John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Neon Black · Post #1 » by **Neon Black** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:44 pm

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=957960

Stockton lovers unite.

Pai Gow · Post #2 » by **Pai Gow** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:01 pm

Meh, its a ridiculous comparison each time. People dog Stock because of "MVP votes" he didn't recieve. Well ****.. If Steve Nash played WITH Malone, he wouldn't have gotten an MVP vote either. Does anyone honestly believe that Nash could have made the Jazz better in Stock's years? We were damn dominant and couldn't get past the greats. Nash couldn't make it to the Finals in a weak era and has continually choked.

It isn't even a comparison. Those guys are way to much into numbers to believe anything else.

Also apparently the other side of the floor doesn't matter to them either (defense) as Nash plays 0 of it, and I just can't help but laugh at those who actually have nerve to say that Nash is "underrated" as a defender.. LIke Really?

Its a pointless argument, to many Stockton haters on this board.

Pai Gow · Post #3 » by **Pai Gow** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:02 pm

Not to mention that Dallas got BETTER after Nash left, yeah he made Phoenix better, but so did JJ, and year-older Amare, Marion and Q-Rich..

Neon Black · Post #4 » by **Neon Black** » Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:17 pm

Everyone just needs to go vote...there's already 3X as many Stockton supporters by the looks of it, but should be more.

And apparently Stocktons defense was "overrated because he played dirty".

David Ginola 14 · Post #5 » by **David Ginola 14** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:56 pm

Stockton was better than Nash....
It's clear...

@ndrew · Post #6 » by **@ndrew** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 2:44 pm

I quit on this " Stock vs. Nash" long time ago. I decided there are too many international conflicts, no good to create another one.

I made my choice and I think it's so obvious that you don't need to explain it.

OMagic1989 · Post #7 » by **OMagic1989** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:10 pm

IMO its Stockton all the way... He was the model for consistancy...

Scoob Seriously · Post #8 » by **Scoob Seriously** » Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:30 pm

That thread just got in me in trouble, and because of a great hypocrisy i will probably be gone for a while.

Neon Black · Post #9 » by **Neon Black** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:19 am

Scoob Seriously wrote:That thread just got in me in trouble, and because of a great hypocrisy i will probably be gone for a while.

Then you will forever be a martyr to a great cause.

HammerDunk · Post #10 » by **HammerDunk** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 am

I made my small case. This one isn't black and white, but I for sure give the edge to Stockton. It's funny though, there are maybe 5 guys arguing for Nash's benefit, compared to many more for Stockton, but they just post a whole lot more.

leventuysal · Post #11 » by **leventuysal** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:07 am

There is no comparison. Stock was a pure PG who had the benefit of a PF that could convert every way. "S2M" is no accident, no coincidence - hence all those assists.

Nash distributes as well as Stock did, and he can post people up. (Plays less dirty as well.)

I'm not saying Stock was not a great PG, but Nash is too.

Dozer! · Post #12 » by **Dozer!** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:49 pm

Outside of Utah how many games did any of these fools see of prime (88-95) Stockton. Dont remember seeing that many Utah Jazz games on NBC. Alot of people only saw Stocktons older years.

Another point no one seems to ever mention is how Nash blew up the year the league inforced the no hand check rule. This is a huge advantage for guards. Stockton was one of the smartest players ever, can you just imagine how he would of exploited this rule.

HammerDunk · Post #13 » by **HammerDunk** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:04 pm

leventuysal wrote:There is no comparison. Stock was a pure PG who had the benefit of a PF that could convert every way. "S2M" is no accident, no coincidence - hence all those assists.

Nash distributes as well as Stock did, and he can post people up. (Plays less dirty as well.)

I'm not saying Stock was not a great PG, but Nash is too.

Amare and Shaq are nothing to sneeze at. What about Dirk? This guy has had high quality PF/Cs to dish to for a long time. Defense trumps posting people up, especially for PGs.

Post #14 » by **StocktonShorts** » Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:44 pm

Dozer! wrote:Outside of Utah how many games did any of these fools see of prime (88-95) Stockton. Dont remember seeing that many Utah Jazz games on NBC. Alot of people only saw Stocktons older years.

Another point no one seems to ever mention is how Nash blew up the year the league inforced the no hand check rule. This is a huge advantage for guards. Stockton was one of the smartest players ever, can you just imagine how he would of exploited this rule.

QFT

One downside to both John and Karl's longevity is that the most recent memory all of us have (and the only memory some have) is of their diminished end-of-career abilities.

gonnadunkonU · Post #15 » by **gonnadunkonU** » Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:17 am

In Stockton's prime, he went though an 8 year period averaging 15.8 ppg, 13.33 apg, 2.74 spg, 52% fg, 37% 3fg and missed 4 games during that period. Compare that to Nash's best 8 year span: 16.9 ppg, 9.77 apg, .80 spg, 49% fg, 43% 3fg, 27 games missed. I think Nash is a great player but Stock has him beat. Especially if you think about who Stockton had around him during those years. Outside of Malone who was Stockton able to pass to? Thurl Bailey, Mark Eaton, Mark Iavaroni, Bobby Hansen, and a bunch of other scrubs. Meanwhile, Nash has had Dirk, Amare, JJ, Marion, and a host of other very good offensive players.