbers overrate him while PS numbers underrate him (efficiency plummets which makes him look worse than it should) 2. Ran into the Warriors 4 times during his prime; how much leeway should we give him? 3. Concerns about lack of adaptability; easy to contain his game and disrupt his rhythm for a player of his caliber
Editing the post because I finished part of what I was looking to comment on. Moving the prior post (from the previous thread) into spoilers.
I started writing a really long response to someone yesterday in this thread and before I submitted it just thought "Am I really saying anything new?". Looking at it this morning, I kinda doubt it will matter to anyone, so I'm just going to write off the top of my head here.
I think the key thing to remember in terms of Nash vs Stockton is that it's in general really weird to elevate a non-MVP candidate to an MVP. I'm not saying it's wrong to do so, I'm saying it's not something we tend to do in a lot of cases.
Every single player we've inducted so far has been an MVP except for 2 guys (West & Paul) who finished 2nd and have always been argued by a significant minority to have deserved to win the MVP in a given year. When we vote in Stockton, this will likely represent a stark line of demarcation.
Now, I've got Stockton 2nd on my list so I'm not saying "It's too early!!!". I don't mind Stockton getting in 26th, I don't have feelings about who gets what number, and it makes sense that when we get a non-MVP candidate level player to make the list for the first time, strong longevity is likely to be a factor.
But what's interesting here is that your typical Stockton over Nash supporter doesn't really focus on the longevity argument as anything more that a coup de grace because most of them seem to actively prefer Stockton as a player over Nash. They typically don't think Stockton was actually more valuable than Nash - though that's not universal - the main argument is that if you try to mitigate for circumstances, Stockton's collection of skills would make him more valuable than Nash.
It's not a crazy argument at all on the face of it, but there are certain aspects of the difference between Stockton's role and Nash's role that people just don't really want to acknowledge as concerning. In a nutshell, the fact that Stockton played his career with a more cautious, conservative game than most other point guards of his day and Nash played his career with a far more aggressive, improvisational game than any of his peers just doesn't seem to be something people are willing to say "Hmm, maybe I should be careful about assuming Stockton could play like Nash."
Why? Eh, I don't think people are looking for me to diagnose them beyond what I've already done, so I'll just focus on why I see things different.
I think it needs to be understood that a person's "way" in a given domain is something they figure out for themselves. Essentially, if you think about things in terms of chess, people figure out their go-to "openings" and they stick with them. These openings set context a particular way and tend to lead to certain types of subsequent interactions - in the case of a sport, certain types of opponent ripostes - which are themselves of predictable types that the player in question then has their go-to counters for.
I look at Nash and his openings and I just don't see the same thing as Stockton, and while folks want to attribute this to coaching, D'Antoni didn't make Nash have these opening, the Suns re-acquired Nash because he already had them.
I happened to watch some of the video trex posted. If you keep watching after the defensive possession to around 49:30 watch what happens.
Stockton is approach the 3-point line with the ball and no one is on him. There closest guy in front of him many feet away and actually facing the wrong way.
In a situation like this, Nash attacks and ends up either with a lay up, a floater or a kick out to the open man.
Stockton? He thinks about driving but the moment the guy in front of him wakes up, Stockton pulls back.
I don't mean to suggest Stockton is bad in transition nor that he's super-conservative on such attacks (Paul is more conservative than Stockton in transition), and that includes Stockton actually looking for opportunities to drive when he sees a clear lane to the bucket.
But when there are guys between him and the basket, he largely doesn't challenge the defense. He's not a guy who will just leap in and figure it out in mid-air the way Nash so often does. And to be fair to Stockton, his approach is the one that is what most coaches would say is the right way. When you leap in the air like Nash does, you're giving yourself over to an incredibly high degree of difficulty play which can easily result in a turnover (as we often saw with Michael Jordan), but Nash makes it work.
