# Settle it, Nash vs Stockton....



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

Who will be viewed as the better more dominant PG when looking at their careers.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Im a fan of Nash, but come on. Its going to be Johnny Stock.


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

First off Mods, if you could change poll option two from option to Stockton, I'd appreciate it. :azdaja: 


Secondly, the answer is Stockton and it really isn't even close unless Stevie keeps up his pass for 4+ more years.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Stockton.


----------



## Jabroni (Jun 4, 2007)

IMO, the only thing Nash can do to be considered better than Stockton is to carry the Suns to a championship. That's the biggest knock on Stockton's legacy for me. He had Malone for over a decade yet the two were unable to get it done on the big stage. If Nash were to win one and be the undoubted main man that would put him ahead of Stockton. In any case being ranked after Stockton on the All-time PG list is not bad at all.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

It depends on how you look at it.

It's hard to argue the longevity and overall consistency that Stockton had throughout his career. From that standpoint it's easily Stockton. He's been great for a much longer period of time.

But if you just took the pinnacle greatness of each player and asked, who was better in the prime of their respected careers? Then I'd go with Nash. Nash's best season(s) trumps Stockton's best season. He played a higher level of basketball last year than Stockton ever did in his career.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

KidCanada said:


> It depends on how you look at it.
> 
> It's hard to argue the longevity and overall consistency that Stockton had throughout his career. From that standpoint it's easily Stockton. He's been great for a much longer period of time.
> 
> But if you just took the pinnacle greatness of each player and asked, who was better in the prime of their respected careers? Then I'd go with Nash. Nash's best season(s) trumps Stockton's best season. He played a higher level of basketball last year than Stockton ever did in his career.


Its obvious we're talking about career though. Not one season.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Wow...This is a silly thread.Completely unnecessary as well.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

KidCanada said:


> It depends on how you look at it.
> 
> It's hard to argue the longevity and overall consistency that Stockton had throughout his career. From that standpoint it's easily Stockton. He's been great for a much longer period of time.
> 
> But if you just took the pinnacle greatness of each player and asked, who was better in the prime of their respected careers? Then I'd go with Nash. Nash's best season(s) trumps Stockton's best season. He played a higher level of basketball last year than Stockton ever did in his career.


Baloney...They have Canadian Bacon...Is this Canadian Baloney?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Where's the Kirk Hinrich option?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

liekomgj4ck said:


> Where's the Kirk Hinrich option?



EDIT


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

Diable said:


> Baloney...They have Canadian Bacon...Is this Canadian Baloney?


Nash's season last year was one of the most offensively efficient in NBA history. Stockton never reached the offensive level of Nash last year.


----------



## magohaydz (Dec 21, 2005)

KidCanada said:


> Nash's season last year was one of the most offensively efficient in NBA history. Stockton never reached the offensive level of Nash last year.


I completely agree! However, on a total career aspect, unless Nash does something stellar in the next 3 years, Stockton will win. However, the fact that Nash has 2 MVP's, in years to come will probably look better on paper, so in a generation or 2, Nash may well go down as the better of the 2. Think of it as the way we perceive Wilt and Russell - none of us really know how to compare the 2, because none of us ever saw them play. Same could happen with Stockton/Nash in the future.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Stockton was the better player, but he was never as "dominant" as Nash was the last few seasons.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Better passer based on assists - Stockton
Better Defensive player - Stockton (all time nba steals leader)
Most times in the nba finals - Stockton (2)
Gold Medals won - Stockton

I guess what it comes down for me is if it wasn't for the Bulls Juggernaut of the 90's stockton would have won at least one ring. I also look at the talent surrounding each player, Stockton had Karl Malone and what else? Felton Spencer? Guys like Jeff Hornacek were nice players but guys like him werent going to make getting 12 assists a night a simple task. Steve Nash ran a high powered offense in Dallas with Dirk and company and is now running an NBA JAM style offense with perenial all stars in Amare Stoudamire ans Shawn Marion, with role guys like Boris Diaw that are there specifically to run with Nash.

Nash is a great point guard definitely worthy of being in the top 5, but Stockton is a top 3 point guard, this is how i see it.

1. Magic Johnson
2. Oscar Robertson
3. John Stockton
4. Isiah Thomas
5. Steve Nash


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

Stockton hands down. Let's at least factor the other half of the game(defense I believe it is called?). Put Stockton with these ****, no touch rules and I believe he matches Nash best offensive output quite easily. This should not even be a discussion. However, give Nash his due. He is truly one of the greats.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Nash *TWO* mvp's.......Stockton *ZERO*

Nash > Stockton


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

John Stockon. Easily. Stockton was a huge factor on the defensive end. Got to the NBA finals multiple times. Could score like Nash if he wanted to. And routinely averaged over ten assists per game.

Stockton's best statistical years murder Nash's MVP years. Nash won the MVP for 18/10--Stockton's best year he had 17 and 15. And I don't even think he made all-nba first team that year. It's a farce that Nash has two MVP's and Stockton never won a single one. That's the only reason people consider Nash to be on Stockton's level. When anyone that actually has seen both players, knows Stockton's impact was more.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Drewbs said:


> Stockton was the better player, but he was never as "dominant" as Nash was the last few seasons.


John Stocktons best season numbers wise was in 1989 when he averaged 17.2 points and 14.5 assists a game shooting over 50% from the field. Thats not as dominate as Nash's MVP seasons? Are you freakin kidding me?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stockjo01.html


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

Stockton.

I can remember how he used to piss me off when he used to cut up our defenses in the early 90s.


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

It's actually closer than many people think, and too early to vote (which is why I didn't vote). If Nash bests himself in the next season, it would be hard to not consider Nash on par with Stock, despite the defensive liability.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

KidCanada said:


> It depends on how you look at it.
> 
> Then I'd go with Nash. Nash's best season(s) trumps Stockton's best season. He played a higher level of basketball last year than Stockton ever did in his career.


Nash's 3 best seasons:
06-07 18.6 ppg, 11.6 apg, 3.78 TOpg, 3.5 rpg, .8 spg, .532 fg%

05-06 18.8 ppg, 10.5 apg, 3.49 TOpg, 4.2 rpg, .8 spg, .512 fg%

04-05 15.5 ppg, 11.5 apg, 3.27 TOpg, 3.3 rpg, 1.0 spg, .502 fg%


Stockton's 3 best seasons:
90-91 17.2 ppg, 14.2 apg, 3.63 TOpg, 2.3 rpg, 2.85 spg, .507 fg%

89-90 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, 3.49 TOpg, 1.9 rpg, 2.65 spg, .514 fg%

88-89 17.1 ppg, 13.6 apg, 3.76 TOpg, 2.0 rpg, 3.21 spg, .538 fg%

I'd take Stockton easily. To make it a bit simpler for you...

Nash's top 3 years' average compared to Stockton's:

Nash: 17.63ppg
Stockton: 17.17 ppg

Nash: 11.2 apg
Stockton: 14.1 apg

Nash: 3.51 TOpg
Stockton: 3.63 TOpg

Nash: 3.19 A/TO
Stockton: 3.88 A/TO

Nash: 3.67 rpg
Stockton: 2.07 rpg

Nash: .87 spg
Stockton: 2.90 spg

Nash: .515 fg%
Stockton:.520 fg%

I really hope you're done making ridiculous claims now. The reason Stockton's career averages are better is because Stockton is more of a consistent player, and a BETTER player.



KidCanada said:


> Nash's season last year was one of the most offensively efficient in NBA history. Stockton never reached the offensive level of Nash last year.


Funny you put so much emphasis on offense, where most people give Nash the edge without actually knowing what they're talking about. You seem to ignore defense where Nash is terrible and Stockton consistently averaged 2-3 steals per game. I hate how much people underrate how great Stockton was.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

mysterio said:


> It's actually closer than many people think, and too early to vote (which is why I didn't vote). If Nash bests himself in the next season, it would be hard to not consider Nash on par with Stock, despite the defensive liability.


I'll take 13/10.5 career averages over 14.5/8.5 any day (and that's if Nash performs well enough to bump it up that much).

Stockton had 10 seasons of 10+ apg. Nash has 3. It's not that close.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

LameR said:


> I'll take 13/10.5 career averages over 14.5/8.5 any day (and that's if Nash performs well enough to bump it up that much).


I agree, I still vote for Kirk Hinrich also.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Stockton's career is much better, but Nash's best seasons are at least comparable if not better than Stockton's best years.

The main thing that Nash have going for him was couple years ago when Amare was out for the entire season and Nash single-handedly carried the team to one of the best records in the league. Had the same thing happened to the Jazz and Malone goes out for the season, it's doubtful that Stockton can do the same thing.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bartholomew Hunt said:


> Stockton hands down. Let's at least factor the other half of the game(defense I believe it is called?). Put Stockton with these ****, no touch rules and I believe he matches Nash best offensive output quite easily. This should not even be a discussion. However, give Nash his due. He is truly one of the greats.


Goes both ways. If Stock played with the new "****, no touch rules", his defense would greatly suffer from not being able to mug opposing players.


----------



## mjm1 (Aug 22, 2005)

Power_Ballin said:


> Nash *TWO* mvp's.......Stockton *ZERO*
> 
> Nash > Stockton


If the MVP award were to be decided by the players, or even the fans, than maybe *JUST MAYBE* they'd actually hold some significance.

But, honestly, say we do this:

Tony Parker *THREE* championship rings.......Nash *ZERO*

Parker > Nash

Its just as silly to do a comparison like that with regards to two players, but a Championship actually _means something_.


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

mjm1 said:


> If the MVP award were to be decided by the players, or even the fans, than maybe *JUST MAYBE* they'd actually hold some significance.
> 
> But, honestly, say we do this:
> 
> ...


MVP = individual accomplishment

hope this helps.


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Goes both ways. If Stock played with the new "****, no touch rules", his defense would greatly suffer from not being able to mug opposing players.


Very good point. Stockton was known as a dirty defender.


----------



## Kidd's Nets (Jun 10, 2006)

roux2dope said:


> Better passer based on assists - Stockton
> Better Defensive player - Stockton (all time nba steals leader)
> Most times in the nba finals - Stockton (2)
> *Gold Medals won - Stockton*


Yes, Stockton's better but that last criterion is just insanely unfair.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Kidd's Nets said:


> Yes, Stockton's better but that last criterion is just insanely unfair.


Agreed. I could have played on one of those dream teams and got a gold medal.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Nash's past 3 seasons are probably better than any of Stockton's seasons, but there is no comparison when it comes to career. It's Stockton all the way.


----------



## Adol (Nov 25, 2004)

I think Kidd or Stockton would be a better question, since they're both more well rounded than Nash.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

mjm1 said:


> If the MVP award were to be decided by the players, or even the fans, than maybe JUST MAYBE they'd actually hold some significance.
> 
> But, honestly, say we do this:
> 
> ...


Wow...championships are TEAM awards.....it is the only one that exists in sports......you cant compare individuals based on team accomplishments. It's apples to oranges. That would be more like you saying Robert Horry(6 rings) > Charles Barkely(ZERO). That analogy has no credibility at all. Wise up and makes some sense.

Secondly, due to the hand check rule and countless other new policies that have affected the game.....Stockton would not be nearly as effictive on the defensive side of the floor as he was in his era. He relied on dirty moves and cheap-shot antics to make up for his lack of dominating athletic ability(see bruce bowen). His cheap-shot antics(Im talking elbowing, hooking arms, kneeing, tripping, he did it all) would be more tighly regulated(although bowen still gets away with it so who knows) and he wouldn't be able to use that to his advantage. C'mon, even Dennis Rodman called him a dirty player. Nash, i would say, plays by the rules and isn't considered a dirty player, which in turn explains the differences in deffensive statistics. 

I will give Stockton his due props, but no slouch wins back-to-back mvp awards and isn't considered one of the elite. You guys need to get off of stockton's dick and wake up to a reality(We're talkin' guys like Russell,Chamberlain, Kareem, Moses, Bird, Magic, MJ, TD and now Nash). To say Nash is not even on Stockton's level is laughable. Stockon was a solid player n all, but in todays game, Ill take Nash.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Both actually have similar qualities: make smart decision, make other better, clutch, great leader, great PG also obviously.

But Stock is tough as nails, a fearless competitor who'll scratch and claw at both ends of the floor. I think that's the edge he has over Nash. If I manage team, I'd feel the safest if my PG is John Stockton. I just don't think I can go wrong with Stock.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

RSP83 said:


> If I manage team, I'd feel the safest if my PG is John Stockton. I just don't think I can go wrong with Stock.


If it comes down to that, you're pretty much safe with either. It's not like we're talking about Stephon Marbury here.


----------



## Smez86 (Jun 29, 2006)

Power_Ballin said:


> Secondly, due to the hand check rule and countless other new policies that have affected the game.....Stockton would not be nearly as effictive on the defensive side of the floor as he was in his era.


What are all these accounts that make Nash and Stockton seem like they played decades apart?

They both played in the league at the same time for seven years. Seven! And during those seven years, where they both played under the same rule set, Stockton played D and Nash didn't.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

SeaNet said:


> Nash's past 3 seasons are probably better than any of Stockton's seasons, but there is no comparison when it comes to career. It's Stockton all the way.


You should actually read the thread. I posted about this on page 2. That's a ridiculous claim to make.


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

Smez86 said:


> What are all these accounts that make Nash and Stockton seem like they played decades apart?
> 
> They both played in the league at the same time for seven years. Seven! And during those seven years, where they both played under the same rule set, Stockton played D and Nash didn't.


The tight officiating began around when Stockton was retiring at 40. The fact remains, we don't know how great of a defender he'd be in this era, and it's his defense that's touted as what sets him apart.


----------



## kg_mvp03-04 (Jul 24, 2003)

Stockton is better than Nash, Nash seems to get overrated for the three seasons that he has played in Phoenix. Stocktons career numbers are better than nashes and his best seasons are better than nashes best three seasons. Stocktons field goal % is on par with nashes but he kills him in Defense.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

mysterio said:


> The tight officiating began around when Stockton was retiring at 40. The fact remains, we don't know how great of a defender he'd be in this era, and it's his defense that's touted as what sets him apart.


While that's true, the only reason anyone can consider Nash as on Stockton's level is because Nash's offense has gotten better at an unprecedented rate since the rule change. Stockton's defense would suffer, but his offense would be even better and I think it would be a wash. He'd still have more assists, and he'd score more because he could get easier layups.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

The "touch foul" started around the time when Iverson became MVP. I am too lazy to check but I think Stockton was already out of the league by that time.

Still, Stockton would've been a better defender even in this era. The NBA all time leader in steals isn't just because of cheap moves and loose officiating.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Stockton, in terms of both prime and career. A prime Stockton was about as good offensively and considerably better defensively.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Defense is about trying.Stockton had zero physical attributes to make him a good defender.He simply wanted it and that made up for his deficiencies.Also the changes in the officiation wouldn't have really applied to Stockton.If you have been paying attention you'd surely realize that all the guys who are regarded as great defenders and all the guys who are thought of as superstars don't get the same touch calls that everyone else does.
That isn't right,but then Nash doesn't get called for touch fouls the way most other perimeter players are either.If Stockton was playing under the current officiation he'd get away with everything he got away with back when it was a man's league.Nash gets away with more because he's Steve Nash,but he's just not good enough on defense to gain the same advantage a tougher player would.


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

Stockton by a long shot, Nash is special, dont get me wrong, he is an awesome passer, on par with Stockton in terms of vision, but Stockton did it for sooo much longer, i believe Stockton was a better shooter and one of the BEST defensive players in that era, Nash doesnt even come in the top 100 players this era in defense, Nash has had Stoudamire and Marion for 2 full seasons and they havent won more then 3 games in the ECF, Stockton had Malone and Hornacek and went to the finals twice and we're ALWAYS contenders in the 90's....i think around 9 or 10 seasons STRAIGHT with 10+ assists.....Nash is more on the Pete Maravich level....in my eyes theres 3 levels in the PG greats....

1. Magic, Oscar, Isaih, Stockton
2. Payton, Kidd, Cousy, Frasier
3. Maravich, Nash, Archibald, Iverson


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

dwade3 said:


> Stockton by a long shot, Nash is special, dont get me wrong, he is an awesome passer, on par with Stockton in terms of vision, but Stockton did it for sooo much longer, i believe Stockton was a better shooter and one of the BEST defensive players in that era, Nash doesnt even come in the top 100 players this era in defense, Nash has had Stoudamire and Marion for 2 full seasons and they havent won more then 3 games in the ECF, Stockton had Malone and Hornacek and went to the finals twice and we're ALWAYS contenders in the 90's....i think around 9 or 10 seasons STRAIGHT with 10+ assists.....Nash is more on the Pete Maravich level....in my eyes theres 3 levels in the PG greats....
> 
> 1. Magic, Oscar, Isaih, Stockton
> 2. Payton, Kidd, Cousy, Frasier
> 3. Maravich, Nash, Archibald, Iverson


Im still not 100% sure, but when all is said and done I _may_ consider Nash as good as Kidd. Hard to say though. Kidds game is so well rounded, outside of being a so-so offensive player, he does every other aspect amazingly. Im not sure if Nash's offensive flare is enough or not.


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Im still not 100% sure, but when all is said and done I _may_ consider Nash as good as Kidd. Hard to say though. Kidds game is so well rounded, outside of being a so-so offensive player, he does every other aspect amazingly. Im not sure if Nash's offensive flare is enough or not.



all i know is Kidd has 'assissted' players around him to contracts in the $600-800million range....Nash? maybe $300mill tops....


----------



## maradro (Aug 2, 2003)

theres nothing to argue defensively, but im amazed at all the people saying stockton was "about as good" as nash offensively... 

stockton has more points, more assists, better fg%, better a/to ratio... shouldnt it be that nash is almost as good as stockton?

also, nash played on a stacked dallas team and a stacked phoenix team and the best hes done is get to the WCF once with each... stockton went to the WCF over and over, beating great teams in the process (sonics with payton and kemp, suns with barkley and KJ, spurs with drob and duncan, rockets with hakeem... ). Who have the suns beat in the nash era? the mavs once? Kobe a couple times, and? the mighty clips? the evil grizz? exactly.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

their peak PER's are almost identical. 

my biggest complaint with stockton is that he never really stepped into the #2 scorer role the jazz lacked for much of his career. as efficient as he was offensively, he didn't step out of his comfort zone enough even though his team would have benefited from it. nash is far more willing to put things on HIS shoulders. malone frequently crashed from the weight put on his shoulders, in part because his superstar teammate helped put it there. malone usually takes the brunt of the blame, whereas stockton tends to get the free pass. it's nitpicky on my part, but it always bothered me. 

peak play it's very close for this reason.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

dwade3 said:


> 1. Magic, Oscar, Isaih, Stockton
> 2. Payton, Kidd, Cousy, Frasier
> 3. Maravich, Nash, Archibald, Iverson


Nash belongs to the second group if you put it that way. He has a chance to go up to the first group.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

kflo said:


> their peak PER's are almost identical.
> 
> my biggest complaint with stockton is that he never really stepped into the #2 scorer role the jazz lacked for much of his career. as efficient as he was offensively, he didn't step out of his comfort zone enough even though his team would have benefited from it. nash is far more willing to put things on HIS shoulders. malone frequently crashed from the weight put on his shoulders, in part because his superstar teammate helped put it there. malone usually takes the brunt of the blame, whereas stockton tends to get the free pass. it's nitpicky on my part, but it always bothered me.
> 
> peak play it's very close for this reason.


I don't know about Stockton not wanting to be the guy. Based on what I've seen, Stockton is the man during crunch time.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

stockton had 1 playoffs in his career where he averaged more than 18.4 pts/40, and that was in a 3 game sweep. 18.0 is his playoff high in a playoff he got past the 1st round. 

he had some clutch moments, but overall, didn't step up that part of his game.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

RSP83 said:


> Nash belongs to the second group if you put it that way. He has a chance to go up to the first group.


If you look at the 3 groups though..
In group 1, there's champions.
In group 2, there's players with achievements (multiple conference titles, a finals run, whatever)
In group 3, there's great statistics guys who have actually achieved very little. Tiny hitched a ride to a 'ship with the Celtics, and Iverson had that insane year (2001?). Maravich and Nash have great stats, but finals appearances?


Powerballin - he's trying to show that awards are insignificant. The whole point is Horry has 6 championships and Barkley has none, in the same way Nash has 2 MVP's and Stockton has none. Hell, they can't even decided what the MVP should be - the best player, the best player on the best team, the 'leader' on the best team..
Christ, this year the MVP got run out of the playoffs in the first round. Good lord what a valuable player..


Come on, it's Stockton hands down.
If Stockton was on these Suns teams he'd have even better stats than he already does. Playing in an uptempo system boosts your stats, everyone knows this. I'm not saying Nash isn't good, but he isn't on John Stockton's level.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I don't think anyone is arguing that Stockton has the better career numbers. But you just have to give credit to Nash that his 2 MVP years were quite incredible even if you match it up to Stockton's best years.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

LameR said:


> You should actually read the thread. I posted about this on page 2. That's a ridiculous claim to make.


Statistics don't move me in the least. And I almost never read the posts on this board that are filled w/ them, such as yours in this thread (which I have not and will not read). When it comes to measuring impact, differences of a few points or rebounds or some ludicrous notion of 'PER' are completely and totally meaningless to me.

