New Franchise. Nash or Stockton

[whitemamba]

all this stockton talk got me thinking, you have a new franchise who would you take steve nash or stockton..


discuss.

[pass1st]

If it's today's NBA, Nash. Stockton wouldn't get away with a lot of the shit he pulled

[whitemamba]

If it's today's NBA, Nash. Stockton wouldn't get away with a lot of the shit he pulled

i believe nash makes the entire team better, to as where stockton just ran PnR with malone, and malone made him look good. u would never hear of any other jazz players during that era

[Latarian Milton]

at least stockton is a solid defender imo

[pass1st]

mcGk-TjlHwc

He sure can take a hit, though. Nash would be out of it if he got hit like that

[namlook]

That's very close. Stockton the better defender, Nash the better shooter. Pretty much a tossup.

[whitemamba]

nash is more of a threat i feel, better overall PG

[shyne]

I'll take Stockton, he was a ruthless son of a bitch. I like Nash, but when in crunch time I want the tougher player.

[Darth_Pelican]

Prime Nash was a 2 time NBA MVP. I'll take him tbh.

[Koolaid_Man]

Prime Nash was a 2 time NBA MVP. I'll take him tbh.


Puhlease he got those MVP's based on his skin color..we all know it..Great White Hype

[irishock]

3 straight white MVPs from '05-07, bitch

[dirk4mvp]

Puhlease he got those MVP's based on his skin color..we all know it..Great White Hype

really? what's the percentage of mvps that are white, es?

[DMC]

Puhlease he got those MVP's based on his skin color..we all know it..Great White Hype
White on white crime imo

[Brazil]

Stockton tbh, he was playing both side of the floor, was a tough motherfucker and clutch

[DMC]

:lmao building your team around a PG

/DoK

[Kai]

Nash all the way.

[Brazil]

Nash all the way.

why? you didn't see Stockton play ?

[stretch]

I'll take Nash.

Stockton was a better defender, but Nash is better at basically everything else, whether its ball handling, shooting, passing, footwork, getting teammates involved, etc... Nash is arguably the best offensive player (not scorer) in the history of basketball.

[whitemamba]

I'll take Nash.

Stockton was a better defender, but Nash is better at basically everything else, whether its ball handling, shooting, passing, footwork, getting teammates involved, etc... Nash is arguably the best offensive player (not scorer) in the history of basketball.

quite a bold statement..

[lmbebo]

Very bold statement.

I would probably choose Stockton myself. Stockton played in a very structured offense while Nash had his best years running free and controlling everything. They're both solid shooters, Nash is probably better.

Stockton played defense and one of the top all time in steals as well (maybe #1?, can't remember).

[Venti Quattro]

stockton because he's a dirty motherfucker who will do everything to win.

[baseline bum]

Stockton, cuz I want some nasty on my team.

[Clipper Nation]

Chris Paul, tbh...

[DMC]

lol three great PG (Nash, Stockton, Paul) all with one thing in common: 0 rings.

[baseline bum]

lol three great PG (Nash, Stockton, Paul) all with one thing in common: 0 rings.

They also all played with grossly overrated PFs.

[ambchang]

Nash's offensive contributions get carried away in this one. In a regular season, up-and-down the court affair, Nash is potentially the better candidate, he runs the open court better than anyone (maybe with the exception of Magic), and he can pull him and nail jumpers in defender's face.

On the other hand, Stockton is a better half-court offensive facilitator, just as good a shooter, and is infinitely better as a defender. Not to mention Stockton showing up during the playoffs and crunch time time and time again while Nash rarely does.

Nash is quite overrated as a player, his two MVPs were highly questionable, and spoke to how weak the field was in the mid 00s.

[Juggity]

stockton because he's a dirty motherfucker who will do everything to win.

Apparently not enough to ever actually win, though :lol

:lol jazz
:lol stockton
:lol malone
:lol jordan excuse

[dirk4mvp]

just as good a shooter

Nash is the best shooter of all time, he has no equals in that department.

