John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

[magicman1978]

Prime?, it's clearly Nash.

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

Nash is not sniffing an MVP either if he played with Malone. The guys who won the awards during Stockton's prime: Magic, Jordan, Barkley, Olajuwon, and D-Rob. Who's Nash beating out to get the MVP there?

[microfib4thewin]

Prime?, it's clearly Nash.

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

Nash is not sniffing an MVP either if he played with Malone. The guys who won the awards during Stockton's prime: Magic, Jordan, Barkley, Olajuwon, and D-Rob. Who's Nash beating out to get the MVP there?

The difference here is, I doubt Stockton would be even close to a 3 straight MVP campaign assuming he can play clean and still maintain his efficiency today. The only case you can argue for is Dirk, and even then, while Dirk isn't high in terms of all time ranking, his performance that year and the way he lifted his team to 67 wins without any player who can sniff the HOF was impressive enough to win MVP over a prime Stockton.

[kooldude]

Prime?, it's clearly Nash.

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

Nash is not sniffing an MVP either if he played with Malone. The guys who won the awards during Stockton's prime: Magic, Jordan, Barkley, Olajuwon, and D-Rob. Who's Nash beating out to get the MVP there?

The main point is that Stockton in Nash's place wouldn't even come close to a MVP. Let alone 2.

micro got it. And he's right, Stockton was a dirty mofo. Won't fly now.

Forget Hakeem, Stockton is the 2nd most overrated player behind Reggie Miller.

[Doctor MJ]

Explain to me how Nash's prime is better than Stockton's? 17/14 is better than 18/11 from a pure statistical standpoint, and then you throw in the fact that during Nash's prime, his turnover ratio goes through the effing roof while Stocktons stays consistently low. The more Nash handles the ball the more he turns it over, and that is huge.

And then there's steals and the fact that Stockton's prime came much earlier and lasted much longer.

Nash is a 14 point 8 assist PG unless he's on the Suns.


I'm going to come right out and say it: Nash's MVP's were nothing more than a fashion statement; he played on that "exciting, fast paced new Suns team" that everyone loved to love. There were more deserving players, but that's not always what being the MVP is about.

This thinking on stats is so simplistic I was going to respond just on that, but then I realized that you started the thread and I've already responded to you. So very clearly, people are responding to you with nuances of the game that make it clear that a 17/14 vs 18/11 comparison is pointless, and yet you're still asking that question. You need to spend more time actually thinking on others points if you want to have a meaningful discussion.

In terms' of Nash's MVPs as fashion statements. The last thing MVP voters want is to lose their credibility, they aren't going give the award to a guy they feel as vastly undeserving for any reason, and on the whole they're a lot more rational than fans on the internet. With Nash in '04-05, he came to a team that struggled, turned them into a team that played the best in the league except for regressions when he got injured. Simultaneously, competition was weak that year. The guy who finished 2nd, Shaq, was very clearly not playing like peak Shaq and more, and Duncan got injured down the stretch. Who else would you give the award to?

[Dirk_diggler_41]

Nash won his MVP awards based on BS intangibles. "He makes players around him better!"

[oaktownwarriors87]

The main point is that Stockton in Nash's place wouldn't even come close to a MVP. Let alone 2.

micro got it. And he's right, Stockton was a dirty mofo. Won't fly now.

Yeah, but Stockton on the Suns gives them a better shot at a title, and the Jazz would never have even made it to the finals with Nash. Not only is Stockton better statistically than Nash, he plays winning basketball.

I would love to see Nash play "MVP" basketball with a slow defensive center like Ostertag. The teams Stockton played for were balanced, built to win. The teams Nash played for were undersized, built for big numbers and the regular season.

Stocktons dirty play flew in 2003, so I'm sure it would fly in 2009. All the greats play dirty, it's how you win in the playoffs... smart and physical basketball.

[Doctor MJ]

Nash won his MVP awards based on BS intangibles. "He makes players around him better!"

Well, here's what I'll say, that statement is used far to often by people who aren't clear what it even means. It's worthy of an eye roll in some contexts.

There's something that's pretty freaking concrete here though. Phoenix played way, way better with Nash than without him. That's basically the definition of what "valuable" means, so it's really quite silly to roll your eyes about it while talking about the most valuable player award.