For Stockton to do something like what Nash did, I would suggest he'd have to be doing stuff like this on the regular too, and I don't see how you can just assume he could do that.
Spoiler:
Doctor MJ wrote:Vote:
1. Steve Nash 2. John Stockton 3. Dwyane Wade
With Curry in, Nash & Stockton move up a spot. Plucking Wade from the list of guys who have votes for the 3rd spot - not excluding guys from consideration just because they don't already have votes, but I've been debating Stockton vs Wade quite a bit.
Y'all know how I see Nash by this point I think:
He was a revolutionary player.
Now, I don't advocate for guys merely on the basis of historical significance here. I championed Louie Dampier in the Hall of Fame project and would do so again, but he didn't dominate when he played. But Nash is significant because his dominance proved to be a path forward for basketball.
It's hard for me to put him below a guy seen as being in the same mold, like Stockton, who just wasn't a revolutionary player. It's hard for me to put a nothing-close-to-MVP guy above an MVP guy.
My sense has always been that people tend to fall into two categories about revolutionaries in basketball: Either they tend to rate the player higher because of this, or they tend to rate the player lower because of this. I've lost my cool in a couple thread in the not too recent past with people advocating that Iverson should be rated above Nash because they blame Iverson's inefficiency on being in the wrong era. never mind the fact that Iverson was the one literally taking shots he wasn't a good enough shooter to justify taking the shots he was taking in either era.
People don't realize it, but even as they can acknowledge an issue in a guy's game that cripples his impact, they still tend to peg a guy's capacity for impact based on particular box score stats. In the case of Iverson, we're talking about PPG.
In the case of a guy like Stockton, we're really talking about other more sophisticated stats with a player whose limitations are minor enough I have him on my list above, but we're still talking about the same thrust:
The fact that Nash had more impact while being worse based on certain other stats has people thinking that Stockton could do roughly what Nash did. Some actually think he could do more, but more just think it would be close enough that Stockton's defense would carry the day.
But Nash won MVPs, and Stockton was never close. It's important not to forget this. It's important to understand why the difference, and what it was about Nash's play that made him have that transformative impact.
And I believe it's important to tread very carefully in assuming that another player could do what another guy did when he never himself actually did it.
I just wrote a post on the Thinking Basketball - Walton thread talking about the nature of how Walton was having the impact he was. In it I tried to avoid really trying to make comparisons because I think there's a more important point here to understand each player. The question of Walton vs Kareem on peak is less interesting than the fact that they couldn't fill each other's shoes. Kareem had gifts Walton did not, and Walton had gifts Kareem did not. That's what's really beautiful about all of this to me.
I don't feel comfortable saying Nash could play Stockton's role as well as Stockton, and I don't feel comfortable saying Stockton could do what Nash did. And what Nash did, was more of an outlier.
Alright, given all that, why Stockton over Wade? Honestly longevity is a big part of it for me. That might sound ridiculous given some of the statements I've made recently, but there's a particular thing here that bothers me:
I think in the end that Wade was probably at his best in his 3rd year in the league, when he could just be relentless with his motor. Wade wasn't a dumb player, but when you have a game so much based on explosion and motor, you're kind of like a running back just using yourself up.
I'm skeptical that longevity should really be seen as that big of a deal beyond a certain tenure, but there's enough daylight here that I honestly think I should take Stockton.
Wade vs Pettit. I'm tempted to pick Pettit. I'm very impressed by the way he kept growing as the game evolved from the '50s into the '60s. But it is hard for me to pick an offensive-oriented big whose absolute TS% is weak by today's standards over someone I saw lead a modern team to a championship and leave an incredible legacy on his franchise.
Okay, on some other players:
I think I clearly have a philosophical disagreement with Harden supporters. Guys, I'm largely going to leave you to it, but I really think you should think about how you'll see Harden if he completes the arc and utterly crashing the Rockets with trade demands of various stripes. I can respect it if you're withholding judgment to this point, but you've got to acknowledge that Harden doing stuff like this has the potential to massively change the future success of his franchise. If you're ignoring that when GMs & coaches have to factor that in, why? Why aren't you looking to emulate a role that is in sync with how actual teams get built?