[whitemamba]

Nash is the best shooter of all time, he has no equals in that department.

people are so quick to jmp to use the "all time" if indeed is he is the best offensive player as well as best shooter, the NBA is fucked for the next 3 years. :toast

[dirk4mvp]

Not with Dwight trying to break his way into acting and playing basketball simultaneously actually.

[DMC]

Nash is the best shooter of all time, he has no equals in that department.
You didn't use blue font so I am going to get butthurt and throw out a dozen names of better shooters.

[AussieFanKurt]

Except for D, did prime Stockton rank above prime Nash in any other category

[ambchang]

Half-court offense
Pick and roll
Finals appearance as the offensive leader
Assists
Steals
There are probably a bunch more, but those are some of the things.

[lefty]

Stockton

[stretch]

quite a bold statement..


Very bold statement.

I'm not saying he absolutely is the best offensive player ever, but I think a good argument can be made for it. Consider the facts...

When you look at points per 100 possessions, Steve Nash led 6 of the top 11 offenses in that categories, including the 1st, 2nd, and 4th place teams.

Not to mention that one of those teams in the top 10, was a team that featured Raja Bell, Shawn Marion, Kurt Thomas, and Boris Diaw as the other 4 starters, and they were marginally behind a team that featured Magic running point, with Kareem, Worthy, AC Green, and Byron Scott as the other starters, and were just as much, of an offensive based team as the Suns were. That's impressive.

He consistently has had one of, if not the highest +/- ranking in the league for years. Granted, +/- can be flawed at times, but generally, when it comes to big stars, it is a solid indicator of how valuable they are to their teams.

Statistically, he is nearly a 50/40/90 player for his CAREER. If he has another season of 52-53% shooting from the field, I'm sure he will break into that category. Having that kind of efficiency is incredible for just a year, but to basically average it for your career? Amazing, especially considering this includes his first 3 season which were not very good (by his standards) at all.

When Nash was at his best, I can't think of many players who's team's depended on them as much as the Suns did on Nash, and despite being a part of a team built in a very flawed manner (all offense no defense), they still were incredibly close to getting to the finals multiple times. Players like Stoudemire, Marion, Shaq, and others have came and gone, as well as coaches, yet the Suns consistently are one of, if not the most efficient offensive team in the league, and that's mainly due to Nash. Can you imagine what his stats would have been, if he had a healthy Stoudemire to whore the PnR with his whole career, the way Stockton did with Malone? Nash had him for 5 seasons, while Stockton had Malone for 18 seasons.

Like I said... plenty of solid arguments can be made for both Nash > Stockton and Nash being arguably the top offensive player the league has had.

[lefty]

Stockton shitting on Bird in this pic

http://p.twimg.com/AhxLj6kCEAEeuv0.jpg

[Killakobe81]

Nash's offensive contributions get carried away in this one. In a regular season, up-and-down the court affair, Nash is potentially the better candidate, he runs the open court better than anyone (maybe with the exception of Magic), and he can pull him and nail jumpers in defender's face.

On the other hand, Stockton is a better half-court offensive facilitator, just as good a shooter, and is infinitely better as a defender. Not to mention Stockton showing up during the playoffs and crunch time time and time again while Nash rarely does.

Nash is quite overrated as a player, his two MVPs were highly questionable, and spoke to how weak the field was in the mid 00s.

Amb, you have some of the best and some of the worst takes ...sometimes in the same post.

All jokes aside ... I agree with you that I would prefer Stockton on a slower team (last years Lakers) but Nash on the uptempo team (last year's Heat). But to say Stockton is just as good a shooter as Nash is ridiculous. Im not a stats guy but Im pretty sure the numbers bear that out. IIRC Nash has some of the highest FG%+FT%+3PT% season's in league history.

What you got right though is Stockton was clutch as hell and had to be, since Malone's cajones tend to shrivel late in games. Nash to me is also clutch but he seems to hit a lot of ths those 3's that brings back a team that is down 6 with less than a minute to play than actual game winners. I can recall off the top of my head at least 3 gamewinners from Stockton including the one over Chuck in the playoffs.