The impact that Nash has had on his team the past 3 years is an impact I never saw from Stockton. The Suns (a 60+ win team) literally fall apart wo/ Nash. Never saw that w/ Stockton. Now, its certainly possible that Stockton had such an impact on his team and I didn't see it, and I left open that possibility when I said 'probably' in my original post. And also, for the record, I said that career wise there is no question it is Stockton all the way.


----------



## KDOS (Nov 29, 2005)

Both are superb passers and masters at making teammates better.


I would love Nash to finish his career then make a decision. Both have their own weaknesses and strengths that suppresses each others ability to outrank each other.



Nash has won two MVP's, while Stockton didn't win any. Steve's career 3-point percentage and free throw percentages are ahead of Stockton's, and their career scoring averages are nearly identical. We've all seen how Phoenix collapses without their floor general. It instantly makes them look like a contender masking as a lottery team. 


Offensively Nash has all the advantage. Not only is he your consummate "pass-first" player but he is also a guard capable of doing damage offensively. Stockton mainly, considered it his duty to get the ball to Malone in scoring position. But lets not forget the fact that Nash has more weapons than Stock ever had.



Still, Stockton is the all-time NBA assists and steals leader. Thats an amazing feat, much more impressive than winning two MVP's IMO. Also Stock has a higher field goal accuracy (nearly four percentage points better than Nash's)


I hate making comparisons from now and yesterday because it tends to push your opinion towards bias. 


You have a current superstar and a legend. Hard decision to make.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

> Powerballin - he's trying to show that awards are insignificant. The whole point is Horry has 6 championships and Barkley has none, in the same way Nash has 2 MVP's and Stockton has none. Hell, they can't even decided what the MVP should be - the best player, the best player on the best team, the 'leader' on the best team..
> Christ, this year the MVP got run out of the playoffs in the first round. Good lord what a valuable player..
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree. I dont not think Stockton's better nor do I think it's a "hands down" comparison like you suggest. Yea he has better career numbers but that does not make him the better overall player by default. Was he consistent, yes, but Nash is more dominating and just carries more weight on his team, imo.....he is the primary go-to-guy for the Sun's, no questions asked. Nash is the clear cut leader of his team offensively, therefore exerting all of his effort on defense would be costly for his team. Thats why guys like Bell and Barbosa come in and take over the defensive matchups. I could say the same thing as you.....If Amare was the defensive force that Malone was that would make nash's D look better as it did Stockton's and would likely result in Nash advancing further in the playoffs. Malone would be the dominating defensive big man that they desperately need(The Tim Duncan stopper), which would lead to more finals appearences. Plus, there aren't any signs that Nash's career is even close to being over so to say Nash and Stock are on completely different levels is ridiculous in my opinion. Their is much more Nash to come. I give just as much credit, if not more to Malone, for the Jazz's success as i do Stockon........They did it together. As for the Sun's, same thing but I just think that Nash carry's a little more weight on his team(primarily due to the lack of a dominating definsive big man as Stock had). If I had to choose......I would take Nash over Stock.....Malone over Amare.....they would win Championships(something Stockton never won either). 

Playoff Analysis:

Rk PLAYER NAME G MIN FGM FGA FG% 3PM 3PA 3P% FTM FTA FT% TOT AST STL TO PTS
102 ---	Steve Nash 97 36.1 6.3 13.4 .468 1.6 3.8 .419 3.2 3.6 .899 3.6 8.8 0.6 3.2 17.3

200	John Stockton 182 35.2 4.7 9.9 .473 0.6 1.9 .326 3.4 4.2 .810 3.3 10.1 1.9 2.8 13.4


----------



## Smez86 (Jun 29, 2006)

Those playoff stats are a little skewed considered Nash has been there 9 years and Stockton has been there, what, 19 years? Let Nash reach the playoffs another 10 years and those stats will become more valid (not that I condone using stats but that was your argument).

And since when is it bad for a star to "exert" themself on defense? For instance, like, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan, etc. You know, superstars who actually win something?


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> The impact that Nash has had on his team the past 3 years is an impact I never saw from Stockton. The Suns (a 60+ win team) literally fall apart wo/ Nash. Never saw that w/ Stockton. Now, its certainly possible that Stockton had such an impact on his team and I didn't see it, and I left open that possibility when I said 'probably' in my original post. And also, for the record, I said that career wise there is no question it is Stockton all the way.



I think a large part of that has to do with the way they play basketball - a fastbreak relies on a pg capable of making the right decision and the right pass in a split-second. It seems obvious to me that taking away the pg makes the team ****, as they'll then be trying to run without someone passing them the ball.

If you take Malone and Stockton away from the Jazz, they're awful.
If you take Amare and Nash away from the Suns, they've still got Diaw, Marion and Barbosa, as well as Raja Bell. Hornacek is something, but he's only one guy. I think Nash has a better supporting cast now than Stockton ever did.


Just noticed Power_Ballin's post appeared while I was typing this, so my two cents on that too:

My best arguement is this: if you put Stockton the Suns instead of Nash, I think they'd do even better. His steals would spark even more fastbreaks, his defense would limit dribble penetration, and I think he's an even better passer (considering he got higher assist numbers in a team that didn't fastbreak nearly as much..).
I don't know how putting Nash on the Jazz would work, but I do know putting Stockton on the Suns _would_ work.




> I could say the same thing as you.....If Amare was the defensive force that Malone was that would make nash's D look better as it did Stockton's and would likely result in Nash advancing further in the playoffs. Malone would be the dominating defensive big man that they desperately need(The Tim Duncan stopper), which would lead to more finals appearences


I don't quite understand that point (mostly the first part).


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

'98 jazz went 11-7 without stockton. not a huge sample size, but not completely insignificant.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

SeaNet said:


> Statistics don't move me in the least. And I almost never read the posts on this board that are filled w/ them, such as yours in this thread (which I have not and will not read). When it comes to measuring impact, differences of a few points or rebounds or some ludicrous notion of 'PER' are completely and totally meaningless to me.
> 
> The impact that Nash has had on his team the past 3 years is an impact I never saw from Stockton. The Suns (a 60+ win team) literally fall apart wo/ Nash. Never saw that w/ Stockton. Now, its certainly possible that Stockton had such an impact on his team and I didn't see it, and I left open that possibility when I said 'probably' in my original post. And also, for the record, I said that career wise there is no question it is Stockton all the way.


Well, it's easy to see why the Jazz never fell apart without Stockton. He rarely missed a game.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

HKF said:


> Well, it's easy to see why the Jazz never fell apart without Stockton. He rarely missed a game.


lol was thinking the same thing


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

OT - who holds the record for most consecutive games? AC Green of the Showtime Lakers?


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

Just to reiterate, it's way too early. The worst case scenario is Nash may decline considerably and bring the Suns nowhere. On the other hand he has a chance at continuing for another couple of MVP calibre seasons and may possibly bring Phoenix a Larry O'Brien Trophy, maybe even two. 





























Hey, it could happen... MCWORLD!


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Literally every time down the court for the Suns what they do is based on Steve Nash. From my experience of watching the Stockton Jazz, I don't think that was the case w/ that team. And the Suns are built not only around what Nash does, but around his ability to create his own offense. For the past three seasons, if you leave Nash open he will look for his shot *wo/ hesitation* and he will destroy you. It is Nash's ability to score, coupled w/ his judicious use of that ability, that opens everything up for that team. Again, not my experience from watching the Stockton Jazz.

Was Stockton a better all around player? Sure. Did Stockton have the better and more impactful career? Absolutely. But for the past three seasons, I think Nash most likely has had more impact on his team's on court fortunes than Stockton did in any of his years.

Now, many will say that this is because the Suns' system is built around Nash, and I say... so what? That's what good teams do and good coaches do. They build a system around what their star players do best. And Nash does what he does extremely well. And what he does is make an offense hum like perhaps no one I've ever seen. And that's why I think that Nash's past 3 years are likely more impactful than any of Stockton's years.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

> That's what good teams do and good coaches do. They build a system around what their star players do best.


Stockton *to* Malone! :biggrin:


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

different_13 said:


> Stockton *to* Malone! :biggrin:


Absolutely. That was the right system for that team, and it worked great for them.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Power_Ballin said:


> Nash *TWO* mvp's.......Stockton *ZERO*
> 
> Nash > Stockton


Stockton Assists = 15,806
Nash Assists = 5,890

Stockton Steals = 3,265
Nash Steals = 626

Stockton Points = 19,711
Nash Points = 10,907


As far as a career comparison, there's absolutely no question whose career was better. At this rate, if Nash were to play for another 8 seasons, (making him the age Stockton was when he retired) and never miss a game, Nash would need to average 13.4 PPG, 15.1 APG, and 4 SPG. I'll tell you now - he's not gonna get to any of those.

Although, many people have presented the question of who had the better season(s). I think it's a toss up in there, and don't say that MVP's make a player's career. You really think Stockton was going to win MVP over Jordan, Magic, Bird, Malone, Barkley, etc etc etc?? The star power of today is far less significant than when Stockton played. MVP's really don't mean anything when comparing players.

Lastly, on Stockton not winning it all. First off, they came close and it's damn impressive they even made it there. LHM (Jazz owner) was so hesitant to open his wallet to get that one extra player to get them there, and I'd blame the owner for not putting another good player on the floor. Ironically, it's about identical to what the Suns are doing to their franchise right now. But, in my opinion, Stockton got a bigger result with far less talented players.


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

Careerwise it depends on how much anyone values peak or longevity, so I'm not going to argue about it.
Btw, Nash in the last three years has been clearly better than whatever Stockton showed to me. As mcu has someone might discredit his MVPs, Nash has been a unanimous TOP3 candidate and 1st team All NBAer, something Stockton never got close to achieve.

I really adored Stockton's game, but I'm not even sure he was a better passer than Nash. He never had the same use of the left hand (that is what makes Nash totally sick), never was the same scoring threat and never showed the same signs of dominance in the playoffs.
Stockton was a computer, always did the right thing, never (almost) made mistakes. He was perfect at executing, but you really couldn't expect anything more from him whenever the normal execution wasn't working. 
Nash is at another level, he's an artist, he creates offence. He so much of an offensive threat himself (Stockton score over 30 in a game like 7-8 times in his career, playoffs included) that he opens up space for him teamates. Give this Nash to the Jazz and they win one of the two finals against the Bulls.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Ryoga said:


> Careerwise it depends on how much anyone values peak or longevity, so I'm not going to argue about it.
> Btw, Nash in the last three years has been clearly better than whatever Stockton showed to me. As mcu has someone might discredit his MVPs, Nash has been a unanimous TOP3 candidate and 1st team All NBAer, something Stockton never got close to achieve.
> 
> I really adored Stockton's game, but I'm not even sure he was a better passer than Nash. He never had the same use of the left hand (that is what makes Nash totally sick), never was the same scoring threat and never showed the same signs of dominance in the playoffs.
> ...


I whole-heartedly disagree. The entire reason they won that game 6 in Houston, 1996, is because Stockton scored the last 11 points of the game. The Jazz were down 7 with about 1:30 left to play. Also see game 4 of the 1997 NBA finals. Stockton took that game over and the Jazz pulled off a big comeback late in the game, yet again.

Stockton was great at execution, yes, but he could take the game over it was needed.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

Ryoga said:


> Careerwise it depends on how much anyone values peak or longevity, so I'm not going to argue about it.
> Btw, Nash in the last three years has been clearly better than whatever Stockton showed to me. As mcu has someone might discredit his MVPs, Nash has been a unanimous TOP3 candidate and 1st team All NBAer, something Stockton never got close to achieve.
> 
> I really adored Stockton's game, but I'm not even sure he was a better passer than Nash. He never had the same use of the left hand (that is what makes Nash totally sick), never was the same scoring threat and never showed the same signs of dominance in the playoffs.
> ...


I disagree with that. Gary Payton and other scoring guards would have demolished Nash, and they wouldn't even have reached the Finals, let alone won them.
Also, the Jazz played a lot more halfcourt offense. I'm not gonna deny Nash's brilliance, because he's a very gifted passer.
But as SeaNet mentioned, great coaches and GM's build their teams around the skills of their players, and the Jazz were not a fastbreak team - which is Nash's specialty.
I will argue the reverse though - put Stockton on those Suns teams and they'd have more success in the playoffs, imo.

Stockton's longlevity is ridiculous.

Btw, as for you not being sure if Stockton was a better passer than Nash:

Nash has 1989 TO in 11 seasons (779 games)
Stockton had 4244 TO in 19 seasons (1504 games)

Looking at that, if you basically double Nash's numbers to make them near equal, he has fewer TO's (but only barely)
Now:
Nash averages 7.6 assists to 2.6 TO per game over his career.
Stockton averages 10.5 assists to 2.8 TO per game over his career.

Stockton clearly has a higher assist/TO ratio, as well has a higher assist average. I'd say that makes him a better passer.

You say he didn't use the left-hand - I'll take your word for that. And he still passed better!


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

I have a hard time believing that one of the best PGs of all-time had a deficiency in his left-hand skill. I never paid too much attention to it, but that seems extremely unlikely to me.


----------



## Jizzy (Aug 24, 2005)

IMO, nobody talked about Nash when he was with Dallas. Now he goes to a system that suits him well, and he gets severly overrated. Is he a top PG now? Yup. Throughout his career, has he always been considered great? Nope.


----------



## Bubbles (Nov 12, 2005)

unluckyseventeen said:


> Stockton Assists = 15,806
> Nash Assists = 5,890
> 
> Stockton Steals = 3,265
> ...


I am 100% agreeing with that.


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

Having more assists doesn't necessarily equal to better passing. 
Assist numbers are at least 50% about the system you run, it's not like Nash did magically learn how to pass when he left the Mavs and Nelson's exploit-mismatches-through-iso offence.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

Having both more assists and a better turnover ratio _should _equal better passing though.
If Nash had stayed in Dallas we woulnd't be discussing this. As it is, he's never gonna equal Stockton's numbers, or his longlevity.



> Assist numbers are at least 50% about the system you run, it's not like Nash did magically learn how to pass when he left the Mavs and Nelson's exploit-mismatches-through-iso offence.


Both Dallas and the Suns run faster offenses than the Jazz did..
(though in Dallas Dirk and Finley did use the ball more..)


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

different_13 said:


> Both Dallas and the Suns run faster offenses than the Jazz did..


I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you...


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

unluckyseventeen said:


> I have a hard time believing that one of the best PGs of all-time had a deficiency in his left-hand skill. I never paid too much attention to it, but that seems extremely unlikely to me.


no dificiencies, he just wasn't completely ambidextrous like Nash.
I don't remember Stockton making the same one hand left passes Steve routinely shows, for instance.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

If someone could get me some possession stats etc that would be great (serious request)

I know the Jazz could run, but I think it's safe to say the Suns run a lot more, and probably the Mavs too. Though they might be confusing me due to playing smallball..

edit:
Ryoga, do you value Nash's passes more because they're flashier (his left-handed ones, in this case) or is it merely an observation? It does raise the question - if Nash's off-hand abilities are so much greater than Stockton's, does that mean Stockton's righthanded ability is greater than Nash's cos he has more Apg? :biggrin:


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

different_13 said:


> If someone could get me some possession stats etc that would be great (serious request)
> 
> I know the Jazz could run, but I think it's safe to say the Suns run a lot more, and probably the Mavs too. Though they might be confusing me due to playing smallball..


Check here, pay attention to the early years when Stockton was racking up his best statistical seasons.


> edit:
> Ryoga, do you value Nash's passes more because they're flashier (his left-handed ones, in this case) or is it merely an observation? It does raise the question - if Nash's off-hand abilities are so much greater than Stockton's, does that mean Stockton's righthanded ability is greater than Nash's cos he has more Apg? :biggrin:


it's not about flash, I might agree about the behind the back ones, but Nash's ability to do everything at the same level with both hands is unprecedented (afaik) and IMO it's what really sets him apart. The left pass for instance, gives him better angles Stockton couldn't reach.

As far as apg, I'll repeat myself saying it's not an accurate way to measure how good a passer someone is. I'll even add it's totally inaccurate once you take seasons that are like 15 years apart. Different game, different opponents, different context: Stockton wasn't elevating himself over his peers than what Nash is doing (as far as apg), so 13/14 in '88 might be a similar achievement than 10/11 in '07.
Btw, my point is that you can't come and check the numbers to evaluate a PG, you *must* deeply evaluate how each runs a team, why he has those numbers and what he should do to help the most. There are systems where it's easier to average many assists, others where is more difficult, nobody should start debating w/out having a clear opinion about that.
Numbers are an easy way to say x>y, but are not as easy to understand as people think.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I wonder how many of you guys realize that Stephon Marbury has a higher career assist per game average than Steve Nash.Talking about him being a better passer than Stockton is absurd


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

KidCanada said:


> It depends on how you look at it.
> 
> It's hard to argue the longevity and overall consistency that Stockton had throughout his career. From that standpoint it's easily Stockton. He's been great for a much longer period of time.
> 
> But if you just took the pinnacle greatness of each player and asked, who was better in the prime of their respected careers? Then I'd go with Nash. Nash's best season(s) trumps Stockton's best season. He played a higher level of basketball last year than Stockton ever did in his career.


That's a load of Crap

Stockton's best 3 seasons

89/90 78 Games, .514FG%, .416 3FG%, 2.6 RPG, 14.5 APG, 2.65 SPG, 17.2 ppg
90/91 82 Games, .507FG%, .345 3FG%, 2.9 RPG, 14.2 APG, 2.85 SPG, 17.2 ppg
91/92 82 Games, .482FG%, .407 3FG%, 3.3 RPG, 13.7 APG, 2.98 SPG, 15.8 ppg

Nash's best 3 seasons

04/05 75 Games, .502FG%, .431 3FG%, 3.3 RPG, 11.5 APG, 1.0 SPG, 15.5 ppg
05/06 79 Games, .512FG%, .439 3FG%, 4.2 RPG, 10.5 APG, .8 SPG, 18.8 ppg
06/07 76 Games, .532FG%, .455 3FG%, 3.5 RPG, 11.6 APG, .8 SPG, 18.6 ppg


It's close, but Stockton's huge advantage in APG and SPG clearly outweigh Nash's better FG% and rebounding numbers.

The biggest thing to consider is that Utah was a slow paced relatively average scoring team during that time period, where as the Suns now are far and away the most explosive offensive team in the league. You take an 1990 era John Stockton and put him on the current Phoenix roster and his Stats would be SCARY.

I give Steve all the credit in the world for winning his MVP's, but had he played during the prime of Michael, Charles, Patrick, Larry, Malone, Dream's career like Stockton had to, Nash wouldn't have even made the top ten list for MVP.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Kidd's Nets said:


> Yes, Stockton's better but that last criterion is just insanely unfair.



I know, i put it on there for fun, I know Stockton couldnt win a gold playing for canada and i know if you put nash on the the greatest basketball team ever assembled he would have won the gold too.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Stockton, hands down.

I can't even accept Nash being better than J-Kidd, let alone probably the single greatest PG to play.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Stockton wins this, Nash is only a better scorer. 

But people saying he was a great defender are insane.

He's only good if you consider the mugging the refs allowed him to do defense.

Go watch a tape of him trying to guard a guy like Steve Francis or Nick Van Exel. All he did was grab and clutch them.


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> But people saying he was a great defender are insane.
> 
> He's only good if you consider the mugging the refs allowed him to do defense.


by 'he' are you referring to John ot Steve?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

GregOden said:


> Stockton, hands down.
> 
> I can't even accept Nash being better than J-Kidd, let alone probably the single greatest PG to play.


noone's saying nash is better than magic.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

banner17 said:


> That's a load of Crap
> 
> Stockton's best 3 seasons
> 
> ...


their peak per's were virtually identical, and that takes pace into account. the '90 jazz actually had a higher pace factor than the '07 suns. again, the difference to me, offensively, is the scoring mindset nash brings that stockton simply didn't. a statisical dead-heat is broken by the guy who takes greater responsibility to getting it done. the offset to that is stockton's defensive advantage. take the 1990 era stockton and put him on this roster and his stats are likely no different. the pace he played at was the same, and the league currently has a lower overall offensive efficiency.


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

KidCanada said:


> It depends on how you look at it.
> 
> It's hard to argue the longevity and overall consistency that Stockton had throughout his career. From that standpoint it's easily Stockton. He's been great for a much longer period of time.
> 
> But if you just took the pinnacle greatness of each player and asked, who was better in the prime of their respected careers? Then I'd go with Nash. Nash's best season(s) trumps Stockton's best season. He played a higher level of basketball last year than Stockton ever did in his career.


I totally agree with this post


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

kflo said:


> their peak per's were virtually identical, and that takes pace into account. the '90 jazz actually had a higher pace factor than the '07 suns. again, the difference to me, offensively, is the scoring mindset nash brings that stockton simply didn't. a statisical dead-heat is broken by the guy who takes greater responsibility to getting it done. the offset to that is stockton's defensive advantage. take the 1990 era stockton and put him on this roster and his stats are likely no different. the pace he played at was the same, and the league currently has a lower overall offensive efficiency.


Stockton took over game 6 in the WCF against the Rockets and pretty much singlehandedly won it for the Jazz, who were down by 8 with 2 minutes left in the game.

When has Nash ever took over a game of that significance in his career? For all the flack Stockton got, and some of it justifably so, for never winning a title, Nash hasn't even made a Finals.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

banner17 said:


> That's a load of Crap
> 
> Stockton's best 3 seasons
> 
> ...


