# Stockton is overrated



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

If you look at what he was able to do on the basketball court, his skillset is on par with Steve Nash. Would anyone consider Steve Nash a top 5 PG of all time? The reason he racked up the high amount of assists is because of Malone and Hornaceck and the system they ran.


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

boy you asked for it......


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

Be prepared for next to no one to agree with you.


----------



## ivo_krka (Jan 29, 2004)

A lot of BS. Stockton didn't have some great physical abilities. He was not the fastest, quickest, the best ball handler or a great shooter. He was a bit above average in every one of that sections. He maybe wasn't a show time player with no look passes and great dribblings that breack defenders spine, but he had probably the greatest basketball inteligence of all time. He had great court vision with superb anticipation on defensive end. He always saw weaknesses of opponents offense and defense. Unbeliveable player. He would average 10 assists on any team no matter how bad they are.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Stockton might be the smartest guy that ever played the game...Nash, not so much.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

If anything, Nash is overrated. Put any starting PG on a team with a couple of all-stars and their bound to get tons of assists/open looks.


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

He definitely wasn't the most talented player, but he is very far away from being an overrated player.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> If you look at what he was able to do on the basketball court, his skillset is on par with Steve Nash.


i take it you've never heard of a little something called "defense".


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

I know, I know....I just had to say it. After watching Malone this year it just dawned on me that he was "the guy" in Utah who almost led them to beat MJ and the Bulls. Malone was the man on that team. Stockton has great basketball intelligence, but so does Steve Nash. The thing about PG's like Steve Nash and John Stockton is that they do their best when they have a sidekick which complements their lack of ability (Nash and Nowitzki, and Stockton and Malone). Don't get me wrong, they are both great PG's, but Stockton's value has dropped in my mind after seeing what Malone is capable of doing. Stockton could have averaged 10 assists a game on most teams, but Damon Stoudamire averaged almost 9 assists a game during his rookie year, what does that have to say. Is he almost as good as Stockton, definitely not. 

Stockton was a product of the system more than any other "great" player in history. He was the best PG within the system, but if he stands alone as one of the greats, then he needs to stand alone.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> If you look at what he was able to do on the basketball court, his skillset is on par with Steve Nash. Would anyone consider Steve Nash a top 5 PG of all time? The reason he racked up the high amount of assists is because of Malone and Hornaceck and the system they ran.


He was a damn good player but he is overrated when people start calling him the second best point guard of all time. We all know that Isiah Lord Thomas III holds that distinction.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

*Re: Re: Stockton is overrated*



> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> 
> 
> He was a damn good player but he is overrated when people start calling him the second best point guard of all time. We all know that Isiah Lord Thomas III holds that distinction.


oscar and magic are both above isiah.


----------



## Nevus (Jun 3, 2003)

Karl Malone's skillset is not really great either... he can shoot the open jumpshot, run the floor, finish at the hoop somewhat, but he has no moves.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Stockton is overrated*



> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> 
> 
> He was a damn good player but he is overrated when people start calling him the second best point guard of all time. We all know that Isiah Lord Thomas III holds that distinction.


That's what I mean. Magic is obviously the best. I would put Isiah above Stockton. Now you have PG's like Jason Kidd, Iverson(if you count him as a PG), and Marbury. For Pete's sake, if you go by assists, then Mark Jackson should be top 5 PG of all-time. Mark Jackson is good distributor, but the bar has changed for PG's in my mind. They have to be more than distributors now that you have PG's who can do everything at high level.


----------



## AdamIllman (May 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Stockton might be the smartest guy that ever played the game...Nash, not so much.


are you saying that steve nash is not an intelligent guy in this statement?..or just that he isn't as intelligent as stockton?

if it's the former then you are totally wrong and you need to listen to the guy speak before making a judgement like that.

if it's the latter then you may be right..but steve nash is still a very smart man, well-spoken man.

and also...do you actually know that stockton is a smart guy or are you just assuming because of his basketball IQ?? the two are entirely different..


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>AdamIllman</b>!
> 
> 
> are you saying that steve nash is not an intelligent guy in this statement?..or just that he isn't as intelligent as stockton?
> ...


he's obviously referring strictly to basketball IQ.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Nevus</b>!
> Karl Malone's skillset is not really great either... he can shoot the open jumpshot, run the floor, finish at the hoop somewhat, but he has no moves.


That's true somewhat, but he is also 6'9" and built like a MAC truck. Stockton was barely 6 ft, if that, and skinny as a rail. How many guys with Stockton's build could even play in the NBA nowadays and be semi-successful with the physical abilites he had.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

After creating this thread I realize I might need to eat crow. I just wanted to make a point that Karl Malone is better than people give him credit for. Maybe I should have entitled the thread "Just give Karl Malone the damn ball"


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

You guys aren't arguing over nothing, just like those who argue Kobe vs Shaq. Each players has his own role, and all four perform at an elite level. One of the two will have to be the MVP, and naturally it's going to be the big man. Karl was the MVP in Utah, and Shaq is the MVP in LA. That's shouldn't discredit Kobe or John because a lot of Karl and Shaq's success is contengent upon the guards play.


----------



## PoorPoorSonics (Mar 20, 2004)

Yeah, jeez we all know Magic had no good teammates...he played with a bunch of scrubs huh? Give me a break. Someones stock dropping because you say they had good teammates is moronic.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

Heh did you even watch Karl?


OH WOW I HIT AN OPEN JUMP SHOT WOW WOWOWOWOOWOWOWOWOWOW

OMG I GOT A LONG REBOUND BECAUSE SHAQ AND KOBE WERE THE PRIMARY CONCERN


WOWOWOWOOWOOWOWOW

Stockton is the most cerebral, best defenisve point guard so far. To say he is overated is just silly, you think Malone got him all those steals? Come on now.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Stockton is underrated if anything. The guy was never really appreaciated by the casual basketball fan like he should have been. His feel for the game was second to none. I say this as someone who hated the Jazz...but in the late years of stockton I really grew to respect him, moreso than Karl Malone. Because even at 40 Stockton was still controlling games in ways that I would say only Jason Kidd approaches.

As far as the Steve Nash comparison...well there really is none. People don't realize this, probably because Steve Nash is a white canadian...but Nash is almost a playground baller. He was compared to Magic Johnson and Jason coming out of school...not John Stockton. He's very flashy and a very eccentric player. John Stockton would never have done 3/4ths of the things Nash tries to do.

People should take the time to watch Nash play more, he really is one of the more showy players playing the game today. He and Jason Kidd are arguably the most entertaining point guards playing right now.

But yeah. Stockton is underrated. That someone would say he is overrated is proof of how underrated he is. Pay respect.

Karl Malone on the other hand is overrated. He's a glorified thug. If you had put Buck Williams with John Stockton you'd of gotten the same results.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Karl Malone on the other hand is overrated. He's a glorified thug. If you had put Buck Williams with John Stockton you'd of gotten the same results.


:no: 
This thread is getting better and better...


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Stock averaged 17ppg, 14.5apg, and 3spg on a team that won 55 games whose third best player was Theodore "Blue" Edwards. Who the hell is Blue Edwards, you ask? Exactly.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Stockton got 8 assists a game as a 40-41 year old, nuff said. A prime Nash can only get 1 more assist than that per game with a team that has a million offensive weapons. People never thought of Stockton as being dirty, but many players said he was one of the dirtiest players in the league (dirty is a good thing in this case). Not to mention he was one of the smartest players to ever play basketball period. 

Stockton was the man.