[bastillon]

Nash won his MVP awards based on BS intangibles. "He makes players around him better!"

statistically proven(courtesy of tkb)



It's not like it can't be proven. player after player, one by one, had career year with Nash at the point. now you can pretend like it's a coincidence but because there was so many examples of 'making teammates better' it can't be overlooked. Amare, Marion, Diaw, Bell, Barbosa, Nowitzki, Shaq, they were all playing better with Nash than without as far as efficiency goes. so you can play blind man and act is if this data doesn't exist or talk about system BS(the same system without Nash led them to .250... hell, look at the Knicks), but my eyes are wide open.

this intangibles can be explained from a purely anecdotal standpoint as well... Nash is a scoring machine when left open so he has to be double-teamed on the perimeter. drawing two defenders behind the 3pt line makes job for the rest of the teammates much much easier and and that's why they're shooting such a high percentage. what's often overlooked here is how good of a scorer Nash is when teams try defend those picks differently. every time they try to switch screens or go under the screens, he scores. Spurs tried a 'contain everybody besides Nash' tactic and he was a 24 PPG scorer on high efficiency. hell, you could argue that Nash could consistently avg 25 PPG/season had it not been for the fact that he's a first-pass player. so because of Nash's scoring prowess, teams are sending double-teams at him and it creates a lot of room to operate for other players in the middle(playing basically 4 vs 3 - someone's gotta be open). there weren't many players, much less PGs, in history who could draw double-teams as often and as easily. certainly John Stockton wasn't one of them and it seperates him from Nash.

as I've said earlier in this thread, looking at what he does this season, I'm starting to appreciate his game even more and now I'm thinkin he's not only one of the best PGs on offense, his one of the best offensive players in history and if you look at the best offenses ever or his teams, you'll know what I'm talkin about.

best offenses ever:

Code: Select all

Team        Year    ORtg  League  Diff
--------------------------------------
Dallas    2003-04  114.1   104.2   9.9
Phoenix   2004-05  116.6   107.4   9.2
Dallas    2001-02  114.0   105.8   8.2
Denver    1981-82  116.3   108.5   7.8
Chicago   1996-97  115.8   108.0   7.8
Dallas    2002-03  112.7   104.9   7.8

statistically, from a boxscore standpoint, Stockton wins it. now if you look at intangibles and on/off court impact, Nash clearly comes out ahead.

[microfib4thewin]

Define 'winning basketball'. Stockton's team played at a faster pace than Nash did, so saying Nash only put up pretty numbers because they run a lot doesn't work, and when the Jazz started grinding it out Stockton was no longer at his peak. By winning basketball do you mean being averse to score which allows others to label him as a 'pure PG'?

As for Stockton replacing Nash, I don't see how that would help the Suns. You are pretty much asking for Barbosa and Bell to score more in the absence of Nash. As good as Barbosa is at scoring he can only do it at a high volume if the Suns can push the pace the entire game, and Stockton doesn't have Nash's offensive creativity to keep that up. It may have helped in 05 when they still have JJ, but Johnson on the Hawks team was much better than when he was with the Suns. Stockton wouldn't have shut Parker down, and he cannot fix the defensive woes on the Suns frontcourt.

[Neon Black]

Explain to me how Nash's prime is better than Stockton's? 17/14 is better than 18/11 from a pure statistical standpoint, and then you throw in the fact that during Nash's prime, his turnover ratio goes through the effing roof while Stocktons stays consistently low. The more Nash handles the ball the more he turns it over, and that is huge.

And then there's steals and the fact that Stockton's prime came much earlier and lasted much longer.

Nash is a 14 point 8 assist PG unless he's on the Suns.


I'm going to come right out and say it: Nash's MVP's were nothing more than a fashion statement; he played on that "exciting, fast paced new Suns team" that everyone loved to love. There were more deserving players, but that's not always what being the MVP is about.

This thinking on stats is so simplistic I was going to respond just on that, but then I realized that you started the thread and I've already responded to you. So very clearly, people are responding to you with nuances of the game that make it clear that a 17/14 vs 18/11 comparison is pointless, and yet you're still asking that question. You need to spend more time actually thinking on others points if you want to have a meaningful discussion.