I'd actually take 88/89 over 91/92. Slightly fewer assists, but better overall.

88-89 17.1 ppg, 13.6 apg, 3.76 TOpg, 2.0 rpg, 3.21 spg, .538 fg%


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Nate505 said:


> Stockton took over game 6 in the WCF against the Rockets and pretty much singlehandedly won it for the Jazz, who were down by 8 with 2 minutes left in the game.
> 
> When has Nash ever took over a game of that significance in his career? For all the flack Stockton got, and some of it justifably so, for never winning a title, Nash hasn't even made a Finals.


How about in the 05 playoff when Nash nearly averaged a tripe-double and had multiple 40 point games against the Mavs?


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

unluckyseventeen said:


> Stockton Assists = 15,806
> Nash Assists = 5,890
> 
> Stockton Steals = 3,265
> ...


i agree, becoz between 1987 - 1998 Jordan should have won it 9 times and Hakeem twice.....Nash deserved his second MVP but definetly not his first, that was stolen from Shaq.....


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> their peak per's were virtually identical, and that takes pace into account. the '90 jazz actually had a higher pace factor than the '07 suns. again, the difference to me, offensively, is the scoring mindset nash brings that stockton simply didn't. a statisical dead-heat is broken by the guy who takes greater responsibility to getting it done. the offset to that is stockton's defensive advantage. take the 1990 era stockton and put him on this roster and his stats are likely no different. the pace he played at was the same, and the league currently has a lower overall offensive efficiency.


I think Stockton was a significantly better passer, even if some of that has to do with his tendency to pass rather than score regardless of whether it was the ideal thing to do. We have to give him credit for that since we're giving Nash credit (statistically) for scoring. But PER only measures passing ability by looking at assists. And that isn't a very fair measure. So I think PER favors Nash.

Also, while he may be a bit overrated on that end, Stockton was the far superior defender.


----------



## dastrey (Dec 30, 2003)

In an era where Tony Parker can dominate on a consistent basis, it's easy to see how Nash has won 2 MVP's. The game has changed to benefit guard play. It just so happens that there is a severe lack of 'true' point guards in this league. It only took Deron Williams a couple years to become one of the NBA's top point guards. Imagine Isiah, Stockton, Payton playing against a defense that couldn't hand-check them. Kidd took a team to the Finals twice when they started implementing these rules and was closer to his prime. Stockton could have easily matched Nash's production during his MVP years given the same circumstances.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

I'm still waiting for the Kirk Hinrich choice


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> How about in the 05 playoff when Nash nearly averaged a tripe-double and had multiple 40 point games against the Mavs?


Did they win that series?


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

LameR said:


> Nash's 3 best seasons:
> 06-07 18.6 ppg, 11.6 apg, 3.78 TOpg, 3.5 rpg, .8 spg, .532 fg%
> 
> 05-06 18.8 ppg, 10.5 apg, 3.49 TOpg, 4.2 rpg, .8 spg, .512 fg%
> ...


Thank YOU! And this is considering the fact that Nash plays in a system that focuses primarily on offense, and he rests far more on defense than Stockton.

Also, as someone else said, Nash has more weapons as well.

Nash is barely better than Jason Kidd, and it's funny because you could make a VERY strong argument for Nash only deserving one MVP, and Kidd deserving one himself. Which would mean both players would have at least one MVP in a perfect world. Not to mention he also trumps Nash on the defensive end and took his team to the finals. TWICE.

And I don't even like Jason Kidd.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Nate505 said:


> Did they win that series?


yes


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

Nate505 said:


> Did they win that series?


Yes?

Btw Stockton had a great serie against the Rockets and he was worth 20/4/10 with 55%ts, but Nash against the Mavs was insane with 30/6/12 and 59%ts.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Stockton for me. Nash hasn't done it long enough.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

SeaNet said:


> Statistics don't move me in the least. And I almost never read the posts on this board that are filled w/ them, such as yours in this thread (which I have not and will not read). When it comes to measuring impact, differences of a few points or rebounds or some ludicrous notion of 'PER' are completely and totally meaningless to me.


This would explain why you're not very good at arguing about player's respective impact in pretty much every thread you inhabit.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

EHL said:


> This would explain why you're not very good at arguing about player's respective impact in pretty much every thread you inhabit.


And IMO, the fact that you would respond to my post w/ this 'would explain why you're not very good at arguing about player's respective impact in pretty much every thread *you* inhabit.'

I despise you and think you are worthless. You despise me and think that I am worthless. Would that you could just leave it alone and not respond to my posts as I do not respond to yours. Seems to me that you too insecure for that, though. Its never too late to turn over a new leaf, even for the worthless and desposition worthy, so I'll continue to hope you will leave me alone forever.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

banner17 said:


> by 'he' are you referring to John ot Steve?


John.

Nash is a worse defender, but John was a bad one himself. Especially after the age of 32 or so where he was just awful.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

GregOden said:


> Stockton, hands down.
> 
> I can't even accept Nash being better than J-Kidd, *let alone probably the single greatest PG to play.*



Magic and Oscar were both better than Stockton. We dont even need to look at the stats to understand that.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> He's only good if you consider the mugging the refs allowed him to do defense.
> 
> Go watch a tape of him trying to guard a guy like Steve Francis or Nick Van Exel. All he did was grab and clutch them.


Exactly. that's what iv been tryna tell people but they keep bring'n up these stats. Stockton was renowned for his handchecking and dirty play on defense. not for lockdown or great footwork defense....there is a difference.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Power_Ballin said:


> Exactly. that's what iv been tryna tell people but they keep bring'n up these stats. Stockton was renowned for his handchecking and dirty play on defense. not for lockdown or great footwork defense....there is a difference.


So, let me get this straight: if the refs let an offensive player pal, travel and carry in almost possetions, you shrugg it off as "superstar treatmente"... If a defensive player is allowed to push, grab, etc., he is a "dirty" player? Seems a little strange to me...


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

Ryoga said:


> Yes?
> 
> Btw Stockton had a great serie against the Rockets and he was worth 20/4/10 with 55%ts, but Nash against the Mavs was insane with 30/6/12 and 59%ts.


Ahhh, I thought it was a WCF series. 

Ok, he had a great 2nd round series. Beautiful.

EDIT: Looking at the box scores, he had a decent statistical series against the Spurs in the WCF......yet it didn't amount to much for Phoenix.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

SeaNet said:


> And IMO, the fact that you would respond to my post w/ this 'would explain why you're not very good at arguing about player's respective impact in pretty much every thread *you* inhabit.'
> 
> I despise you and think you are worthless. You despise me and think that I am worthless. Would that you could just leave it alone and not respond to my posts as I do not respond to yours. Seems to me that you too insecure for that, though. Its never too late to turn over a new leaf, even for the worthless and desposition worthy, so I'll continue to hope you will leave me alone forever.


If you didn't ignore statistical analysis, 3rd party awards/accolades, and the context in which they are achieved, there wouldn't really be an issue. Problem is you post with a smug conviction, yet you ignore the three previously stated ingredients that are fundamental to any meaningful analysis of an NBA player. You go by your gut; emotional reaction over rational thought, much like Bush and many of his administration officials. Perhaps that is why I find your opinions and the justifications you use for them, so utterly useless.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Nate505 said:


> Ahhh, I thought it was a WCF series.
> 
> Ok, he had a great 2nd round series. Beautiful.
> 
> EDIT: Looking at the box scores, he had a decent statistical series against the Spurs in the WCF......yet it didn't amount to much for Phoenix.


I believe what you said is "when has Nash carried a team in a game that mattered."

You were wrong, just admit it and move on.

Or do only conference finals game count?


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

PauloCatarino said:


> So, let me get this straight: if the refs let an offensive player pal, travel and carry in almost possetions, you shrugg it off as "superstar treatmente"... If a defensive player is allowed to push, grab, etc., he is a "dirty" player? Seems a little strange to me...


Dude, it's not that hard to understand, unless you have never played the game of basketball before, you should know what im talking about. Since you cant comprehend or differentiate what is meant by a "dirty player" i will break it down for you. You have players who play you straight up and try to guard you with some integrity, and you have players who play you dirty...meaning intentionally holding, tripping, elbowing, ect...to try and get in your head, throw you off your game, injure you, or manipulate a call to gain a competitve advantage. It is part of the game and is merely a matter of personal style. It' not that strange at all. Many guys in the NBA have said Stockton was a dirty player throughout his career, i havent really seen or heard of any evidence or complaints of Nash being one. That is what I was saying and it is no secret.....if you dont beleive me im sure you can find something online somewhere that backs up what im saying.

And no, I dont shrug off a palm or carry or travel as supersatar treatment, i look at it as a common no call which doesn't really warrent a penalty, so next time dont tell ME what I think. At that level, refs typically dont make those calls unless they blatantly benefit the offender or are used to gain an obvious competitive advantage.....dirty players intentionally try to use illegal antics and maneuvers, under the radar or view of officials, to gain an unfair competitive advantage at the sake of another player. It may appear simalar to you, but if you have ever played competitively, you would understand that those are two completely differnt things. It's really not that difficult to comprehend at all unless you are just completely ignorant or unwilling to try and understand the difference. and once again, no, i dont find that strange at all....


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> I believe what you said is "when has Nash carried a team in a game that mattered."
> 
> You were wrong, just admit it and move on.
> 
> Or do only conference finals game count?


Not quite. What I said was 'when has Nash took a game over of _that significance_ in his career.' In this case, a game clinching Western Finals game. IMO, Nash hasn't played in a game of that significance yet in his career.

But point taken, Nash did elevate his game fairly well in a playoff series.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

EHL said:


> If you didn't ignore statistical analysis, 3rd party awards/accolades, and the context in which they are achieved, there wouldn't really be an issue. Problem is you post with a smug conviction, yet you ignore the three previously stated ingredients that are fundamental to any meaningful analysis of an NBA player. You go by your gut; emotional reaction over rational thought, much like Bush and many of his administration officials. Perhaps that is why I find your opinions and the justifications you use for them, so utterly useless.


Its tough for someone w/ such limited intellectual capacity as yourself to recognize independent thought, I understand, and if the site would allow me, I would have you on ignore. So I do the next best thing and I don't read your posts or respond to you, except on occassion *when you attack me for no reason *such as today. But I also somewhat understand that given your insecurity and lack of mental capacity someone such as myself is just too threatening to you to be able to leave alone. So, say what you must. Express your idiocy to the fullest, and enjoy your numbers. See, and this probably comes as a surprise to you,* I'm someone who works w/ numbers so I know what they are worth.**

*as I'm sure just about everything comes as a surprise to someone incapable of independent thought like yourself.

**about as much as you.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Power_Ballin said:


> Dude, it's not that hard to understand, unless you have never played the game of basketball before, you should know what im talking about. Since you cant comprehend or differentiate what is meant by a "dirty player" i will break it down for you. You have players who play you straight up and try to guard you with some integrity, and you have players who play you dirty...meaning intentionally holding, tripping, elbowing, ect...to try and get in your head, throw you off your game, injure you, or manipulate a call to gain a competitve advantage. It is part of the game and is merely a matter of personal style. It' not that strange at all. Many guys in the NBA have said Stockton was a dirty player throughout his career, i havent really seen or heard of any evidence or complaints of Nash being one. That is what I was saying and it is no secret.....if you dont beleive me im sure you can find something online somewhere that backs up what im saying.
> 
> And no, I dont shrug off a palm or carry or travel as supersatar treatment, i look at it as a common no call which doesn't really warrent a penalty, so next time dont tell ME what I think. At that level, refs typically dont make those calls unless they blatantly benefit the offender or are used to gain an obvious competitive advantage.....dirty players intentionally try to use illegal antics and maneuvers, under the radar or view of officials, to gain an unfair competitive advantage at the sake of another player. It may appear simalar to you, but if you have ever played competitively, you would understand that those are two completely differnt things. It's really not that difficult to comprehend at all unless you are just completely ignorant or unwilling to try and understand the difference. and once again, no, i dont find that strange at all....


Well, i guess it's just a matter of labeling things, then... I consider a "dirty" player someone who is out there trying to hurt others (or playing with such abandon that they accept the fact they could hurt others), like stiking out a knee for the slasher or throwing elbows while securing a reound. The rest is just basketball, who is meant to be a physical sport.

Therefore, i don't consider guys like John Stockton, or Charles Oakley, or Xavier McDaniel, or Maurice Lucas "dirty". For me, only guys like Bill Laimbeer and Bruce Bowen (and others i don't remember right now) fits that descripcion.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

Exactly. Someone getting away with a travel pisses me off a lot more than someone who holds, elbows (in the non-Karl Malone way) n suchlike.

And how the hell is a no-call on a travel ok, but a player who doesn't get called for holding is immediately dirty?
They're both unfair advantages.
I think if you intentionally break the rules, you have to accept that you'll get called for it. If Lebron James and Dwyane Wade were getting called for travels and palming, they'd do it less (imo). If Bowen gets called for holding (and karate-kicking) he'd do it less (well, maybe not the kung-fu..)


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Stockton was a dirty player. Im not making it up. Like i said earlier, If you dont beleive me look online or do some research and you will likely find some examples of it.......a blatant no call is a simple case of poor officiating, or it is what it is....just a no call; a dirty player is more about trying to be intentionally discrete about something in order to gain an unfair advantage....if you think that is the same thing as traveling violations or traveling violations are worse, than that your opinion, but i strongly disagree. I will always remember Stockton as a dirty player, that is just my opinion of him and that is all i was saying.


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> John.
> 
> Nash is a worse defender, but John was a bad one himself. Especially after the age of 32 or so where he was just awful.


All time leader in steals and bad defender don't belong in the same sentence. 

1. Stockton 3265
2. Jordan 2514
3. Payton 2418

Stockton leads this cataagory by a higher percentage than most likely any other catagory leader in all of basketball, perhaps all of professional sports in general. He has 741 MORE steals than Jordan where as Nash thus far in 11 seasons has 626 TOTAL. I know you're not arguing Nash as a good defender, I'm just using this to point out how truely remarkable Stockton was at taking the ball away from opposing teams.

I certainly don't consider Stockton a better defender than Jordan, but to say he was a bad defender is beyound ignorant. I'm sorry, even if he was dirty, he still had some of the quickest hands ever in the game. Bruce Bowen is a dirty player, is he still considered a top five perimeter defender in the game - YES.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

banner17 said:


> All time leader in steals and bad defender don't belong in the same sentence.
> 
> 1. Stockton 3265
> 2. Jordan 2514
> ...


stockton also played alot more games than any other perimeter player in history. 

stockton was a great steal guard. not the best ever, but truly a great steal guard. he was always a mediocre on ball defender.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

banner17 said:


> All time leader in steals and bad defender don't belong in the same sentence.
> 
> 1. Stockton 3265
> 2. Jordan 2514
> ...


stockton also played alot more games than any other perimeter player in history. 

stockton was a great steal guard. not the best ever, but truly a great steal guard. he was always a mediocre on ball defender.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Stockton had the exact same reputation for not being able to keep up defensively with the quick PG's of his day in his 30's that Nash does. The difference is, the jersey pulling, holding and grabbing that Stockton somehow got away with makes Bruce Bowen look like the poster boy for hands (feet?)-off defense.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

banner17 said:


> All time leader in steals and bad defender don't belong in the same sentence.
> 
> 1. Stockton 3265
> 2. Jordan 2514
> 3. Payton 2418


Sure it does.

Stockton averaged about 2 steals a game. Can you cause a whopping two turnovers in a 48 minute game and still be a horrible defender? Of course.

I shouldn't have to explain this.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Sure it does.
> 
> Stockton averaged about 2 steals a game. Can you cause a whopping two turnovers in a 48 minute game and still be a horrible defender? Of course.
> 
> I shouldn't have to explain this.


How many career 2 SPG players have been 'horrible' defenders?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I will take prime Nash over prime Stockton.


----------



## squeemu (Jan 25, 2006)

MemphisX said:


> I will take prime Nash over prime Stockton.


You will also be losing more games than my team with a prime Stockton.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Nate505 said:


> How many career 2 SPG players have been 'horrible' defenders?


That's besides the point.

He argued the fact that Stockton couldn't keep up with quick PGs outside of grabbing them by bringing up he is the all time leader in steals. That's like saying Shaq is a great shooter because he is the active field goal percentage leader.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Tragedy said:


> Thank YOU! And this is considering the fact that Nash plays in a system that focuses primarily on offense, and he rests far more on defense than Stockton.
> 
> Also, as someone else said, Nash has more weapons as well.
> 
> ...



Okay, I like Jason Kidd and all...

But people using him as "taking his team to the finals twice".
You have to compare in context..

Nash would of lead his team to the finals twice or three times too, if it wasnt for the Spurs. Who is the best team in the last decade.

Kidd's biggest obstacle in the east was so much more inferior to what eveyone in the west must endure.. Spurs not included.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

squeemu said:


> You will also be losing more games than my team with a prime Stockton.


That is your opinion but Stockton played with a HOFer almost his entire career and they were a good team just like the Suns but not some feared squad that rolled the competition.


----------



## Fray (Dec 19, 2005)

If you vote for Nash then you either don't know much about basketball, or you are a Suns/Nash homer.


----------



## dwade3 (Sep 12, 2005)

1 Penny said:


> Okay, I like Jason Kidd and all...
> 
> But people using him as "taking his team to the finals twice".
> You have to compare in context..
> ...


i donno that second run to the finals was a bit harder, but at the same time, they only lost 2 games en route to the finals and had some very close wins, to me, it doesnt matter what conference or what era, if u make the finals, you are great, if u win, you are champions!


----------



## sonicFLAME6 (Dec 19, 2006)

stockton wins! yipee! lol well that settled it quite easily.


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

Ryoga said:


> Careerwise it depends on how much anyone values peak or longevity, so I'm not going to argue about it.
> Btw, Nash in the last three years has been clearly better than whatever Stockton showed to me. As mcu has someone might discredit his MVPs, Nash has been a unanimous TOP3 candidate and 1st team All NBAer, something Stockton never got close to achieve.
> 
> I really adored Stockton's game, but I'm not even sure he was a better passer than Nash. He never had the same use of the left hand (that is what makes Nash totally sick), never was the same scoring threat and never showed the same signs of dominance in the playoffs.
> ...



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Is this a joke?:lol: 

Nash would've been shut down by that Bulls defense. Hell, his *** gets worn out against the Spurs defense. What makes you think he'd fare better against MJ's Bulls?


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

Jizzy said:


> IMO, nobody talked about Nash when he was with Dallas. Now he goes to a system that suits him well, and he gets severly overrated. Is he a top PG now? Yup. Throughout his career, has he always been considered great? Nope.



Exactly. Three outstanding years out of, how long has Nash been in the League, 11 years? Three out of 11, and folks wanna put Nash with the All-time greats.

I like Nash (I wanted the Suns to beat the hell out of the Spurs), but damn.


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

GregOden said:


> Stockton, hands down.
> 
> I can't even accept Nash being better than J-Kidd, *let alone probably the single greatest PG to play*.



Yeah, Nash can't touch Magic.:biggrin:


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

kflo said:


> noone's saying nash is better than magic.


Damn, beat me to it.:cheers:


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

you all are overestimating stock, and underestimAting nash in their primes...PRIMES...nash is the better pg in his prime than stock. legends are romanticised a bit too much.


----------



## nieman (Jun 6, 2006)

I think y'all should be comparing Nash to Tim Hardaway instead of Stockton. What does he realy have....3 really good years (2 MVPs*) amidst 11 NBA seasons. Why don't y'all compare their 5 best seasons and see whos stats are better? Stockton could control the game in uptempo or half-court, while Nash seems to excel in run-n-gun style. Stockton was just as good as a shooter, maybe he didn't shoot enough, but thats what they said about Nash too. And he was a great defender, who cares if he "cheated", he wasn't quick so he had to improvise. I'll tell you one thing, he used to rake them clean though. Hell, Jordan did as much dirty things while defending as Stockton did. But most importantly, he has put that career assists number so high, no one is ever gonna catch him. And he was one of the most durable players I ever saw.

Nash is good....IMO he's not even HOF material, there has been players...PGs...who have had similar years if not better and aren't even considered HOF worthy (KJ, Tim Hardaway, Lafayette Lever, Cassell, Sleepy Floyd...etc).


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Looks like this has been a great thread (aside from some weird name-calling)--much better argumentation than most similar threads I've thrown away time on.

In terms of career impact, it's obviously Stockton unless you're only counting MVPs. He was ridiculously consistent, and amazing at what he did best. 

I'm among those who believe that the peaks are pretty close. 

Stockton was a more prolific passer, but a difference of 2 apg or so doesn't mean that much to me. Kevin Porter racked up unbelievable numbers of assists in the '70s and never made an all-star game, let alone sniffed an MVP trophy. I think it was Ryoga who made a good point about Nash's ambidexterity. Stockton deserves all the career accolades, but Nash takes a backseat to very, very few floor generals in picking apart defenses with creative, sharp passes.

Both play(ed) invaluable roles for their teams with their efficient scoring and ability to stretch the defense. 

Stockton was clearly a better overall defender, but as kflo said he was never considered a perimeter stopper. He was maybe a little above average as an on-the-ball defender in his 20s, but he was a remarkable thief in the lanes and a very intelligent help defender. I'm not always sure that defense is in Nash's job description.