----------



## nikeflightz (Apr 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> How many guys with Stockton's build could even play in the NBA nowadays and be semi-successful with the physical abilites he had.


any if they elbow and foul people as much as stockton did. stockton is another fake star made in jerry sloan's dirty system. they were worse than the detroit bad boys because at least the bad boys didnt have a problem to admitting it. stockton, however, hides it all with that combover hair of his.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Stockton got 8 assists a game as a 40-41 year old, nuff said. A prime Nash can only get 1 more assist than that per game with a team that has a million offensive weapons. People never thought of Stockton as being dirty, but many players said he was one of the dirtiest players in the league (dirty is a good thing in this case). Not to mention he was one of the smartest players to ever play basketball period.
> 
> Stockton was the man.


And those 8 assists were in less than 30 minutes. Stockton led the league in asts/48 even in his last season. He also had a quad injury in their second finals season, but never missed a game due to injury in 18 other seasons.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> Stock averaged 17ppg, 14.5apg, and 3spg on a team that won 55 games whose third best player was Theodore "Blue" Edwards. Who the hell is Blue Edwards, you ask? Exactly.


I remember Blue Edwards, I think. I had his basketball card, and I thought...what a cool name.

Did he play for the Bucks at one point?


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> I remember Blue Edwards, I think. I had his basketball card, and I thought...what a cool name.
> ...


Yes.. he played for the Brickowski/Murdock/Day/Lohaus Bucks teams.. his NBA.com player profile only goes back to 94-95 but he was like a 12ppg scorer for most of his career..


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

I hate agreeing with Nikeflightz ...

The 'Bad Boys', Stockton Sloan and Malone, the Van Gundy Knicks, and Riley's Heat teams all brought the NBA into this death swirl that is the ugly, rugby style of play we see currently. 

Stockton and Malone were two of the dirtiest players that ever played in the NBA, and Sloan encouraged the nastiest physical style of defense he could imagine, something that has slowly spread across the NBA like a plague. There's no reason I should be forced to watch hideous 84-80 wrestling matches I turn on the TV.

Stockton was a great player, but I hold him and the NBA players of his generation that played like him responsible for the **** I have to watch today. The league should have stepped in a long time ago and made it clear that their behavior was unnacceptable, instead of allowing the National Rugby League to take over.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> And those 8 assists were in less than 30 minutes. Stockton led the league in asts/48 even in his last season. He also had a quad injury in their second finals season, but never missed a game due to injury in 18 other seasons.


Amazing. People might try to argue that Stockton wouldnt be able to get 15 assists a game in todays game, but the fact he was top 5 in the league in assists with 8 a game as a 41 year old playing 28 minutes makes me think a prime Stockton would easily be able to put up 15 assists per game in todays league as well. 

Not to mention as a 38 or 39 year old he was putting up 9 assists per game in 29 minutes.


----------



## KeiranHalcyon (Nov 27, 2003)

"They have to be more than distributors now that you have PG's who can do everything at high level."

John Stockton:

#1 in assists, with 15,806 (5472 over his nearest competitor, and almost TWICE as many as his nearest active competitor.)
#1 in steals, with 3,265 (751 over his nearest competitor, and almost a thousand more than his nearest active competitor.)
#30 in total points, with 19,711.

Shooting .515/.384/.826.

And he's overrated?

You've got to be kidding me.

Now take in to account the fact that he was as rooted in the fundamentals as any other player--no behind the back crossover dribbles; no no-look backboard passes. Just the same basic fundamentals.

He was the greatest pure point guard of all time, not overrated. Yes, he benefited from having Malone on his team. But Malone benefited too--you don't get to be the second-leading alltime scorer by yourself. It's a team sport.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> I remember Blue Edwards, I think. I had his basketball card, and I thought...what a cool name.


I hated that guy for the wrong reasons. I always opened a fresh new set of basketball cards hoping I'd get MJ, Pippen, or Shaq and guess who pops out?


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

Who is the last guard ever to put up 17 points, 14 steals, and 3 steals a game? Heck, who is the last guard to ever average a double double? If Nash is comparable to Stockton, how come he has never put anywhere near those type of numbers up?


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>nikeflightz</b>!
> 
> 
> any if they elbow and foul people as much as stockton did. stockton is another fake star made in jerry sloan's dirty system. they were worse than the detroit bad boys because at least the bad boys didnt have a problem to admitting it. stockton, however, hides it all with that combover hair of his.


Stockton is dirty? Who exactly did Stockton injure during his career? Oh wait, we are using the new NBA fan definition of dirty, the one that has been wussed down to epic levels.....


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Stockton is probably the smartest basketball player I have ever seen. 

Durable, brilliant, leader,clutch, clever, these words all describe John Stockton. 

Basketball is also a mental game, and he was the king in that department.

Stockton is not overrated.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

The question is: Is John Stockton overrated?

If you think he is the best PG ever, the best passer ever, the 2nd best PG ever, the 3rd best PG ever, the smartest basketball player ever...then the answer is yes.

If you think he is one of the better PGs ever (top 5) then you might have a point.

On another note: When you are talking "G.O.A.T" type lists, you can't be clutch without a title...you just can't be.:no:


----------



## Bad Bartons (Aug 23, 2002)

Stockton is not over rated.

One of the top 5 point guards of all time...without a doubt.

Anyone that says otherwise knows very little about the game of basketball.

So sad.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

When I was a Bulls fan a few years ago, I always feared Stockton when I was watching the Finals. He is a great player who I cursed endlessly for everything he did on the court. I hated the guy. I still kinda hate him, but he isn't overrated, he's underrated. Karl wasn't the REAL leader of the Jazz team, it was John Stockton. I didn't really care about Karl getting baskets, it was Stocktons threes and plays that scared me.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bad Bartons</b>!
> Stockton is not over rated.
> 
> One of the top 5 point guards of all time...without a doubt.
> ...


magic, oscar, isiah, cousy, payton, frazier, kidd, tiny, west played some pg - there've been some pretty good pg's, and some arguably better than stockton, at least for peak value. nobody can match stockton's longevity and durability, and he certainly deserves credit for that.

i think there are those who don't appreciate what stockton brought to the game, which is alot. and i think there are some that slightly overrate him.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

Wow let me add to the stupidity. Jordan was only a dunker. Oscar was only a scorer. What a thread!!


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

Clutch has nothing to do with a team result. A chip is a team result. If your team never gets into a position where being clutch matters, how does that affect top 5 status.

Is Dan Marino not a top 5 QB of all time because he never won a SB? He never had a RB in his nearly 2 decade career. He holds the most passing records of anyone.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bad Bartons</b>!
> Stockton is not over rated.
> 
> One of the top 5 point guards of all time...without a doubt.
> ...


****, I have more knowledge of basketball in my left toe then you have in your whole body. :yes:

Stockton is overrated!!! Pure point guard...he was the best. He is still overrated. A lot of the PG's nowadays would run circles around him. I never said he sucked, I said he was overrated.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Stockton is underrated if anything. The guy was never really appreaciated by the casual basketball fan like he should have been. His feel for the game was second to none. I say this as someone who hated the Jazz...but in the late years of stockton I really grew to respect him, moreso than Karl Malone. Because even at 40 Stockton was still controlling games in ways that I would say only Jason Kidd approaches.
> 
> As far as the Steve Nash comparison...well there really is none. People don't realize this, probably because Steve Nash is a white canadian...but Nash is almost a playground baller. He was compared to Magic Johnson and Jason coming out of school...not John Stockton. He's very flashy and a very eccentric player. John Stockton would never have done 3/4ths of the things Nash tries to do.
> ...