In terms' of Nash's MVPs as fashion statements. The last thing MVP voters want is to lose their credibility, they aren't going give the award to a guy they feel as vastly undeserving for any reason, and on the whole they're a lot more rational than fans on the internet. With Nash in '04-05, he came to a team that struggled, turned them into a team that played the best in the league except for regressions when he got injured. Simultaneously, competition was weak that year. The guy who finished 2nd, Shaq, was very clearly not playing like peak Shaq and more, and Duncan got injured down the stretch. Who else would you give the award to?

I know people like to argue about subjective intangibles as a way to avoid a statistical comparison that disagrees with them. I keep asking questions because I'm not hearing any reasonable answers. It's not just about simple stats, although I don't think many on here realize the magnitude of Stockton's assist/steals record and the incredible unlikelihood they will ever be broken.

Here are the prevailing arguments I hear for Nash:

1. makes his teammates better
2. won 2 consecutive MVP's
3. better clutch/big game performer (ha ha really?)
4. Better ability to score
5. Better passer

I'll respectively address those.

1. Malone didn't "make" Stockton. You take any other player and put them on that team with Ostertag, Antoine Carr, Chris Morris and Greg Foster and they most likely don't rack up an assist record so astronomical that Chris Paul will have to average 15APG until he's 40 years old just to equal it...without injuries. Even with Malone.
2. I feel that the first MVP was probably deserved, but not the 2nd...and I am not alone. I don't buy the argument about voters protecting their cred. Everyone was still riding the wave of excitement made by the Suns and Nash, and in terms of team performance and statistically, there were better candidates.
3. This one is just a joke. Stockton took over countless games and hit many big shots, mostly in the playoffs. He took his team to the playoffs twice as much as Nash has. I feel like those that even try and make this argument must have never watched the Jazz or were just too young to notice. Didn't someone bring up the fact that Nash is currently 1 for 15 in clutch shots?
4. How does a couple more ppg equate to this? While Nash is a better 3 point shooter, I don't see how he's any better in any other category. Stockton holds an edge in both PER and TS%. He didn't always score in loads, but he knew he didn't need to. When he was needed, he would step up and take the brunt of scoring. He was an effective penetrator, contrary to what's been said on this thread. You can argue that Nash has the better "ability" to score, but how the hell are you going to prove that?
5. Nash is a flashier passer. I just don't know what other basis there is for Nash on this one. It's easy to brush off 15,806 assists as a "simplistic" statistic, but honestly it's just too hard to ignore. No current player in the NBA will touch that; it speaks for Stockton's passing skills and perhaps more importantly his ability to set his man up.

And for those bringing in Magic Johnson, Isaiah Thomas (etc.) into the argument, it's not relative. I agree that those players were better than Stockton, but that doesn't tell me anything about a comparison to Nash.

[Jimmy76]

Nash won his MVP awards based on BS intangibles. "He makes players around him better!"

statistically proven(courtesy of tkb)



It's not like it can't be proven. player after player, one by one, had career year with Nash at the point. now you can pretend like it's a coincidence but because there was so many examples of 'making teammates better' it can't be overlooked. Amare, Marion, Diaw, Bell, Barbosa, Nowitzki, Shaq, they were all playing better with Nash than without as far as efficiency goes. so you can play blind man and act is if this data doesn't exist or talk about system BS(the same system without Nash led them to .250... hell, look at the Knicks), but my eyes are wide open.

this intangibles can be explained from a purely anecdotal standpoint as well... Nash is a scoring machine when left open so he has to be double-teamed on the perimeter. drawing two defenders behind the 3pt line makes job for the rest of the teammates much much easier and and that's why they're shooting such a high percentage. what's often overlooked here is how good of a scorer Nash is when teams try defend those picks differently. every time they try to switch screens or go under the screens, he scores. Spurs tried a 'contain everybody besides Nash' tactic and he was a 24 PPG scorer on high efficiency. hell, you could argue that Nash could consistently avg 25 PPG/season had it not been for the fact that he's a first-pass player. so because of Nash's scoring prowess, teams are sending double-teams at him and it creates a lot of room to operate for other players in the middle(playing basically 4 vs 3 - someone's gotta be open). there weren't many players, much less PGs, in history who could draw double-teams as often and as easily. certainly John Stockton wasn't one of them and it seperates him from Nash.

as I've said earlier in this thread, looking at what he does this season, I'm starting to appreciate his game even more and now I'm thinkin he's not only one of the best PGs on offense, his one of the best offensive players in history and if you look at the best offenses ever or his teams, you'll know what I'm talkin about.