I have Wade above Harden, because Wade's just had a hell of a lot more positive overall effect on the Heat than I think Harden's done with either of his franchises. I'd love for Harden to change the truth of that statement - honestly I'm pulling for him - but you've got to play nice with other talent and you've got to inspire role players to want to play with you if you want to max out to your potential.
The next guy I'm thinking about the most after that is Reggie Miller. I've never voted for him this high before, and I think it's clear we shouldn't be talking about his impact as near-Steph even though he really was the proto-Steph even more than Nash, but he was the future. I also have always been struck that his efficiency-based game got stronger rather than weaker in the playoffs, and that was long into his career at a time when he was supposed to be a role player, when Ron Artest touched the 3rd rail, it was Reggie who carried the team once again. Someone mentioned that they have Miller above Stockton and y'know, I can definitely see the argument, haven't yet been convinced to pull that particular trigger.
Rick Barry - I've got a lot of respect for Barry's capabilities. I do think that he'd be able to play helio really well today, and be able to do so for many years. He was a high BBIQ player. I do wish he would have been more efficient though. It's strange the way a guy can be so smart in so many ways, but just be calibrated a bit off efficiency-wise.
Walt Frazier - I always go back & forth on Barry vs Frazier, but I will say that I think Wade vs Frazier is a more similar comparison, and I'd be inclined to ever so slightly to with Wade.
John Havlicek - less impressed with him than Barry or Frazier prime vs prime, always a question of how much longevity means.
Scottie Pippen - I struggle to put Pippen above Havelicek. It just seems like Pippen is the kind of guy you're hoping has killer longevity because it seems like he should be able to, but instead he goes gently into that night.
I don't think anyone is saying Stockton does what Nash does anymore than they were saying LeBron does what Jordan did.
I think most of us who support Stockton over Nash are saying that what Stockton does (higher assist volume, less mistakes, more PnR creation, much better defense) is as valuable as what Nash does (more improvisation, occasional scoring binges) and Stockton did it longer if you need a tiebreaker.
Nash's key stat (other than the MVPs whatever value you put into them) is his team Ortgs which were great though there's the counter that the stats may overrate them a bit due to D'Antoni's deliberately putting smaller quicker players in to create mismatches at both ends. The argument by Stockton fans is that Stockton's different offensive playstyle was similarly valuable is that he was able to create good offenses with much poorer personnel (other than Mailman of course) and when he got a 3rd option in Hornacek (still weak offensive 3 and 5), he was able to create offenses nearly as good.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Odinn21 wrote: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.
Underachieved against who? Every team they lost to from 88-93 was a better team with the exception of 1989 when Stockton and Malone balled out, but the rest of the team was garbage.
Who were the good players on the Jazz after Stockton/Malone? Not one of their role players were good. They never achieved anything before playing with Stockton/Malone, during, or after leaving the Jazz.
penbeast0 wrote:I don't think anyone is saying Stockton does what Nash does anymore than they were saying LeBron does what Jordan did.
I think most of us who support Stockton over Nash are saying that what Stockton does (higher assist volume, less mistakes, more PnR creation, much better defense) is as valuable as what Nash does (more improvisation, occasional scoring binges) and Stockton did it longer if you need a tiebreaker.
Nash's key stat (other than the MVPs whatever value you put into them) is his team Ortgs which were great though there's the counter that the stats may overrate them a bit due to D'Antoni's deliberately putting smaller quicker players in to create mismatches at both ends. The argument by Stockton fans is that Stockton's different offensive playstyle was similarly valuable is that he was able to create good offenses with much poorer personnel (other than Mailman of course) and when he got a 3rd option in Hornacek (still weak offensive 3 and 5), he was able to create offenses nearly as good.