You put John Stockton with Buck Williams and you get Stockton with less assists and maybe more points. Karl Malone is one of the greatest PF's(if not) of all time. He made John Stockton's assists totals go up.


----------



## freakofnature (Mar 30, 2003)

Feel free to AIM me about this. We'll have a discussion.

My screenname: Stokton12


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Stockton got 8 assists a game as a 40-41 year old, nuff said. A prime Nash can only get 1 more assist than that per game with a team that has a million offensive weapons. People never thought of Stockton as being dirty, but many players said he was one of the dirtiest players in the league (dirty is a good thing in this case). Not to mention he was one of the smartest players to ever play basketball period.
> 
> Stockton was the man.


Stockton had Hornaceck who was arguably the greatest shooter of all time. Stockton had Karl Malone, arguably the greatest PF of all-time. Steve Nash has Dirk Nowtizki, who is a 7 foot outside shooter and Michael Finley. There is no comparison. Karl Malone and Hornaceck were great spot up shooters, meaning more assists once Johnny passed them the ball. Then you have Nash who plays in an offense which is so crazy I don't think Nellie has any idea whats happening.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

I WON!:banana:

:allhail:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> 
> Stockton had Hornaceck who was arguably the greatest shooter of all time.


Hornacek was arguably the greatest shooter of all-time? I'd like to hear you make that case.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

If you have as much compsci knowledge as basketball knowledge in that toe, I feel sorry for your employer or professor.

:cthread:


----------



## Burn (Feb 2, 2003)

Magic had Worthy who is a HOFer (and considered better than Hornacek by everyone in the world) and Kareem was arguably the greatest center of all time. In fact he has even more points than Malone! They made Magic's assist totals go up. 

Isiah had Joe Dumars (Finals MVP baby) and Adrian Dantley/Mark Aguirre, respectively two of the best scorers of the 80s. They made Isiah's assist totals go up. 

Word on the street is that having good players on your team gives you a better chance of getting assists. Maybe that's why Magic and Isiah had those 7 championships? 

No wait, they carried those teams.


----------



## DaBobZ (Sep 22, 2003)

Stockton was the king of the PnR


----------



## kawika (May 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> A lot of the PG's nowadays would run circles around him.


I disagree with you, but for the most part I don't think you're making an unsupportable argument or anything with regard to him being a terrific player if perhaps overrated by some.

But it's that one point, which you've repeated a few times now, which leaves me baffled. We're not talking about somebody who played thirty years ago and we can only speculate about how he would have fared "nowadays". The guy's been retired for *all of one season.* And has been pointed out in this thread, as a starter for a good team, playing against guys 10-15+ years his junior, more than held his own his last few seasons in the L.


----------



## PoorPoorSonics (Mar 20, 2004)

Thank you Burn, exactly what I was saying. He is talking like no other great PG had a supporting cast.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

You know who reminds me of Stockton? Kirk Hinrich. Both good passers, shoots the 3 and both play hard nosed defense. Add to the fact that Hinrich and Stockton kind of look alike, and you see the resemblances. All that's left is for Hinrich to get his Malone and he's set.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> A lot of the PG's nowadays would run circles around him.


Well yeah, he is about 43 now. Then again, when he was 41, they weren't running circles around him then.


----------



## Knicksbiggestfan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hahaha run circles!

Stockton was super quick and very athletic, look how high he got for layups his head was mostly around the rim.

He was shades quicker than many point guards of his time, your arguments suck!


----------



## PDB (Aug 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> 
> 
> Stockton had Hornaceck who was arguably the greatest shooter of all time. Stockton had Karl Malone, arguably the greatest PF of all-time. Steve Nash has Dirk Nowtizki, who is a 7 foot outside shooter and Michael Finley. There is no comparison. Karl Malone and Hornaceck were great spot up shooters, meaning more assists once Johnny passed them the ball. Then you have Nash who plays in an offense which is so crazy I don't think Nellie has any idea whats happening.


Alright. John the Cool Kid said something along the lines of... " Stockton got 8 assists a game as a 40-41 year old, nuff said. A prime Nash can only get 1 more assist than that per game with a team that has a million offensive weapons"... and you replied with what I quoted above. 

Actually, When Stockton was 40ish and averaged about 8 assists a game, he DIDN'T have Jeff Hornaceck(who isn't arguably the greatest shooter of all time). He did have Matt Harping. Hmmm...

Matt Harpring and Aging Karl Malone vs. Michael Finley and Dirk Nowitzki in his prime..

I guess you are right about one thing, there is no comparison.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ivo_krka</b>!
> A lot of BS. Stockton didn't have some great physical abilities. He was not the fastest, quickest, the best ball handler or a great shooter. He was a bit above average in every one of that sections. He maybe wasn't a show time player with no look passes and great dribblings that breack defenders spine, but he had probably the greatest basketball inteligence of all time. He had great court vision with superb anticipation on defensive end. He always saw weaknesses of opponents offense and defense. Unbeliveable player. He would average 10 assists on any team no matter how bad they are.


I agree with you. There'll never be another STOCKTON


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PDB</b>!
> Alright. John the Cool Kid said something along the lines of... " Stockton got 8 assists a game as a 40-41 year old, nuff said. A prime Nash can only get 1 more assist than that per game with a team that has a million offensive weapons"... and you replied with what I quoted above.
> 
> Actually, When Stockton was 40ish and averaged about 8 assists a game, he DIDN'T have Jeff Hornaceck(who isn't arguably the greatest shooter of all time). He did have Matt Harping. Hmmm...
> ...


Not only did he get 8 assists per game as a 40 year old on a team lacking potent offensive weapons, but he did it in under 30 minutes per game as another poster brought to my attention. Thats amazing. The man just knew how to set up his teammates, point blank, no matter who they were. 

Theres really no comparison at all, no comparison.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> If you look at what he was able to do on the basketball court, his skillset is on par with Steve Nash. Would anyone consider Steve Nash a top 5 PG of all time? <b><u> The reason he racked up the high amount of assists is because of Malone and Hornaceck and the system they ran. </b></u>


Then why hasn't his replacement done the same and why didn't his previous back-ups do as well as Stockton? Oh, and he had Jeff malone for many years before he had Horny. One thing about Stockton, he had "longjevity" to go along with smarts. One quote by Wilt Chamberlain that I love:

<b>Asked who he'd be if he was a guard...."If I had to be a MUNCHKIN, I'd want to be Stockton, he plays a heady game...."(paraphrased)


----------



## overrrated (Mar 2, 2004)

To me, he's the best PG ever as well as the most intelligent player ever.....TO ME.
Though, I understand how people will say Magic because of his size and ability to post and rebound.

That said, the guy looks like your typical next door neighbor.
Look at him.
Never had blazing quickness or speed.
Never dunked on people.
Didn't go around dribbling between his legs for no reason.
Yet, he still was very successful in the league.
Can I fault him for not winning a ring?
Not really, considering he had to go through Hakeem in the West a couple of years, as well as losing to Jordan a couple of years in the Finals.
Say what you want about Malone, but it was Stockton running that offense. Stockton controlling traffic. Stockton hitting the CLUTCH shots to win.

Just look at his career assist/to ratio.
It's insane. Except for his first year, everything is 3.5+/1 while shooting 51% from the field.
That's amazing considering how long he played.
Not to mention he's the all time steals leader.

Overrated?

:laugh:


If he's overrated, then so is every other 'Great' of the game.


----------



## alex (Jan 7, 2003)

As most people are saying, John Stockton is underrated if anything. 

