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.