RealGM

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:18 am**

ele.ven wrote: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:
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.
.

[/quote]

Usage happens to not take into account assists which means it's less useful for us. For example Jose Calderon uses up a lot of Raptor possessions passing or dribbling the ball, but his usage is consistently low because he's not a scorer.

The real difference for anyone who watches games is that in Dallas, Nash didn't get to wheel and deal with the ball, he deferred to Dirk. In Phoenix he is the offense.

It's just like how Joe Johnson went from being a good player to a all-star. He became the center of the offense.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:40 am**

Stockton benefits by playing in an offense with tons of off the ball movement. Nash is better at being the ball movement. Stockton was good at getting the ball to open teammates but I don't think Stockton could create open shots for his teammates as well.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:08 am**

oaktownwarriors87 wrote:
kooldude wrote:
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.

your post is so much full of fail that I don't know what to even say.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:22 am**

Bobbcats wrote:Stockton benefits by playing in an offense with tons of off the ball movement. Nash is better at being the ball movement. Stockton was good at getting the ball to open teammates but I don't think Stockton could create open shots for his teammates as well.

Typically in this kind of system assists are more evenly distributed among players. You can't just implant any PG and expect the same results as Stockton had. Not a chance. And honestly the same can be said of Nash, although I think the Suns statistically benefit from their system, its not like Steve Blake is going to fill it up just like Nash does.

Which is why, honestly, the whole system debate seems pretty futile from both positions and ultimately one has to implant considerable speculation because ultimate proof just doesn't exist. Stats never tell the whole story but honestly, with the accumulation of basic and advanced stats in existence you can come to a pretty reasonable conclusion. As far as I can tell, that conclusion is that Stockton holds the edge.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:51 am**

ele.ven wrote: As far as I can tell, that conclusion is that Stockton holds the edge.

Then it's a good thing you're not an analyst.

Stockton wasn't really as capable a scorer as Nash. Very good at cherry-picking opportunities in transition and scoring off the PnR, but while he could score in an iso from time to time, he mostly used picks and got behind the D on the break to do it, or otherwise played off of Malone. Nash has a lot more native ability to get by quicker, bigger, more athletic players with his advanced handle and better shot.

Now as far as passing, that's a function of his increased usage rate compared to Stockton. Stockton's usage rate peaked at 20.9. Nash's usage has been 21.1 or higher his entire time in Phoenix. He's more involved as a scorer and it shows... and part of how it shows is his lower AST% and his somewhat lower peak assist-per-game averages.

And yes, playing with a 2-time MVP who knew what he was doing in a post isolation versus playing a Amare Stoudemire and his reconstructed knees makes a big difference in how you play the game. The Jazz were annually among the SLOWEST teams in the league under the Stockton/Malone/Sloan regime. Part of this was that they ran a lot of post game and pick-and-rolls... and a lot more spots where Stockton was giving up the ball...

Because he was a relatively pedestrian athlete with a pretty good shot and a great basketball IQ.

But he was shorter than Nash, not as good a shooter, and Nash is doing about as much with Amare as Stockton did with the much better Malone.

There is no stat that gives you a clear idea that Stockton was better than Nash... and in terms of offense, at least, that is because Stockton is better. There isn't a favorable edge in offensive efficiency (career average TS% within 0.03%, similar peak, etc), similar peaks in ORTG, etc, etc. All despite the fact that Nash had and has more responsibility on the offensive end than just giving up the ball to the second-most prolific scorer in NBA history.

Oh. Right.

And Nash doesn't suck as a scorer at the age of 35. In fact, at the age of 35, when Stockton was preparing for an epic choke-job in the 98 Finals, Nash is busy matching the second-highest scoring output of Stockton's career while posting a TS% higher than anything Stockton ever managed.

If you want to make the argument that Stockton was better, you cannot argue it based on team success, because Stockton enjoyed better defensive personnel and a better second man. You can't argue it on offensive production or efficiency, because neither of those convincingly favor Stockton.

You'd HAVE to argue it on the basis of the notable difference in defense... but you couldn't make a convincing argument based on man defense. Stockton was only ever more effective because he was allowed to handcheck and grab a lot, which is entirely illegal and penalized heavily now. And he was exploited regularly by bigger guards (Payton) and more athletic guards (like KJ, for example).