Yup, Stock is not quick, he got all those steals by reaching and grabbing and punching  

He is not just quick, he's lightning quick. I went to a Utah-Milwaukee game a few years ago. John Stockton was forty one years old, and was still quicker then Sam Cassell and anyone else on the Bucks.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

I guess it's just a matter of opinion on what you consider overrated.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blowuptheraptors</b>!
> If you have as much compsci knowledge as basketball knowledge in that toe, I feel sorry for your employer or professor.
> 
> :cthread:


Who needs an employer when you are self employed and living in California.


----------



## Brian. (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Burn</b>!
> Magic had Worthy who is a HOFer (and considered better than Hornacek by everyone in the world) and Kareem was arguably the greatest center of all time. In fact he has even more points than Malone! They made Magic's assist totals go up.
> 
> Isiah had Joe Dumars (Finals MVP baby) and Adrian Dantley/Mark Aguirre, respectively two of the best scorers of the 80s. They made Isiah's assist totals go up.
> ...


During the 1984-1985 season this is when Isiah average 13.9 assist per game this was the roster.

40 Bill Laimbeer 
31 Brook Steppe 
31 Dale Wilkinson 
32 Dan Roundfield
22 David Thirdkill 
23 Earl Cureton 
11 Isiah Thomas 
25 John Long 
7 Kelly Tripucka 
54 Kent Benson 
14 Lorenzo Romar 
35 Major Jones 
34 Sidney Lowe 
22 Terry Teagle 
41 Terry Tyler 
0 Tony Campbell 
15 Vinnie Johnson 

There were some decent guys on the team but no Joe D or Dantley or other good consistent scorer. 

http://www.pistons-rivals.com/default.asp?sid=613&p=21


----------



## PDB (Aug 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> I guess it's just a matter of opinion on what you consider overrated.


five pages later you admit the pointlessness of the thread you created...


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PDB</b>!
> 
> 
> five pages later you admit the pointlessness of the thread you created...


Well, at least the guy knows it and said it loud. <strike>You? Dont let me find out the next time you writes a pointless thread, I will donate for what it takes to lose you as a member here.</strike>


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PDB</b>!
> 
> 
> five pages later you admit the pointlessness of the thread you created...


I usually post threads like this every once in awhile. It gives me a chance to post something other than TMAC/Kobe threads, and also forces people to use some of their logic skills. Don't you find it fun to see how people reason a topic which can be argued fairly either way?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, at least the guy knows it and said it loud. You? Dont let me find out the next time you writes a pointless thread, I will donate for what it takes to lose you as a member here.


:laugh: :laugh: What?


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: :laugh: What?



I will donate the money to BBB.net if we can get that poster out of here forever.

I might even join the admin group if I wanted to.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

I agree, Stockton is overrated.

Magic was heads and heels over Stockton.

Isiah was better then Stockton, Isiah willed Detroit to titles.

In the 90's, I have one comparison Gary Payton or Stockton, which point guard would you rather have. You'd have to think...

Since the 80's, 2 pg are clearly above him in Magic and Isiah IMO and Stockton was never the best PG in league at any point in his career IMO.

I think he is very good, he'll make any top 50 player list, but he was never the best at what he did.


----------



## fleet40 (Jan 14, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Brian</b>!
> 
> 
> During the 1984-1985 season this is when Isiah average 13.9 assist per game this was the roster.
> ...


AT that time Laimbeer brought 17.5 points a game (Most all of them 15 - 18 foot spot up jumpers, from Isiah) 

Kelly Tripucka was a 20+ scorer
John Long was in the mid teens, and Vinny Johnson was averaging almost 15 a game. 

That Pistons team back then COULD SCORE. And thats why Isiah put up those numbers. Isiah had scorers through his ENTIRE career!! From Joe Dumars, Vinny, Adrian, Laimbeer, Tripucka, Aguirre... Shoot he had All-star teammates my Friend.

That being said, I would take Isiah over Stockton in a heart beat. But thats personal opinion. I feel Isiah was better, (And when Isiah faced Stockton Isiah outplayed him)

But I put this question to you. if Isiah and Stockton switched teams. Isiah is on the Jazz, and Stock on the Pistons, what would the outcome be?

Stockton would have Dumars, Dantley-Aguirre, Laimbeer, Vinny ect. Laimbeer would be setting the picks for Stockton, (not Malone). That means that Laimbeer would be shooting more open Jumpshots (Just as good a shooter as anyone left open) Stockton would have Dumars with him, plus that great supporting cast.

Isiah would have Malone, and Jeff Hornacek, and going farther back the great Mark Eaton. mmmmmm I wonder if Isiah wins a championship? Does Stockton win back to back??


----------



## JazzMan (Feb 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> I agree, Stockton is overrated.
> 
> Magic was heads and heels over Stockton.
> ...


Cobblers.

Magic (allegedly) being better does not make Stockton overrated. Isaiah being better is highly debatable - but probably the majority wuold swing towards Stockton. Again, that does not make him overrated.

Your last 2 sentences is where you really lose credibility. Stockton led the league in assists SEVEN YEARS RUNNING while shooting around 50%. How is that never being the best PG in the league????????

I guess you are the sort of person who measures ability in highlight-reel plays and behind-the-back passes. Stockton got it done without trying to look good - just trying to be as effective as possible.

In terms of the skills which define the PG position, Stockton was the greatest ever. Magic did other things too, and that probably made him more valuable to some extent, but Stockton is a concensus top 3 PG ever (at worst). That cannot be considered overrated unless you don't understand the game.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JazzMan</b>!
> 
> 
> Cobblers.
> ...


Since when did having the most assists make you the best PG? Are you automaticly the best PG just by having half an assist more, or 1 assist more every year?

I don't think so. Defense plays into things to, leadership, scoring.

The best PG gives a team the best chance of winning a title. Stockton doesn't do that.

I'd like to see someone show me how Stockton gives you a better chance of winning a title compared to Isiah.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

The original question posed was “Is John Stockton overrated?” My initial response was simply, “No, he’s underrated if anything.” Then I proceeded to read the rest of this thread, and I have never been so disappointed in my life. A lot of you doubt this man for some very clear misconceptions. I’ll try to clear up a few now.

First, his quickness… I know his name is not always well-respected on this board, but I’ll drop it anyway: Bill Lambier once said that Stockton was “the quickest guy, end-to-end, he ever saw outside of Isaiah.” Also, Phil Jackson once quipped that “the only reason we beat [the Jazz] two straight years is that they only had one guy that could play at Stockton’s speed.” In his early (and even late) years, Stockton used to fill the passing lanes with the speed of Allen Iverson and ball hawk his man with good foot work. His best defense was (not coincidentally) against the pick-and-roll. Everyone credits him for being the best pick-and-roll PG, but no one mentions that he was the best at defending the pick-and-roll.

Think about this, Stockton finished his career with 3,265 total steals. The active leader is Gary Payton. GP has averaged 149 steals per season thus far in his career. For Payton to reach Stockton’s total, he would have to play 7 more season at the average level he has played at his whole career. The only problem is GP hasn’t gotten 150 steals in a season since ’99-’00. This is a tribute to Stockton tenacity and longevity.

Another problem some people expressed was Stockton’s teammates being good scorers. One guy mentioned Jeff Hornacek being one of the best shooters of all time. Well, John didn’t play with Jeff until Hornacek’s 10th season in the NBA. By the time he got to the Jazz, Jeff was a shell of his former self. Stockton helped him extend his career with pinpoint passing and defensive help. As far as Malone is concerned, Stockton made Karl in the same way that Malone made John. I will just say that Stockton was the better clutch player, while Malone was the better enforcer. They are as inseparable in the history of the game as any two players have ever been. No one knows what either of their careers would have been like had they not had each other.