I agree Nash is overrated some, I think one of his MVP should of went to Bron and the other to Kobe. But he was definitely in contention for both those seasons and the one right after were all MVP caliber. Cant begrudge him winning especially the year Amare got hurt. I doubt As good as Stockton was ...that he could put up an MVP year with malone hurt most of it.

I take Nash. Fan friendly (sell tickets). Great shooter, great team-mate. Stockton is tougher and the better defender and very good at the things Nash does well buut Nash is the better dribbler, passer and shooter.

[ambchang]

Come on Killakobe, you are better than his. Just bloody look up basketball reference for Stockton's shooting.

Stockton shot 50% + from the field 12 of his 19 seasons
He shot 35%+ on 3pters in 10 seasons, including 6 with 40%+
He shot 80% on FTs in 16 seasons.

Nash on the other hand:
50%+ in 7 out of 16 seasons
35%+ in all 16 seasons, including 13 with 40%+
80%+ in all 16 seasons, including a remarkable 7 seasons with 90%+

Stockton is better from the field (he had plenty of mid range game), but Nash is better from the outside.

Also keep in mind that the Jazz were notorious for a slower pace (read half-court, defense set environment), where the Suns strives in the open court.

Call Stockton just as good a shooter is by no means any of a stretch.

[Killakobe81]

Come on Killakobe, you are better than his. Just bloody look up basketball reference for Stockton's shooting.

Stockton shot 50% + from the field 12 of his 19 seasons
He shot 35%+ on 3pters in 10 seasons, including 6 with 40%+
He shot 80% on FTs in 16 seasons.

Nash on the other hand:
50%+ in 7 out of 16 seasons
35%+ in all 16 seasons, including 13 with 40%+
80%+ in all 16 seasons, including a remarkable 7 seasons with 90%+

Stockton is better from the field (he had plenty of mid range game), but Nash is better from the outside.

Also keep in mind that the Jazz were notorious for a slower pace (read half-court, defense set environment), where the Suns strives in the open court.

Call Stockton just as good a shooter is by no means any of a stretch.

In 94/95 (his most prolific shooting season) Stockton made just under 45% of his 3's (102/227).

In 07/08 Nash made 179/381 for 47% Nash took more shots, shot a better %.

at their best Nash was the better FT and 3 point shooter look at your own stats you posted. Sure Stockton had a great mid-range jumper ...but I just dont see how stock is a "just as good". Your numbers YOU posted dont bear that out. Maybe more conistent because his highs and lows are not at the extremes Nash shot. But at their respective best It's not really all that close ...Nash is better.

[lefty]

Fuck both of them



Isiah FTW


I know I'm off-topic :lol

[Killakobe81]

Fuck both of them



Isiah FTW


I know I'm off-topic :lol

Hey I can agree with that. shitty GM, but probbly the best PG I have seen not named Magic. More of a scorer but underrated passer. And his handles and dribble game were WAY ahead of it's time ...

[ambchang]

In 94/95 (his most prolific shooting season) Stockton made just under 45% of his 3's (102/227).

In 07/08 Nash made 179/381 for 47% Nash took more shots, shot a better %.

at their best Nash was the better FT and 3 point shooter look at your own stats you posted. Sure Stockton had a great mid-range jumper ...but I just dont see how stock is a "just as good". Your numbers YOU posted dont bear that out. Maybe more conistent because his highs and lows are not at the extremes Nash shot. But at their respective best It's not really all that close ...Nash is better.

I don't know about you, but when I start a franchise, I look at career numbers instead of the best season because I am not having a player for a year.

Sure, Nash is a better long range shooter, but I never said Stockton was better at long range. I said Stockton was as good a shooter as Nash, which the numbers bore out. As Stockton is a better shooter from the field overall, but Nash better at long range and at the line.