Both were/are very good in the clutch. But Nash is a different kind of leader. He's shown the ability to carry his team offensively when other pistons aren't firing. Stockton just didn't seem to have that mentality. Stock would absolutely step up for a quarter or a game, but 25 pts was a big explosion for him. Nash will do it for a series or a chunk of a season, and with a higher ceiling.

If I'm putting together a team I'll still take peak Stockton, but it's really a matter of personal taste--what I want my PG to be, as a bit of a hoops purist.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

one interesting point is that with all the talk about stockton making 2 finals, he was already on the downside at that point. his prime years he never made the finals. and i'd certainly argue that a prime nash (or a prime stockton) in place of '97-'98 stockton gives those jazz teams a better chance at beating the bulls. stockton at his peak had no more team success than nash. nash now has 3 1st team all-nba's (stockton had 2 for his career). stockton had 3 top 10 mvp finishes in his career (peaking at 7th back in '89, a year the jazz were a 1st round casualty). this isn't to put stock down, just to put his overall career in some perspective, which tends to get lost when a guy retires with such reverence.

good post jericho.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Undefeated82 said:


> stockton wins! yipee! lol well that settled it quite easily.


:clap: I never liked him much (bulls fan here) but I still vote for him


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Wouldn't a more reasonable career comparison to Nash be somebody like Kevin Johnson? (Ironically from the same team, too). Had KJ played at his peak level as long as he could have, barring injuries, he would be in contention for one of the top PGs of all time. Nash has a cluster of seasons where he was very good, just like KJ.


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

kflo said:


> one interesting point is that with all the talk about stockton making 2 finals, he was already on the downside at that point. his prime years he never made the finals. and i'd certainly argue that a prime nash (or a prime stockton) in place of '97-'98 stockton gives those jazz teams a better chance at beating the bulls. stockton at his peak had no more team success than nash. nash now has 3 1st team all-nba's (stockton had 2 for his career). stockton had 3 top 10 mvp finishes in his career (peaking at 7th back in '89, a year the jazz were a 1st round casualty). this isn't to put stock down, just to put his overall career in some perspective, which tends to get lost when a guy retires with such reverence.
> 
> good post jericho.



Nash is in his prime now. There's no way in hell he's giving the Jazz a better chance to beat those Bulls, especially since he can't even lead the Suns past the current Spurs.


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

unluckyseventeen said:


> Wouldn't a more reasonable career comparison to Nash be somebody like Kevin Johnson? (Ironically from the same team, too). Had KJ played at his peak level as long as he could have, barring injuries, he would be in contention for one of the top PGs of all time. Nash has a cluster of seasons where he was very good, just like KJ.



Even with injuries, I put KJ ahead of Nash. KJ did more against better competition.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Air Jordan 23 said:


> Nash is in his prime now. There's no way in hell he's giving the Jazz a better chance to beat those Bulls, especially since he can't even lead the Suns past the current Spurs.


And we all know that, the MJ bulls are better than the Spurs :clap2:


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

i cant believe this thread is 10 pages. this debate shouldve ended by page 2. as a matter of fact, this shouldnt be a debate at all. what an insult to Stockton


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I mean it's a close question, Stockton has prolonged excellence over a 13-14 (idk) year stint in the league, but Nash has blown up and won two MVPs in the past 3 years, and was number two last year, and will probably be such this year as well. I'd still have to go with Stockton because you know what you're getting, Nash didn't explode like this until he met up with D'Antoni.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

_Dre_ said:


> I mean it's a close question, Stockton has prolonged excellence over a 13-14 (idk) year stint in the league, but Nash has blown up and won two MVPs in the past 3 years, and was number two last year, and will probably be such this year as well. I'd still have to go with Stockton because you know what you're getting, Nash didn't explode like this until he met up with D'Antoni.


The only fair way to compare both player is considering peak years (like you've said, Stockton's prolonged excelence trumps Nash's last 3 years).
And if considering only prime year, i think they are close.
Stockton is the better defender. But Nash is the better offensive player (IMHO).


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Air Jordan 23 said:


> Nash is in his prime now. There's no way in hell he's giving the Jazz a better chance to beat those Bulls, especially since he can't even lead the Suns past the current Spurs.


you don't think nash could improve upon the 10ppg / 9apg stockton put up in the '98 finals? 

nash today is unquestionably better than a '98 stockton.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

kflo said:


> you don't think nash could improve upon the 10ppg / 9apg stockton put up in the '98 finals?
> 
> nash today is unquestionably better than a '98 stockton.


Yeah, that's because Stockton was about 4-5 years past his prime at that point. That's not even close to a fair comparison. Let's see where Nash is when he's 36 years old and playing against one of the most dominating teams to ever hit the floor.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

unluckyseventeen said:


> Yeah, that's because Stockton was about 4-5 years past his prime at that point. That's not even close to a fair comparison. Let's see where Nash is when he's 36 years old and playing against one of the most dominating teams to ever hit the floor.


of course that's because stockton was passed his prime. i'm responding to someone, however, who seems to think stockton at that point was still better than nash is now.


----------



## IbizaXL (Sep 21, 2005)

i enjoy watching Nash play. hes a complete wizard with the ball and i think he deserved his first MVP. the other MVP and the 2nd place nomination was BS and i think most would agree . i dont care how many MVPs he has. when it comes down to it, Stockton will eat Nash alive


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

liekomgj4ck said:


> And we all know that, the MJ bulls are better than the Spurs :clap2:



Fo' sho'.:yes: :greatjob:


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

kflo said:


> you don't think nash could improve upon the 10ppg / 9apg stockton put up in the '98 finals?
> 
> nash today is unquestionably better than a '98 stockton.



Oh, no doubt Nash now is better than Stockton at that age, but I don't see Nash being at all effective against one of the greatest teams of all time.

He has trouble with Bowen and Parker now. What makes you think he's gonna have any luck against Jordan and Harper?


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Air Jordan 23 said:


> Oh, no doubt Nash now is better than Stockton at that age, but I don't see Nash being at all effective against one of the greatest teams of all time.
> 
> He has trouble with Bowen and Parker now. What makes you think he's gonna have any luck against Jordan and Harper?


San Antonio does a much better job than anyone else in the league defending the Suns P&R, but outside of that Nash has been able to get his own offense pretty easily against the Spurs in the playoffs. Of all the Suns players who seem to have "trouble" against the Spurs I think he's probably second from the very bottom on that list.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

:lolthis thread.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

So, now that that's settled.


----------



## fobbie (Dec 26, 2005)

^^what so funny? i find the kobe to drexler more funny.

anyway, i would have to say stockton, mainly because hes been doing for a longer period of time, and nash have so much talents around him, while it was just stockton and malon, just my opinion.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Air Jordan 23 said:


> Oh, no doubt Nash now is better than Stockton at that age, but I don't see Nash being at all effective against one of the greatest teams of all time.
> 
> He has trouble with Bowen and Parker now. What makes you think he's gonna have any luck against Jordan and Harper?


he's averaged about 22 and 12 against sa in the playoffs in '05 and '07. and sa is a great defensive team.

jordan and harper weren't stoppers against quick scoring pg's. they would also have relied upon team defense.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

kflo said:


> he's averaged about 22 and 12 against sa in the playoffs in '05 and '07. and sa is a great defensive team.
> 
> jordan and harper weren't stoppers against quick scoring pg's. they would also have relied upon team defense.


IIRC, during much of the Jazz/Bulls' series, Pippen was switched on Stockton. I wonder if Nash could have delt with that. Pippen was a great defender.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

I haven't done any serious research into this topic, but I just wanted to quickly debunk the fallacy that Nash' peak seasons are equalled by Stockton's best seasons. 

People can talk all they want about how Stockton's Utah teams played slow and Nash' Phoenix squads play fast, but the league pace was so much faster than it is today that Utah actually played at a faster pace. 

I haven't looked up the average FG percentages of the two years, but I'm fairly certain that when Nash and Stockton get the customary adustments, Nash comes out looking much better. 

So please, no more about how Nash only puts up the numbers he does because of his fast breaking system. Nash does play in the perfect system for what he does, but guess what? So did Stockton! For every Shawn Marion lob, there was a Karl Malone pick and roll. 

Nash is obviously the better offensive player than Stockton at his peak, and in my opinion the better overall player as well. We are comparing a guy who has won 2 MVP awards to a guy who wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team. 

As far as careers go, obviously Stockton has more longevity. But I'm also not buying the idea that Stockton's played at an elite level for 15 years and Nash was nothing before his first MVP season three years ago. Nash has been playing at a very high level ever since he got over his injury issues in Dallas back in 00-01. By my count, call that 4 all-star caliber seasons and 3 MVP-caliber ones. Hardly Dana Barros, at least by my standards...

As for my viewing opinion, I also believe Nash in his prime is better than Stockton was in his prime. Stockton might have been a more disciplined, less mistake-prone point guard for the system he was in, but Nash is on a different level in terms of the way he uses his passing and scoring creativity to complement each other. I'm sure he would struggle quite a bit more defensively if he played in the East, but his ability to see the floor and jump from scoring mode to passing mode without even a blink of the eye is something that will translate on any level. Stockton was the master of the pick and roll, but never did he draw the total attention of a defense the way that Nash does. 

If Nash puts in a couple more years at this level of play, the two should be viewed by history as quite comparable players.


----------



## 604flat_line (May 26, 2006)

I voted Nash because I think he will win at least 1 ring.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I haven't done any serious research into this topic, but I just wanted to quickly debunk the fallacy that Nash' peak seasons are equalled by Stockton's best seasons.


 Only thing you're doing is proving that you're a homer. Do your research before you say anything.



> People can talk all they want about how Stockton's Utah teams played slow and Nash' Phoenix squads play fast, but the league pace was so much faster than it is today that Utah actually played at a faster pace.


Wrong. Basketball-reference.com reports that at age 33 (Nash's current), Utah Jazz had a pace factor of 90, while last year's Suns had a pace factor of 95.6



> I haven't looked up the average FG percentages of the two years, but I'm fairly certain that when Nash and Stockton get the customary adustments, Nash comes out looking much better.


 Wrong again. Compare the eFG% and TS% of Nash and Stockton either over their prime years or their whole careers, and Stockton wins hands down.



> So please, no more about how Nash only puts up the numbers he does because of his fast breaking system. Nash does play in the perfect system for what he does, but guess what? So did Stockton! For every Shawn Marion lob, there was a Karl Malone pick and roll.


 Rofl. You have got to be kidding me. Nash wasn't even a good All-Star PG before he played under D'Antoni. How can you possibly say that Stockton played in a perfect system? Because he had one great teammate? Jazz's offensive and defensive schemes were designed around Karl Malone, not John Stockton. 
Phoenix's strategy revolves COMPLETELY around Nash. 


> Nash is obviously the better offensive player than Stockton at his peak, and in my opinion the better overall player as well. We are comparing a guy who has won 2 MVP awards to a guy who wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team.


You didn't read most of this thread did you? Nash won MVPs for years where he averaged 18.8 / 10.5 / 0.8 SPG and 15.5 / 11.5 / 1.0SPG
Stockton did NOT win an MVP during seasons where he averaged 17.2 / 14.5 / 2.7 SPG, as well as 17.2 / 14.2 / 2.9 SPG. Even at age 33, Stockton had averages of 14.7 / 12.3 / 2.4 SPG.



> As far as careers go, obviously Stockton has more longevity. But I'm also not buying the idea that Stockton's played at an elite level for 15 years and Nash was nothing before his first MVP season three years ago. Nash has been playing at a very high level ever since he got over his injury issues in Dallas back in 00-01. By my count, call that 4 all-star caliber seasons and 3 MVP-caliber ones. Hardly Dana Barros, at least by my standards...


 You're making it look like black and white for purposes of furthering your argument.
No one ever said that Nash was nothing before Phoenix. Nash was a very good point guard, but before his move to PHX, he would NEVER be compared to any Top 5 PG in the league. 

Playing at a "very high level" is not enough to merit you even attempt saying he's better than Stockton. Nash playing at a "very high level" translates into 16/8 averages. TJ Ford had 14/8 last season.



> As for my viewing opinion, I also believe Nash in his prime is better than Stockton was in his prime. Stockton might have been a more disciplined, less mistake-prone point guard for the system he was in, but Nash is on a different level in terms of the way he uses his passing and scoring creativity to complement each other. *I'm sure he would struggle quite a bit more defensively if he played in the East*, but his ability to see the floor and jump from scoring mode to passing mode without even a blink of the eye is something that will translate on any level. Stockton was the master of the pick and roll, but never did he draw the total attention of a defense the way that Nash does.


You haven't seen a single Jazz game except for the Jazz vs. Bulls finals have you? 
You're also caught up in media frenzy over Nash. Nash does not draw "total attention of the defense" any more than another good PG in the league does. 

P.S. I love the bolded part. That's the only reference you've made to the fact that Stockton was an All-NBA defender, while Nash would make the top 20 worst defenders in the NBA list. Statistics say that Stockton is a better offensive player than Nash, judging by eFG, TS%, FG%, 3FG%, APG, TOPG and PPG. Statistics as well as common sense say that Nash is light years behind Stockton in defense.



> If Nash puts in a couple more years at this level of play, the two should be viewed by history as quite comparable players.


Not even close. Nash wont even be seen to be better than KJ.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Wrong. Basketball-reference.com reports that at age 33 (Nash's current), Utah Jazz had a pace factor of 90, while last year's Suns had a pace factor of 95.6


Huh? I was comparing the three years listed earlier as Stockton's "prime" against Nash's last three years. Why, when I'm trying to talk about both players in their primes, and Stockton's prime was established earlier in the thread, would I compare the Suns' pace to the pace of the Jazz in a different year? 



> Wrong again. Compare the eFG% and TS% of Nash and Stockton either over their prime years or their whole careers, and Stockton wins hands down.


Of course, I'm talking league FG%. The league shot significantly better in the years mentioned above as Stockton's prime. Adjust accordingly, and Nash is the significantly better shooter. 



> Rofl. You have got to be kidding me. Nash wasn't even a good All-Star PG before he played under D'Antoni. How can you possibly say that Stockton played in a perfect system? Because he had one great teammate? Jazz's offensive and defensive schemes were designed around Karl Malone, not John Stockton.
> Phoenix's strategy revolves COMPLETELY around Nash.


So Karl Malone ran the pick and roll with himself? 



> You didn't read most of this thread did you? Nash won MVPs for years where he averaged 18.8 / 10.5 / 0.8 SPG and 15.5 / 11.5 / 1.0SPG
> Stockton did NOT win an MVP during seasons where he averaged 17.2 / 14.5 / 2.7 SPG, as well as 17.2 / 14.2 / 2.9 SPG. Even at age 33, Stockton had averages of 14.7 / 12.3 / 2.4 SPG.


OK, so what was Utah's Pace factor in the two years you mention, other than the age 33 year? Maybe I should do the research myself...



> You're making it look like black and white for purposes of furthering your argument.
> No one ever said that Nash was nothing before Phoenix. Nash was a very good point guard, but before his move to PHX, he would NEVER be compared to any Top 5 PG in the league.


Just because you didn't watch him before he got to Phoenix doesn't mean he wasn't a total stud. He was. Look at the numbers. 



> Playing at a "very high level" is not enough to merit you even attempt saying he's better than Stockton. Nash playing at a "very high level" translates into 16/8 averages. TJ Ford had 14/8 last season.


Yeah, and John Stockton averaged 14 and 12 when he was 33. What is your point? 



> You haven't seen a single Jazz game except for the Jazz vs. Bulls finals have you?
> You're also caught up in media frenzy over Nash. Nash does not draw "total attention of the defense" any more than another good PG in the league does.


Are you sure you want to make such foolish statement? Sounds to me like you've got a bit of yourself invested in this argument. 

I'm taking standard, almost universally (to my knowledge) accepted statistical measures to prove that Nash in his prime was better than Stockton in his prime. The proper response is to learn what these measures identify, instead of (laughably) attempting to refute my argument by using the same statistical measure for a year that wasn't even a part of the discussion.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Of course, I'm talking league FG%.


I have no idea where you're going with this. During Stockton's prime years, he shot between .538 and 548. Nash's highest % ever was last season at .538. Stockton had a season when he shot .574
At least the TS% and eFG% are a little closer.


> The league shot significantly better in the years mentioned above as Stockton's prime. Adjust accordingly, and Nash is the significantly better shooter.


You got it backwards. During the 90s, the handcheck rule was not instituted and the defenses were much harsher. 
For ex: this is why most people say that MJ would have been able to have an 81 pt game easily with current rules.
Like you said, adjust accordingly. 



> So Karl Malone ran the pick and roll with himself?


Malone is one person. The third best player on those Jazz teams was a washed out former all-star SG. Compare it to the people Nash has (had).



> OK, so what was Utah's Pace factor in the two years you mention, other than the age 33 year? Maybe I should do the research myself...


Maybe you should.
*Pace Factor:* 95.3 (20th out of 27)


> Just because you didn't watch him before he got to Phoenix doesn't mean he wasn't a total stud. He was. Look at the numbers.


I do look at the numbers in the next point. I'd like to thank you thought, because apparently I was too generous. I said he was 16/8 before the PHX trade, when in actuality, here are the results:
<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 144pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="192"><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 48pt;" span="2" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" align="center" height="17" width="64">Season</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" align="center" width="64">PPG</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" align="center" width="64">APG</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">97-98</td> <td x:num="" align="center">9.1</td> <td x:num="" align="center">3.4</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">98-99</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.9</td> <td x:num="" align="center">5.5</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">99-00</td> <td x:num="" align="center">8.6</td> <td x:num="" align="center">4.9</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">00-01</td> <td x:num="" align="center">15.6</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.3</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">01-02</td> <td x:num="" align="center">17.9</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">02-03</td> <td x:num="" align="center">17.7</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.3</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">03-04</td> <td x:num="" align="center">14.5</td> <td x:num="" align="center">8.8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl23" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">*Avg
*</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.042857142857143" align="center">*13.04*</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="6.4142857142857155" align="center">*6.41*</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Before the PHX trade, Steve Nash averaged 13/6.5 for his career. 



> Yeah, and John Stockton averaged 14 and 12 when he was 33. What is your point?


I said what my point is. 
Playing at a "high level" is not nearly enough to merit a comparison to a HOF PG. There are always 5-10 PGs who are playing at a "high level". About 0.5 of them will get into HOF. Although not perfect, Basketball-reference.com also has an interesting tool that calculates Hall of Fame probability for a player, considering stats, awards and accomplishments. Currently, Jason Kidd (.870) is very far ahead of Steve Nash (.117) of making the HOF. 





> Are you sure you want to make such foolish statement? Sounds to me like you've got a bit of yourself invested in this argument.


I'm not going to get into flame wars with you. You said that Nash commands much greater attention of the opponents' defenses than John Stockton did. There are people in this very thread who have stated that they hated Stockton, but respected the way he tore apart their favorite team's defenses.



> I'm taking standard, almost universally (to my knowledge) accepted statistical measures to prove that Nash in his prime was better than Stockton in his prime.


What exactly are your statistical measures? Here are mine:

<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 584pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="778"><col style="width: 74pt;" width="98"> <col style="width: 71pt;" width="95"> <col style="width: 55pt;" width="73"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 48pt;" span="7" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 74pt;" height="17" width="98">
</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 71pt;" x:str="John Stockton " align="center" width="95">John Stockton </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 55pt;" align="center" width="73">Steve Nash</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" align="center" width="64">Winner</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">PPG (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">13.1</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">14</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">SN</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">PPG (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">17.15</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">17.6</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">SN</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">PPG (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">17.2</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">18.8</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">SN</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">APG (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">10.5</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">7.6</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">APG (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">14.1</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">11.2</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">APG (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">14.5</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">11.6</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">SPG (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">2.2</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">0.8</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">SPG (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">2.93</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">0.9</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">SPG (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">3.2</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">1</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TOPG (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">2.8</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">2.6</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">SN</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TOPG (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">2.93</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">3.5</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td colspan="3" style="">*no best due to MPG limitation</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">FG% (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.51500000000000001" align="center">0.515</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.48299999999999998" align="center">0.483</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">FG% (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">0.52</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.51500000000000001" align="center">0.515</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">FG% (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.57399999999999995" align="center">0.574</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.53200000000000003" align="center">0.532</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">eFG% (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.54600000000000004" align="center">0.546</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.54900000000000004" align="center">0.549</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">virt. Tie</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">eFG% (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.54100000000000004" align="center">0.541</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.58399999999999996" align="center">0.584</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">varies</td> <td colspan="7" style="">*Stockton's Prime3 seasons are not nearly his best 3 eFG seasons.</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">eFG% (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.60699999999999998" align="center">0.607</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.61299999999999999" align="center">0.613</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">SN</td> <td colspan="5" style="">If taking those into account, his Prime3 eFG% is .6</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TS% (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.60799999999999998" align="center">0.608</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.59799999999999998" align="center">0.598</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TS% (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.61199999999999999" align="center">0.612</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">0.63</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">varies</td> <td colspan="7" style="">*Stockton's Prime3 seasons are not nearly his best 3 eFG seasons.</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TS% (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.65100000000000002" align="center">0.651</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.65400000000000003" align="center">0.654</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">virt. Tie</td> <td colspan="5" style="">If taking those into account, his Prime3 TS% is .65</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Where exactly do you seen Nash being clearly better than Stockton?



> The proper response is to learn what these measures identify, instead of (laughably) attempting to refute my argument by using the same statistical measure for a year that wasn't even a part of the discussion.


