RealGM

cwas2882 wrote:Not really pertinent to the discussion, but Stockton's RHR was said to be around 35. Crazy ****

whatever, you don't have a heart rate when you're a cyborg

I think he'd be more or less the same as he was when he played--almost always a top 15-20 player, occasionally a top 10 player, probably never a top 5 player. I don't think he'd be ahead of Paul; I don't think his impact would be equal to that of Nash (Nash is a better Mark Price; Price was as valuable, if not more, than Stockton at his peak). As others have noted, Stockton's strength was in longetivity and consistency, not peak.

TrueLAfan wrote:I think he'd be more or less the same as he was when he played--almost always a top 15-20 player, occasionally a top 10 player, probably never a top 5 player. I don't think he'd be ahead of Paul; I don't think his impact would be equal to that of Nash (Nash is a better Mark Price; Price was as valuable, if not more, than Stockton at his peak). As others have noted, Stockton's strength was in longetivity and consistency, not peak.

Sounds about right. The top talent in that era (Hakeem, not old Shaq, MJ, Admiral, etc.) may have been a level above what it is now but Stock was never really in those guys' league anyway. On a year to year basis, which is what we are talking about now, I figure there were always about 15 guys who were better than John.

Off the top of my head, I'd definitely take Paul, Kobe, Lebron, Bosh, Amare, Dirk, TD, KG, and Howard over Stockton. I'd most likely take Deron, Wade, Yao, and Melo over him too even with the assorted injury concerns.

I'd put Stockton on level with a guy like Manu actually. A guy who is a phenomenal talent but probably wouldn't cut it as the top dog on your team.

As far as Nash goes; Stockton is a guy we all watched, as is Nash. I just don't remember Stockton being nearly as deadly on offense as Nash was even this past year. Of course Nash's D deficiencies knock him down a peg but I'd feel more comfortable with Nash running the show than I would Stockton. Might not be fair to JS because he wasn't in a PHX sort of situation where Amare and Marion really needed more help to be elite than Malone, but I'm callin' it like I see (saw) it.

Billups. Another tough call. Billups is always underated as a passer and scorer because he doesn't put up big numbers but he's really the impetus of one of the best teams of the post Jordan era. I'd certainly take Billups over Stockton on D, and that isn't a knock on Stockton, Billups is just a nasty defender. On offense, Stockton can certainly play in more styles, not sure if Billups could play in the open court. Stockton is a lot more creative as a passer too. I just don't think there's a more effective half court PG in recent memory than Chauncey. He can get to the line almost at will and he's a master at creating his own shot, even from deep. He also never turns the ball over which is really important for a team like that. On top, he's more of a takeover guy than Stockton ever was. I'd probably take Billups over Stockton just because he really can be the best player on a team and I don't trust Stockton to do that even though Stockton is more versatile.

So, I'd probably say Stockton would be the 16th best player in the league. A better peice than Jefferson or Roy but not in the upper echelon of stars who can be the foundation of a team by themselves.

Nash better than Stockton? 16th best player if he were in the league? Wow, some people in this thread are absolutely insane.

Deron Williams (as of 08') is NOT better than John Stockton. First, look at the advantages Williams has over Stockton- Scoring: Bigger, better post scorer, better off the dribble scorer, better finisher to the basket. .... and that's it right? Outside of this there is nothing Williams is better than Stockton at, right?- perhaps his bigger frame also allows him to defend against being posted by larger guards.
- Fantastic >> So John Stockton is better than Deron Williams at everything basketball save for those 4 abilities..?

Also, on the issue of scoring & scoring abilities keep in mind Stockton was a much much better shooter than Williams- and thus was arguably, overall a more natural scorer at the point (in that he didn't need to take the team out of the offensive scheme in order to score effectively). The man shot a damn .615+ TS% for his prime ! Ridiculous.

- the younger generation of fan seems to have a lower appreciation for efficiency and consistency (surprsing, seeing as many of the cutting edge stat formulas were born in this new generation)

You can make a good case for Chris Paul being better than prime Stockton, but I don't see why people think that Deron Williams has already surpassed Stockton. Last year Williams had a PER of 20.8, compared with Stockton who maintained a PER higher than that for 16 consecutive years. Other statistical measurements(win score, offensive and defensive ratings, etc) give similar results; not only has Deron not reached Stockton's peak by those measurements, he hasn't even matched Stockton's career averages yet.