So the only way you're going to argue Stockton was better is on the basis of team defense. And that's something that favors him, sure, but is it enough to call him a better player? Not in my opinion, given the differences in offensive value that DO favor Stockton and the fact that he very nearly replicated Stockton's greatest career feat (making it to the Finals), but for a big playoff injury to JJ and then the fact that he did it again the year after without Amare Stoudemire and with Boris Diaw replacing STAT. Boris Diaw. Yeah, he had shooters and roleplayers and Marion and whatever, but was that Phoenix team considerably better than the 97 Jazz? No, not particularly.

Stockton was good, no doubt. Top 30, 35 good, maybe. But while he has big stats, he also has some rather alarming failures that take the luster of nostalgic memory of his value as a player. In-era, he was not regularly considered the best point guard in the league even after Magic retired, and he had a notable lack of big-game scoring ability. Nash had a 3-year run where he was topping some rather notable players, and it might have lasted longer if the Suns hadn't declined under Robert Sarver's incompetent ownership.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:02 pm**

Stockton

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:58 pm**

JordansBulls wrote:Stockton

Amen

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:45 pm**

Definitely Stockton...

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:49 pm**

ele.ven wrote:Typically in this kind of system assists are more evenly distributed among players. You can't just implant any PG and expect the same results as Stockton had. Not a chance. And honestly the same can be said of Nash, although I think the Suns statistically benefit from their system, its not like Steve Blake is going to fill it up just like Nash does.

But that's the thing, remember when I said "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)." While you certainly cannot expect the same success they had with Stockton with any point guard, there is ample evidence that the Jazz system racks up assists like nobodies business.

I will throw a couple stats out here to help the discussion out:

Year Team Assists, Team Assist Rank, Team ORTG
'85-86 Jazz: 2199, 8th, 20th
'86-87 Jazz: 2240, 6th, 21st
'87-88 Jazz: 2407, 2nd, 15th (first season with Stockton as full time starter)

In case that's not clear: What this is saying is, the Jazz were consistently racking up assists in the amount you'd expect of a much better offensive team, before and during Stockton's run. And to be clear: This doesn't mean Stockton isn't great, just that his assists are clearly inflated relative to his contemporaries.

You see nothing like that with Nash.

Posted: **Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:00 pm**

Harison, I appreciate your rebuttal.

Harison wrote: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.

Good point on the first paragraph. You're right, that Stockton produced more assists at peak, even when pace was comparable. Here's the thing, when I mention several reasons, I mean for them to all be weighed together toward a point. What I said here still holds, Stockton spent a good amount of time playing at a significantly greater pace, and that needs to be considered in the discussion. However, your points definitely holds as well.

Regarding the second paragraph, see my last post from a minute ago. Despite the relatively slow pace compared to contemporaries, the Jazz' assists were STILL glaringly inflated. I know this seems wrong to a lot of people, but it makes plenty of sense. The difference in possessions between teams is at greatest on the order of 10%. The number of assists by a team in a game is on the order of 25. So applying that 10% difference to 25, you get an impact on the order of 2 and a half deviation. Think about that for a moment, in a game where the team has around 100 possessions, the difference in pace on assist totals is about 1/40th of that. This is all by way of saying: Assuming that pace is the dominant factor in this discussion is 180 degrees wrong. There are bigger factors.

Harison wrote: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.

No you haven't thought this though. The 60s played at a far higher pace than the 80s/90s, but it is the 80s/90s that has the ridiculous assist numbers, unlike points and rebounds that are dominated by the 60s. Why this is warrants the starting of another thread to say the least, but this much is true in comparing the Stockton & Nash eras: Teams racked up way more assists back then - more than just be explained by pace.

Harison wrote: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

Okay here's what I want you to keep in mind when you think of Stockton as extremely undervalued, and compare him to Russell: If you go by what the experts of the time thought of Stockton, Stockton is if anything overvalued. The reason for this isn't that strange, and in fact ties directly into why Russell is undervalued today: The further away from the time in question, the more people rate players by their stats. If Stockton is indeed undervalued, the real criminals are not RealGM posters who don't know their history, it is the people who were paid to watch Stockton who somehow didn't see him as far better than the Mark Prices of the world.

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:35 am**

Doctor MJ is right on the money with his points, especially the one about system. I looked it up and the guy who Stockton was backing up at first was very comparable to Stockton statistically. the guy's name was Rickey Green and during his tenure with the Jazz he put up very similar stats to Stockton's.

per36

Code: Select all

            PPG   APG   RPG   SPG   BPG   TS%   TOV
Stockton   14.9  11.9   3.1   2.5   0.2  60.8   3.2
Green      14.4   8.6   2.9   2.3   0.1  53.1   2.5

now obviously Stockton is better... but the difference is rather small. Green was a guy who played in mid 80s, when they didn't shoot threes. he would probably develop that shot and be a much better player and scorer, but we won't know. the point is Green was only slightly worse player despite lack of 3pt range which is very helpful for PG. so to all Stockton's supporters out there: if we're basing on boxscore statistics like you want to(that's the same argument you're making against Nash), then Ricky Green is also in discussion with Nash...

so either Jazz were extremely lucky and were able to collect two of the best PGs of the generation or it was the system what created them and made them look so good. I mean Green could be a good player, but I've never heard he was a multiple MVP winner or franchise player like Nash in Phoenix... so my money is on system in this case.

after this little research I'm starting to think that system was all that created Stockton and he would've been the same kind of player anywhere else, which is actually understandable considering how little respect he got in draft and by the media. watching Stockton play certainly gave you the impression he was a good, very good player, but certainly he never seemed like a great player... yet somehow boxscore told you the different story.

I think boxscore numbers are inflated here by the system and don't show his true impact on the game. too bad we've never seen Stockton miss many games and almost no +/- data is available for him, so we won't know how would his team perform without him. +/- stats are only available for 2003 season and although Stockton, despite his age, looked good there, his impact wasn't any close to Nash's. he was also being replaced by 37-year-old Mark Jackson who was basically done at this point of his career. but this tells me nothing anyway, because I can't compare 40-year-old Stockton to Nash...

but we know that Nash's boxscore numbers don't show his true impact which is evidenced by his +/- offensive numbers, historically great offenses he has anchored and making teammates better(which is also statistically proven). on the other hand we have Stockton whose teammate Rickey Green posted similar stats and certainly he wasn't known for HoF play. we have Utah's system in which Stockton played his entire career and we don't know how he would look anywhere else. we have Jazz racking up assist totals like mad men and that's even pre-Stockton...

all these suggests Nash is underrated by boxscore stats and Stockton should be thanking god he played in that system(probably he is, considering he's a religious man), because otherwise he could only dream of being in Hall of Fame instead of actually being inducted there.

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:54 am**

I think if you didn't see a great player when watching Stockton play you don't know basketball. I mean that.

He wasn't flashy. He didn't dribble between his legs, behind his back and throw down dunks. But his impact on the game was tremendous. He controlled the pace of the game. He made everyone else better. He made the right decision with the ball (which he dominated) 99.5% of the time. If we had a 4 point lead and possession with 2 minutes to go, we almost NEVER lost. He was a master of clock management.

I watch a player on the Jazz now, Deron Williams, who most of you would think is a better player than Stockton. I like Deron. He's a very good player. But, he's no Stockton. Not yet anyway. He's actually got a LONG way to go. He's pretty good at scoring and setting his teammates up, but, his understanding of the game, of pace, of clock management, of when to foul, of when to pass or when to shoot... Those things are very poor compared to JS.

Talking about the 'system' making him who he was... I don't recall Milt Palacio tearing up the league in that system. Maybe it's something more than system after all.

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:05 am**

Stockton and I don't have to go further then one reason: defense. John Stockton has been one of the better defensive players in the NBA over time, while Nash is basically a dead hole. He's the better scorer no doubt, but not enough to overcome the huge edge that Stockton has in defense. Stockton was also the better playmaker/pure pg/facilitator.

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:33 am**

Barstool Blues wrote:Stockton and I don't have to go further then one reason: defense. John Stockton has been one of the better defensive players in the NBA over time, while Nash is basically a dead hole. He's the better scorer no doubt, but not enough to overcome the huge edge that Stockton has in defense. Stockton was also the better playmaker/pure pg/facilitator.

Best post of the thread.

:lol:

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:11 am**

I don't understand why people completely dismiss defense in this thread.

I mean did someone really say that Nash's defense is "underrated?"

Wowzerz

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:38 pm**

first of all, noone is dismissing defense.
Stockton was better team defender than Nash, but he was just as useless against bigger, more athletic PGs. he was more committed to that end of the floor, he was dirty mofo, who used every trick to play D. he couldn't do that now. they call MUCH more touchy fouls nowadays and handchecking is entirely illegal(it was fully legal during the 90s). so Stockton was a good defender, but he was no game changer, let alone to be talkin about his impact on that end of the floor... and that's what you'd expect from 6'1 white guy at best - good defense.

Nash is a poor man defender who is not entirely committed to play defense, especially since his Phoenix days, but considering that he had much more responsibility on offense, it's understandable - he had to save his energy. if we're talkin about team defense, Nash is not that bad. he draws charges, is excellent in rotations, isn't a gimme on switch situations(like many other PGs - CP), is a great transition defender. in his younger days Nash was an average defender. now that he's old, he's below-average but his not much worse than, say, Tony Parker or Chris Paul.

so Nash is a below-average defender and Stockton is a good defender. add to that they're both small guys who don't have a big impact on the defense anyway and margin on defense isn't even meaningful. if they were bigs, then yeah, it would be extremely important, but they're not...

I understand your argument jazzfan1971, but still there's that Rickey Green example I wrote about earlier. now you gotta make a choice: either Jazz were extremely lucky and collected two of the best PGs of the generation or even in history OR it was the system what made them look much better than they were in reality.

I mean... it's ok to bring up Stockton's awareness, how he could manage shot clock, but it's rather a weak argument for 'great player'. I know Stockton did all the little things, I know he was committed, I know he controlled the pace... but that's not what makes players great.

Stockton just couldn't flat out dominate opposing team the way Nash did numerous times. Nash did things Stockton didn't even dream of doing, like that series against Mavs in 2005 where he averaged like 30/12/6 and ended it with a game-winner... or like 2007 Spurs where he averaged ~24/13 on some ridiculous %. Stockton just wasn't capable of doing these things and leading his own team to big success.

everyone talks about how Kobe rode Shaq's jock to get his first 3 rings... well Stockton did the same for 20 freaking years... and still couldn't win with some epic struggles in the meantime. imagine where would the Suns be with Karl Malone instead of Amare. imagine there's finally a guy who can defend Tim Duncan as opposed to letting him score 30 PPG every fu*ckin series. you put Karl Malone on those Suns and there's no option they don't win a title. 2005-2007 it's a domination(remember they were a 55W team WITHOUT Amare). or imagine Nash in the '98 finals instead of John '10/9' Stockton. I mean it was really a complete meltdown for HoF caliber player to choke the way Stockton did in those finals. when Nash was put in similar circumstances, where his teammates had trouble scoring, he didn't fu*ck with anybody, he simply took the ball to his hands and flat out dominated. like yesterday in the first half. there's no way anyone could make out of Nash a 10 PPG scorer... especially the way other teammates played. Nash in similar circumstances is a ~23 PPG guy with maintaining his assists and efficiency.

I think Nash on the Jazz is AT LEAST one title in '98 and Malone on the Suns is AT LEAST two titles in '06 and '07. I know these are 'ifs' and I'm not using it as an argument. I'm just trying to show you what I think about it.

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:25 pm**

bastillon, busting ass.

I'll say it again, Stockton is the 2nd most overrated player in history if you think he's comparable to Nash or even better.

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:13 pm**

Oh, I'm not so sure about Nash doing better than JS in the 1998 finals. That Chicago defense was tremendous. I don't know that Nash would be going for 30ppg with Scottie lockign him up either.

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:22 pm**

kooldude wrote:I'll say it again, Stockton is the 2nd most overrated player in history if you think he's comparable to Nash or even better.

Damn, you haven't read the TOS, can't read or are willing to subject yourself to suspension.

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:33 pm**

well, jazzfan1971, he repeatedly destroyed Bowen in the playoffs and that Spurs defense was just as good as Bulls so I don't know if there'd be any difference for him. Nash's jumpshot is just too good not to fall. with Pippen guarding him would be no different, because he's just too big to chase Nash in pick and roll situations.

RealGM

John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash

Re: John Stockton vs. Steve Nash