 But that's not what you're doing. You're attempting to belittle me. 
I find it ironic that you're saying I don't know what your measures are (which so far have been PPG, APG and FG%), while I'm quoting more complex measures such as eFG% and TS%. 

Work harder on being an *** if you can't find the statistics to support your argument. If you didn't notice, you haven't quoted a single bit of statistics in your post. It's humorous, considering you said that you're using statistics to prove your point. If you're going to continue to argue with words and childish insults, don't bother, the argument is over. If you have anything to support your opinion, please do so.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Guys the horse is dead. Stockton won, get over it.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Astral said:


> I do look at the numbers in the next point. I'd like to thank you thought, because apparently I was too generous. I said he was 16/8 before the PHX trade, when in actuality, here are the results:
> <table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 144pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="192"><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 48pt;" span="2" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" align="center" height="17" width="64">Season</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" align="center" width="64">PPG</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" align="center" width="64">APG</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">97-98</td> <td x:num="" align="center">9.1</td> <td x:num="" align="center">3.4</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">98-99</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.9</td> <td x:num="" align="center">5.5</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">99-00</td> <td x:num="" align="center">8.6</td> <td x:num="" align="center">4.9</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">00-01</td> <td x:num="" align="center">15.6</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.3</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">01-02</td> <td x:num="" align="center">17.9</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">02-03</td> <td x:num="" align="center">17.7</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.3</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">03-04</td> <td x:num="" align="center">14.5</td> <td x:num="" align="center">8.8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl23" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">*Avg
> *</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="13.042857142857143" align="center">*13.04*</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="6.4142857142857155" align="center">*6.41*</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
> Before the PHX trade, Steve Nash averaged 13/6.5 for his career.


Nash wasn't traded to PHX. On top of that, you missed his rookie year of 96-97. As for the rest, he backed up two good PGs in Kevin Johnson and Jason Kidd in 97-98 and suffered back problems for all of 99 and much of 99-00. Do you know the history or only how to look up the numbers?


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Stockton will undoubtedley have the better career. Nash would need atleast another 4 great years plus a championship for me to consider puting him over Stockton. I don't think Nash will ever match what Stockton did for so many years. We'll have to see, you never know. But it's a fair bet Stockton will keep his place in history.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

Jamel Irief said:


> Nash wasn't traded to PHX. On top of that, you missed his rookie year of 96-97. As for the rest, he backed up two good PGs in Kevin Johnson and Jason Kidd in 97-98 and suffered back problems for all of 99 and much of 99-00. Do you know the history or only how to look up the numbers?


Misspoke. I know he wasn't traded to PHX. I left out his rookie year because it was an outlier - he didn't play enough minutes and inclusion would have destroyed his averages even further.
I don't care who he backed up. He played enough minutes to produce.

The back problems aren't any of my concern. Stockton was an ironman, while Nash struggled with his back. Should we give Nash an excuse while dismissing Stockton's endurance?

I'm somewhere in the middle. I know some history and can look at the numbers. Although you're right, as far as Nash goes, I don't know much about his early history because I never cared about him.


----------



## fobbie (Dec 26, 2005)

Astral have some very good argument


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

One little Stockton factoid that I think is one of the more amazing stats in basketball history.

Stockton played 16 82 game seasons (out of 19 total seasons). And frankly, would have played 17 if it weren't for the lockout (he did play in all 50 games that year).

I'm quite sure that's a record for the most full seasons played. IMO, that's about the definition for being the greatest ironman in NBA history.

(Malone probably would have had it except for all the suspensions he got for clubbing people)


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Nate505 said:


> One little Stockton factoid that I think is one of the more amazing stats in basketball history.
> 
> Stockton played 16 82 game seasons (out of 19 total seasons). And frankly, would have played 17 if it weren't for the lockout (he did play in all 50 games that year).
> 
> ...


AC Green.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> AC Green.


During Green's consecutive games streak, there were games where he was too injured to play but he was coming in for a few garbage time minutes to preserve his streak.

Stockton didn't play garbage time minutes.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Astral said:


> I have no idea where you're going with this. During Stockton's prime years, he shot between .538 and 548. Nash's highest % ever was last season at .538. Stockton had a season when he shot .574
> At least the TS% and eFG% are a little closer.
> You got it backwards. During the 90s, the handcheck rule was not instituted and the defenses were much harsher.


So instead of attempting to back up your arguments with facts, you just shoot from the hip and expect me to take you at face value about the defenses being "much harsher". Never mind what the numbers say about the matter. If you want to conduct a rational discussion, you will have to admit that Nash shooting 51% in an era where a lot of point guards struggle shoot 45% is better than Stockton shooting 54% in an era where plenty of point guards shot over 50%. 



> For ex: this is why most people say that MJ would have been able to have an 81 pt game easily with current rules.
> Like you said, adjust accordingly.


That's why Michael Jordan averaged 37 ppg one season in the mid-80's, a season that correlates more closely to Stockton's prime years than the last three seasons. 



> Malone is one person. The third best player on those Jazz teams was a washed out former all-star SG. Compare it to the people Nash has (had).


You obviously don't know anything about basketball if you are using these arguments. This is a team game, a system game. And Utah put two stars, (oftentimes a third near-star) together with a group of roleplayers and found success. Just like Chicago. Just like San Antonio. It doesn't mean squat when it comes to Nash vs Stockton. Both players had adequate talent to be successful in the systems they played in. Give Utah another two players that demand the ball in their hands as often as most stars do, and their system wouldn't have worked. 



> Maybe you should.
> *Pace Factor:* 95.3 (20th out of 27)


So you are proving my point, which is that the idea of Nash's numbers being inflated compared to Stockton's is complete BS, since Utah's pace factor was wasn't any lower than Phoenix's. Keep up the good work there! 



> I do look at the numbers in the next point. I'd like to thank you thought, because apparently I was too generous. I said he was 16/8 before the PHX trade, when in actuality, here are the results:
> Before the PHX trade, Steve Nash averaged 13/6.5 for his career.


So I bring up how Nash played at an all-star level for four years before he got to Phoenix, and you claim I'm wrong because of numbers he accumulated in seasons other than those four years? If you honestly believe you are putting out a legitimate argument, you might as well convince yourself the sky is purple with neon green polka dots, and argue that! 



> I said what my point is.
> Playing at a "high level" is not nearly enough to merit a comparison to a HOF PG. There are always 5-10 PGs who are playing at a "high level".


And my point is that the guy has been a top 5 PG for seven years, emerging as a truly great point guard over the past 3-4 years. I could understand an argument about a player being a flash in the pan if that player had one good season after a career of mediocrity (hence the Dana Barros reference), but this simply isn't the case when it comes to Nash. 



> About 0.5 of them will get into HOF. Although not perfect, Basketball-reference.com also has an interesting tool that calculates Hall of Fame probability for a player, considering stats, awards and accomplishments. Currently, Jason Kidd (.870) is very far ahead of Steve Nash (.117) of making the HOF.


And I'm not really trying to argue with you about career totals. Obviously Stockton has played more seasons. I'm calling you out on the myth that Nash hasn't been better than Stockton in his prime - it is simply a fallacy. 



> I'm not going to get into flame wars with you. You said that Nash commands much greater attention of the opponents' defenses than John Stockton did. There are people in this very thread who have stated that they hated Stockton, but respected the way he tore apart their favorite team's defenses.


Now this is funny. You don't want to get into flame wars, yet you make inane arguments like Stockton playing on a slower team than Nash in his prime years because a team he played on that wasn't in those prime years played slower, or that Nash's prior 4 seasons weren't all-star caliber because the three seasons before that he wasn't an all-star. 

It sure sounds like you don't want to get into a flame war...

And even funnier is you thinking I don't respect John Stockton. All I said is that I think Steve Nash at his current peak is a better player than Stockton at his peak. I've actually proved my point without resorting the logical equivalent of a chicken flopping around with its head cut off. 

Stockton is obviously a hall of famer, obviously an all-time great. I can admit that, unlike you, who claims Phoenix runs "EVERYTHING" through Nash, but in the very same post goes on to say that teams don't bother giving him any more attention than they would an average point guard. (Those silly Suns, running everything through Nash when teams don't even pay him extra attention...Phoenix must really suck!)

I just happen to have a very high opinion of Nash, and have watched both players countless times in multiple playoff series throughout their careers. I knew people such as yourself wouldn't buy my personal opinion, so I decided to use statistics to back up my case. But I have clearly underestimated your ability to manipulate reality. Touche...



> Where exactly do you seen Nash being clearly better than Stockton?


My statistical measures account for the differences between eras, including pace and offensive /defensive trends. You can try to come off as intellectual by quoting True Shooting %, but you still aren't account for changes in the game over time. You could just as easily argue that the WWII-era US Army would defeat a modern US Army because it had more soldiers! 



> But that's not what you're doing. You're attempting to belittle me.
> I find it ironic that you're saying I don't know what your measures are (which so far have been PPG, APG and FG%), while I'm quoting more complex measures such as eFG% and TS%.


"complex" measures such as EFG% and TS%? Don't flatter yourself...



> Work harder on being an *** if you can't find the statistics to support your argument. If you didn't notice, you haven't quoted a single bit of statistics in your post. It's humorous, considering you said that you're using statistics to prove your point. If you're going to continue to argue with words and childish insults, don't bother, the argument is over. If you have anything to support your opinion, please do so.


And when I do use a statistic, you can just find a statistic that has nothing to do with my statistic, claim it proves my statistic wrong, and then later pretend I never used the statistic in the first place. Good luck...


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

You still haven't quoted a single bit of statistics to support your claim. 
This argument is over.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Jonathan Watters said:


> People can talk all they want about how Stockton's Utah teams played slow and Nash' Phoenix squads play fast, but the league pace was so much faster than it is today that Utah actually played at a faster pace.
> 
> I haven't looked up the average FG percentages of the two years, but I'm fairly certain that when Nash and Stockton get the customary adustments, Nash comes out looking much better. So please, no more about how Nash only puts up the numbers he does because of his fast breaking system.


Untrue, the league average pace was slower ten years ago than today (90.1 vs. 91.9 today), and the Jazz were one of the slower teams in the NBA. A quick check of the 90s will show you that there were only a couple of years that the Jazz played the game at a pace similar to D'Antoni's Suns. So, yes, the Suns do play the game at a faster pace than Sloan's old Jazz squads did.

(On an overall basis the mid to late 90s represented the slow point of NBA basketball, the league pace was under 90 during the strike year. Though it still hasn't returned to the 95+ levels of 12-15 years ago.)


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Astral said:


> You still haven't quoted a single bit of statistics to support your claim.
> This argument is over.


I haven't? I thought I brought up the fact that the pace of the league was much quicker in Stockton's prime years...and I'm pretty sure you'll concede that the league FG% was much higher during the prime years being discussed, so that would be two...

And the rest of the numbers speak for themselves. 

And just because you brought numbers to the table doesn't mean you are supporting anything. My whole point is that your numbers are invalid because you aren't accounting for changes in the league. Yet you continue to blast away with numbers that a) dont' account for changes in the league or b) just plain don't have anything to do with the argument.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Untrue, the league average pace was slower ten years ago than today (90.1 vs. 91.9 today), and the Jazz were one of the slower teams in the NBA. A quick check of the 90s will show you that there were only a couple of years that the Jazz played the game at a pace similar to D'Antoni's Suns. So, yes, the Suns do play the game at a faster pace than Sloan's old Jazz squads did.
> 
> (On an overall basis the mid to late 90s represented the slow point of NBA basketball, the league pace was under 90 during the strike year. Though it still hasn't returned to the 95+ levels of 12-15 years ago.)


We are talking about Stockton's best years, which took place well before the mid-90's. By the time the mid-90's rolled around and the pace had slowed, Stockton's raw box score numbers that Astral continues to try and flaunt as the holy grail had dropped off. 

Welcome do the discussion. 

I _dare_ you to be more dense.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Astral said:


> I have no idea where you're going with this. During Stockton's prime years, he shot between .538 and 548. Nash's highest % ever was last season at .538. Stockton had a season when he shot .574
> At least the TS% and eFG% are a little closer.
> You got it backwards. During the 90s, the handcheck rule was not instituted and the defenses were much harsher.
> For ex: this is why most people say that MJ would have been able to have an 81 pt game easily with current rules.


most people don't say this. and leaguewide scoring and %'s were higher back in stockton's prime. 



Astral said:


> Like you said, adjust accordingly.
> 
> Malone is one person. The third best player on those Jazz teams was a washed out former all-star SG. Compare it to the people Nash has (had).


this is part of the point. the jazz had malone, yet stockton never stepped into the #2 scorer role the jazz needed. nash, despite the quality of his teammates, still is the suns go-to guy.



Astral said:


> Maybe you should.
> *Pace Factor:* 95.3 (20th out of 27)
> I do look at the numbers in the next point. I'd like to thank you thought, because apparently I was too generous. I said he was 16/8 before the PHX trade, when in actuality, here are the results:
> <table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 144pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="192"><col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 48pt;" span="2" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" align="center" height="17" width="64">Season</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" align="center" width="64">PPG</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" align="center" width="64">APG</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">97-98</td> <td x:num="" align="center">9.1</td> <td x:num="" align="center">3.4</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">98-99</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.9</td> <td x:num="" align="center">5.5</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">99-00</td> <td x:num="" align="center">8.6</td> <td x:num="" align="center">4.9</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">00-01</td> <td x:num="" align="center">15.6</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.3</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">01-02</td> <td x:num="" align="center">17.9</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.7</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">02-03</td> <td x:num="" align="center">17.7</td> <td x:num="" align="center">7.3</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">03-04</td> <td x:num="" align="center">14.5</td> <td x:num="" align="center">8.8</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl23" style="height: 12.75pt;" align="center" height="17">*Avg
> ...


that hof monitor is unquestionably broken. it's based on historical results, and doesn't contemplate unique circumstances, such as nash. every mvp winner is in. every multiple mvp winner was a no-brainer. 



Astral said:


> I'm not going to get into flame wars with you. You said that Nash commands much greater attention of the opponents' defenses than John Stockton did. There are people in this very thread who have stated that they hated Stockton, but respected the way he tore apart their favorite team's defenses.
> 
> 
> What exactly are your statistical measures? Here are mine:
> ...


on a PER basis, their peaks are almost a wash. noone could possibly argue that nash has had greater career value. but their peak values are certainly arguable. they have similar strengths in running the offense and setting up teammates. nash is the better scorer. stockton the better defender. it's really a personal preference for peak.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Jonathan Watters said:


> We are talking about Stockton's best years, which took place well before the mid-90's. By the time the mid-90's rolled around and the pace had slowed, Stockton's raw box score numbers that Astral continues to try and flaunt as the holy grail had dropped off.
> 
> Welcome do the discussion.
> 
> I _dare_ you to be more dense.


Actually, Jon, before continuing this discussion you may want to do a little more research so that you know what you're talking about. (Hint, even during Stockton's late 20s the Jazz played the game at a pace commensurate with D'Antoni's Suns, you actually have to go all the way back to 1989 to reach a year that Stockton ran a team at a pace considerably faster than the Suns play now.)

Also, as you were discussing performance relative to age, I thought it made sense to look at the pace at which the Jazz played when Stockton was in his early 30s. And by that time the Jazz were playing at a slower pace than the Suns. So your claim remains _untrue_, despite your insulting manner.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Actually, Jon, before continuing this discussion you may want to do a little more research so that you know what you're talking about. (Hint, even during Stockton's late 20s the Jazz played the game at a pace commensurate with D'Antoni's Suns, you actually have to go all the way back to 1989 to reach a year that Stockton ran a team at a pace considerably faster than the Suns play now.)


which, of course...drum roll please...

was one of the years in a three year stretch established as Stockton's best!! I even specifically mentioned this - in not one, not two, not even three posts now. Four posts!! 

For the record - I am responding to the misinformed notion that the numbers Stockton put up in his three "prime" years, established earlier in the thread, were achieved on a team that played at a slower pace than Phoenix.

And as you have categorically proven, yet again, this is...100% false!!!!!! 

Yet somehow, I am the one who is misinformed!!! Yeah, keep posting...



> Also, as you were discussing performance relative to age, I thought it made sense to look at the pace at which the Jazz played when Stockton was in his early 30s. And by that time the Jazz were playing at a slower pace than the Suns. So your claim remains _untrue_, despite your insulting manner.


I wasn't discussing playoff performance by age. I was...(just in case you missed it clearly spelled out in the first sentence I wrote on this thread, or the 17 other times I have mentioned it since)...responding the misinformed notion that Stockton's three prime years, established earlier in the thread by someone on the stockton side of the debate, were spent in a system that was slower than the Suns. And this is False! False! False! Because of the very numbers you are posting in an attempt to refute my argument! 

Take a big freaking bow!!!!!!

:clap2: 

:lol:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Jonathan Watters said:


> which, of course...drum roll please...
> 
> was one of the years in a three year stretch established as Stockton's best!! I even specifically mentioned this - in not one, not two, not even three posts now. Four posts!!
> 
> For the record - I am responding to the misinformed notion that the numbers Stockton put up in his three "prime" years, established earlier in the thread, were achieved on a team that played at a slower pace than Phoenix.


Really? Were you? Let's read your actual words, shall we young man?



Jonathan Watters said:


> People can talk all they want about how Stockton's Utah teams played slow and Nash' Phoenix squads play fast, *but the league pace was so much faster than it is today that Utah actually played at a faster pace*.


Oh, yeah, you were definitely saying that Utah played the game at a commensurate pace. That's clearly how that sentence, you know, the one I quoted the first time? reads. I don't see anything in that sentence (or that post, you know, the one I quoted?) about "Stockton's prime three years". All I see is a blanket statement about Stockton's career. If you write poorly, you are going to have to learn to drop the attitude when people take your words at face value. If you _didn't_ mean to claim that the Jazz played the game at a faster pace than the Suns, then _shouldn't have wrote precisely that_. The status of your claim remains false. Now drop your insulting attitude and next time actually take the time to check your facts before making claims about them. Because the simple fact is that most of us lack the psychic power to read what you mean, we can only read what you write. Also, in the future, please address your fellow posters with respect, personal attacks are off limits even for me, and I'm actually good at insults. They're really off limits for those that butcher them. I'll consider the matter closed for now. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

kflo said:


> most people don't say this. and leaguewide scoring and %'s were higher back in stockton's prime.


You're saying that the handcheck rule and the more strict defensive rules did not help Kobe? The physical level of defense that Jordan had to deal with was much tougher than it is today. For other examples, see Wade vs. Mavs in 06 Finals. 
I can find articles that say this if you wish.





> this is part of the point. the jazz had malone, yet stockton never stepped into the #2 scorer role the jazz needed. nash, despite the quality of his teammates, still is the suns go-to guy.


 I disagree with everything you said. Here's why:

This is not the point. The point was that Phoenix has much more star power than Jazz, who only had Malone and a former all-star SG.
Stockton never had to step into #2 scorer role. Are you also going to blame Kidd for not doing it?
Stockton and Nash's scoring is not that far apart. You're talking a few points per game, not several as you make it sound like.
Stockton was often Jazz's clutch shooter, just like Nash is for Phoenix.




> that hof monitor is unquestionably broken. it's based on historical results, and doesn't contemplate unique circumstances, such as nash. every mvp winner is in. every multiple mvp winner was a no-brainer.


It correctly classifies virtually every player that is in HOF. 
More than that, in recent years there are many more MVP winners than previously. In previous years, most of the MVP trophies were given multiple times to same player (Bird, Johnson, Jabbar, Chamberlain, Russell). I have doubts that Iverson and Nowitzki will come close to sniffing HOF. 





> on a PER basis, their peaks are almost a wash. noone could possibly argue that nash has had greater career value. but their peak values are certainly arguable. they have similar strengths in running the offense and setting up teammates. nash is the better scorer. stockton the better defender. it's really a personal preference for peak.


The difference between their abilities in these areas is much greater.

First of all, from the data that I posted, Stockton was a more efficient shooter than Nash. Nash was a slightly better scorer. Look at the numbers for their PPG for Prime 3, Best and Career - they're pretty close. Stockton had much greater assist statistics as well as higher AST per TO ratios - which makes him a better passer. 
Then you can't just say "Stockton the better defender". They're on two different planets defensively. While their shooting and scoring is very close, their defensive impact is like light and dark. One is one of the worst defensive PGs in the game today, while the other has a chance to make All-Defensive Legends team.


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Really? Were you? Let's read your actual words, shall we young man?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, you were definitely saying that Utah played the game at a commensurate pace. That's clearly how that sentence, you know, the one I quoted the first time? reads. I don't see anything in that sentence (or that post, you know, the one I quoted?) about "Stockton's prime three years". All I see is a blanket statement about Stockton's career. If you write poorly, you are going to have to learn to drop the attitude when people take your words at face value. If you _didn't_ mean to claim that the Jazz played the game at a faster pace than the Suns, then _shouldn't have wrote precisely that_. The status of your claim remains false. Now drop your insulting attitude and next time actually take the time to check your facts before making claims about them. Because the simple fact is that most of us lack the psychic power to read what you mean, we can only read what you write. Also, in the future, please address your fellow posters with respect, personal attacks are off limits even for me, and I'm actually good at insults. They're really off limits for those that butcher them. I'll consider the matter closed for now. Thanks in advance.


The only thing being debated in this entire thread is who had the better prime years, its unanimous that Stockton has had the better overall career. You don't have to be a genius to interpret what he said as referring to Stockton's prime years and not his entire career playing for Utah. 