Those are not the only things going in for Nash though. Nash had a far better postseason resilience.
The reason why the following numbers has Stockton as from 1990 to 1997 is that the Jazz did not face a -2.0 or better rDRtg team in the playoffs in 1988 and 1989.
Odinn21 wrote:- The numbers for Stockton from 1990 to 1997;
Spoiler:
15.5/2.9/12.6/2.4 and 3.3 tpg on .616 ts in regular season (.536 ts league average) 14.7/3.4/11.3/1.8 and 3.1 tpg on .566 ts in 94 playoff games 14.5/3.4/11.2/1.7 and 3.0 tpg on .559 ts in 73 playoff games against -2.0 or better rDRtg teams
Note: the Jazz didn't face a -2.0 or better rDRtg team in 1988 and 1989 playoffs.
- The numbers for Nash from 2002 to 2010;
Spoiler:
16.9/3.3/9.9/0.8 and 3.2 tpg on .614 ts in regular season (.532 ts league average) 18.8/3.7/9.8/0.6 and 3.5 tpg on .589 ts in 100 playoff games 19.8/3.9/9.8/0.6 and 3.6 tpg on .599 ts in 61 playoff games against -2.0 or better rDRtg teams
In Phoenix; 17.0/3.5/10.9/0.7 and 3.5 tpg on .628 ts in regular season (.539 ts league average) 20.0/3.7/10.7/0.5 and 3.8 tpg on .604 ts in 67 playoff games 20.7/4.0/10.8/0.6 and 3.8 tpg on .602 ts in 43 playoff games against -2.0 or better rDRtg teams
I gotta say, Nash gained my respect as an above average playoff performer after seeing this. I had him as average but that performance jump is definitely above average.
- The numbers for Paul from 2008 to 2018;
Spoiler:
19.1/4.4/10.0/2.3 and 2.4 tpg on .589 ts in regular season (.541 ts league average) 21.4/4.9/8.8/2.2 and 2.6 tpg on .581 ts in 91 playoff games 22.2/5.0/9.1/2.2 and 2.6 tpg on .600 ts in 63 playoff games against -2.0 or better rDRtg teams
- The numbers for Thomas from 1984 to 1990;
Spoiler:
20.0/3.8/10.3/2.0 and 3.8 tpg on .526 ts in regular season (.540 ts league average) 21.7/4.8/9.0/2.3 and 3.4 tpg on .526 ts in 93 playoff games 24.1/4.6/9.1/2.4 and 4.3 tpg on .555 ts in 20 playoff games against -2.0 or better rDRtg teams
About rate of playing against -2.0 or better defenses; it is worth mentioning that relative Ratings were much closer in Thomas' time and Thomas being a part of one of the better defensive teams also didn't help with that. What I mean is; The Pistons played against the Bucks in 1989 playoffs. The Bucks were 6th in DRtg with -1.4 relative value. And the Clippers played against the Grizzlies in 2012 playoffs. The Grizzlies were 7th in DRtg with -2.8 relative value. I know that 20 in 93 looks a lot less than 65% but I think these things should be mentioned.
It's hard to agree with Stockton's longevity being a tiebreaker because that'd suggest that Stockton was just as good. But he wasn't. There was no tie to break. Stockton's longevity makes up for some of the gap. It's arguable that if it makes up for entire gap or some of it. But Stockton's longevity is not a tiebreaker.
The issue with per75 numbers; 36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins? The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine. Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
penbeast0 wrote:I don't think anyone is saying Stockton does what Nash doesanymore than they were saying LeBron does what Jordan did.
I think most of us who support Stockton over Nash are saying that what Stockton does (higher assist volume, less mistakes, more PnR creation, much better defense) is as valuable as what Nash does (more improvisation, occasional scoring binges) and Stockton did it longer if you need a tiebreaker.