best offenses ever:

Code: Select all

Team        Year    ORtg  League  Diff
--------------------------------------
Dallas    2003-04  114.1   104.2   9.9
Phoenix   2004-05  116.6   107.4   9.2
Dallas    2001-02  114.0   105.8   8.2
Denver    1981-82  116.3   108.5   7.8
Chicago   1996-97  115.8   108.0   7.8
Dallas    2002-03  112.7   104.9   7.8

statistically, from a boxscore standpoint, Stockton wins it. now if you look at intangibles and on/off court impact, Nash clearly comes out ahead.

wow fantastic post

Nash being the point guard of 4 of the top 6 offenses of all time is a pretty convincing stat

Before this post: Stockton>Nash>Kidd
After: Nash>Stockton>Kidd

[Neon Black]

It's not like it can't be proven. player after player, one by one, had career year with Nash at the point. now you can pretend like it's a coincidence but because there was so many examples of 'making teammates better' it can't be overlooked. Amare, Marion, Diaw, Bell, Barbosa, Nowitzki, Shaq, they were all playing better with Nash than without as far as efficiency goes.

Thing is, you can make a definite argument that Nash's superior play are a result of circumstance. The whole "system BS" is not 100% BS. How come Nash didn't make his teammates so much better before he came to the Suns?

I don't want to completely discredit Nash, however. While it seems obvious that he can and has only put up high number's in a run-n' gun system, It doesn't mean that any run of the mill PG would do the same. I think that many player's stats would definitely rise, but Nash really is the perfect PG for that situation, and he has some unique skills that make him so.

However, in the long run, you can see that Stockton's prime was more organic, steady and of course longer. He basically did, for over an entire career, what Nash has done for a few seasons.

[Doctor MJ]

ele.ven, look dude, i didn't bring up subjective intangibles. i brought up specific reasons why stockton's assists are extremely inflated. i'm not going to dig up the specific stats for you because it's not worth my time, but most of them are pretty easy to come by. Bottom line is that the responses you're claiming have no objective depth actually go into more objective depth than you do. I just can't work up the motivation to address more of your points when I think you're just going to ignore them, then dismiss them as something other than what they are.

[Jimmy76]

ele.ven, look dude, i didn't bring up subjective intangibles. i brought up specific reasons why stockton's assists are extremely inflated. i'm not going to dig up the specific stats for you because it's not worth my time, but most of them are pretty easy to come by. Bottom line is that the responses you're claiming have no objective depth actually go into more objective depth than you do. I just can't work up the motivation to address more of your points when I think you're just going to ignore them, then dismiss them as something other than what they are.

You can either give up on the human race or continue trying to preach reason to the irrational.

I think you just made the right choice.

[Neon Black]

ele.ven, look dude, i didn't bring up subjective intangibles.i brought up specific reasons why stockton's assists are extremely inflated.

I looked back and never saw where you brought up anything like that. Maybe it was earlier in the thread? They only thing I've seen about Stockton's stats being inflated is that he played with Malone and that any PG could put up those assists in that day and age because assists were "just easier to come by", somehow dismissing Stockton's accomplishments as if anyone could have done it.

Pretty objective.

I'm not dismissing any points, I'm directly addressing them. My rebuttals may not seem to go into objective depth, but that's simply when the argument I'm addressing isn't an objective one in the first place.

give me proof that I can't dismiss.

[bastillon]

Thing is, you can make a definite argument that Nash's superior play are a result of circumstance. The whole "system BS" is not 100% BS. How come Nash didn't make his teammates so much better before he came to the Suns?

I don't want to completely discredit Nash, however. While it seems obvious that he can and has only put up high number's in a run-n' gun system, It doesn't mean that any run of the mill PG would do the same. I think that many player's stats would definitely rise, but Nash really is the perfect PG for that situation, and he has some unique skills that make him so.

