John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

[Scoob Seriously]

There is just too much to reply too, i mean Stockon a bad man-to-man defender? Steve Nash's defence hurt by his inferior defensive teammates, yet his offensive numbers are not inflated by having superior offensive teammate's? Stockton only being an above average for point guard shooter? I mean really, did you people ever watch him play? Also, Dallas got better after Nash left.

I don't know what is out of skew here, the Stockton hate or the Nash love.

[Scoob Seriously]

EDIT: I remember watching all the playoff series with the Jazz and I can tell you from my point of view I feard Malone and Horncek much more than I feared Stockton.

Pretty odd considering against your team when 35, Stockton put up 20.5 pts on 53.7% shooting , and 10.3 assists while DOMINATING down the stretch in the deciding game.

[Scoob Seriously]

Stockton was NOTHING as a shooter in comparison to Nash.

Offensive Rating for Stockton : 120.5 (Career) 125.5 (Peak)
Offensive Rating for Nash : 118.5 (Career) 124.4 (Peak)
True Shooting Percentage Stockton : .608 (Career) .656 (Peak)
True Shooting Percentage Nash : .604 (Career) .654 (Peak)

Just sayin...

[Don Draper]

EDIT: I remember watching all the playoff series with the Jazz and I can tell you from my point of view I feard Malone and Horncek much more than I feared Stockton.

Pretty odd considering against your team when 35, Stockton put up 20.5 pts on 53.7% shooting , and 10.3 assists while DOMINATING down the stretch in the deciding game.

Being guarded by Matt Maloney.

[jazzfan1971]

I dunno how Nash should be considered a better shooter than Stockton. Stockton had higher FG% and TS% for career than Nash. Even when you look at eFG% Stockton is only a bit behind Nash.

I guess Nash took a lot more difficult shots. Stockton usually took 'good' shots. Where Nash is constantly throwing up monkey shots. So, I guess if you get points for degree of dificulty then Nash could be considered better. But, if you look at who more consistantly put the ball through the hoop, that was Stockton.

[jeahwe]

So, if Stockton was only a good defender because he could hand check, does that mean he was a better offensive player than Nash? because his peak numbers came in the hand-checking era and are quite similar to Nash's peak. Or do hand-checks only count when Stockton is allowed to use them?

Excellent point!

In any case, the difference on offense exists prior to the major implementation of anti-hand-checking rules. Nash was a comparable three-point shooter in Dallas against his own body of work in Phoenix and the difference in FG% is a slight up-tick (he was mainly a 47-48% FG shooter in Dallas, and 40%+ 3P every year but his first).

Steve Nash
before rules change
46.5 FG%, 41.6 3pts%, 48.7 2pts%

after rules change
51.2 FG%, 44.9 3pts%, 54.2 2pts%

So rules change clearly helped him, especially in 2 pts shots (no hand checking, so it’s easier to penetrate).

Stockton was NOTHING as a shooter in comparison to Nash.

Offensive Rating for Stockton : 120.5 (Career) 125.5 (Peak)
Offensive Rating for Nash : 118.5 (Career) 124.4 (Peak)
True Shooting Percentage Stockton : .608 (Career) .656 (Peak)
True Shooting Percentage Nash : .604 (Career) .654 (Peak)

Just sayin...

Another excellent point.

[microfib4thewin]

There is just too much to reply too, i mean Stockon a bad man-to-man defender? Steve Nash's defence hurt by his inferior defensive teammates, yet his offensive numbers are not inflated by having superior offensive teammate's? Stockton only being an above average for point guard shooter? I mean really, did you people ever watch him play? Also, Dallas got better after Nash left.

I don't know what is out of skew here, the Stockton hate or the Nash love.

/facepalm. No one said Stockton is a bad man defender, but some people here seem to think he had defensive capability that was close to Payton. He was a good team defender and an average-above average man defender depending on who he's guarding. He is definitely not this all world defender his supporters make him out to be, and that's what Tsherkin is stating. It's not the gap of the Pacific Ocean when you compare how they play defense.

I dunno how Nash should be considered a better shooter than Stockton. Stockton had higher FG% and TS% for career than Nash. Even when you look at eFG% Stockton is only a bit behind Nash.

I guess Nash took a lot more difficult shots. Stockton usually took 'good' shots. Where Nash is constantly throwing up monkey shots. So, I guess if you get points for degree of dificulty then Nash could be considered better. But, if you look at who more consistantly put the ball through the hoop, that was Stockton.

Stockton can get better quality shots because he had someone else shoulder the shooting volume and shot creation in Malone. Nash has averaged either equal or more shots per game since 2001 compared to the Stockton of the early 90s, and he has attempted over 1000 more 3PTA than Stockton did in his entire career WHILE shooting 5% better from downtown. It's not even debatable that Nash is the better shooter.

[Scoob Seriously]

/facepalm. No one said Stockton is a bad man defender

From Obinna "Stockton was certainly more crafty on defense, but he was equally as bad man to man."