Nash's key stat (other than the MVPs whatever value you put into them) is his team Ortgs which were great though there's the counter that the stats may overrate them a bit due to D'Antoni's deliberately putting smaller quicker players in to create mismatches at both ends. The argument by Stockton fans is that Stockton's different offensive playstyle was similarly valuable is that he was able to create good offenses with much poorer personnel (other than Mailman of course) and when he got a 3rd option in Hornacek (still weak offensive 3 and 5), he was able to create offenses nearly as good.
To be fair, there has been ONE person saying that Stockton could do anything Nash could, but only the one [that I've seen].
I'm with you, pen: I'm not saying Stockton is Nash's equal on offense; I don't think he has Nash's ceiling there. But he IS really damn good on offense in a way that has only been matched or exceeded by roughly a handful of other PG's [Nash among them]. And he was meanwhile a much better defender than Nash, AND did it all for longer (and more consistently [wrt missing games]).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
"had worse teammates than his contemporaries" Is this about Nash? Because Chris Paul, Walt Frazier, Jason Kidd had worse supporting casts on average.
I asked about that statement if you had Stockton vs. Nash in mind because it's just not something accurate to say when we compare Stockton to Paul, Frazier and Kidd. Turns out it was Stockton vs. Magic and Zeke for you.
Baski wrote:Sure, but I'm wondering why you're segmenting their careers into before/after Hornacek. What is it supposed to tell us that adding a quality floor spacer when they had none before made them better? Something negative? I hope not. I'm still not on board with calling their results underachievements in the era they played in. They made a conference finals before Hornacek joined and made 3 more including 2 finals. This while being by far the two most notable players on their team. Can't see how that's underachieving
From 1988 to 1993, 1 WCF in 6 playoffs doesn't make it successful either. They forced a game 7 against the Lakers in '88 and they reached the WCF in 1992. What else is there particularly as successful? Looking at how well they did in regular seasons and then the playoffs, I think it's safe to say Malone, Stockton and Sloan were underachievers prior to Hornacek's arrival. 6 seasons, 3 first round exits, 2 with the HCA, 51.5 wins per regular seasons (+3.74 srs) and 23-26 postseason w-l record.
I can see where you get underachieving from based on those 6 years. It's not a stellar record, but not particularly bad considering who they lost to and their supporting cast. I mean, were you expecting consistent conference finals appearances?
Still trying to understand the Hornacek timeline-splitting. Is his boosting of their performance supposed to be treated like some "unfair" advantage Stockton got, or is it a negative that simply adding a Hornacek level player to the Jazz made them a better team? What would it tell me If I did the same thing with Pippen and the Bulls, Klay/Dray and the Warriors, Kobe on the Lakers, Mo Williams on the Cavs etc?
Also, you're going vague because Stockton never matched the level of 1972 Frazier (the team wasn't a powerhouse in that season, Reed was injured, Monroe was trying to adjust to the Knicks), I could easily make a case for Stockton getting way more help sometimes and at any point, Stockton never reached the level of Frazier.
Why do you think so? Not every stat is available for Frazier, but of the ones that are, Stockton looks pretty good compared to him. Is it an eyetest thing? Is it the carryjob factor?
Similar to 2002 and 2003 Kidd. You're brushing off Kidd's quality and impact too easily due to the competition the Nets faced. The Nets were not a great team to begin with. They get Kidd, Kittles returns, Martin becomes a sophomore and they get rookie Richard Jefferson and the team improve by +9.7 NRtg (from 2000-01 to 2001-02). And Kidd was by far the biggest impact for it.
That was not my intention. No doubt Kidd had a huge impact on that team
And what I mean by going vague, you can't point out Stockton's high points like this. Stockton was great for long, but almost all of the Stockton arguments do not want to address how great he was.
The arguments on how great he was have been made, but you strongly disagree with them.
"Kidd's greatest achievement wasn't extremely impressive against Stockton's becuase of competition faced." What is Stockton's peak? And how's that good enough for you to say this?