NO-KG-AI wrote:What is Stockton's prime? His highest MVP finish?(7)

I can't see him being a top 5 lock or whatever when he only finished top 10 in MVP voting 3 times in his career, with 7th being his highest.

Rose colored glasses for some....

but Nash was considered top 5, and won 2 MVP's on numbers less than 17 & 14.

I think Stockton would be top 10 easily.

Rasheeed!!! wrote:but Nash was considered top 5, and won 2 MVP's on numbers less than 17 & 14.

I think Stockton would be top 10 easily.

Nash didn't win because of his number, and Stockton's assist numbers are legendarily inflated. Honestly no one should ever compare his assist numbers straight up to guys in this era.

With that said, peak Stockton would certainly be top 10 now, just as he was back then. Just don't start drooling over the numbers and convince yourself he was Chris Paul on steroids.

Williams being a better scorer is an extremely valuable quality. Williams is a game changer. He has shown that, at a young age, he is able to win games for his team....big games, playoff games. He can carry his team. His team can be successful with him as the primary scorer AND playmaker.

And it was Deron who averaged something like 25+ and 9+ assists (can't remember the exact numbers) against a championship winning Spurs team in 2007...That's something Stockton would not be able to do.

I seriously don't think he was a top 10 player in the nba in his prime in his day....and I don't think he'd be now.....well, MAYBE on the lower end of the top 10, but no more than that. I'm just not convinced Stockton could create a team style with his presence. I do think he could play in any style and any system.....but I don't think he could do what steve nash does.....being that he can be the stimulus(the whole reason...the bringer of) of a high-octane, effective, run-n-gun offense.

Doctor MJ wrote:

Rasheeed!!! wrote:but Nash was considered top 5, and won 2 MVP's on numbers less than 17 & 14.

I think Stockton would be top 10 easily.

Nash didn't win because of his number, and Stockton's assist numbers are legendarily inflated. Honestly no one should ever compare his assist numbers straight up to guys in this era.

With that said, peak Stockton would certainly be top 10 now, just as he was back then. Just don't start drooling over the numbers and convince yourself he was Chris Paul on steroids.

How were Stockton's ast numbers 'legendarily inflated'? How do you account for that? Stockton was still pulling 10ast/36 min in 03'. ... at age 40.

AIRTIGHT wrote:How were Stockton's ast numbers 'legendarily inflated'? How do you account for that? Stockton was still pulling 10ast/36 min in 03'. ... at age 40.

His peak number were from an era that racked up assists like players in the 60s racked up points, and he played on a franchise that racked up assists at an elite level compared to their contemporaries even in years that the offense was well below average in effectiveness. None of which is to say Stockton wasn't great, but anyone giving Stockton the nod over other star players because of his staggering stats at peak is likely looking too much at raw stats and not enough at the whole picture.

I feel his peak simply shows his skill/ability when given prime athleticism.

Of course he played on a franchise that racked up high level assist #'s; many years he accounted for more than half the league average for a team by himself alone. (Which team has lead in asts for the past few years-- the Suns, to no suprise!)

What i'm asking about your supposition of his numbers being inflated is how do you account for him still averaging 10, 10.5 ast per 36 mins even in 03' (modern era, age 40 not withstanding)? This is an average that Paul hovers around at right now. - The pace for the Hornets this year being 89.4, Utah 03' 89.3.
-- Unless you are saying he had an inherent advantage with his teammates and offensive system affording him an easier time getting assists than the average star pg ?>> I think that's reaching isn't it?

tsherkin wrote:Looking at the point guards and assuming they match the production and such that they managed last year, I'm not sure that Stockton (just on his own) would really rank above Deron or Paul; both of those guys were doing some pretty phenomenal things.

tsherkin, I appreciate your input on this, and I respect your takes, but in this case I have to disagree. Stockton is simply a better player than Deron Williams.

You've mentioned that Stockton gets overrated; perhaps, among the general public, as I've heard him described as the best point guard ever (or more often, the second best to Magic) because of his prolific career.

Of course that's ridiculous. But I strongly believe he gets underrated on these forums (the all-time thread notwithstanding, in which opposition to Stockton's position at #27 was very vocal). There are only a handful of true point guards I would say were definitely better than Stockton--Magic, Frazier, and Thomas. I suppose you can make a case for Payton in his prime, and in the future, Chris Paul. But I strongly disagree that Deron is on his level, and I really can't see him being as good as Stockton, as much as I respect his upside.