Stockton’s place in history is often debated. Let’s look at the statistics first. Stockton finished his career second to Magic in assists per game and first in total assists. He’s seventh on the all-time steals per game list behind guys like Mookie Blaylock (who was a better on-the-ball defender than Gary Payton, IMO) and Fat Lever who don’t belong anywhere near a discussion of the top point guards of all time. Also, Stockton played 19 seasons in the NBA and finished with career averages of 51.5% field goals, 38.4% three pointers, and 82.6% from the line. Magic is the only PG with a higher career FG% than Stockton. He went to 10 all-star games (started 5 of them) and was selected to the All-NBA First Team twice, the Second Team six times, and the Third Team three times. He ranks second on the all-time list for games played and played in every single game 17 of his 19 seasons. He also had the single most prolific assist season of all-time when he dished out 1,164 in ’90-’91 and the highest averages for a season with 14.5 in ’89-‘90. He participated in the NBA Playoffs in all 19 of his seasons. He’s also first all-time in career assist-to-turnover ratio at 3.72.

I think it can be argued that there was one better PG (Magic) than Stockton. If you consider “The Big O” a PG, maybe he’s better as well, but comparing Stockton to guys like Isaiah Thomas, Gary Payton, and Kevin Johnson is like comparing Michael Jordan to George Gervin, Pete Maravich, and Jerry West. They belong in the same discussion, but we should all keep in mind who’s the best.

The other issue discussed so far is one that really hits home. A couple people have called Stockton a dirty player. I think Nate505 said it best when he posted:


> Stockton is dirty? Who exactly did Stockton injure during his career? Oh wait, we are using the new NBA fan definition of dirty, the one that has been wussed down to epic levels.....


Stockton played a style of basketball that EVERY ONE of his contemporaries understood. He played physical ball. He bumped EVERY cutter. He fought through screens. He helped out on ball rotation. In short, he played exactly like every high school coach in America wants all of his players to play. He cared about every one of his teammates on both sides of the ball more than any other single player ever has. Personally, I think that this thread isn’t just pointless… It’s flat out insulting to one of the greatest players in the history of the sport.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RollWithEm</b>!
> The original question posed was “Is John Stockton overrated?” My initial response was simply, “No, he’s underrated if anything.” Then I proceeded to read the rest of this thread, and I have never been so disappointed in my life. A lot of you doubt this man for some very clear misconceptions. I’ll try to clear up a few now.
> 
> First, his quickness… I know his name is not always well-respected on this board, but I’ll drop it anyway: Bill Lambier once said that Stockton was “the quickest guy, end-to-end, he ever saw outside of Isaiah.” Also, Phil Jackson once quipped that “the only reason we beat [the Jazz] two straight years is that they only had one guy that could play at Stockton’s speed.” In his early (and even late) years, Stockton used to fill the passing lanes with the speed of Allen Iverson and ball hawk his man with good foot work. His best defense was (not coincidentally) against the pick-and-roll. Everyone credits him for being the best pick-and-roll PG, but no one mentions that he was the best at defending the pick-and-roll.
> ...


:greatjob:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

there's little debate about stockton's durability and longevity. there should be little question that he was a tremendous player, one of the greats ever. 

discussions about his quickness, or why he got his assists i agree are pointless.

there is, however, legitimate debate about where he ranks at his best. if you think stockton is to isiah what jordan is to pistol pete, well we're going to disagree a bit.


----------



## PDB (Aug 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> 
> 
> I usually post threads like this every once in awhile. It gives me a chance to post something other than TMAC/Kobe threads, and also forces people to use some of their logic skills. Don't you find it fun to see how people reason a topic which can be argued fairly either way?


Yes, you have a point. I too enjoy engaging in debate just for the fun of it. At any rate, it is often tricky to tell the difference between those who are up for some interesting debate and those who are just about rattling cages. I thought you were the latter, but apparently I misjudged. Myyy bad.



> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, at least the guy knows it and said it loud. You? Dont let me find out the next time you writes a pointless thread, I will donate for what it takes to lose you as a member here.


The next time I write a pointless thread please feel free to buy away my membership. 
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

This is exactly the same reason why I hate it when people equate steals = good defense.

Stockton had lots of steals because he took a lot of risks and jumped into the passing lanes. This can also leave your team open on the other end.

Iverson gets steals in bunches as well, you never see him on any all defensive teams though, and for a reason.

He is overrated if you think he is the greatest PG in the league, or even the second best.

Payton compared to Stockton isn't out of the question. Payton was the best PG of the 90's perhaps the greatest defensive PG ever, along with an impressive offensive game.

If I were building a team and wanted to win a title, I think of the modern players I would have Magic, Isiah, and Payton all ahead of Stockton.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Payton is questionable as to being the better player, but I wouldn't hesitate at all to pick Magic and Isiah ahead of stockton


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Why wouldn't you hesitate to pick Isiah over John?


----------



## PoorPoorSonics (Mar 20, 2004)

Very well said RollWithEm!


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

:greatjob: rollwithem.

Nice avatar, too.

Who?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> This is exactly the same reason why I hate it when people equate steals = good defense.


Steals are defensive plays that lead to more offensive possessions. Possessions are what you need in order to score points. Winning a basketball game involves scoring more points than the other team. Is is that much of a stretch?

By the way, Stockton was on 5 all-defensive teams.



> Payton compared to Stockton isn't out of the question. Payton was the best PG of the 90's perhaps the greatest defensive PG ever, along with an impressive offensive game.


You don't care to back this up with anything other than your word?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RollWithEm</b>!
> 
> Steals are defensive plays that lead to more offensive possessions. Possessions are what you need in order to score points. Winning a basketball game involves scoring more points than the other team. Is is that much of a stretch?


It is. Steals are relatively rare occurrances (relative to all the other defensive possessions in a game) and thus comprise a tiny part of defense. The true measure of defense is stopping your man, because you can do that (by forcing a missed shot, or denying him the ball, etc) much more than you can generate steals.

It's like saying the best way to measure an offensive player is by the number of dunks he has. After all, dunks are points and winning a basketball game involves scoring more points than the other team, right? The problem is, dunks are a tiny part of scoring...someone who dunks less but scores more using other ways is more valuable on offense.

Similarly, someone who generates fewer steals, but stops his man from scoring more, is the the more valuable defender.

By the way, Stockton was on 5 all-defensive teams.



> You don't care to back this up with anything other than your word?


Actually, Payton over Stockton has been defended pretty excellently in the past by noting that Payton has many more top-10 MVP finishes, which points to how often he was considered a dominant player versus how many times Stockton was.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> The true measure of defense is stopping your man, because you can do that (by forcing a missed shot, or denying him the ball, etc) much more than you can generate steals.


This is true. Does that mean steals aren't valuable in their own right? Also, Stockton was not that far behind GP in on-the-ball defensive prowess in his earlier years. 



> By the way, Stockton was on 5 all-defensive teams.


These selections had alot to do with things other than steals.





> Actually, Payton over Stockton has been defended pretty excellently in the past by noting that Payton has many more top-10 MVP finishes, which points to how often he was considered a dominant player versus how many times Stockton was.