Probably 1990 or 89. His greatest achievement didn't coincide with his peak. I'll admit I've always had a default Peak Stockton > Peak Kidd setting because I'm not that high on Kidd's playstyle and deficiencies, but your question has prompted me to look at it more closely. I'll do that and hopefully get back to you.
How on earth KJ was clearly inferior to Stockton in 1990-91 regular season? Really? You're saying these things because your mind's set on Stockton.
Here are the All-NBA team results. I want you to select a season as Stockton was underrated and should've earned a higher place. The results;
Spoiler:
Odinn21 wrote:in 1991 he lost to KJ and Drexler. (KJ 212, Drexler 202, Stockton 160 points) in 1992 he lost to Drexler and Tim Hardaway. (Drexler 408, Hardaway 288, Stockton 269) in 1993 he lost to Price, almost tied with Dumars. (Price 344, Stockton 294, Dumars 290) (finally a clear cut result in 1994 when there was no good competition) (another good result in 1995, a better competition than 1994 but still not so great) in 1996 he lost to Penny and Payton. (Penny 516, Payton 294, Stockton 258) in 1997 he lost to Tim Hardaway, Payton, Richmond. (Hardaway 435, Payton 386, Richmond 198, Stockton 142) in 1998 he lost to Payton, Tim Hardaway, Strickland, Richmond, Miller. (Payton 561, Hardaway 245, Strickland 173, Richmond 139, Miller 124, Stockton 64) in 1999 he lost to Iverson, Kidd, Payton, Tim Hardaway and tied with Bryant. (Iverson 532, Kidd 516, Payton 440, Hardaway 168, Stockton and Bryant 75)
Stockton got well deserved All-NBA selections in 1988, 1989 and 1990. As you can see the sources in the following sources, it was obvious that he'd get overtaken with KJ emerging and he was. He lost to KJ, Tim Hardaway, Price and Dumars. Then the only times he made All-NBA 1st teams were in a very weak positional competition. Again, just look at the results in the links. Then he was beaten by Payton on a constant basis but I think we should draw the line at 1997 for Stockton's prime.
If All-NBA teams are a good measure to rely on, I'd ask you why the hell on earth Stockton was beaten by a healthy Tim Hardaway on a constant basis?
Does Stockton look underrated for not being a #1 player for real in those results?
Well going by stats for those years: In 1991, he was better than Drexler and comparable to KJ in pretty much every available advanced stat (the ones I looked at are PER, TS%, WS, WS/48, BPM, VORP, Ortg. There are more I should be looking at but these were the quickest way I could paint a picture for myself),
In 1992, Stockton was better than Hardaway in pretty much every one but PPG. For most of the advanced stats, Stockton's career average is better than Hardaway's peak. It's more competitive with Drexler, who peaked that year to his credit, but same deal.
1993 was the same story with Mark Price. He didnt even beat Stockton in any box score. Not a one.
This is all true and yet Stockton "lost" to those inferior players. Maybe because Tim was leading the Run TMC Warriors, one of the most exciting teams of the time, KJ and Clyde marveled fans with their athleticism, Price led a 2015 Hawk-ish Cavs team, while Stockton was slowly grinding out wins in his non-flashy style.
Penny was great in 1996. Not one I'd wanna dispute too much, but he was a big star then with his crazy athleticism and the lil Penny gimmick, while Stockton simply wasn't. I agree with your cutoff point for his prime.
Stockton was consistently great, but "lost" to more eye-catching, yet inferior players (players on better teams in Price's case). That's underrated in my book.
If Tim Duncan was behind Elton Brand for 3 more seasons like he was in 2006, (assuming Brand would stay healthy), that still be a knock on Duncan even though Brand was nowhere close to being the goat pf... What make a goat is his superiority over his peers. And you're not happy with me bringing the positional competition Stockton faced in his time?..