[bastillon]

Offensive Rating for Stockton : 120.5 (Career) 125.5 (Peak)
Offensive Rating for Nash : 118.5 (Career) 124.4 (Peak)
True Shooting Percentage Stockton : .608 (Career) .656 (Peak)
True Shooting Percentage Nash : .604 (Career) .654 (Peak)

Just sayin...

jesus f*ckin christ, I hate when people use stats without knowing what they really mean.
I guess then Shaq was a better shooter than Nash too, because his TS% is better, right ?
TS% has NOTHING to do with shooting the ball. it shows how good you are as a SCORER, not a shooter. by TS% you can argue Stockton was a more efficient scorer, which is unsurprising for a guy who played 2nd fiddle to one of the greatest scorers in the entire HISTORY and had on his shoulders considerably lesser responsibility. if you wanna show anything related to shooting, use either 3pt% or FT%. I prefer FT% because everyone has equal circumstances there and you can't make any excuses. well, by FT% Nash was an amazing shooter, one of the greatest of all-time. Stockton was one of the many, many players.

now by FT% measures Nash was much better and what excuse can you make here, Stockton's supporters ?

3pt% aren't close either. Nash in his prime is a close-to-50% 3pt shooter which is arguably the best peak of all-time as far as 3pt shooting concerned. so, you know, Stockton was a good shooter, but it ain't even the same ballpark.

and what does exactly ORtg have with shooting is only known by the author of this post

Steve Nash
before rules change
46.5 FG%, 41.6 3pts%, 48.7 2pts%

after rules change
51.2 FG%, 44.9 3pts%, 54.2 2pts%

Steve Nash under Terry Porter in 08-09
46.8 FG%, 41.8 3pts%, 49.0 2pts%

you can argue it was because of the rules changes, but I can counter that Nash was put in a different role(role player as opposed to franchise player) than in his MVP years in Phoenix. if you take a closer look, you'll see that under Terry Porter Nash was back to his Dallas percentages and rules were already changed.

especially when you consider the style Nash plays, he's almost never looking for contact, he very rarely gets to the line, he doesn't get by his man 1 on 1, but uses screens to create a seperation between him and his defender. how could exactly handcheckin help Nash's defenders ? they won't move the screen by handchecking, will they ? the only time Nash plays 1 on 1 is when he has bigs on switches and he still settles for the jumpshot most of the time. don't get me wrong, I mean rules changes helped him certainly, it helped the whole league, but to ignore significance of this circumstances is just wrong. Nash didn't benefit by those rules changes as much as you're trying to suggest and Stockton's benefits on defense because of handchecking were obviously bigger.

last point, Dallas didn't get better because Nash left, that's absurd.
they were better, however, because:

1) Don Nelson was replaced by Avery Johnson. Nelson had 42-22, while Johnson 16-2. under Nelson, they were on pace for 53.8 wins, they won 52 games with Nash. I mean it's logical - when you replace an idiot who uses Monta Ellis at SF and Corey Maggette at PF and occasionally C, you'll improve. Avery Johnson was on pace for 72.9 wins. I think it shows the difference between Nelson and AJ.

2) getting rid of Nash wasn't the only change. Antoine Walker(2840 mins, 2nd on the team) left Dallas also. Josh Howard played 900 mins more. Jason Terry played 2400 mins instead of 0. Stackhouse played 1600 mins instead of 0.

the changes were MAJOR and blaming Nash for Mavs improvement is idiotic. especially when you consider that Nash led the Suns to ~25W improvement and was fifth in the NBA in net +/-. I mean, he was a better fit with the Suns, that's for sure... but to assume he was a liability in Dallas ? that's flat out idiocy.

[jeahwe]

Steve Nash
before rules change
46.5 FG%, 41.6 3pts%, 48.7 2pts%

after rules change
51.2 FG%, 44.9 3pts%, 54.2 2pts%

Steve Nash under Terry Porter in 08-09
46.8 FG%, 41.8 3pts%, 49.0 2pts%

you can argue it was because of the rules changes, but I can counter that Nash was put in a different role(role player as opposed to franchise player) than in his MVP years in Phoenix. if you take a closer look, you'll see that under Terry Porter Nash was back to his Dallas percentages and rules were already changed.
.

Small sample size + was Nash role player under Porter?!

[tsherkin]

Nash was indeed minimized compared to his role with Mike D'Antoni (and now under Alvin Gentry).

The Suns ran less and used the pick-and-roll much less frequently while Porter was coaching the team.

[jeahwe]

Nash was indeed minimized compared to his role with Mike D'Antoni (and now under Alvin Gentry).

The Suns ran less and used the pick-and-roll much less frequently while Porter was coaching the team.

Any proof?