However, in the long run, you can see that Stockton's prime was more organic, steady and of course longer. He basically did, for over an entire career, what Nash has done for a few seasons.

the answer for the first question is easy: role.
when Nash came in to Dallas, he had amazing offensive players around him - Finley, Nowitzki, a lot of shooters and actually Nash made them better too, but not to the extent he made players better in Phoenix. you put the ball in Nash's hands and he makes teammates better, so the longer Nash has the ball in his hands, the more effective your offense is gonna be - it's really as simple as that.

r'n'g argument is the most overrated thing I've ever read about Nash. it seems like everyone is bringing that up but there's actually no proof that he's been a lesser player in slower offense. there is one case where you can expect Nash to regress statistically or make worse impact - you put the ball out of his hands. this was exactly the case when he was playing in Dallas and they had so many great offensive players that they didn't notice how great of a player Nash was. this was the case a year ago in Terry Porter offense as well, as he tried to make role player out of him and I don't have to tell you about the impact it had on Suns offense. it's really funny how people try to use this argument against Nash in Nash-Kidd debates, because if you look at these to players it's clearly Jason who is much more reliant on fast-break because he's not a scorer of Nash's caliber(and he wasn't even a scorer at all at any stage of his career) and can't create in the half-court offense the way Nash does.

the fact is that Nash is not only a fast-breaking PG. if I had to use labels here, I'd say Nash is a pick and roll, pass-first player. it doesn't have anything to do with the pace of the game. obviously Steve is great at leading the break but he doesn't regress in HCO the way some other PGs do. Nash would be great at any system whether it would be 90 poss/g offense or 110 poss/g offense. there's a lot of anecdotal arguments to back it up.

the reason why Suns offense is so fast isn't because they want to score as fast as they can. it's because Nash can create so easily and so fast, that Suns can get quality looks with 16 on the shot clock instead of 6. pick and roll based offense is great in that regard - I mean if your play is broken you can simply set a pick and create something very fast. it's really a matter of style and Nash's style is what people call 'winning'. you know, for example Lebron sometimes ballhogs the ball for 15-20 secs of the shot clock... Nash could give his team 2 or 3 successful offensive possessions in that period. so my point is that Suns play fast because they can get a quality looks so easily, not because they're running and shooting regardless of anything, as if it were the 60s.

and you can't say Stockton did what Nash has done in last few seasons. simply he wasn't ever offensive anchor of Nash's caliber. in his style he's more of a Calderon on offense, while Nash is more of Magic. I ain't saying the gap is similar to Magic/Calderon comparison, all I'm saying is Nash goes out there and creates while Stockton is more of a stationary, stad-padding guy like Calderon, or in softer words, his real impact isn't as big as boxscore numbers would indicate.

if you talk about statistical argument I'm like my main man drza, boxscore stats mean something only when you take into account +/- numbers. that's because every stat has its flaws and the more data you can gather, the more accurate your conclusions will be. +/- stats and boxscore stats show very different things, they look at basketball from different angles, and that's why you have to take both into account.

well... in this case +/- numbers say that Nash is the best offensive player of the generation(post 2003) and this is with Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Garnett, Paul, Deron, Duncan, Nowitzki all in this league. Nash is not one of the best here, he's the best, and it's by a pretty comfortable margin.

average offensive adj +/-(03-08)

Nash +8.84
Lebron +7.99
Kobe +7.62
Paul +7.46
Wade +7.00
Garnett +6.25
Dirk +4.71
Deron +3.31
Duncan +3.23

so I feel like boxscore stats are underrating Nash's game here and this is what his on/off court numbers indicate.

[Harison]

ele.ven, look dude, i didn't bring up subjective intangibles. i brought up specific reasons why stockton's assists are extremely inflated. i'm not going to dig up the specific stats for you because it's not worth my time, but most of them are pretty easy to come by. Bottom line is that the responses you're claiming have no objective depth actually go into more objective depth than you do. I just can't work up the motivation to address more of your points when I think you're just going to ignore them, then dismiss them as something other than what they are.

Thing is, your reasons are wrong, as is your strange conclusion "stockton's assists are extremely inflated"

1. "Stockton's teams played at a higher pace", right... lets take a look at peak assists season:

96.1 (21st of 27) vs 95.9 (1st of 30), do you see higher pace worth to talk about? Or next peak season: 95.3 vs 95.6 (yes, Nash's team pace was higher )

What is important talking about pace, Nash Suns pace are the highest or among top teams in the NBA, while Stockton's teams pace was among the lowest. Therefore your own point suggests Nash assists ratio is inflated compared to other PGs, while Stockton was in disadvantage to his contemporaries, yet Stockton dominated in assists even GOAT PG Magic, who ironically enough also had very clear pace advantage.