I feel there are several criticisms of Stockton. They do have their merits, but in my opinion, they are overblown:
1) He was never a dominant player, as evidenced by MVP voting or all-NBA first teams.
Agreed to some extent--relatively speaking, his longevity is more impressive than his peak, but it seems that we're taking his abilities for granted. It's difficult to garner MVP shares when the perception is that you are the second best player on your own team, even if the difference is very slight.

2) He was not a dominant scorer or someone who could take the game over.
Stockton was not the type of guy who could routinely go off on his opponents for 30-40 points. However, he did everything that you would want a point guard to do--make smart decisions, run the offense smoothly, space the court, score efficiently, play solid defense, and provide leadership. I feel that these aspects of the game frequently get overlooked.

As an exaggerated example, I want to consider the case of Dennis Rodman and Zach Randolph. Randolph's obviously more able to better create his own basket, serve as a #1 option on offense, or score 30 points in a game, but is there anyone who doubts that Rodman is the better player?


Among point guards today, I believe Stockton is well ahead of Deron Williams and Steve Nash. The stats don't tell everything, but Stockton in his prime had several seasons in which he averaged over 17 ppg and 14 apg with extremely high efficiency (TS of 61-62%) on a squad really featuring only Karl Malone. Steve Nash has had much more talented teammates (at least on the offensive end), plus an offensive system that is notorious for producing inflated stats; Deron Williams also has some decent teammates, plus the same coach. Given that, I don't think you can criticize Stockton's statistics as merely a reflection of the system or the talent of his teammates. In his prime, he was considerably better on the offensive end than either Williams or Nash, and while he can't necessarily lock down his man like Payton could, he's still a better defender than Williams and miles better than Sieve Nash. He would simply be the #2 PG today--at worst--by a considerable margin.

Now given that, I need to reevaluate my claim that he was a top 4 player. I really regret making the statement that he was top 4 "at worst", because there are so many different ways you can evaluate a player. I'll concede this--LeBron and Kobe are better players. Paul probably is as well. Beyond that, you can make cases for Duncan and Garnett, and perhaps Yao and Howard as well. In playoff situations in which you place a premium on post play and interior defense, I would be inclined to rank those big men higher. However, in the context of MVP voting, in which consistent regular season performance is valued--the same criteria that bestowed upon Steve Nash two MVPs--I would take Stockton over guys like Duncan and Garnett who might have the ability to impact the game more than Stockton, but save such effort for the postseason.

I'd have Dirk behind Stockton, and Amare even further behind that. I feel that the offense Stockton creates for his teammates (and to a lesser extent, himself) simply better than Dirk's superior ability to create baskets for himself (and to a lesser extent, his teammates). I feel that if one criticizes Stockton for not being able to break down his defenders, that criticism is that much stronger for Amare. In any case, Dirk's defense, while improved, is not great, and Amare's is simply atrocious.

I am completely shocked that you would consider Boozer a better player than Stockton. Is it simply a case of "big over small"?

Doctor MJ wrote:

AIRTIGHT wrote:How were Stockton's ast numbers 'legendarily inflated'? How do you account for that? Stockton was still pulling 10ast/36 min in 03'. ... at age 40.

His peak number were from an era that racked up assists like players in the 60s racked up points, and he played on a franchise that racked up assists at an elite level compared to their contemporaries even in years that the offense was well below average in effectiveness. None of which is to say Stockton wasn't great, but anyone giving Stockton the nod over other star players because of his staggering stats at peak is likely looking too much at raw stats and not enough at the whole picture.

That might be true to some extent, but guys like Steve Nash play in similarly inflated offensive schemes. And if I assume that you mean that assists were credited too liberally in the late 80s, the criticism that statisticians tend to score assists very generously to star players like Steve Nash and Chris Paul remains true today.

Doctor MJ wrote:

AIRTIGHT wrote:How were Stockton's ast numbers 'legendarily inflated'? How do you account for that? Stockton was still pulling 10ast/36 min in 03'. ... at age 40.