I gotta say I voted for Stockton in this poll a couple weeks ago, and now after reading the debate between Jonathan Watters and Astral I want to change my vote to Nash. 
:laugh:


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Joe Dumars got inducted into the hall of fame just last year.. If he can get in and Iverson can't "sniff" the hall of fame, that would be a bigger crime than the whole reffing scandal..


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

Bon]{eRz said:


> The only thing being debated in this entire thread is who had the better prime years, its unanimous that Stockton has had the better overall career. You don't have to be a genius to interpret what he said as referring to Stockton's prime years and not his entire career playing for Utah.
> 
> I gotta say I voted for Stockton in this poll a couple weeks ago, and now after reading the debate between Jonathan Watters and Astral I want to change my vote to Nash.
> :laugh:


Because.... he supports his argument with exactly... nothing?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

It is funny seeing an argument between two people when I can tell from the argument only one has seen both players in their prime. Whatever you think of the difference on eras, Stockyon never reached Nash's level in comparison to the rest of the league.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Astral said:


> You're saying that the handcheck rule and the more strict defensive rules did not help Kobe? The physical level of defense that Jordan had to deal with was much tougher than it is today. For other examples, see Wade vs. Mavs in 06 Finals.
> I can find articles that say this if you wish.


i said exactly what i said. most people don't say MJ would have been able to have an 81 pt game easily with current rules. and scoring and %'s were higher back in stockton's prime. 



Astral said:


> I disagree with everything you said. Here's why:
> 
> This is not the point. The point was that Phoenix has much more star power than Jazz, who only had Malone and a former all-star SG.
> Stockton never had to step into #2 scorer role. Are you also going to blame Kidd for not doing it?
> ...


i don't blame kidd for not having certain skills, but his scoring certainly isn't an asset, and compared to historical peers, a relative weakness. stockton didn't HAVE to step into the 2nd scorer role, but it left the jazz with a hole, one that they never overcame, ultimately. 

stockton and nash's scoring are fairly far apart. as i said earlier in this thread:



kflo said:


> stockton had 1 playoffs in his career where he averaged more than 18.4 pts/40, and that was in a 3 game sweep. 18.0 is his playoff high in a playoff he got past the 1st round.
> 
> he had some clutch moments, but overall, didn't step up that part of his game.


it was simply not something stockton put on his shoulders. he simply didn't. 



Astral said:


> It correctly classifies virtually every player that is in HOF.
> More than that, in recent years there are many more MVP winners than previously. In previous years, most of the MVP trophies were given multiple times to same player (Bird, Johnson, Jabbar, Chamberlain, Russell). I have doubts that Iverson and Nowitzki will come close to sniffing HOF.


iverson is almost a lock for the hof (and his hof probability is actually higher than stockton's per the site). nash will make the hof. unquestionably. 



Astral said:


> The difference between their abilities in these areas is much greater.
> 
> First of all, from the data that I posted, Stockton was a more efficient shooter than Nash. Nash was a slightly better scorer. Look at the numbers for their PPG for Prime 3, Best and Career - they're pretty close. Stockton had much greater assist statistics as well as higher AST per TO ratios - which makes him a better passer.
> Then you can't just say "Stockton the better defender". They're on two different planets defensively. While their shooting and scoring is very close, their defensive impact is like light and dark. One is one of the worst defensive PGs in the game today, while the other has a chance to make All-Defensive Legends team.


you're tremendously overrating stockton as a defender. i mean, tremendously. and nash at his peak is a more efficient scorer than stockton at his peak. and PER adjusts for pace and league. statistically, they're pretty even. the differences in these 2 areas are material for both players. stockton's edge in his area may be bigger, but it may have a lower overall impact. again, it's not like stockton was a shut-down man defender.


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

Astral said:


> Because.... he supports his argument with exactly... nothing?





Jonathan Watters said:


> I haven't looked up the average FG percentages of the two years, but I'm fairly certain that when Nash and Stockton get the customary adustments, Nash comes out looking much better.


He didn't provide the specific stats, but the statements he made are correct.

Average league fg% during Stockton's prime of 4 years between 88/89 - 91/92 was 47.5%. Avg team ppg was 107.5. League team assists average was 24.9apg.

Avg league fg% the last 3 years has been 45.8%. Avg ppg was 97.7. Avg team assists 21.3pg. I don't know how to get average possession per game stats (or pace factor, whatever you want to call it), but I'll bet my house that the average possessions per game back then would have also been higher than the past 3 years.

If you're going to compare players solely based on their stats, you have to make adjustments for the periods in which they played too. 18pts and 11*** today are harder to get than 18pts and 11*** in 88-92, if you put today's Nash in the league 20 years ago you have to assume that his stats would be higher than what he's had the past 3 years.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

I've seen some old school apologists make the "hand check rule" argument in regards to Kobe (and others) a few times now. It was implemented at the beginning of Kobe's prime (same year as the 7 game WCF against the Kings), and in the four years following he had ONE season offensively that was on par with the one he had before the rule change. 

McGrady, Bryant and Carter all had their scoring averages drop the first year the hand check thing was put into effect. Kobe and T-Mac were both 22, Carter was 25. So either they all got significantly worse at those ripe old ages, or the "change" didn't in fact change much at all.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> It is funny seeing an argument between two people when I can tell from the argument only one has seen both players in their prime. Whatever you think of the difference on eras, Stockyon never reached Nash's level in comparison to the rest of the league.


It's not Stockton's fault he played in a far superior era of basketball.

Stockton's contemporaries (during various eras) just at the PG spot were Magic, Zeke, Payton, Kevin Johnson, Mark Price, and Tim Hardaway.

Honestly, I think any of those guys in their prime would challenge in being the best PG in basketball today.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Really? Were you? Let's read your actual words, shall we young man?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, you were definitely saying that Utah played the game at a commensurate pace. That's clearly how that sentence, you know, the one I quoted the first time? reads. I don't see anything in that sentence (or that post, you know, the one I quoted?) about "Stockton's prime three years". All I see is a blanket statement about Stockton's career. If you write poorly, you are going to have to learn to drop the attitude when people take your words at face value. If you _didn't_ mean to claim that the Jazz played the game at a faster pace than the Suns, then _shouldn't have wrote precisely that_. The status of your claim remains false. Now drop your insulting attitude and next time actually take the time to check your facts before making claims about them. Because the simple fact is that most of us lack the psychic power to read what you mean, we can only read what you write. Also, in the future, please address your fellow posters with respect, personal attacks are off limits even for me, and I'm actually good at insults. They're really off limits for those that butcher them. I'll consider the matter closed for now. Thanks in advance.


OK, please read this slowly. Go back to the post where you quoted me as saying the Jazz played at a faster pace than the Suns, my first post in this thread. Please go back and read it. 

Now, please quote the first sentence in that post.

awww, "young man"...

isn't that cute...

(and for the record, I don't insult people who are willing to debate with me in a legitimate manner)


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

First we have...



Jonathan Watters said:


> I haven't? I thought I brought up the fact that the pace of the league was much quicker in Stockton's prime years...and I'm pretty sure you'll concede that the league FG% was much higher during the prime years being discussed, so that would be two...





Jonathan Watters said:


> And when I do use a statistic, you can just find a statistic that has nothing to do with my statistic, claim it proves my statistic wrong, and then later pretend I never used the statistic in the first place. Good luck...



Next we have...



Astral said:


> Because.... he supports his argument with exactly... nothing?


Am I a prophet? Before declaring myself one, maybe you could let me know if I actually said the things above? You obviously decide these types of things long after the fact, and who am I to debate your supreme authority?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

chill out guys


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> It is funny seeing an argument between two people when I can tell from the argument only one has seen both players in their prime. Whatever you think of the difference on eras, Stockyon never reached Nash's level in comparison to the rest of the league.


Keep in mind though that the NBA was a lot different in Stockton's day. In the middle of his career the enforcement of the handchecking rule was nearly non-existent, there was no defensive three second rule, and the three point line had been pushed in, making it easier for the perimeter defenders to double down on post players. How well would Nash have fared under the circumstances? It's a tough call. I'd cast a vote for Stockton for the defense, myself. But that's because I'm a defense kind of guy (and I don't think that the marginal offensive upgrade offsets the significant defensive downgrade).


----------



## fobbie (Dec 26, 2005)

the people have spoken, Stockton won by a blowout.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

fobbie said:


> the people have spoken, Stockton won by a blowout.



Oh no, Nash's career isn't over yet. He has a few years left, then he'll manage to break all stocktons records. Just give it about 3 years, k? 

:lol:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

kflo said:


> i said exactly what i said. most people don't say MJ would have been able to have an 81 pt game easily with current rules. and scoring and %'s were higher back in stockton's prime.


Scoring yes, raw FG% yes, aFG% no. Again, if Jon checked his facts before making his pronouncements from on high he wouldn't make these blunders.

Leaguewide aFG% Stockton's three best seasons .488
Leaguewide aFG% Nash's three best seasons .490

If you talk to an actual basketball coach sometime, they'll tell you that shooting is much the same as it's ever been, all that's really happened is that they ask their players to shoot more treys (which convert at a lower rate). I believe their aFG% numbers are pretty much a wash (Nash's is a couple of points higher, .549 to Stockton's .546, but Stockton's PP/FGA was higher).


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Are people just assuming that because Nash is the better scorer he is naturally the superior offensive player? Because Stockton was the better passer. Maybe Nash could pass virtually as well as Stockton did if he focused more on that, but the fact is he looks to score more and so doesn't create for his teammates as much. Nash scores more and does it at similar or marginally better efficiency. Stockton created more for teammates. Offensively, they're very close. Defensively, Stockton is significantly better.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

kflo said:


> i said exactly what i said. most people don't say MJ would have been able to have an 81 pt game easily with current rules. and scoring and %'s were higher back in stockton's prime.


Scottie Pippen - do a quick search on "81"...

Scoring and league percentages are affected by other factors than defensive rules. For example, the era(s) you're mentioning are considered "golden" era of basketball, where players were simply much more skillful. Players had much better fundamentals of the game, which led to better shooting. As an example, check average ft% prior to current era. As the last example (I can think of), the league was much more team oriented than it is today - which led to more APG, which led to higher shooting percentages.
Compare the defensive intensity of players today to players then, and it would be obvious that Stockton played in a tougher league. 



> i don't blame kidd for not having certain skills, but his scoring certainly isn't an asset, and compared to historical peers, a relative weakness. stockton didn't HAVE to step into the 2nd scorer role, but it left the jazz with a hole, one that they never overcame, ultimately.


Hold on, are you putting the Jazz's struggles on Stockton's shoulders?



> stockton and nash's scoring are fairly far apart. as i said earlier in this thread:


You can keep saying that all you want. Where's your proof? Here's a snip from my analysis above:
<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 584pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="778"><tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 74pt;" height="17" width="98">
</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 71pt;" x:str="John Stockton " align="center" width="95">John Stockton </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 55pt;" align="center" width="73">Steve Nash</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" align="center" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">PPG (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">13.1</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">14</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">PPG (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">17.15</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">17.6</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">PPG (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">17.2</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">18.8</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>



> it was simply not something stockton put on his shoulders. he simply didn't.


Who's saying he had to?



> you're tremendously overrating stockton as a defender. i mean, tremendously. and nash at his peak is a more efficient scorer than stockton at his peak. and PER adjusts for pace and league. statistically, they're pretty even. the differences in these 2 areas are material for both players. stockton's edge in his area may be bigger, but it may have a lower overall impact. again, it's not like stockton was a shut-down man defender.


How am I overrating him? 
Fact: the biggest knock on Nash is that he's a poor defender.
Fact: Stockton averaged 2.2 SPG in 19 years, collecting several All-NBA defensive team selections.

Nash's more efficient? Here's another tidbit from the post above:
JS SN
<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 584pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="778"><tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">FG% (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.51500000000000001" align="center">0.515</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.48299999999999998" align="center">0.483</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">FG% (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">0.52</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.51500000000000001" align="center">0.515</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">FG% (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.57399999999999995" align="center">0.574</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.53200000000000003" align="center">0.532</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">eFG% (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.54600000000000004" align="center">0.546</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.54900000000000004" align="center">0.549</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">virt. Tie</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">eFG% (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.54100000000000004" align="center">0.541</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.58399999999999996" align="center">0.584</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">varies</td> <td colspan="7" style="">*Stockton's Prime3 seasons are not nearly his best 3 eFG seasons.</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">eFG% (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.60699999999999998" align="center">0.607</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.61299999999999999" align="center">0.613</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">SN</td> <td colspan="5" style="">If taking those into account, his Prime3 eFG% is .6</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TS% (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.60799999999999998" align="center">0.608</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.59799999999999998" align="center">0.598</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TS% (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.61199999999999999" align="center">0.612</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">0.63</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">varies</td> <td colspan="7" style="">*Stockton's Prime3 seasons are not nearly his best 3 eFG seasons.</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TS% (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.65100000000000002" align="center">0.651</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.65400000000000003" align="center">0.654</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">virt. Tie</td> <td colspan="5" style="">If taking those into account, his Prime3 TS% is .65</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Please support your opinion.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Scoring yes, raw FG% yes, aFG% no. Again, if Jon checked his facts before making his pronouncements from on high he wouldn't make these blunders.
> 
> Leaguewide aFG% Stockton's three best seasons .488
> Leaguewide aFG% Nash's three best seasons .490
> ...


ts% was slightly higher (really dead even) from '89-'91. eFG% is almost identical as well. overall. offensive efficiency was higher (ORtg) from '89-'91. 

as for talking to an actual basketball coach, i'll ask that you to talk to experts some time as well. 

shooting skills have changed as the focus has changed. they don't simply ask players to shoot more 3's, players are better at shooting 3's, because that's what they practice. they're not as good at shooting midrange shots, because they don't focus on that as much as they did in years past. the shooting is different today than it was in '89. it's a function of when these guys grew up.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Astral said:


> Scottie Pippen - do a quick search on "81"...


lol. you say "most people", and as proof you trot out mj's old sidekick who played his prime out in that era? i can say most people think the late 50s early 60s were the best and the celts were the best ever, and then i'll quote tommy heinsohn. 



Astral said:


> Scoring and league percentages are affected by other factors than defensive rules. For example, the era(s) you're mentioning are considered "golden" era of basketball, where players were simply much more skillful. Players had much better fundamentals of the game, which led to better shooting. As an example, check average ft% prior to current era. As the last example (I can think of), the league was much more team oriented than it is today - which led to more APG, which led to higher shooting percentages.
> Compare the defensive intensity of players today to players then, and it would be obvious that Stockton played in a tougher league.


i actually saw the entire "golden era" of basketball, and some of it was more entertaining, some of it was better fundamentally, and other aspects were less so. and actually, if you want to be completely accurate, the "golden era" ended about when stockton was hitting his peak.



Astral said:


> Hold on, are you putting the Jazz's struggles on Stockton's shoulders?


i'm saying the jazz, as good as they were, could have been better if stockton assumed more of a scorer mentality and filled that void that was there for much of his career. there seems to be this notion that stockton COULD have scored more if he wanted, and while i don't doubt that to be true, the point is he SHOULD have wanted to, because it would have added one more element for teams to deal with. 



Astral said:


> You can keep saying that all you want. Where's your proof? Here's a snip from my analysis above:
> <table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 584pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="778"><tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 74pt;" height="17" width="98">
> </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 71pt;" x:str="John Stockton " align="center" width="95">John Stockton </td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 55pt;" align="center" width="73">Steve Nash</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" align="center" width="64">
> </td> <td style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
> ...


stockton's per 40 scoring peaked at 18.5, and was over 18 twice in his career. nash peaked at 21.5 and has had 4 20+ seasons already. the playoffs have been generally more pronounced.



Astral said:


> Who's saying he had to?


it was an obvious weakness of his team. noone has to do anything. it would have made his team that much more formidable if he did though. 



Astral said:


> How am I overrating him?
> Fact: the biggest knock on Nash is that he's a poor defender.
> Fact: Stockton averaged 2.2 SPG in 19 years, collecting several All-NBA defensive team selections.


by saying stockton has a chance to make All-Defensive Legends team, you're overrating him. there are simply MANY other players more deserving. larry bird made 3 2nd team all defense teams, but he's not making many all-defensive legends teams. stoctkon was a great steal guard, not a great overall defender. 

has a chance to make All-Defensive Legends team
Nash's more efficient? Here's another tidbit from the post above:
JS SN
<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 584pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="778"><tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">FG% (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.51500000000000001" align="center">0.515</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.48299999999999998" align="center">0.483</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">FG% (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">0.52</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.51500000000000001" align="center">0.515</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">FG% (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.57399999999999995" align="center">0.574</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.53200000000000003" align="center">0.532</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">eFG% (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.54600000000000004" align="center">0.546</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.54900000000000004" align="center">0.549</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">virt. Tie</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">eFG% (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.54100000000000004" align="center">0.541</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.58399999999999996" align="center">0.584</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">varies</td> <td colspan="7" style="">*Stockton's Prime3 seasons are not nearly his best 3 eFG seasons.</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">eFG% (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.60699999999999998" align="center">0.607</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.61299999999999999" align="center">0.613</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">SN</td> <td colspan="5" style="">If taking those into account, his Prime3 eFG% is .6</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TS% (Career)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.60799999999999998" align="center">0.608</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.59799999999999998" align="center">0.598</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">JS</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TS% (Prime3)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.61199999999999999" align="center">0.612</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="" align="center">0.63</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">varies</td> <td colspan="7" style="">*Stockton's Prime3 seasons are not nearly his best 3 eFG seasons.</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">TS% (Best)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.65100000000000002" align="center">0.651</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="0.65400000000000003" align="center">0.654</td> <td class="xl24" align="center">virt. Tie</td> <td colspan="5" style="">If taking those into account, his Prime3 TS% is .65</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Please support your opinion.[/QUOTE]

as you point out, nash's peak has been more efficient scoringwise than stockton's peak. stockton's efficiency peak came when he was a 14-15 ppg scorer. nash's efficiency peak has coincided with his actual peak. no mixing and matching. we're simply comparing 2 players at their peaks. nash was the more efficient scorer at his peak.

look - you've made the argument "almost every playground superstar has the ability to be as good or even better than him". you obviously don't hold nash in very high esteem.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Scoring yes, raw FG% yes, aFG% no. Again, if Jon checked his facts before making his pronouncements from on high he wouldn't make these blunders.
> 
> Leaguewide aFG% Stockton's three best seasons .488
> Leaguewide aFG% Nash's three best seasons .490
> ...


So you are agreeing with me that the the raw fg% vs raw fg% comparisons made earlier in the thread to show that Stockton was a better shooter are invalid? 

Glad to see you coming over to my side!


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

kflo said:


> ts% was slightly higher (really dead even) from '89-'91. eFG% is almost identical as well. overall. offensive efficiency was higher (ORtg) from '89-'91.


And this establishes Jon's claims that shooting was much better back then _how_ exactly? Oh, that's right. It doesn't. Offensive efficiency was higher at that time because teams hadn't yet begun abusing lax enforcement of the handcheck rules (outside Detroit, really). By 1992 the whole of the NBA was emulating Detroit and Chicago (and teams like New York took it even further), so efficiency began its slow decline (continued expansion didn't help either).



kflo said:


> tshooting skills have changed as the focus has changed. they don't simply ask players to shoot more 3's, players are better at shooting 3's, because that's what they practice. they're not as good at shooting midrange shots, because they don't focus on that as much as they did in years past. the shooting is different today than it was in '89. it's a function of when these guys grew up.


I guess this will come as a shock to you, but guys that drop a basketball through a hoop from 22' can still do it from 14'. It doesn't work in actual game play because the shot's a whole lot easier to defend (look at the amount of work needed to spring a shooter free in mid range). NBA coaches disdain the shot because it doesn't go in at a significantly higher clip than treys (and, just to be clear, to be significant in 2007 terms players would have to shoot them at a clip higher than .526, which didn't even happen in the good old days) so there are no advantages to it. They most certainly can still shoot them, however.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> And this establishes Jon's claims that shooting was much better back then _how_ exactly? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.



oh, that's right, i never said it did.



ehmunro said:


> Offensive efficiency was higher at that time because teams hadn't yet begun abusing lax enforcement of the handcheck rules (outside Detroit, really). By 1992 the whole of the NBA was emulating Detroit and Chicago (and teams like New York took it even further), so efficiency began its slow decline (continued expansion didn't help either).


agreed.



ehmunro said:


> I guess this will come as a shock to you, but guys that drop a basketball through a hoop from 22' can still do it from 14'. It doesn't work in actual game play because the shot's a whole lot easier to defend (look at the amount of work needed to spring a shooter free in mid range). NBA coaches disdain the shot because it doesn't go in at a significantly higher clip than treys (and, just to be clear, to be significant in 2007 terms players would have to shoot them at a clip higher than .526, which didn't even happen in the good old days) so there are no advantages to it. They most certainly can still shoot them, however.


this may come as a shock to you, but the more you practice something, the better you get at it, and vice-versa. players don't practice the mid-range shot as much, and don't shoot it as well as a whole. the midrange shot absolutely is a separate (obviously related) skill. as is the floater in the lane, the bank shot, the finishing around the hole. they're not all one in the same.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

kflo said:


> this may come as a shock to you, but the more you practice something, the better you get at it, and vice-versa. players don't practice the mid-range shot as much, and don't shoot it as well as a whole. the midrange shot absolutely is a separate (obviously related) skill. as is the floater in the lane, the bank shot, the finishing around the hole. they're not all one in the same.


