Who Was Actually the Better Player: Steve Nash or John Stockton

[Bad Bart]

I was surprised by the amount of conversation the Steve Nash vs Mark Price thread generated. I think this will be a much closer vote.

[HomoSapien]

This is actually a pretty tough question. I want to say Stockton because he was a more complete player, with no real weaknesses -- and was actually a plus defender. But the argument for Nash is that he was able to play at an MVP-level as the lead guy. Stockton was never used that way. When Nash played a secondary player to Nowitzki, Stockton was hands down the better player. He out-performed Nash in that type of role. You have to wonder how Stockton would have done if he was asked to be the lead in a D'Antoni-like system, but we never got a chance to see that. So because of that, it's really a close debate, IMO.

[Doctor MJ]

I was surprised by the amount of conversation the Steve Nash vs Mark Price thread generated. I think this will be a much closer vote.

As it should.

Two legends that first and foremost we should just keep in mind were both singular in that they did over their careers.

[HomoSapien]

I will add that Stockton's numbers from age 25-32 compare pretty favorably to Nash's Suns career. Record and success wise, the Jazz and Suns aren't super dissimilar during that period either. The big difference, is just one was a lead and the other wasn't.

[The Master]

Peak? Nash comfortably, he was able to play on higher volume as a scorer in the playoffs (multiple playoff runs with +20-10-60TS% averages) - he was a better player adjusted to his era - and he generated better offenses in the regular season. This is more important than the advantage that Stockton has on defensive end.

Overall? I'd still go with Nash, but it's closer due to longevity, here, there's a legit argument in favor of Stockton, maybe he's the answer, who knows.

This is actually a pretty tough question. I want to say Stockton because he was a more complete player, with no real weaknesses -- and was actually a plus defender. But the argument for Nash is that he was able to play at an MVP-level as the lead guy. Stockton was never used that way. When Nash played a secondary player to Nowitzki, Stockton was hands down the better player. He out-performed Nash in that type of role. You have to wonder how Stockton would have done if he was asked to be the lead in a D'Antoni-like system, but we never got a chance to see that. So because of that, it's really a close debate, IMO.

Is that a case though? Considering shortcomings of Malone as an offensive player in the playoffs - there was plenty of room for Stockton to 'increase' his ranks as a player, he rarely was willing to play on higher volume as a scorer though.

We have examples here and there (Lakers '89 or Rockets '97), but the overall outlook was that Stockton was fine with his 'regular' contribution even if Jazz badly needed more scoring depth, especially in these series like Blazers '92, Rockets '94, or Bulls '97 - where Jazz were the closest to the realistic contending chances. Sometimes, Hornacek or Jeff Malone in crucial moments played on higher volume as scorers.

So I don't think that Stockton scales that well in 'what if he was a first option' type of situations.

[canada_dry]

Better? Nash.

Greater? Probably stockton due to longevity and the records

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

[JinKaz69]

Same answer as the Nash vs. Price thread :
Both players were about the same level.

[canada_dry]

Peak? Nash comfortably, he was able to play on higher volume as a scorer in the playoffs (multiple playoff runs with +20-10-60TS% averages) - he was a better player adjusted to his era - and he generated better offenses in the regular season. This is more important than the advantage that Stockton has on defensive end.

Overall? I'd still go with Nash, but it's closer due to longevity, here, there's a legit argument in favor of Stockton, maybe he's the answer, who knows.

This is actually a pretty tough question. I want to say Stockton because he was a more complete player, with no real weaknesses -- and was actually a plus defender. But the argument for Nash is that he was able to play at an MVP-level as the lead guy. Stockton was never used that way. When Nash played a secondary player to Nowitzki, Stockton was hands down the better player. He out-performed Nash in that type of role. You have to wonder how Stockton would have done if he was asked to be the lead in a D'Antoni-like system, but we never got a chance to see that. So because of that, it's really a close debate, IMO.

Is that a case though? Considering shortcomings of Malone as an offensive player in the playoffs - there was plenty of room for Stockton to 'increase' his ranks as a player, he rarely was willing to play on higher volume as a scorer though.