How is that an EXCELLENT defense? Stockton's value to a team was not in dominating. He was the consumate professional and the ultimate team player. While those people who voted for Payton for those awards probably thought GP was better, I would be willing to bet they all would have rathered have John Stockton on their team. Stockton got much more out of his teammates than did Gary. He dominated games with passing. That type of talent in not often recognized in MVP voting.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RollWithEm</b>!
> 
> This is true. Does that mean steals aren't valuable in their own right?


No. It just means steals aren't a very good way to measure defense.



> Also, Stockton was not that far behind GP in on-the-ball defensive prowess in his earlier years.


Well, you're definitely entitled to your opinion. I disagree quite a bit, and I've seen few people, fans or experts, place Stockton at Payton's level, defensively. 



> How is that an EXCELLENT defense? Stockton's value to a team was not in dominating. He was the consumate professional and the ultimate team player.
> ...
> Stockton got much more out of his teammates than did Gary. He dominated games with passing. That type of talent in not often recognized in MVP voting.


It's not recognized in MVP voting as much as "dominating" talent is because it's not as *valuable*. Is that to say it's not valuable? Of course not...it's very valuable. Consummate professionals and great team players are big parts of winning teams but, eventually, players who can dominate games are the primary piece to winning championships.



> While those people who voted for Payton for those awards probably thought GP was better, I would be willing to bet they all would have rathered have John Stockton on their team.


I don't think so. It would be like me saying that despite Michael Jordan getting all the MVP votes, the voters would have much rather have had Scottie Pippen on their teams. As big a Pippen fan as I am, I know that they would have rather had Jordan, even though I certainly think that Pippen was more the "ultimate team player" and a guy who got a lot out of his teammates.

This isn't a literal comparison, that Payton is Jordan and Stockton is Pippen...the scales are all wrong. It's just an analogy...in the end, while the great facilitators are extremely valuable and should go down in the annals of the truly great, the guys who can take over games and be the unstoppable force are the most valuable of all.

And I believe that's what was at work in Payton finishing higher in MVP voting than Stockton year after year.

And that's why I'd pick a prime Gary Payton over a prime John Stockton.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> No. It just means steals aren't a very good way to measure defense.


Then what do they measure?



> Well, you're definitely entitled to your opinion. I disagree quite a bit, and I've seen few people, fans or experts, place Stockton at Payton's level, defensively.


I didn't say Stockton was at his level. I only said he wasn't that far behind. I think Stockton was the *FAR* better offensive player. 



> It's not recognized in MVP voting as much as "dominating" talent is because it's not as *valuable*. Is that to say it's not valuable? Of course not...it's very valuable. Consummate professionals and great team players are big parts of winning teams but, eventually, players who can dominate games are the primary piece to winning championships.


I'm clearly of the opinion that he was capable of dominating games with the epitome of those characteristics that others have in smaller portions. He is in the top 3 all-time (with Magic and Bird) in committing himself to getting people involved early and often.



> I don't think so. It would be like me saying that despite Michael Jordan getting all the MVP votes, the voters would have much rather have had Scottie Pippen on their teams.


The only problem with that statement is that Jordan is better than Pippen. Payton was never better than Stockton. In fact, Payton's defense never had an effect on John. He was never rattled by the in-your-face style Gary employed. That was part of his brilliance.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RollWithEm</b>!
> 
> Then what do they measure?


They measure steals. What do dunks measure? Nothing as far-reaching as "offense." Similarly, steals don't measure anything as far-reaching as "defense."



> I didn't say Stockton was at his level. I only said he wasn't that far behind. I think Stockton was the *FAR* better offensive player.


I think Stockton was a better passer than Payton and a worse scorer. And Payton was a better rebounder.



> I'm clearly of the opinion that he was capable of dominating games with the epitome of those characteristics that others have in smaller portions.


Okay, but what I was saying was that MVP voters clearly did not feel that that was the case.



> The only problem with that statement is that Jordan is better than Pippen. Payton was never better than Stockton.


Well, I think the MVP voting says otherwise, but there's no particularly good way to *prove* who was better, if such accolades (including a Defensive Player of the Year award) don't interest you. I'd say it's hard, then, to prove any great over any other great without getting to use accolades to illustrate what the people at the time thought.

I can argue that Jordan *wasn't* better than Pippen, especially when you take Pippen's defense into account, and MVP voters simply undervalued Pippen's contributions, in terms of leadership, play-making for others and defense.



> In fact, Payton's defense never had an effect on John. He was never rattled by the in-your-face style Gary employed. That was part of his brilliance.


I don't think that's true. As I recall, Payton routinely outplayed Stockton in playoff meetings between the Sonics and Jazz. The Jazz won when they had the better overall team, but Payton won the indvidual match-ups with Stockton, taking him out of his game. I definitely recall that being true when the Sonics went through the Jazz to the Finals in 1996. I think I was actually rooting for the Jazz in that series, but was disheartened by how poorly Stockton played against Payton.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I don't think that's true. As I recall, Payton routinely outplayed Stockton in playoff meetings between the Sonics and Jazz. The Jazz won when they had the better overall team, but Payton won the indvidual match-ups with Stockton, taking him out of his game. I definitely recall that being true when the Sonics went through the Jazz to the Finals in 1996. I think I was actually rooting for the Jazz in that series, but was disheartened by how poorly Stockton played against Payton.


I don't know what is with the NBA, but there doesn't seem to be any record of playoff box scores. Odd. Luckily, there are regular box scores to go by, and during the 95-96 season, and the regular season before that, I didn't really notice a trend of one player outplaying the other. And remember, during this period, Stockton's age ranged from 32-34, while Payton was, athletic wise, in his peak years of 26-27. 


> Well, I think the MVP voting says otherwise, but there's no particularly good way to prove who was better, if such accolades (including a Defensive Player of the Year award) don't interest you. I'd say it's hard, then, to prove any great over any other great without getting to use accolades to illustrate what the people at the time thought.


I've always thought the Malone pairing was a double edged sword for Stockton depending on how you looked at it. Obviously, it's unlikely he would have made it to 18 straight playoffs and acheived such gaudy assist numbers without Malone. But his individual accomplishments are also overshadowed because of the presumed second fiddle that Stockton played to Malone. Malone was the big time scorer, and was more often considered the MVP of the team. And because Malone was so durable, there isn't a significant sample size to evaluate Stockton's performance without Malone.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think that's true. As I recall, Payton routinely outplayed Stockton in playoff meetings between the Sonics and Jazz. The Jazz won when they had the better overall team, but Payton won the indvidual match-ups with Stockton, taking him out of his game. I definitely recall that being true when the Sonics went through the Jazz to the Finals in 1996. I think I was actually rooting for the Jazz in that series, but was disheartened by how poorly Stockton played against Payton.


Payton did outplay him in that series, but Stockton was playing with what I believe was a broken wrist (or finger, or something on his arm) at that time. However, he wouldn't admit to anything until he got surgery on it after the season. Probably shouldn't have been playing, but even a broken wristed Stockton is better than a healthy whoever was the backup at the time (want to say Eisley).


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> I don't know what is with the NBA, but there doesn't seem to be any record of playoff box scores. Odd.


I wonder what they are trying to hide? Kind of makes you wonder about those "crazy" posters with their "wacky" conspiracy theories!


----------



## overrrated (Mar 2, 2004)

Is this where the X-Files theme music comes in......
 


Anyway....


> *I can argue that Jordan wasn't better than Pippen, especially when you take Pippen's defense into account, and MVP voters simply undervalued Pippen's contributions, in terms of leadership, play-making for others and defense.*


I love Pip. To me, he's the best defensive player EVER, and one of the most intelligent court players as well.
BUT, I would love to hear anyone's argument that he was better than Jordan.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>overrrated</b>!
> Anyway....
> 
> I love Pip. To me, he's the best defensive player EVER, and one of the most intelligent court players as well.
> BUT, I would love to hear anyone's argument that he was better than Jordan.