There's certainly an art to banking shots, but a jumper's a jumper. Players certainly have no trouble burying them in shootarounds (except for Ra_on Rondo, but he's a special case).


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

kflo said:


> lol. you say "most people", and as proof you trot out mj's old sidekick who played his prime out in that era? i can say most people think the late 50s early 60s were the best and the celts were the best ever, and then i'll quote tommy heinsohn.


So you're going to invalidate a HOFer's opinion because he played with Jordan? First of all, his opinion is worth more than yours.
Second, people on this board, you included probably, have complained of Wade being untouchable and that no matter when and how you touch him it's a foul.
I can find articles by other authors who state the same thing - that the league was much more physical than it is now. 




> i actually saw the entire "golden era" of basketball, and some of it was more entertaining, some of it was better fundamentally, and other aspects were less so. and actually, if you want to be completely accurate, the "golden era" ended about when stockton was hitting his peak.


You're mixing showtime with golden era. Golden Era pretty much ended with Jordan, in 98. 





> i'm saying the jazz, as good as they were, could have been better if stockton assumed more of a scorer mentality and filled that void that was there for much of his career. there seems to be this notion that stockton COULD have scored more if he wanted, and while i don't doubt that to be true, the point is he SHOULD have wanted to, because it would have added one more element for teams to deal with.


That is absolutely *your opinion*. I can easily counterclaim that since Jazz made it to the Finals twice, while Nash has yet to have a single Finals appearance, Nash's scoring mentality is hindering the Suns from winning a championship. Yours, as well as mine, are just opinions. 





> stockton's per 40 scoring peaked at 18.5, and was over 18 twice in his career. nash peaked at 21.5 and has had 4 20+ seasons already. the playoffs have been generally more pronounced.


First of all, nice try using per 40 , which obviously inflate players' statistics. 
Second, this is few points per game. I never denied that Nash scored more. I siad the difference is slight. 





> it was an obvious weakness of his team. noone has to do anything. it would have made his team that much more formidable if he did though.


Your opinion. Jazz reached the finals and lost in a long series against arguably some of the best championship teams ever assembled. Nash can't touch that.





> by saying stockton has a chance to make All-Defensive Legends team, you're overrating him. there are simply MANY other players more deserving. larry bird made 3 2nd team all defense teams, but he's not making many all-defensive legends teams. stoctkon was a great steal guard, not a great overall defender.


So the 5 or 6 all-defensive teams he made were a fluke?




> look - you've made the argument "almost every playground superstar has the ability to be as good or even better than him". you obviously don't hold nash in very high esteem.


 So this is where your argument is coming from.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Astral said:


> Your opinion. Jazz reached the finals and lost in a long series against arguably some of the best championship teams ever assembled. Nash can't touch that.


So you blast a guy for stating and opinion, and attempt to refute him with... an opinion.

The Suns were just as close to beating the best team in the NBA this past year as the Jazz ever were to beating the Bulls. 

Are you saying that Stockton is better than Nash because Amare Stoudemire got suspended at an inopportune time?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Astral said:


> So you're going to invalidate a HOFer's opinion because he played with Jordan? First of all, his opinion is worth more than yours.
> Second, people on this board, you included probably, have complained of Wade being untouchable and that no matter when and how you touch him it's a foul.
> I can find articles by other authors who state the same thing - that the league was much more physical than it is now.


you said most people think jordan could have easily scored 81. your proof is rather lacking. 




Astral said:


> You're mixing showtime with golden era. Golden Era pretty much ended with Jordan, in 98.


the jordan era ended in '98. many felt the golden era was the 80s.




Astral said:


> That is absolutely *your opinion*. I can easily counterclaim that since Jazz made it to the Finals twice, while Nash has yet to have a single Finals appearance, Nash's scoring mentality is hindering the Suns from winning a championship. Yours, as well as mine, are just opinions.


the fact is the jazz lacked a secondary scorer. it was pretty much an obvious weakness. if you wish to say the suns defense is a hinderence to their title aspirations, and nash's defense a contributing factor, you'd have a credible stance. but just making something up without having anything to support it is foolish. 



Astral said:


> First of all, nice try using per 40 , which obviously inflate players' statistics.
> Second, this is few points per game. I never denied that Nash scored more. I siad the difference is slight.


per 40 doesn't inflate, it puts them on a consistent basis. and the difference isn't that slight. 




Astral said:


> Your opinion. Jazz reached the finals and lost in a long series against arguably some of the best championship teams ever assembled. Nash can't touch that.


with a past his peak stockton, who didn't perform particularly well in '98.



Astral said:


> So the 5 or 6 all-defensive teams he made were a fluke?


they were a function of his stats, primarily. he's not an all-time great defender. he doesn't make an all-defense legends team. there are plenty ahead of him.




Astral said:


> So this is where your argument is coming from.


my arguments stand on their own. your own bias was evident early on though.


----------



## maradro (Aug 2, 2003)

i cant believe this is still going.

fact: nash has no chance of equaling stockton's career. hed have to play at a high level for another 15 years to do it.

fact: jerry sloan never hid john stockton on either side of the court. nash's coaches have to hide nash on the defensive end because hes worthless on that end of the court. i cant believe some people are going on about stockton not picking up enough offensive responsibility when nash has ZERO defensive responisiblity. you dont think that affects his teams' success??

anwyays, carry on, enjoy yourselves.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

Jonathan Watters said:


> So you blast a guy for stating and opinion, and attempt to refute him with... an opinion.


What? Where exactly did I state an opinion?
Here's what you quoted:
_ Your opinion. Jazz reached the finals and lost in a long series against arguably some of the best championship teams ever assembled. Nash can't touch that.
_Where is the opinion? 
Jazz reached the finals - fact.
Lost in a long series (6 or 7 games) - fact
The 97/98 bulls make virtually everyone's Top 3 championship teams lists - fact
Nash can't touch that - fact. Jazz got to the Finals twice, while Nash has never reached them even once.
*
Where is the opinion?*



> The Suns were just as close to beating the best team in the NBA this past year as the Jazz ever were to beating the Bulls.


 There's a *slight *difference between 2007 San Antonio Spurs (no matter how much I love them) and 1998 Chicago Bulls. 




> Are you saying that Stockton is better than Nash because Amare Stoudemire got suspended at an inopportune time?


Rofl. I swear to god if you say one more word I'll christ you Amareca Jr. and add you to my ignore list.
Phoenix lost WITH Stoudamire AND Diaw while SA was missing Horry in the next game. Anyone who attempts to use this lame excuse is a *snip*.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

kflo said:


> you said most people think jordan could have easily scored 81. your proof is rather lacking.


Only way for me to prove that is to find you hundreds of articles that support the opinion. The expectation is unreasonable. 






> the jordan era ended in '98. many felt the golden era was the 80s.


So we agree to disagree.






> the fact is the jazz lacked a secondary scorer. it was pretty much an obvious weakness. if you wish to say the suns defense is a hinderence to their title aspirations, and nash's defense a contributing factor, you'd have a credible stance. but just making something up without having anything to support it is foolish.


I said that I *could* make that counterclaim, not that I do.
What you say is a fact is an opinion. What kind of evidence do you have to support your "fact"? Let me guess. Your eyes? You have an opinion. 





> per 40 doesn't inflate, it puts them on a consistent basis. and the difference isn't that slight.


It's not slight? 2 or 3 ppg is not slight? I wonder what you consider slight then. .5 ppg? Get real.


> they were a function of his stats, primarily. he's not an all-time great defender. he doesn't make an all-defense legends team. there are plenty ahead of him.


Fine. He'll make all-defensive 3rd, 4th or 9th team. That still puts him about 50,000 players ahead of Nash. 






> my arguments stand on their own. your own bias was evident early on though.


I backed up my argument with statistics and my own research of both Nash and Stockton. Neither you nor Jon have proved anything except for the fact that Jon is a Nash homer while you hold a grudge - while I don't really care about you.


----------



## nieman (Jun 6, 2006)

This thread is still going on. If John Stockton read this thread, he'd probably be laughing his *** off. Nash doesn't come close to Stockton as a player, in anyway shape or form. TRUTH - For Nash to be even considered as great he would have to have 10 more seasons of similar statistics. Three great seasons does not equal greatness...especially when you played for an adidtional eight. So, why don't y'all compare Nash's 3 best seasons vs Tim Hardaway's 3 best season's and see who's the better player?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

nieman said:


> This thread is still going on. If John Stockton read this thread, he'd probably be laughing his *** off. Nash doesn't come close to Stockton as a player, in anyway shape or form. TRUTH - For Nash to be even considered as great he would have to have 10 more seasons of similar statistics. Three great seasons does not equal greatness...especially when you played for an adidtional eight. So, why don't y'all compare Nash's 3 best seasons vs Tim Hardaway's 3 best season's and see who's the better player?


Yeah, they're not really interested in that comparison, either, since Timmy wins hands down (as a great offensive guard that wasn't a defensive liability). Hell, they're going to stay away from Oscar, too, since he wins on every comparison, including the nebulous "dominance relative to era" standard.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Till i've read this thread i've never knew John Stockton was so overhyped.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> Till i've read this thread i've never knew John Stockton was so overhyped.


I'd say both players were pretty overhyped. I was operating under the assumption that this was a "best Caucasian point guard" thread. If I'm looking for someone to run my offense, there's no one I'm calling except for Magic.


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

Astral said:


> What? Where exactly did I state an opinion?
> Here's what you quoted:
> _ Your opinion. Jazz reached the finals and lost in a long series against arguably some of the best championship teams ever assembled. Nash can't touch that.
> _Where is the opinion?
> ...


Aren't the statements in bold opinions? 

We can't state as a fact that the 90's Bulls are better than the '07 Spurs as they haven't played each other. We can make assumptions, and have opinions, but stating that Stockton losing to the Bulls is a greater achievement than Nash losing to the Spurs is not fact, its an opinion.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

Bon]{eRz said:


> Aren't the statements in bold opinions?
> 
> We can't state as a fact that the 90's Bulls are better than the '07 Spurs as they haven't played each other. We can make assumptions, and have opinions, but stating that Stockton losing to the Bulls is a greater achievement than Nash losing to the Spurs is not fact, its an opinion.


You're absolutely right. The reason I'm giving them so much weight is because the vast (as in, 95%+) majority of sports analysts/fans would agree on this opinion. 
You're right, it's not a fact. But I'm sure we can all agree that those 90s Bulls teams will go down as a much greater team than the '07 Spurs.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

if we view stockton from the perspective of today looking back at his career, we get one story. if we actually go back to stockton at his peak, before he had accumulated all the all-time records and consistently put up numbers year after year until he was 40, you get a different story. in the moment, he wasn't a legend. he wasn't an instant classic. that came later. he was a somewhat controversial dream-team pick, at his very peak. he was one of the guys, with timmy, kj, price, payton, isiah, penny - often with no clear pecking order. he outlasted them all, was the ultimate ironman. but we view him now as the culmination of all of that. if you're old enough to remember (and i know ehmunro is), stoctkon's legend grew through consistent greatness over time, and outlasting his peers. alot of you guys simply aren't old enough to remember.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Astral said:


> Only way for me to prove that is to find you hundreds of articles that support the opinion. The expectation is unreasonable.


it's simply an absurd statement. kobe bryant is one of the great, and dominant scorers of all-time, and he's really not that far off from mj if at all in this area. he had the game of his life under the circumstances of his life. jordan's career high in a non-overtime game was 61. but you think MOST think he could have EASILY increased that number by 33% if playing today? in a slower paced league? heck, if he increased his ppg by 33% the year he scored 61 he'd have averaged 49 ppg. could he have easily done that? no, most people aren't foolish enough to believe jordan could have easily topped 81. eighty freakin one. he too would have needed the day, and the circumstances of his life to do it.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

kflo said:


> if we view stockton from the perspective of today looking back at his career, we get one story. if we actually go back to stockton at his peak, before he had accumulated all the all-time records and consistently put up numbers year after year until he was 40, you get a different story. in the moment, he wasn't a legend. he wasn't an instant classic. that came later. he was a somewhat controversial dream-team pick, at his very peak. he was one of the guys, with timmy, kj, price, payton, isiah, penny - often with no clear pecking order. he outlasted them all, was the ultimate ironman. but we view him now as the culmination of all of that. if you're old enough to remember (and i know ehmunro is), stoctkon's legend grew through consistent greatness over time, and outlasting his peers. alot of you guys simply aren't old enough to remember.


John Stockton was definitely the Carl Yastrzemski of the NBA.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Astral said:


> What? Where exactly did I state an opinion?
> Here's what you quoted:
> _ Your opinion. Jazz reached the finals and lost in a long series against arguably some of the best championship teams ever assembled. Nash can't touch that.
> _Where is the opinion?
> ...


If the things you mention above are facts, you will have to admit that Phoenix was the 2nd best team in the NBA last year by at least the same margin as Utah was when they played in the finals. Most people will agree with this assumption, regardless of your personal opinion. Does that make it a fact? 



> Rofl. I swear to god if you say one more word I'll christ you Amareca Jr. and add you to my ignore list.
> Phoenix lost WITH Stoudamire AND Diaw while SA was missing Horry in the next game. Anyone who attempts to use this lame excuse is a retard.


[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and the Jazz still lost to the Bulls with their full roster for the entire series. I'm not even a Suns fan. But I do have tremendous respect for Nash, and find your personal investment in Stockton being such a superior player "edit". Of course, I'm not going to try and label such an opinion as a fact.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Astral said:


> What? Where exactly did I state an opinion?
> Here's what you quoted:
> _ Your opinion. Jazz reached the finals and lost in a long series against arguably some of the best championship teams ever assembled. Nash can't touch that.
> _Where is the opinion?
> ...


the '98 bulls were a beatable team. they weren't the same level as the '97 and '96 teams. they were pushed to the limit by the pacers. 

phx lost a close game 5 at home without stat and diaw. game 6 was on the road, and horry isn't exactly amare. if the suspensions don't happen, the series is a tossup. it's very possible there's a game 7 in phx. it's just the way it was.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

dp


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> I'd say both players were pretty overhyped. I was operating under the assumption that this was a "best Caucasian point guard" thread. If I'm looking for someone to run my offense, there's no one I'm calling except for Magic.



What this cat said.

No one starts at the point on my All-Time squad over Magic.

I'd have Isaiah or GP backing him up, then probably Stockton.

That being said, Stockton >>> Nash.


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

Bon]{eRz said:


> Aren't the statements in bold opinions?
> 
> We can't state as a fact that the 90's Bulls are better than the '07 Spurs as they haven't played each other. We can make assumptions, and have opinions, but stating that Stockton losing to the Bulls is a greater achievement than Nash losing to the Spurs is not fact, its an opinion.



Nah, that's pretty much a fact, nephew.


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

kflo said:


> it's simply an absurd statement. kobe bryant is one of the great, and dominant scorers of all-time, and he's really not that far off from mj if at all in this area. he had the game of his life under the circumstances of his life. jordan's career high in a non-overtime game was 61. but you think MOST think he could have EASILY increased that number by 33% if playing today? in a slower paced league? heck, if he increased his ppg by 33% the year he scored 61 he'd have averaged 49 ppg. could he have easily done that? no, most people aren't foolish enough to believe jordan could have easily topped 81. eighty freakin one. he too would have needed the day, and the circumstances of his life to do it.



Dude, you don't think that MJ could have scored 80+ points if he really wanted to? Against teams like the 80's Clippers or Kings, who were, more or less, the same calibre teams as that Raptors team Kobe went off on.

Meaning, they sucked too. 

There were plenty of games when MJ had 40+ points in blowouts and he sat down in the middle of the 3rd Quarter and didn't re-enter the game. Hell, I got some of them saved to my favorites on YouTube.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Air Jordan 23 said:


> Dude, you don't think that MJ could have scored 80+ points if he really wanted to? Against teams like the 80's Clippers or Kings, who were, more or less, the same calibre teams as that Raptors team Kobe went off on.
> 
> Meaning, they sucked too.
> 
> There were plenty of games when MJ had 40+ points in blowouts and he sat down in the middle of the 3rd Quarter and didn't re-enter the game. Hell, I got some of them saved to my favorites on YouTube.


jordan had 7 games in his career where he scored 40+ pts in less than 35 minutes. kobe has 6. in jordan's 7 games, his per48 scoring was 64. in kobe's 6 games, it's 74. jordan's highest per48 game out of those 7 was 73. even if he maintained his pace for a full 48 minutes in those games, he doesn't get to 81. kobe's top per48 game out of the 6 was 90, with 4 games higher than 73. 

it's HARD to score 81, and it requires almost the perfect setup. it's absurd for anyone to say jordan could have easily scored 81.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Stockton was the better Point Guard. Steve is definetley more entertaining. If I were a GM and my only missing piece was a solid PG I would pick Stockton over Nash anyday of the week. If I was trying to put people in the seats I pick Nash. The thing no one really has noticed (again I haven't read much of this thread) is that despite not winning a title Stockton played in the best era ever of the NBA. Early on in his career he had to get past LA, or Houston. Later in his career he had to get by Kobe, Shaq and the Lakers, and also get by the Bulls if they made the finals. If Stockton/Malone were in their primes today they would win 2-3 championships in todays NBA. The only team I could see beating them is San Antonio. Stockton is the better PG, but both are two of the top 5 PG's ever to play in the NBA.


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

Air Jordan 23 said:


> Nah, that's pretty much a fact, nephew.


_Pretty much a fact_ is still an opinion, not a fact... sport. :greatjob:


----------



## maradro (Aug 2, 2003)

kflo said:


> if we view stockton from the perspective of today looking back at his career, we get one story. if we actually go back to stockton at his peak, before he had accumulated all the all-time records and consistently put up numbers year after year until he was 40, you get a different story. in the moment, he wasn't a legend. he wasn't an instant classic. that came later. he was a somewhat controversial dream-team pick, at his very peak. he was one of the guys, with timmy, kj, price, payton, isiah, penny - often with no clear pecking order. he outlasted them all, was the ultimate ironman. but we view him now as the culmination of all of that. if you're old enough to remember (and i know ehmunro is), stoctkon's legend grew through consistent greatness over time, and outlasting his peers. alot of you guys simply aren't old enough to remember.


agreed, but the OP asked : "Who will go down as having the better career? "

and there is no way you can answer nash unless you a) dont know who stockton is, or b) are in love with nash and/or the suns

there are plenty of pgs better than stockton and nash, more so if you are going on 2 or 3 seasons. but if its between the 2, over their entire career... stockton wins and its not even a contest


----------



## Bon]{eRz (Feb 23, 2005)

maradro said:


> agreed, but the OP asked : "Who will go down as having the better career? "
> 
> and there is no way you can answer nash unless you a) dont know who stockton is, or b) are in love with nash and/or the suns
> 
> there are plenty of pgs better than stockton and nash, more so if you are going on 2 or 3 seasons. but if its between the 2, over their entire career... stockton wins and its not even a contest


You are correct, Stockton's career > Nash's (thus far), I don't think that there are many people disputing that. 

But the reason why this thread has gone on for so long is that posters then broke down the comparison to who was the better player in their prime. And while its pretty much unanimous that Stockton's had the better overall career, its very debateable who was better at their peak. Personally I think that you can go either way, its a toss up... and I think if you argue that Stockton _doesn't touch _Nash in their primes, or vice versa, then you must be a homer for one player or the other. They are very comparable, as their peak year PERs have indicated.


----------



## nieman (Jun 6, 2006)

kflo said:


> if we view stockton from the perspective of today looking back at his career, we get one story. if we actually go back to stockton at his peak, before he had accumulated all the all-time records and consistently put up numbers year after year until he was 40, you get a different story. in the moment, he wasn't a legend. he wasn't an instant classic. that came later. he was a somewhat controversial dream-team pick, at his very peak. he was one of the guys, with timmy, kj, price, payton, isiah, penny - often with no clear pecking order. he outlasted them all, was the ultimate ironman. but we view him now as the culmination of all of that. if you're old enough to remember (and i know ehmunro is), stoctkon's legend grew through consistent greatness over time, and outlasting his peers. alot of you guys simply aren't old enough to remember.


True, but had Stockton been a tad bit flashier, as any of his peers, he would've been considered a legend in the making then too. Hell, all he really had to do was average 2 more points. He got the job done and was a true floor general. His consistency of ridiculous assist numbers, as well as being efficient is more than enough. But it does seem like he was just a "good-great" player, until one day after his 13th or 14th season some said "has anyone been paying attention to what Stockton is doing?" Also you have to look at, Magic came onto a team that had a vet Kareem (even if he was old), and alot forget how instrumental Dumars was to those Bad Boys, he was the heart, so they had an easier transistion period. Stockton and Malone started something together, grew together and finished it together, and its not like Stockton didn't hold his own. 

What I don't get is how Nash's 3 great season catapults him to HOF status when Timmy is never mentioned like he wasn't doing his thing for years, seems like no one ever saw KJ play (20 & 10 for career damn near), people act like Price wasn't good before injuries derailed him, etc....hell, I'll put up...here's one for y'all....Lafayette (I'm using his gov't) Lever stats against Nash's....3 best seasons.

Over career I don't think Nash is Top 10 PG


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Nate505 said:


> During Green's consecutive games streak, there were games where he was too injured to play but he was coming in for a few garbage time minutes to preserve his streak.
> 
> Stockton didn't play garbage time minutes.