We have examples here and there (Lakers '89 or Rockets '97), but the overall outlook was that Stockton was fine with his 'regular' contribution even if Jazz badly needed more scoring depth, especially in these series like Blazers '92, Rockets '94, or Bulls '97 - where Jazz were the closest to the realistic contending chances. Sometimes, Hornacek or Jeff Malone in crucial moments played on higher volume as scorers.

So I don't think that Stockton scales that well in 'what if he was a first option' type of situations.

I'd even go further and say Stockton tried at times in the playoffs and failed. He took more shots to average the same amount of points as he did in the regular season.

The argument that Stockton could have scaled up his scoring when he wanted to is kinda unfounded.

Theres a lot of proof of concept there when it comes to nash. Not so much with Stockton.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

[ropjhk]

Stockton wasn't the lead guy but I think I would say that he and Malone were a better duo than Nash and Stoudamire.

Stockton and Nash have very similar numbers except when it comes to steals where Stockton clearly outshines Nash. Stockton has more assists but I'll also mention there's controversy over how those were counted. Nash has a clear lead in career 3pt% and FT% while Stockton leads in 2pt%.

Both were a product of their system and the system revolved around them. You can't separate Stockton from the Jazz pick and roll in the same way you can't separate Nash from SSOL.

In terms of accolades, Nash has two MVPs but Stockton has two finals appearances and he can take some credit for Karl Malone's MVPs.

Both had long careers and were all stars as late as age 37.

Stockton was a good defender, while that was considered a weakness for Nash.

Tough choice. I agree with Sapien and will choose Nash, but Stockton really was better as the #2.

[JimmyPlopper]

This is actually a pretty tough question. I want to say Stockton because he was a more complete player, with no real weaknesses -- and was actually a plus defender. But the argument for Nash is that he was able to play at an MVP-level as the lead guy. Stockton was never used that way. When Nash played a secondary player to Nowitzki, Stockton was hands down the better player. He out-performed Nash in that type of role. You have to wonder how Stockton would have done if he was asked to be the lead in a D'Antoni-like system, but we never got a chance to see that. So because of that, it's really a close debate, IMO.

Perfect answer

[hagredionis]

It's close but it's probably Stockton because he's a much better defender.

[SlimShady83]

I went with the goat passer and all round better player

[D.Brasco]

It's close but it's probably Stockton because he's a much better defender.

Defense has arguably the least impact at the PG position. Magic is considered a GOAT pg despite being a just ok defender.

Stockton could never run a whole offense the way prime Nash did.

[DCasey91]

It's close but it's probably Stockton because he's a much better defender.

Defense has arguably the least impact at the PG position. Magic is considered a GOAT pg despite being a just ok defender.

Stockton could never run a whole offense the way prime Nash did.

Kidd is more of an outlier as his value function is more like a true wing. Crazy defensive impact for a guard. Rondo 09,10 underrated, Caruso, Holiday, GP and GP2 its a warranted thing on successful teams.

It depends and its contextual, personally they both need a better player to get best use on a team

Like Nash and Garnett for balance
Bron and Stockton (Bron pairs really well with defensive minded guards and by all accounts from every older player size didn't matter Stockton has been mentioned by the all timers having one of the best screens, dirty and strong as an OX).

Nash amazing on offence, don't like the defensive exploitation at all.

[picc]

Defense has incredible impact at the PG position, especially when the PG is able to guard UP. See: Alex Caruso, Jason Kidd, Marcus Smart, Chris Paul, Baron Davis, etc.

ie. defensive versatility.

Which allows the team to play defensively challenged guards at other slot, and to not lose much in a switching defense scheme. Which is necessary to have these days.

I don't think Stockton was good enough on defense or offense to make up the offense that Nash gives you, and I also don't think Nash was a total disaster on defense -- at least in the pre-targeting era -- but its enough to make it a reasonable question.

[Curmudgeon]

Stockton was significantly better at the defensive end. On offense Nash has the edge, but not by that much.

[NZB2323]

Are we talking peak or career?

Peak is Nash, career is Stockton.

[tamaraw08]

Peak? Nash comfortably, he was able to play on higher volume as a scorer in the playoffs (multiple playoff runs with +20-10-60TS% averages) - he was a better player adjusted to his era - and he generated better offenses in the regular season. This is more important than the advantage that Stockton has on defensive end.