His peak number were from an era that racked up assists like players in the 60s racked up points, and he played on a franchise that racked up assists at an elite level compared to their contemporaries even in years that the offense was well below average in effectiveness. None of which is to say Stockton wasn't great, but anyone giving Stockton the nod over other star players because of his staggering stats at peak is likely looking too much at raw stats and not enough at the whole picture.

I don't think assists were that much easier to get when Stockton was in his prime than they are today. If assists were really easy to get, then a lot of players would be getting them and Stockton's assist% wouldn't be that high even if he had impressive raw assist totals. Here is a list of the highest season assist percentages that have been achieved in the NBA: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ast_pct_season.html Note that the top 7 seasons with the highest assist percentages were all done by Stockton. That shows that Stockton's huge assist totals were not merely due to playing in an era where assists were easy to get. Stockton was able to generate assists at a higher rate, even relative to his contemporaries, than any other player in NBA history.

trk wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

AIRTIGHT wrote:How were Stockton's ast numbers 'legendarily inflated'? How do you account for that? Stockton was still pulling 10ast/36 min in 03'. ... at age 40.

I don't think assists were that much easier to get when Stockton was in his prime than they are today. If assists were really easy to get, then a lot of players would be getting them and Stockton's assist% wouldn't be that high even if he had impressive raw assist totals. Here is a list of the highest season assist percentages that have been achieved in the NBA: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ast_pct_season.html Note that the top 7 seasons with the highest assist percentages were all done by Stockton. That shows that Stockton's huge assist totals were not merely due to playing in an era where assists were easy to get. Stockton was able to generate assists at a higher rate, even relative to his contemporaries, than any other player in NBA history.

I'm on Stockton's "side", so to speak, but I believe assist percentages reflect the proportion of possessions "used" by a player that end up as assists. In other words, to maximize this stat, you want a guy who never shoots, never gets to the line, rarely turns the ball over, and always feeds his teammates. Leaders of this statistic include some of the greatest point guards ever, but it isn't the most impressive statistic, and it certainly doesn't mean what you think it does.

^ Well ast percentage just details how much your team relies on you to be a distributer (while you're on the court). A player could presumably get a 60% ast percentage if he got 8 asts a game and the team only made 13 fg within that time the player was on the court.

I'm still perplexed at mj's undervaluing of Stockton's 10ast/36 min in 01'- 03' even at age 40! (and much higher in his prime years). How the hell man !! What else would he need to do?

AIRTIGHT wrote:^ Well ast percentage just details how much your team relies on you to be a distributer. A player could feasibly get a 60% ast percentage if he got 8 asts a game and the team only made 13 fg within that time the player was on the court.

I'm still perplexed at mj's undervaluing of Stockton's 10ast/36 min in 01'- 03' even at age 40! (and much higher in his prime years). How the hell man !! What else would he need to do?

If that's the case, I stand corrected. Can someone else chime in?

Edit: AST% Assist Percentage (available since the 1964-65 season in the NBA); the formula is 100 * AST / (((MP / (Tm MP / 5)) * Tm FG) - FG). Assist percentage is an estimate of the percentage of teammate field goals assisted while on the court.

I was wrong. Sorry for the confusion. However, that still rule out the possibility that assists were granted more generously during the era.

shawngoat23 wrote:That might be true to some extent, but guys like Steve Nash play in similarly inflated offensive schemes.

not really, the Suns "system" was basically give it the ball to Nash and run, and it was Steve's job to create the opportunities for his teamates. There's no history of other people racking up assists in D'Antoni's teams (even in Europe, as he was using the same "system"), while the way Dallas was playing could limit a PG assist numbers.

The Jazz system, even now, is very assist friendly considering the amount the ball moviment and cuts required to make it work, so it's easier to somehow average 10+ just on reading the defence and finding the open man. In the Suns that's not enough as the PG is required to also create the opportunity with his own offensive skills.

Well considering 2 and 3 years ago Nash was on everyone's top 5 list, and Stockton was a very rich mans Steve Nash I am going to go ahead and say that in his prime Stockton would be a top 10 player in the league today no doubt.

And I laugh at anyone who diminishes Stockton for only finishing 7th at his highest point in MVP voting. Of course he did, he played with guys like Jordan, Malone, Olajuwon, Barkley, Ewing, Robinson, Drexler... etc. etc.

That's 7 guys right there, and if you had any of those guys in the league right now you would definitely say they are a top 5 player.

It's simply foolish that someone like John Stockton is being forgotten so easily.