I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Which was that, if you remove all voted-on accolades from a player's resumé and move into intangibles that can't be measured, it's pretty much impossible to *prove* one great player's superiority over another. Jordan was perhaps the greatest offensive player ever and a tremendous defender, Pippen was perhaps the greatest defensive player ever and a tremendous offensive player. One could make that argument. It's very difficult to *prove* (that means not resorting to "It's obvious Jordan was better") that Jordan was superior, without pointing to all the MVP awards and those sorts of accolades that illustrate who was viewed as more dominant. (Even that is not proof, but it's at least making the case beyond a reasonable doubt.)

I was in no way making an argument that Pippen was superior to Jordan.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Which was that, if you remove all voted-on accolades from a player's resumé and move into intangibles that can't be measured, it's pretty much impossible to *prove* one great player's superiority over another. Jordan was perhaps the greatest offensive player ever and a tremendous defender, Pippen was perhaps the greatest defensive player ever and a tremendous offensive player. One could make that argument. It's very difficult to *prove* (that means not resorting to "It's obvious Jordan was better") that Jordan was superior, without pointing to all the MVP awards and those sorts of accolades that illustrate who was viewed as more dominant. (Even that is not proof, but it's at least making the case beyond a reasonable doubt.)
> ...


But accolades are often faulty, which is why many people prefer to use statistics. They don't provide the whole story, but they do give you most of the story. With the Jordan-Pippen argument, it's obvious. Who was taking more shots? Jordan. Who was making more shots? Jordan. Jordan definately had a clear advantage on the offensive side. Only on the defensive end do I believe its important to use accolades, as we have no other measure. Even so though, they can be faulty. Bryant's first All-Defensive team accomplishment this year highlights that fact. You rate Pippen higher than Jordan defensively, correct? Well, using accolades, that would be hard to justify. Jordan has 9 first All-Defensive teams while Pippen has 8 first All-Defensive teams. Jordan has one DPOY, while Pippen has none.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> Even so though, they can be faulty.


Yes, I suppose you're right about that. Defensive accolades in general, across sports, tend to be flawed because voters, for some reason, tend to overrate the defense of better offensive players for All-Defensive Teams or Gold Gloves. Not in every case, but often.

But the Jordan-Pippen comparison is not necessarily valid, using either All-Defensive Team selections or Defensive Player of the Year awards as measures.

All-Defensive Team selections are by *position*. That adds a confounding effect as Jordan and Pippen were never in competition for All-Defensive Team selections, so Jordan *could* have racked up more due to inferior defensive competition at his position.

Defensive Player of the Year awards would be a good measure, except that Jordan won his in the '80s, when perimeter players were considered much more for the award. He, like Pippen, didn't win one in the '90s, when only one perimeter player won the award. Pippen, of course, wasn't in his prime until the '90s, or perhaps he *would* have one or two in the '80s.

Relating this back to the original subject of this thread, yes, defensive awards can be flawed (all awards can be flawed), so you have to keep those flaws in mind when you use them.

With Stockton and Payton, they play the same position, so that removes one confounding factor, that existed between Jordan and Pippen. Further, Payton's DPoY award was that one won in the '90s by a perimeter player. Payton's entire prime came in the '90s, giving Stockton the advantage, for DPoY awards, of having played in the '80s.

The major flaw in MVP voting is winning percentage of the players. MVP voters tend to be swayed towards players who won more, whether they were better or not. But I would hardly say winning separates Stockton and Payton significantly. They both tended to win, always tended to be in the playoffs and had some huge winning years.

So, yes, I take your point that accolades aren't the end-all and be-all (and I didn't think they were; just one good argument). And you know I like statistics...the problem is when the debate goes into things I feel aren't measurable well by statistics, like defense, leadership and other intangibles. At that point, I think MVP voting is a fairly strong argument, since it gives an idea of who voters considered better, all-around. They do have a flawed analysis (factoring in team record), but if you're cognizant of it, you can also determine whether that flaw hurts either player. Stockton was always considered a winner (if not a champion; but neither was Payton), so I doubt he was hurt by that flaw, compared to Payton.


----------



## Your Name Here (Nov 17, 2003)

What is the rate of stocton?

The rate too high? what overated mean?


----------



## walkon4 (Mar 28, 2003)

Man, sometimes you wonder about people.

Like, are some really born with rocks for brains?


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>overrrated</b>!
> Is this where the X-Files theme music comes in......
> 
> 
> ...


To me, Pippen is becoming over rated on these boards...


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, I suppose you're right about that. Defensive accolades in general, across sports, tend to be flawed because voters, for some reason, tend to overrate the defense of better offensive players for All-Defensive Teams or Gold Gloves. Not in every case, but often.
> ...


I don't necessarily agree that Jordan won his defensive awards at a "easier" position than Pippen. He had to compete regularly with Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson, Michael Cooper, John Stockton, Joe Dumars, Maurice Cheeks, etc. Pippen won his over the likes of Charles Oakley, Derrick McKey, Horace Grant, Anthony Mason, PJ Brown, Buck Williams, Larry Nance, etc. I don't think you could conclusively say that either group was worse defensively than the other. Every one of those players had a great defensive reputation in their prime. 

And I agree that MVP is favored toward winners, which doesn't affect either Payton nor Stockton, but that wasn't my point. I said that having Malone on his team hurt Stockton. When you have a team that has two MVP candidates on your team, the votes will be split, and considering that Malone always had more points, the glamour stat, than Stockton, the votes tended to swing in Malone's direction. Was either Malone or Stockton more valuable to Utah? It's impossible to say now, without the benefit of any adjusted plus/minus stats that we have now.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> I don't necessarily agree that Jordan won his defensive awards at a "easier" position than Pippen.


I didn't say he did. I said that could have been the case, in voter's minds at the time. It's just a confounding factor.



> And I agree that MVP is favored toward winners, which doesn't affect either Payton nor Stockton, but that wasn't my point. I said that having Malone on his team hurt Stockton. When you have a team that has two MVP candidates on your team, the votes will be split


Perhaps, although Payton had a young, great Shawn Kemp on his team during his prime years, when Payton was having his highest finishes in MVP voting.

Did Pippen split Jordan's votes? Did McHale split Bird's votes? Maybe to some extent, but most of the splitting happens when one is not dominant enough for voters to tell that he's clearly the driving force.

Payton was clearly the driving force to many, evidently, despite his having a superstar big man on his team. Stockton was not considered the driving force, and probably rightly so...Malone is generally considered the historically superior player.

That doesn't prove that Payton was better, but I think it's a valid argument.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't say he did. I said that could have been the case, in voter's minds at the time. It's just a confounding factor.
> ...


But you just made my point. MVP voting isn't an accurate barometer to use in this player comparison because Stockton is generally considered to be the inferior player than Malone. Likewise, Jordan was the superior player to Pippen, thus stealing many of his MVP votes, but that doesn't mean Pippen is the inferior SF to say, Dominique Wilkins, who fared better in his career than Pippen in MVP voting.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> But you just made my point. MVP voting isn't an accurate barometer to use in this player comparison because Stockton is generally considered to be the inferior player than Malone. Likewise, Jordan was the superior player to Pippen, thus stealing many of his MVP votes, but that doesn't mean Pippen is the inferior SF to say, Dominique Wilkins, who fared better in his career than Pippen in MVP voting.


