John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Neon Black · Post #1 » by **Neon Black** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:50 am

Honestly I don't see how this is even a debate, but I keep hearing people insist that Nash is somehow the better player.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... hst01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... kjo01.html

Stockton: 13.1 PPG 10.1 APG 2.2 SPG 2.8 TPG
Nash: 14.4 PPG 8.1 APG 0.8 SPG 2.7 TPG

Here is why Stockton is better:

1. Defense. John was always a hard-nosed defender and nearly tirples Nash's career SPG.

2. Stats. Stockton may never be surpassed in APG and SPG. He didn't need to play in a system that inflated his #'s while Steve Nash never reached double-digit assists until he played for the Suns, which brings me to my next point:

3. Nash's stats have been inflated by a fast-paced system, if you don't agree look at the link above and tell me that the stats don't agree with me.

I personally am going to leave career achievements out of the picture, as neither player has won a championship; and I honestly have never thought that championships necessarily say something about a players talent.

bigblackben · Post #2 » by **bigblackben** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:08 am

Depends what you mean by better, overall career wise is Stockton by a lot. This is shown by his career totals, efficiency, defense etc.

A majority of people are going to go with Stockton here.
Nash however shouldn't be underrated here as his 2 mvps do in fact mean something. His peak with the suns is just amazing.

Overall it is Stockton because of his crazy longevity in the league compared to Nash's late rise.

oaktownwarriors87 · Post #3 » by **oaktownwarriors87** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:44 am

Nash is amazing, but the style of play that makes him look so good also promotes poor defense. Stockton on the other hand could play in any system and he always played great defense.

I also want it to be pointed out that the statistical peak of Stockton is higher than the statistical peak of Nash. Sure Nash lead the NBA in assist for 3 years in a row, but Stockton did it nine years in a row. Nash may have two MVP awards, but Stockton has the wins and the trips to the Finals.

Both are great players, but Stockton is the better one.

raptorforlife88 · Post #4 » by **raptorforlife88** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:46 am

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:Nash is amazing, but the style of play that makes him look so good also promotes poor defense. Stockton on the other hand could play in any system and he always played great defense.

I also want it to be pointed out that the statistical peak of Stockton is higher than the statistical peak of Nash. Nash may have to MVp awards, but Stockton has the wins and the trips to the Finals.

Both are great players, but Stockton is the better one.

Second time you said it and it's been wrong both times. Playing fast does not correspond with bad defense. If Phoenix had KG and played the run n gun would they be a bad defensive team?

oaktownwarriors87 · Post #5 » by **oaktownwarriors87** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:51 am

raptorforlife88 wrote:
oaktownwarriors87 wrote:Nash is amazing, but the style of play that makes him look so good also promotes poor defense. Stockton on the other hand could play in any system and he always played great defense.

I also want it to be pointed out that the statistical peak of Stockton is higher than the statistical peak of Nash. Nash may have to MVp awards, but Stockton has the wins and the trips to the Finals.

Both are great players, but Stockton is the better one.

Playing fast does not correspond with bad defense. If Phoenix had KG and played the run n gun would they be a bad defensive team?

KG wouldn't have won DPOY had he been on the Suns, they focus on offense and fat breaks and quick shots.

That Nicka · Post #6 » by **That Nicka** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:03 am

Stockton pretty easily. His defense alone separates them quite a bit

raptorforlife88 · Post #7 » by **raptorforlife88** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:04 am

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:KG wouldn't have won DPOY had he been on the Suns, they focus on offense and fat breaks and quick shots.

The Suns almost every single year were mid range (15-20) in defense since Nash came in. That was with him and Amare, neither good defenders and some would say atrocious defenders. But this didn't stop them from being average defensively, neither did playing fast. Are you telling me that switching Amare for for prime KG wouldn't immediately launch the Suns into the top ten defensively?

How exactly do quick shots promote bad defense?

kooldude · Post #8 » by **kooldude** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:14 am

Prime?, it's clearly Nash.

It's been done alot so basically, can Stockton win a MVP? Surely not.

Wade3Iverson · Post #9 » by **Wade3Iverson** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:16 am

Prime Nash easily. Stockton is so overrated and so is Nash's "horrible" defense.

kooldude · Post #10 » by **kooldude** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:26 am

The defense argument has reached (Please Use More Appropriate Word) levels.

That Nicka · Post #11 » by **That Nicka** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:37 am

Put Stockton on those Phoenix teams and he has the same impact... Maybe not as good a scorer but he's just as good or better passer with better defense.

Nash was a 19/10, 18/11 player... Stockton had several seasons at 17/14 on a slower pace team... Nash has 2 MVPs but the fact of the matter is both of them could have (and should have imo) gone to other players (Shaq in 05, Kobe in 06).

Add the fact that you get prime Stockton for about 9-10 years, and this is no contest

Blame Rasho · Post #12 » by **Blame Rasho** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:43 am

Is Nash even a better pg compared to KJ?

Kevin Johnson is one of the most underappreciated players of all time because he came in a era of epic point guards and I think he is better than Nash. Using that logic I thought that Stockton was clearly a better point guard compared to Johnson...

Post #13 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:58 am

ele.ven wrote:Honestly I don't see how this is even a debate, but I keep hearing people insist that Nash is somehow the better player.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... hst01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... kjo01.html

Stockton: 13.1 PPG 10.1 APG 2.2 SPG 2.8 TPG
Nash: 14.4 PPG 8.1 APG 0.8 SPG 2.7 TPG

Here is why Stockton is better:

1. Defense. John was always a hard-nosed defender and nearly tirples Nash's career SPG.

2. Stats. Stockton may never be surpassed in APG and SPG. He didn't need to play in a system that inflated his #'s while Steve Nash never reached double-digit assists until he played for the Suns, which brings me to my next point:

3. Nash's stats have been inflated by a fast-paced system, if you don't agree look at the link above and tell me that the stats don't agree with me.