2. "in an era where assists were easier to come by than any other era in history"

thats true to some extent, more because of the higher pace (if you adjust assists per pace, you'll see current credits for assists is almost the same). But as covered in the point above, pace for Nash and Stockton teams is very similar, the major difference is, Nash assists are inflated and Stockton in disadvantage compared to contemporaries. Still one of them dominated and another... not so much.

To sum it up:
Stockton produced much higher volume of assists on similar pace team, with better efficiency, while causing turnovers for opponents almost triple the amount of what Nash is capable of. Offensive win shares are similar for both, defensive win shares Stockton's almost 3x higher, win shares naturally also better than Nash's. Its true Nash scoring wise slightly better, yet it doesnt offset Stockton's advantage in all other areas, plus Nash as big in the clutch theory is debunked also, by hard facts nonetheless.

I love Nash, so it pains me to show him in this aspect, because even though I wasnt Stockton's fan, the amount of his undervaluation is extreme. At least majority of voters knows who is better, so its just some of posters to whom we have to explain why Stockton was great, or why Russell wasnt just glorified version of Big Ben

[ronnymac2]

I'm not the biggest supporter of either player (though I respect how amazing Steve Nash's combination of shooting/passing/dribbling skills really is), and I generally think both players are overrated (Nash due to MVP's, Stockton due to longevity and career stats). Not to say they weren't great players or anything.

This thread is making me think Nash is the better player of the two though. I value offense from the superstar of the team more than defense, and I think Nash is the better offensive player. Stockton is clearly a better defensive player; Nash is a good team defender and bad man-defender (doesn't hurt THAT much).

BTW, I'll take Kidd over both. Also, Nash is definitely not the best offensive player of the generation. Bron, Bryant, Timmy, The Big Ticket, Diesel, and Flash are all better. I'd probably take cp3 over him, too.

I'll take Nash over Stockton. Pretty close though.

[Neon Black]

the answer for the first question is easy: role.
when Nash came in to Dallas, he had amazing offensive players around him - Finley, Nowitzki, a lot of shooters and actually Nash made them better too, but not to the extent he made players better in Phoenix. you put the ball in Nash's hands and he makes teammates better, so the longer Nash has the ball in his hands, the more effective your offense is gonna be - it's really as simple as that.

r'n'g argument is the most overrated thing I've ever read about Nash. it seems like everyone is bringing that up but there's actually no proof that he's been a lesser player in slower offense. there is one case where you can expect Nash to regress statistically or make worse impact - you put the ball out of his hands. this was exactly the case when he was playing in Dallas and they had so many great offensive players that they didn't notice how great of a player Nash was. this was the case a year ago in Terry Porter offense as well, as he tried to make role player out of him and I don't have to tell you about the impact it had on Suns offense. it's really funny how people try to use this argument against Nash in Nash-Kidd debates, because if you look at these to players it's clearly Jason who is much more reliant on fast-break because he's not a scorer of Nash's caliber(and he wasn't even a scorer at all at any stage of his career) and can't create in the half-court offense the way Nash does.

You bring up some great points, but I'm not buying that giving Nash more of the ball necessarily equates to better play on his part. In fact, his usage rate (% of a team's possessions a player uses when on the court) over the last 8 years shows no correlation to his contribution or efficiency:

2002-03 Dallas Mavericks PG 24.4
2005-06 Phoenix Suns PG 23.4
2001-02 Dallas Mavericks PG 23.1
2006-07 Phoenix Suns PG 23.0
2007-08 Phoenix Suns PG 22.3
2000-01 Dallas Mavericks PG 21.3
2008-09 Phoenix Suns PG 21.2
2004-05 Phoenix Suns PG 20.5


On the other hand, you'll see that Stockton's usage rate exceeded 20 only 3 times in 19 years. His highest was 20.9 in 1990-1991. In other words, he did more with less.

And to dismiss most of his assists as consequential rather than give him credit for actually creating is a narrow assessment and a shot in the dark,; I'm seriously questioning how many games you've seen Stockton play in.

[bastillon]

by comparing Stockton's assists to Calderon's I meant the way he got those assists was more due to off-ball players movement in Utah's system. I just don't think Stockton could be the same player in normal offense.