But when you're comparing Duncan to other GOAT level PFs that we know are in his tier, does it seem relevant to bring up players like Brand and Webber who aren't, even if they were to somehow beat him to it multiple times? Personally I think it doesn't add much to the discussion when everyone's career has played out and we know what they became, but I can respect why you'd disagree and will try to address your points on them.
John Stockton - 5 (Baski, Clyde Frazier, Joao Saraiva, penbeast0, trex_8063) Dwyane Wade - 4 (Dr Positivity, Dutchball97, iggymcfrack, Odinn21) Steve Nash - 4 (Doctor MJ, eminence, Jordan Syndrome, Whopper_Sr) James Harden - 2 (DQuinn1575, Magic Is Magic) Elgin Baylor - 1 (Hal14)
OK, time is up. 16 votes requires 9 for majority, so we'll eliminate Baylor, which ghosts that vote. Next we'll eliminate Harden, which transfers one to Wade and one to Nash....
Stockton - 5 Wade - 5 Nash - 5 (ghosted) - 1
I am contacting the ghost vote to see his hierarchy between these three, to see if we can resolve the 3-way tie.
Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.
Ambrose wrote:.
Baski wrote:.
bidofo wrote:.
Blackmill wrote:.
Cavsfansince84 wrote:.
Clyde Frazier wrote:.
Doctor MJ wrote:.
DQuinn1575 wrote:.
Dr Positivity wrote:.
drza wrote:.
Dutchball97 wrote:.
Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.
eminence wrote:.
Franco wrote:.
Gregoire wrote:.
Hal14 wrote:.
HeartBreakKid wrote:.
Hornet Mania wrote:.
Jaivl wrote:.
Joao Saraiva wrote:.
Joey Wheeler wrote:.
Jordan Syndrome wrote:.
LA Bird wrote:.
lebron3-14-3 wrote:.
limbo wrote:.
Magic Is Magic wrote:.
Matzer wrote:.
Moonbeam wrote:.
Odinn21 wrote:.
Owly wrote:.
O_6 wrote:.
PaulieWal wrote:.
penbeast0 wrote:.
PistolPeteJR wrote:.
RSCD3_ wrote:.
[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.
SeniorWalker wrote:.
SHAQ32 wrote:.
Texas Chuck wrote:.
Tim Lehrbach wrote:.
TrueLAfan wrote:.
Whopper_Sr wrote:.
ZeppelinPage wrote:.
2klegend wrote:.
70sFan wrote:.
876Stephen wrote:.
90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Doctor MJ wrote: I happened to watch some of the video trex posted. If you keep watching after the defensive possession to around 49:30 watch what happens.
Stockton is approach the 3-point line with the ball and no one is on him. There closest guy in front of him many feet away and actually facing the wrong way.
In a situation like this, Nash attacks and ends up either with a lay up, a floater or a kick out to the open man.
Stockton? He thinks about driving but the moment the guy in front of him wakes up, Stockton pulls back.
I don't mean to suggest Stockton is bad in transition nor that he's super-conservative on such attacks (Paul is more conservative than Stockton in transition), and that includes Stockton actually looking for opportunities to drive when he sees a clear lane to the bucket.
But when there are guys between him and the basket, he largely doesn't challenge the defense. He's not a guy who will just leap in and figure it out in mid-air the way Nash so often does. And to be fair to Stockton, his approach is the one that is what most coaches would say is the right way. When you leap in the air like Nash does, you're giving yourself over to an incredibly high degree of difficulty play which can easily result in a turnover (as we often saw with Michael Jordan), but Nash makes it work.
For Stockton to do something like what Nash did, I would suggest he'd have to be doing stuff like this on the regular too, and I don't see how you can just assume he could do that.
With the explicit understanding that I am a stats-guy and not a game-film guy, can you help me understand how Stockton is *both* less aggressive attacking the rim than Steve Nash yet has a considerably higher free throw rate?
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