[bastillon]

I forgot to add one more thing. there's a common misconception that Nash was that great because of D'antoni's great offense and despite its(its=the offense) success he couldn't lead his team to the finals. well this D'Antoni's succesful offense led him to:

with Nash 248-107
without Nash 52-124

so clearly offense had nothing to do with Phoenix success and it was all Nash.
D'Antoni is a terrible coach, who is another example of Nash promoting scrubs and earning them money. Amare, Marion, JJ, Diaw, Bell, D'Antoni all these guys should give like 100 mlns back to Nash...

[bastillon]

Any proof?

do you have any proof they didn't ?
it was obvious for anyone actually watching Suns games last season. you probably weren't lucky enough. every Suns fan will tell you the same story - Nash wasn't the focal point in the offense the way he was with D'Antoni or now with Gentry.

[Scoob Seriously]

I prefer FT% because everyone has equal circumstances there and you can't make any excuses. well, by FT% Nash was an amazing shooter, one of the greatest of all-time.
and what does exactly ORtg have with shooting is only known by the author of this post

Of Course, because everyone knows Mark Price was the best shooter of all time. Among active players, clearly Billups is the 4th best, Sam Cassel is #6, and obviously Yao Ming, Shawn Marion, Cuttino Mobley, and Caron Butler are some of the game's best shooters.

I posted ORtg because someone said Nash is clearly Superior on offense, and that is very debatable.

[Scoob Seriously]

l. it shows how good you are as a SCORER, not a shooter. by TS% you can argue Stockton was a more efficient scorer, which is unsurprising for a guy who played 2nd fiddle to one of the greatest scorers in the entire HISTORY and had on his shoulders considerably lesser responsibility.

I don't have a link and i apologize, but the deseret news did an article on how Stockton had the highest percentage of shots taken with 2 seconds or less on the shot clock in the league. You can argue that Malone carried the offensive load, but it was Stockton that usually hit the big shots down the stretch.

[bastillon]

Of Course, because everyone knows Mark Price was the best shooter of all time. Among active players, clearly Billups is the 4th best, Sam Cassel is #6, and obviously Yao Ming, Shawn Marion, Cuttino Mobley, and Caron Butler are some of the game's best shooters.

that's another example of not knowing how to use or interpretate stats. FT% obviously isn't the only thing that matters, but in terms of comparing two reasonably similar(as far as position and style) players it's a good measure. certainly Shawn Marion isn't the same kind of shooter in-game as he is at the free throw line, but apart from some exceptions this is a very reliable tool, you just need to know where is the line, you gotta remember they shoot FTs from 15 feet so some players will be overrated, because by their FT% you'd expect them to be also great outside shooters but they just don't have that range or aren't as comfortable out there... like Mark Price.

you can throw in Mark Price as GOAT and laugh but the fact is he was certainly one of the best. he didn't have such a great range as Nash, I mean he could shoot 3s but he wasn't a top notch 3pt shooter, because he wasn't as comfortable with hitting 3s as he was with mid range shots. apart from that he was a great, great mid-range shooter and shooter in general.

if you look at the best FT% shooters, the results are quite reasonable. Steve Nash, Peja, Ray Allen, Billups, Reggie Miller, Larry, Nowitzki are amongs the best. that's what you'd expect considering their reputation.

I posted ORtg because someone said Nash is clearly Superior on offense, and that is very debatable.

since when ORtg shows how good you are offensively ? and you're showing individual ORtg ? please. just another classic example of misunderstanding what stats are saying. ORtg shows you efficiency and you can use it as an argument, sure, but then Stockton is also better than Michael... and Bird... and Kareem. I mean you have the right to think so, it just shows you're an idiot if you really believe in such things. so you can use it, but then no double standards and it applies to everyone, not just to Stockton and Nash.

what ORtg really shows you is the efficiency and it has nothing to do with someone being better or worse on offense. much more convincing argument is how big influence you have on team offense and well... Nash anchored TOP3 offenses ever, TOP4 of TOP6, and his teams always finished in 1-3 range in ORtg. he also has the highest offensive adj. +/- in 03-08, better than Kobe, Wade or Lebron. can you make as strong argument for Stockton ?

so you can use anecdotal arguments, because stats clearly show that Nash is the superior player offensively and they won't help you. now these anecdotal 'evidence' would have to be pretty damn strong. Nash is far superior player as far as shot creation, scoring and shooting, so it's not easy to make a case for Stockton that way either... but you know, you can try, just please, understand stats before using them

[rsavaj]

Nash was indeed minimized compared to his role with Mike D'Antoni (and now under Alvin Gentry).

The Suns ran less and used the pick-and-roll much less frequently while Porter was coaching the team.

Any proof?

Umm, I don't know, how about watching the GAMES?

[Jimmy76]

Nash was indeed minimized compared to his role with Mike D'Antoni (and now under Alvin Gentry).

The Suns ran less and used the pick-and-roll much less frequently while Porter was coaching the team.

Any proof?

Umm, I don't know, how about watching the GAMES?

Ive caught every one of our games so far and I can confirm that

[jeahwe]

proof
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof
the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning