cjs55 wrote: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?
No, you mistake me; I mean to say that Stockton didn't get exposed as much as he might have been as a MAN defender because of hand-checking. The team defense is clearly the product of him being better at it than Nash. I suspect some of it, a small part, comes from having a lot more energy as a result of being a lot less involved in energetically CREATING offense off the dribble as opposed to working off screens, but all in all, there's no doubting that there's a notable margin in Stockton's favor there.
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). This isn't really an angle you want to pursue; there's absolutely no question that Steve Nash is a superior scorer compared to Stockton.
Nash may be a better shooter than Stockton, but you make it sound like there is a large gap between them.
Only in terms of shooting ability, not in the sense of general comparison. There's a significant gap, in my opinion, but not a massive one that yawns as wide as the Grand Canyon, say. Stockton's defensive advantage cannot be ignored. Team defense is meaningful and impactful, no question.
Stockton is one of the best shooters in NBA history.
Good Lord, no. Stockton was a good shooter, but by no means was he historically good. In his own era, he wasn't even significantly separated from a wealth of other shooters like Price, Hornacek, Jeff Malone, Dell Curry, Glen Rice, Dale Ellis, Chris Mullin, Reggie Miller, Ray Allen... I mean, there were a half-dozen or more shooters in pretty much every season that Stockton played that were at least as good, if not better, and that's in the overall sense. There were a LOT of shooters who were better from downtown and the line.
Nash is better at creating his own shot though, I will give you that. It is the primary advantage Nash has over Stockton, and the only one.
Nash has significantly better handles, yes, and a much greater capacity for creating shots and hitting them, even the tough ones.
Stockton is the better passer, period. Nash might be more creative, again, but Stockton's efficiency trumps any other considerations. It is simply mind-boggling how perfect Stockton was in efficient offensive execution.
This ignores the assist inflation that others have discussed, AND the difference in offensive load. Stockton produced more assists because he shot less, and because he was called upon to create less offense for himself, he produced fewer turnovers.
Stockton was not a better passer. The only phrase you can use there is "more prolific." He produced more assists. He didn't impact his teammates on a more significant basis and he wasn't more valuable on offense. You plug Nash into those Utah teams, and their offense is AT LEAST as effective, but probably more effective. How they do as a team, well, that's another story. I opine that they would have won it all in 1998 after failing to make the Finals in 1997, but that's entirely hypothetical.
You cherry pick Stockton's worst year in the playoffs as proof of his ineffectiveness in pressure situations.
No, I brought that up to highlight the differing effects of age on the two players, not to specifically look at Stockton's body of playoff work.
Yes athletic and fast guards could get by him, but Stockton was much more intelligent in directing them towards the team defense in managable ways.
That's a meaningless argument, if only because Stockton actually HAD teammates who could do something if/when he funneled them in one direction or another. Ostertag/Malone is a lot more valuable as a frontcourt pair backing you up than Amare Stoudemire and Channing Frye, for example.
This argument is much more subjective...but I find that anyone who watched the two play over their careers would agree with me.
There's no question that Stockton was the better defender. I didn't mean to imply that he wasn't by commenting on the hand-checks, I only meant specifically that Stockton would have been a lot less effective as a man defender without them because he was actually less athletic and smaller than Nash. The team defense wouldn't have changed much. Maybe an extra foul here and there, but it's unlikely; the refs wouldn't be any more likely to see his dirty BS now as then, because he really was quite adept at picking his spots.
But that's the thing, that was Stockton; he picked his spots. He did so because he didn't have the ability to take command of the situation on a regular basis, so he waited until something developed, a shatterpoint, and then took advantage of it. He maximized his skills and never forced anything, which made him a very good counterpoint to Malone, who was the bull of the team.
Nash is a different player; he's more dynamic and he's led some historic offenses that were designed with him at the helm, and a considerably inferior PF (only as compared to Malone, of course) and that really separates the two PGs in this discussion offensively.