I personally am going to leave career achievements out of the picture, as neither player has won a championship; and I honestly have never thought that championships necessarily say something about a players talent.

Completely fine if you prefer Stockton, particularly if you place a high premium on longevity. However - Stockton's stats are very clearly more inflated than Nash's. Stockton's teams played at a higher pace, in an era where assists were easier to come by than any other era in history, and they also racked up ridiculous assists relative to their contemporaries even before Stockton was their full time point guard (and well before they had an offense worth a damn).

kooldude · Post #14 » by **kooldude** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:59 am

That Nicka wrote:Put Stockton on those Phoenix teams and he has the same impact... Maybe not as good a scorer but he's just as good or better passer with better defense.

Nash was a 19/10, 18/11 player... Stockton had several seasons at 17/14 on a slower pace team... Nash has 2 MVPs but the fact of the matter is both of them could have (and should have imo) gone to other players (Shaq in 05, Kobe in 06).

Add the fact that you get prime Stockton for about 9-10 years, and this is no contest

You're crazy. First, Nash's superior scoring ability is partially responsible why he can penetrate in the paint and either find an open player or score himself. Stockton can't replicate that.

One of Stockton's flaws is he can't step it up when Malone was being harassed like in the '97 and '98 Finals. Not talking about clutch, but the ability to score when it is necessary on a bigger stage. Nash have done that on multiple occasions.

Stockton had an almost perfect team/system going. Malone is a better PnR player than Amare, and at worst a comparable fast break player. The arena he happened to play in were giving out like 20% more assists than the league avg. Stockton would not have the same impact as Nash. No way.

Nash is producing at the same high rate as his MVP years with almost a new cast than a few years ago.

Post #15 » by **Doctor MJ** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:06 am

Blame Rasho wrote:Is Nash even a better pg compared to KJ?

Kevin Johnson is one of the most underappreciated players of all time because he came in a era of epic point guards and I think he is better than Nash. Using that logic I thought that Stockton was clearly a better point guard compared to Johnson...

KJ vs either of these guys is a worthy debate. It's very true that KJ is underappreciated now - because he's considered clearly below Stockton despite the fact that at his peak people absolutely did not consider him clearly below Stockton.

One thing that I find absolute bizarre that I feel like sharing here: In my analysis of most of the big point guards of the last couple decades, I found that KJ had the biggest "home court scorekeepers" advantage. Meaning, racked up way more assists at home than on the road. Nash, as some might know, is the only guy I've seen who racks up less assists at home than on the road - and the general stats bear out that current Phoenix scorekeepers are incredibly stingy in crediting assists. So you've got two opposite ends of stat inflation coming from scorekeepers on the same team in a relatively close period of time between them. I'd love to know what happened.

Post #16 » by **rsavaj** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:08 am

I have KJ ahead of both Stockton and Nash FWIW :lol:

That Nicka · Post #17 » by **That Nicka** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:11 am

Stockton cant carry an offense from a scoring standpoint like Nash can because Nash is a much better shooter but Stockton is just as good at attacking the basket and better at getting to the line... The year that Amare got hurt the Suns wouldnt have gone as far with Stockton because the Suns would lose shooting but all the other years they would be just as good or better...

Tony Parker wouldnt torch Stockton as bad as he always has Nash... I dont know how Nash's defensive woes can be overblown when he really is a horrible defender... You wouldnt have to hide Stockton on defense making him guard Bowen...

NYK 455 · Post #18 » by **NYK 455** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:22 am

Prime Steve Nash. Stockton for longevity. Stockton was awesome, but I don't think he'd be able to win MVPs or lead the Suns the way Nash did. Sometimes people put too much emphasis on numbers.

kooldude · Post #19 » by **kooldude** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:27 am

That Nicka wrote:Stockton cant carry an offense from a scoring standpoint like Nash can because Nash is a much better shooter but Stockton is just as good at attacking the basket and better at getting to the line... The year that Amare got hurt the Suns wouldnt have gone as far with Stockton because the Suns would lose shooting but all the other years they would be just as good or better...

Tony Parker wouldnt torch Stockton as bad as he always has Nash... I dont know how Nash's defensive woes can be overblown when he really is a horrible defender... You wouldnt have to hide Stockton on defense making him guard Bowen...

I don't refer to attacking the rim; most of the time Nash is in the paint, he's not attacking the rim.

There's no way Stockton is equal or better with the previous Suns cast. That is crazy talk.

Stockton's defense is overrated if you believe that is the decider. A PG's defense unless it is game-changing like Frazier's or Payton's, is not a big deal. Nash was an average defender in his younger days, and a below avg defender now. Stockton was not an elite defender by any means.

That Nicka · Post #20 » by **That Nicka** » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:42 am

kooldude wrote:I don't refer to attacking the rim; most of the time Nash is in the paint, he's not attacking the rim.

There's no way Stockton is equal or better with the previous Suns cast. That is crazy talk.

Stockton's defense is overrated if you believe that is the decider. A PG's defense unless it is game-changing like Frazier's or Payton's, is not a big deal. Nash was an average defender in his younger days, and a below avg defender now. Stockton was not an elite defender by any means.

Yet the Mavs were able to get passed the Spurs with Harris/Terry where they were never able to with Nash, and the Suns were never able to get passed them either... It is rare that PG defense is rarely game changing but its still very important... Imagine if the Lakers swapped Fisher with Hinrich.

Steve Nash's defense is Calderon-esque

Who is better.