Overall? I'd still go with Nash, but it's closer due to longevity, here, there's a legit argument in favor of Stockton, maybe he's the answer, who knows.

This is actually a pretty tough question. I want to say Stockton because he was a more complete player, with no real weaknesses -- and was actually a plus defender. But the argument for Nash is that he was able to play at an MVP-level as the lead guy. Stockton was never used that way. When Nash played a secondary player to Nowitzki, Stockton was hands down the better player. He out-performed Nash in that type of role. You have to wonder how Stockton would have done if he was asked to be the lead in a D'Antoni-like system, but we never got a chance to see that. So because of that, it's really a close debate, IMO.

Is that a case though? Considering shortcomings of Malone as an offensive player in the playoffs - there was plenty of room for Stockton to 'increase' his ranks as a player, he rarely was willing to play on higher volume as a scorer though.

We have examples here and there (Lakers '89 or Rockets '97), but the overall outlook was that Stockton was fine with his 'regular' contribution even if Jazz badly needed more scoring depth, especially in these series like Blazers '92, Rockets '94, or Bulls '97 - where Jazz were the closest to the realistic contending chances. Sometimes, Hornacek or Jeff Malone in crucial moments played on higher volume as scorers.

So I don't think that Stockton scales that well in 'what if he was a first option' type of situations.

I'd even go further and say Stockton tried at times in the playoffs and failed. He took more shots to average the same amount of points as he did in the regular season.

The argument that Stockton could have scaled up his scoring when he wanted to is kinda unfounded.

Theres a lot of proof of concept there when it comes to nash. Not so much with Stockton.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

I can't help but wonder too if another PG like Deron Williams also thrived under Jerry Sloan with better scoring at 20 pts but with just 10 assists.
BTW, did they adjust the stats after a Jazz Statisitician admitted padded the assists numbers for Stockton before?

[Cavsfansince84]

I can't help but wonder too if another PG like Deron Williams also thrived under Jerry Sloan with better scoring at 20 pts but with just 10 assists.
BTW, did they adjust the stats after a Jazz Statisitician admitted padded the assists numbers for Stockton before?

I think its an open secret that all stat keepers sort of favor the home team. It was the same way with MJ getting steals and there is no way the league is going to go back through all of those games to take away stats from players because they'd honestly need to go through every game ever played. It's pointless.

[Nate505]

Peak? Nash comfortably, he was able to play on higher volume as a scorer in the playoffs (multiple playoff runs with +20-10-60TS% averages) - he was a better player adjusted to his era - and he generated better offenses in the regular season. This is more important than the advantage that Stockton has on defensive end.

Overall? I'd still go with Nash, but it's closer due to longevity, here, there's a legit argument in favor of Stockton, maybe he's the answer, who knows.


Is that a case though? Considering shortcomings of Malone as an offensive player in the playoffs - there was plenty of room for Stockton to 'increase' his ranks as a player, he rarely was willing to play on higher volume as a scorer though.

We have examples here and there (Lakers '89 or Rockets '97), but the overall outlook was that Stockton was fine with his 'regular' contribution even if Jazz badly needed more scoring depth, especially in these series like Blazers '92, Rockets '94, or Bulls '97 - where Jazz were the closest to the realistic contending chances. Sometimes, Hornacek or Jeff Malone in crucial moments played on higher volume as scorers.

So I don't think that Stockton scales that well in 'what if he was a first option' type of situations.

I'd even go further and say Stockton tried at times in the playoffs and failed. He took more shots to average the same amount of points as he did in the regular season.

The argument that Stockton could have scaled up his scoring when he wanted to is kinda unfounded.

Theres a lot of proof of concept there when it comes to nash. Not so much with Stockton.

Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM Forums mobile app

I can't help but wonder too if another PG like Deron Williams also thrived under Jerry Sloan with better scoring at 20 pts but with just 10 assists.
BTW, did they adjust the stats after a Jazz Statisitician admitted padded the assists numbers for Stockton before?

I mean, they didn't adjust the stats for Magic so I don't know why they would with Stockton.