Well, there was that time JR Reid knocked out AC's tooth with a vicious dirty elbow and forced a root canal. AC appeared for a minute every game for like two weeks to keep the streak alive.

That was it though. And it's not fair to fault a guy for getting injured in a savage attack.


----------



## jman23 (Aug 13, 2007)

stockton he's led a team to back 2 back the finals ,which nash has'nt yet.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

nieman said:


> True, but had Stockton been a tad bit flashier, as any of his peers, he would've been considered a legend in the making then too. Hell, all he really had to do was average 2 more points. He got the job done and was a true floor general. His consistency of ridiculous assist numbers, as well as being efficient is more than enough. But it does seem like he was just a "good-great" player, until one day after his 13th or 14th season some said "has anyone been paying attention to what Stockton is doing?" Also you have to look at, Magic came onto a team that had a vet Kareem (even if he was old), and alot forget how instrumental Dumars was to those Bad Boys, he was the heart, so they had an easier transistion period. Stockton and Malone started something together, grew together and finished it together, and its not like Stockton didn't hold his own.
> 
> What I don't get is how Nash's 3 great season catapults him to HOF status when Timmy is never mentioned like he wasn't doing his thing for years, seems like no one ever saw KJ play (20 & 10 for career damn near), people act like Price wasn't good before injuries derailed him, etc....hell, I'll put up...here's one for y'all....Lafayette (I'm using his gov't) Lever stats against Nash's....3 best seasons.
> 
> Over career I don't think Nash is Top 10 PG


KJ and Hardaway both would have compared favorably with Stockton if not for their injuries. Every time I catch a bit of old KJ tape I'm amazed at how good he is, how history has almost forgotten about the guy.

But once again, you can't say Nash has only put in three seasons. That simply isn't true. His on-court presence made him one of the elite PG's in the league as early as 00-01, and regardless of whatever statistical measures I look at, that will always be the basis for why I consider him an all-time great. The players you mention all made their teammates better, but none ever did what Nash does in this area. His ability to read defenses and exploit weaknesses is something I've never really seen any point guard approach. His mastery of this area may be as unique as something like Shaquille O'Neal's agility and athleticism at 7-foot, 350. And the amazing thing is that he really developed these skills well into his NBA career. There is a reason he has won two MVP's, though I can see why some might find it ridiculous if his greatness snuck up on some people and they already had their minds made up before really studying up on what he does.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

Jamel Irief said:


> Well, there was that time JR Reid knocked out AC's tooth with a vicious dirty elbow and forced a root canal. AC appeared for a minute every game for like two weeks to keep the streak alive.
> 
> That was it though. And it's not fair to fault a guy for getting injured in a savage attack.


Even before the cheap shot there were three games that year where he played less than 10 minutes a game. 

And after that cheap shot he played 13 games of less than 10 minutes a game. But cheap shot or not, it's a lame way to keep the streak a live. I'm not even sure why a knocked out tooth would keep a guy out of games for two weeks.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The 96 Bulls were better than the 98 Bulls.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The 96 Bulls were better than the 98 Bulls.


Oh come on, we all know the 2007 Hawks are better than them both combined.


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

Bon]{eRz said:


> _Pretty much a fact_ is still an opinion, not a fact... sport. :greatjob:



An opinion by haters. A fact by everyone else.:biggrin:


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The 96 Bulls were better than the 98 Bulls.



Well...yeah.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

Im gonna settle this once and for all

Nash>Stockton
Nash>Isiah once he wins a ring in 08.

END OF DISCUSSION.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Pain5155 said:


> Im gonna settle this once and for all
> 
> Nash>Stockton
> Nash>Isiah once he wins a ring in 08.
> ...


No, Nash is not better than Thomas.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

maradro said:


> agreed, but the OP asked : "Who will go down as having the better career? "
> 
> and there is no way you can answer nash unless you a) dont know who stockton is, or b) are in love with nash and/or the suns
> 
> there are plenty of pgs better than stockton and nash, more so if you are going on 2 or 3 seasons. but if its between the 2, over their entire career... stockton wins and its not even a contest



I have seen Stockton play and I am not a Nash/Suns homer...I picked Nash. At age 33, Stockton was not an all time great. He wasn't dominant. To say it is not even close tells me that at best you csught the tail end of Stockton's career.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> I have seen Stockton play and I am not a Nash/Suns homer...I picked Nash. At age 33, Stockton was not an all time great. He wasn't dominant. To say it is not even close tells me that at best you csught the tail end of Stockton's career.


Is Nash an all time great? If he is, Stockton certainly is, and at 33 he already had over 10k assists. He broke Magic's all time assist record at 33. And he was pretty damn close to breaking the steals record at that age. 

So a guy who holds two major statistical records (and at 33, he had one and was a year or two off of having the other) of all time isn't considered an all time great? Since when? The assist record is probably one of the most unbreakeable records in the NBA. It would take an extraordinary amount of talent, basketball IQ, longveity, and being an absoulte ironman to break.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

I think the other issue here is that the Stockton side seems to be assuming Nash's career is over. It isn't.

First off, he isn't athleticism dependant like KJ or Hardaway. 

Secondly, as of 06-07, he was still improving. At a career point where players are usually losing athleticism, Nash has (if anything) gotten more athletic. 

Given his superior level of conditioning and the fact that he's still improving, it wouldn't be surprising at all if he plays at his current level for another 5+ years. 

I'm not saying it is a given, but there is a very good chance he will age as well/better than Stockton. 

In that case, the two end up looking similar by the time Nash's career is over - considering Nash's two MVP's, and the fact that he is actually the focal point of opposing defenses.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

kflo said:


> jordan had 7 games in his career where he scored 40+ pts in less than 35 minutes. kobe has 6. in jordan's 7 games, his per48 scoring was 64. in kobe's 6 games, it's 74. jordan's highest per48 game out of those 7 was 73. even if he maintained his pace for a full 48 minutes in those games, he doesn't get to 81. kobe's top per48 game out of the 6 was 90, with 4 games higher than 73.
> 
> it's HARD to score 81, and it requires almost the perfect setup. it's absurd for anyone to say jordan could have easily scored 81.


great post man, great post


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Isiah led his team to two titles. I pity you crackheads that think Nash is comparable to him. Isiah was better than Stockton too. Stockton was a great player for a very long time, but Isiah gave his team the better chance of winning it all.


----------



## Air Jordan 23 (Dec 12, 2006)

kflo said:


> jordan had 7 games in his career where he scored 40+ pts in less than 35 minutes. kobe has 6. in jordan's 7 games, his per48 scoring was 64. in kobe's 6 games, it's 74. jordan's highest per48 game out of those 7 was 73. even if he maintained his pace for a full 48 minutes in those games, he doesn't get to 81. kobe's top per48 game out of the 6 was 90, with 4 games higher than 73.
> 
> it's HARD to score 81, and it requires almost the perfect setup. it's absurd for anyone to say jordan could have easily scored 81.



No, it's absurd to think he couldn't.

Give MJ the greenlight to score and play no defense, not rebound, or dish out any assists (basically what Kobe did in that game).

With those stipulations, you don't think MJ--Michael Freakin' Jordan--couldn't drop 80-something points?

C'mon, man. Get real.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Air Jordan 23 said:


> No, it's absurd to think he couldn't.
> 
> Give MJ the greenlight to score and play no defense, not rebound, or dish out any assists (basically what Kobe did in that game).
> 
> ...


YOU get real, young grasshopper.

Can't you see that your "he could because he was Michael freaking Jordan" argument doesn't fly?
In Jordan's highest scoring regular season game, he went for 69 points playig 50 minutes (6 assists).
In Jordan's non-overtime highest scoring regular season, he went for *64 points *in *47 minutes *hoisting up *49 FGAs*. Guess what? One assist. Yup. ONE. And *6 rebounds*.

In Kobe's 81 point game, he played *42 minutes*, hoisted *46 FGAs *and had *2 assists*. And *6 rebounds*.

So, nope. Jordan would have a haaard time scoring 80. The same as Kobe duplicating the feat.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

One thing I did forgot to mention is the fact that Stockton regularly played the pick and roll with Malone in reverse.Even at his diminutive size Stockton regularly freed Malone by setting solid screens on Power Forwards.Basketball used to be a man's game when Stockton played and that didn't bother the little ******* one bit.Not one chance in hell that Nash could have ever did what he does now in Stockton's era...And Stockton would be even more effective in the hand's off era than he was then.

Stockton was a better *basketball player* than Nash by a wide margin.Nothing that Nash supposedly does better than Stockton makes up for all of the many things that Stockton was inarguably better at.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Diable said:


> One thing I did forgot to mention is the fact that Stockton regularly played the pick and roll with Malone in reverse.Even at his diminutive size Stockton regularly freed Malone by setting solid screens on Power Forwards.Basketball used to be a man's game when Stockton played and that didn't bother the little ******* one bit.Not one chance in hell that Nash could have ever did what he does now in Stockton's era...And Stockton would be even more effective in the hand's off era than he was then.
> 
> Stockton was a better *basketball player* than Nash by a wide margin.Nothing that Nash supposedly does better than Stockton makes up for all of the many things that Stockton was inarguably better at.


This is probably going too far. I think Nash is slightly better offensively, but I take Stockton because at the end of the day basketball is a two way game, and one of those players is a major liability on the defensive end. Phoenix regularly jury-rigs its defense to hide Nash (and ends up creating new mismatches that they have to defend). This is one reason that I don't see Phoenix winning a title in the near future. But Stockton isn't better than Nash by a "wide margin". Stockton's in the basketball Hall of Fame for the same reason that Yaz is in the baseball one, he was a very good player for a long time. He's ridiculously overhyped, but then so is Nash. He'll end up with the better career because he played at his high level for a long long time while Nash has really only been doing it for a handful of years, and probably isn't going to last as long as Stockton did. So on the career vote I cast mine for Stockton. But there are a bunch of guys I'd rather have than either.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Stockton's in the basketball Hall of Fame for the same reason that Yaz is in the baseball one, he was a very good player for a long time.


I think owning two major statistical records that may never be broken might have something to do with it as well.

Does Yaz own any in baseball?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Nate505 said:


> I think owning two major statistical records that may never be broken might have something to do with it as well.
> 
> Does Yaz own any in baseball?


Pete Rose does for the same reason (he played a long, long time).


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> YOU get real, young grasshopper.
> 
> Can't you see that your "he could because he was Michael freaking Jordan" argument doesn't fly?
> In Jordan's highest scoring regular season game, he went for 69 points playig 50 minutes (6 assists).
> ...


In his prime, Jordan could have done in the modern era with no hand checking. He scored 24 points in the 1st quarter against the Hornets when he was 38 years old. I also think Jordan would have been motivated to top whatever Kobe did.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

f22egl said:


> In his prime, Jordan could have done in the modern era with no hand checking. He scored 24 points in the 1st quarter against the Hornets when he was 38 years old. I also think Jordan would have been motivated to top whatever Kobe did.


"Could have", "Should have"... 
I don't understand why peeps are trying to trivialize what Kobe did, saying that Jordan could do it if he wanted to or something. The fact is that Jordan didn't do it. And he didn't even came close. D-Rob came closer.

In all the decades of NBA ball, Kobe was the second player to reach 81. 

Was it a fluke game? Probably. But he counts.

BUT, for arguments' sake, i will concede that if Jordan/Gervin/Shaq/Nique/Malone/whoever takes all the shots in a game, makes his free throws and stay out of foul trouble, they could blast Kobe's 81. There.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

PauloCatarino said:


> "Could have", "Should have"...
> I don't understand why peeps are trying to trivialize what Kobe did, saying that Jordan could do it if he wanted to or something. The fact is that Jordan didn't do it. And he didn't even came close. D-Rob came closer.
> 
> In all the decades of NBA ball, Kobe was the second player to reach 81.
> ...


Bud, everyone understands that it's all "couldda wouldda shouldda" scenarios. Everyone also understands that Jordan's highest scoring games came in 47/50 minutes.

That's not the argument. The argument is that prior to hand checking, perimeter defenders were much tougher. Jordan scoring in 60's with handchecking and those rules is harder than Kobe scoring 81 on the hapless Raptors. Yes, these are all hypothetic scenarios, but in my mind (and you know I'm no Jordan groupie), Jordan would have had an 81 pt game with current rules.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Yet offenses were still significantly better in the 80's even though supposedly everybody played D back then, and supposedly nobody plays D today...funny how that works out...

AKA, if you are really so blind that you can go back and watch an NBA game from the mid-late 80's and come away with the impression that there was more defense being played in that era than there is now, you might as well spend your free time analyzing pro wrestling.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

So basically, Jordan would have been a deity with the hand check change, and the plethora of wings approaching or in their prime when it was instituted (Kobe, Pierce, Carter, McGrady, Allen, etc.) that either had their scoring average drop or not increase even close to significantly were just anomalies?

Sure..


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Arclite said:


> So basically, Jordan would have been a deity with the hand check change, and the plethora of wings approaching or in their prime when it was instituted (Kobe, Pierce, Carter, McGrady, Allen, etc.) that either had their scoring average drop or not increase even close to significantly were just anomalies?
> 
> Sure..


:clap2: 

Quit using "opinions" to refute such stone cold "facts" as the lack of a handcheck rule means it is easier to score in today's NBA.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

l think the problem is that a lot of people think of Jordan as some mythical player equivalent to a max player on XBOX and any thing done in today's game he could trump with ease.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Pete Rose does for the same reason (he played a long, long time).


But Stockton had them at 33-34, after 11/12 seasons, including the first couple where he was a backup behind Ricky Green. 

By playing forever, he just made them pretty much untouchable. He's 5,462 assists ahead of the second guy on the all time list, Mark Jackson.

To put that number in perspective, Steve Nash for his entire career has 5,890 in his career.....slightly above the distance Stockton has against the #2 guy on the list.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Nate505 said:


> But Stockton had them at 33-34, after 11/12 seasons, including the first couple where he was a backup behind Ricky Green.
> 
> By playing forever, he just made them pretty much untouchable. He's 5,462 assists ahead of the second guy on the all time list, Mark Jackson.
> 
> To put that number in perspective, Steve Nash for his entire career has 5,890 in his career.....slightly above the distance Stockton has against the #2 guy on the list.


Isn't Rose's mark in a similar vein? Very few hitters so much as reach 3,000 hits. Ty Cobb's mark was thought unbreakable because he was considered the greatest contact hitter in baseball history. When I was a kid, and Baseball Digest put up its annual _Records that will stand forever_ article, that always topped the list along with Cy Young's record for wins. But Rose broke an unbreakable record by playing for a long long time. By contrast, the record that Stockton broke at age 33 was most certainly not held to be unbreakable. He passed Magic in a similar time frame. In his first 12 years, when he broke the mark, he missed about four or five games total, and had in that time frame played more games than Magic did in his career. Basically he just played half again as many seasons as Johnson, and got half again as many assists.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Astral said:


> Jordan scoring in 60's with handchecking and those rules is harder than Kobe scoring 81 on the hapless Raptors.


Remember, there were horrible teams back then too. Like the Nuggets. They played no defense and played at a ridiculous pace. But Jordan never came close to scoring 81 against them.


----------



## ManiacInsane (Jul 29, 2006)

Stockton


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Isn't Rose's mark in a similar vein? Very few hitters so much as reach 3,000 hits. Ty Cobb's mark was thought unbreakable because he was considered the greatest contact hitter in baseball history. When I was a kid, and Baseball Digest put up its annual _Records that will stand forever_ article, that always topped the list along with Cy Young's record for wins. But Rose broke an unbreakable record by playing for a long long time. By contrast, the record that Stockton broke at age 33 was most certainly not held to be unbreakable. He passed Magic in a similar time frame. In his first 12 years, when he broke the mark, he missed about four or five games total, and had in that time frame played more games than Magic did in his career. Basically he just played half again as many seasons as Johnson, and got half again as many assists.


I'm pretty sure Stockton broke the record with fewer games than Magic did. At the time he broke the record, he had a higher APG average than Magic did. When Stockton broke the record, he had ended up with 898 games that 94/95 season (he broke the record in February of 95).

Conversely, Magic played in 874 games when he retired the first time with the record. So considering that Stockton broke it in February of that year, he probably broke it at the same time in number of games.

I agree, Magic's record was not considered to be unbreakable. Mostly because Stockton was putting up insane APG numbers in his career and the writing was on the wall that he would break it (I seem to remember Magic saying that he was just holding the record for Stockton when he broke Oscar's record). Stockton has put that record out of reach for the most part. To break it, a player would have to play an 82 game season for 20 years (never missing a game) averaging 9.63 APG.


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

Hakeem said:


> Remember, there were horrible teams back then too. Like the Nuggets. They played no defense and played at a ridiculous pace. But Jordan never came close to scoring 81 against them.


Once again, not the argument at hand. There are always bad teams no matter what the year is. 
The argument is about rules influencing defenses. Several people have pointed out that post-handchecking PPG averages of most of the good scorers dropped. If you watch any of the Jordan-era playoffs and compare them to say, Miami vs. Mavericks two years ago, you'll see an obvious difference in the way defense was played.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Nate505 said:


> I'm pretty sure Stockton broke the record with fewer games than Magic did. At the time he broke the record, he had a higher APG average than Magic did. When Stockton broke the record, he had ended up with 898 games that 94/95 season (he broke the record in February of 95).
> 
> Conversely, Magic played in 874 games when he retired the first time with the record. So considering that Stockton broke it in February of that year, he probably broke it at the same time in number of games.


Great, so he broke a record that no one considered unbreakable in an equivalent number of games, and created an unbreakable record the same way that Pete Rose did, by playing a long long time. Looking at the numbers, in 906 games Magic finished at 10,141 while after 11 years and 898 games Stockton was about 250 assists ahead of that. His unbreakable record was still a function of playing a long long time (the reason that Mark Jackson's #2 on the all time list). Just like Rose broke an unbreakable record by playing nearly a quarter century in the majors. Stockton still wasn't better than Magic and there's zero chance I'm taking Stockton over Magic on any all time list. I'll take him over Nash for the defensive issues, but he's still way overhyped.



Astral said:


> Once again, not the argument at hand. There are always bad teams no matter what the year is.
> The argument is about rules influencing defenses. Several people have pointed out that post-handchecking PPG averages of most of the good scorers dropped. If you watch any of the Jordan-era playoffs and compare them to say, Miami vs. Mavericks two years ago, you'll see an obvious difference in the way defense was played.


True, unlike the 80s teams actually play defense now. (Also, the Nuggets weren't horrible, they were the most fun team in the NBA, and consistent winners during the Doug Moe era, but they played even less defense than their contemporaries, though it might hardly seem possible.)


----------



## Astral (Apr 23, 2007)

*Feel free to skip the technicalities.*
Johnson has 10,141 assists in 906 career games, for a 11.2 average. 
I added Stockton's assists up from the start of his career upto 93-94, which came out to 9,383 assists. During 94-95 season, Stockton had 1011 assists, thus sometime during the season he broke Magic's 10,141 record (9,383+1011=10,394>10,141). Using that season's APG average (12.3), I can estimate that Stockton reached 10,141 assists after 61.6 games. (10,141-9,383=758/12.3=61.6)
Now all that's left is to add up the games he played. He had 9 seasons of 82 games, 1 season of 78 games and the estimated games average from 94-95. 82*9=738+78=816+62=878 games.

*To conclude*, Stockton broke Magic's record in fewer games than Magic, by approximately 28 games (1/3 of a full season). After 878 games, Stockton's APG average was approximately 11.55.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> Great, so he broke a record that no one considered unbreakable in an equivalent number of games, and created an unbreakable record the same way that Pete Rose did, by playing a long long time. Looking at the numbers, in 906 games Magic finished at 10,141 while after 11 years and 898 games Stockton was about 250 assists ahead of that. His unbreakable record was still a function of playing a long long time (the reason that Mark Jackson's #2 on the all time list). Just like Rose broke an unbreakable record by playing nearly a quarter century in the majors. Stockton still wasn't better than Magic and there's zero chance I'm taking Stockton over Magic on any all time list. I'll take him over Nash for the defensive issues, but he's still way overhyped.


The record wasn't considered unbreakable because Stockton had such dominating assist numbers that it was only a matter of time before he broke it. Now I doubt it will ever be broken. If Stockton would have retired in the years after he went to the Finals he'd still hold the assist record by a pretty comfortable margin. Jackson is a good example of a guy who amassed a guady number of assists by playing a long time, but not Stockton. He got a gaudy number of them by playing a long time and by putting up insane numbers.

I wouldn't take Stockton over Magic either, but that doesn't mean he's overhyped, or that when he broke the record he was a no-brainer sure fire first ballot hall of famer. There's a reason in '96 he was voted to the 50 All Time Greatest Players list, and frankly, there was zero controversy about it. Holding all time records tends to do that for a player.

He also owns another major NBA statistical record.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Nate505 said:


> I wouldn't take Stockton over Magic either, but that doesn't mean he's overhyped, or that when he broke the record he was a no-brainer sure fire first ballot hall of famer. There's a reason in '96 he was voted to the 50 All Time Greatest Players list, and frankly, there was zero controversy about it.


Where did I say that he didn't belong on the top 50 list? He's way overhyped because people call him the GOAT amongst point guards. He wasn't. Not even close. He's certainly better than Nash because he played both ends of the floor and Nash is a major defensive liability.


----------