That's true. Good point.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

The only question people should be asking themselves is "How did this topic reach over 100 posts?" Stockton overrated? Most people on Earth don't even know his name...


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> The only question people should be asking themselves is "How did this topic reach over 100 posts?" Stockton overrated? Most people on Earth don't even know his name...


Another excellent point. Who even knows who John Stockton is?


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

This post disgusts me. The only player at the point guard position worthy of mention in the same sentence with Stockton is Magic and they had totally different games and were very different types of point guards. The fact that ANYONE would be ridiculous enough to put Steve Nash or Gary Payton in the same echelon as JOHN STOCKTON, is an absolute disgrace:upset:


----------



## walkon4 (Mar 28, 2003)

John, Nobody wants comp gone.

Last time I checked, everyone wanted you gone. You contribute nothing to any post. you are the one who should be voted off the bbb.net survivor.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>whiterhino</b>!
> This post disgusts me. The only player at the point guard position worthy of mention in the same sentence with Stockton is Magic and they had totally different games and were very different types of point guards. The fact that ANYONE would be ridiculous enough to put Steve Nash or Gary Payton in the same echelon as JOHN STOCKTON, is an absolute disgrace:upset:


Wow, finally a poster has both good sense and conviction. Thank you!


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

I don't see why it's nonsense to put Payton, Kidd, Thomas in the same breath of Stockton. They are all excellent point guards, who have their own advantages. Even though I personally believe that Stockton is the best of this bunch, a person who might disagree is by no means a "disgrace".


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

I see no one comparing Stockton to Nash, please don't make up comparisons to try to make it appear that it is ridiculous.

Isiah willed his team to two championships, that's something Stockton has never done. Additionally he was one of the toughest players to ever play the game.

As for Payton, this has been discussed many times before, he is a better defender. Look up how many times when any other PG won defensive player of the year honors, please.

Offensively Payton had a dominating post game, and was playing maker, taking the ball to the basket and was an excellent playmaker as well.


----------



## JazzMan (Feb 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> I see no one comparing Stockton to Nash, please don't make up comparisons to try to make it appear that it is ridiculous.
> 
> Isiah willed his team to two championships, that's something Stockton has never done. Additionally he was one of the toughest players to ever play the game.
> ...


Someone DID compare Nash to Stockton. Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread.

Isaiah "willed" his way to championships - what exactly does that mean? That he wasn't good enough so he used Positive Mental Attitude to win games??

I don't agree that no. of championships is the best measure of greatness. Isaiah played against Jordan before his peak, and against Magic after his peak. The Jazz lost to Jordan, not to the Bulls. If the Bulls had been fully human, the Jazz would have at least one championship. That they don't is not Stockton's fault. It is still a credit that they made it to the FInals - don't forget Hakeem, the Admiral and Shaq (not to mention Mr Payton) were all in the West.

No-one is saying Payton wasn't good. Who was better is purely subjective. Payton was possibly a better defender at his peak, but he is no longer a Glove. Stockton was better last year than Payton is this year.

Payton gets a lot of love because he played for a fashionable team, and played highlight-reel ball with Shawn Kemp, and is a bit more "street" than Stockton.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

Honestly the Pistons had to deal with a MUCH TOUGHER version of Jordan than the Jazz ever did. Go check out Jordan's regular and post-season numbers from 1988 to 1990, they were INSANE!!!! Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Harper were running on fumes by 97' and 98' compared to their early 90's version. Put that Bulls team against the 89' Bad Boys and you would have Pippen and Michael taken away in stretchers by halftime.

The reality is that the Jazz were NEVER a bonafied championship team, they had their little window in the late 90's but that was it, what happened the previous 11-12 years were Malone and Stockton were together in their primes and arguably had better teams than the ones they took to the Finals. I'll tell you what happened, THEY CHOKED!!!!! There was no super western team in the 90's like there was in the 80's with Showtime, the conference was wide open.

They choked against Golden State in 87' and 89', against Phoenix in 90', against Houston in 95', Portland in 99' and Dallas in 01'. All LOWER SEEDS!!!!!!!!!!

Count how many times Jordan, Magic, Bird and Isiah lost to lower seeded teams.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JazzMan</b>!
> Payton was possibly a better defender at his peak


there should be little debate that payton was easily a far better defender at his peak.


----------



## JazzMan (Feb 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> Honestly the Pistons had to deal with a MUCH TOUGHER version of Jordan than the Jazz ever did. Go check out Jordan's regular and post-season numbers from 1988 to 1990, they were INSANE!!!! Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Harper were running on fumes by 97' and 98' compared to their early 90's version. Put that Bulls team against the 89' Bad Boys and you would have Pippen and Michael taken away in stretchers by halftime.
> 
> The reality is that the Jazz were NEVER a bonafied championship team, they had their little window in the late 90's but that was it, what happened the previous 11-12 years were Malone and Stockton were together in their primes and arguably had better teams than the ones they took to the Finals. I'll tell you what happened, THEY CHOKED!!!!! There was no super western team in the 90's like there was in the 80's with Showtime, the conference was wide open.
> ...


Your first point is just speculation, as my own point was. Nobody can prove which Bulls team was better. But surely the 72-10 Bulls team stand a chance of being better? When the Pistons won, the Bulls had never been to the FInals - Jordan hadn't figured out how to win at that point. From 93 onwards, Jordan's teams won every championship it went for, bar the one where he's just made his comeback. Once he got one, NOBODY stopped him, not the Dream, not no-one.

I agree to some extent that the Jazz choked. Malone's missed free throws in Game 1 of the 97 Finals spring to mind. Also the 54 points in 98. But they had their clutch moments too. If you watch those FInals again the Jazz were AMAZING in spells.

THey were the best team in the West 2 years running, and proved it by making the FInals. I wouldn't say it was wide open.

In 95, Houston went on to win it all, despite being a lower seed. They'd just had a poor regular season, but peaked at the right time. The other examples I cannot argue with.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheTruth34</b>!
> John, Nobody wants comp gone.
> 
> Last time I checked, everyone wanted you gone. You contribute nothing to any post. you are the one who should be voted off the bbb.net survivor.


Talking to me here? Sure, I would like to be hated by everyone. I like to be lonely, infact I am <strike>BATMAN or FUCMAN!</strike>(You KNOW better - stop with the vulgarities!trm) :nonono:


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Interesting fact of relevance here:

Isaiah Thomas ranks in the top 5 all-time in turnovers. The other four guys played at least 5 more seasons than he played! Yikes!


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

This thread will be the death of me. Next time I will post a thread entitled "Jordan is overrated"....just kidding of course.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RollWithEm</b>!
> Interesting fact of relevance here:
> 
> Isaiah Thomas ranks in <v>the top 5 all-time in turnovers. </b> The other four guys played at least 5 more seasons than he played! Yikes!


Who are the other top 4 in turnovers? Not Stockton, I'm almost sure about that.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> If you look at what he was able to do on the basketball court, his skillset is on par with Steve Nash. Would anyone consider Steve Nash a top 5 PG of all time? The reason he racked up the high amount of assists is because of Malone and Hornaceck and the system they ran.


:jawdrop: I can't believe anyone would say this. Stockton's court vision was uncanny and second only to Magic IMO. When I was young I nicknamed Stockton 'laser beam man' because his passes are PIN POINT. Most efficient passer I have ever seen in my life. He was also an underrated defender. Nash will NEVER have a career even close to Stockton's.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

I still stand by what I said. He was a great basketball player, but people still exagerrate how good he was.


----------