We know this because we know that Stockton shot most of his shots, and is not a crazy layups guy like Parker, so please don't use players like Parker, Shaq and James Donaldson with high FG% as a counter-argument.

BTW, Jason Kapono once shot 51.4% (108/210) from 3 and 89.2% from the FT line, but I will never say he is a better shooter than Nash/Stockton.

Besides, players nowadays do shoot more 3s than the past, which is a known fact because 3s are being used as much more of a weapon post the Hakeem Rocket years, and subsequently the Shaq Laker years.

[ambchang]

As for Isiah .. I am on the fence, he can take your heart out, and when his jumpers are dropping, there really is no better. He's almost like a mix of AI and Stockton in those cases, but he could be streaky.

Since we are off-topic, Gary Payton, for all the crap he caught throughout his career, is massively underrated. He is a top PG in the history of the league for sure, but nobody ever mentions this.

Magic (the best)
Oscar Robertson (2nd best)
Isiah / Payton / Stockton (3rd tier, rankings change depending on time of day)
Kidd / Nash / Frasier (4th tier)

[stretch]

I said Stockton was as good a shooter as Nash, which the numbers bore out. As Stockton is a better shooter from the field overall, but Nash better at long range and at the line.

We know this because we know that Stockton shot most of his shots, and is not a crazy layups guy like Parker, so please don't use players like Parker, Shaq and James Donaldson with high FG% as a counter-argument.

Interesting that you consider %'s completely account for a players ability to shoot the basketball. It fully accounts for Stockton's ability to shoot the ball exceedingly well in different manners than catch and shoot, such as pull ups, fade away, off-balance, off one leg, to the left, to the right, etc...

Stockton was a great and efficient shooter, but definitely not as polished of a shooter as Nash. Nash could consistently hit shots that Stockton couldn't, whether midrange or long range.

[stretch]

As for Isiah .. I am on the fence, he can take your heart out, and when his jumpers are dropping, there really is no better. He's almost like a mix of AI and Stockton in those cases, but he could be streaky.

Since we are off-topic, Gary Payton, for all the crap he caught throughout his career, is massively underrated. He is a top PG in the history of the league for sure, but nobody ever mentions this.

Magic (the best)
Oscar Robertson (2nd best)
Isiah / Payton / Stockton (3rd tier, rankings change depending on time of day)
Kidd / Nash / Frasier (4th tier)

Payton is definitely massively underrated. But Nash definitely deserves higher. Oscar doesn't strike me as a true PG. He's more like the Lebron of the 60's: a talented, versatile player with athleticism that was ahead of the rest of the league. I don't think he belongs in this convo, as he played forward frequently in his career.

[whitemamba]

we are off topic now but aht ever...Isiah ill repsect, but he was a dirty ass player..everyone hated his game, but he made it work. just want to get that out of the way.. but i see all these mentions payton stockton kidd , these guys arent on the level of magic, and the big O.. tbh i really put allen iverson up there, that guy literally carried that franchise all alone.. he doesnt seem to get credit he much deserves, that guy was a freak on the court

[LkrFan]

Stockton

[Pelicans78]

Stockton was a better player. He played in an era where defenders had more leeway compared to when Nash has played. Nash does alot of things well, but Stockton was alot quicker, better defender and played at an elite level for a longer period of time. He also did alot of things well offensively with his ball-handling, passing, and shooting. No way Nash should ever go down as the better player.

[cd98]

In 94/95 (his most prolific shooting season) Stockton made just under 45% of his 3's (102/227).

In 07/08 Nash made 179/381 for 47% Nash took more shots, shot a better %.

at their best Nash was the better FT and 3 point shooter look at your own stats you posted. Sure Stockton had a great mid-range jumper ...but I just dont see how stock is a "just as good". Your numbers YOU posted dont bear that out. Maybe more conistent because his highs and lows are not at the extremes Nash shot. But at their respective best It's not really all that close ...Nash is better.

Their shooting looks about even given a few percentage points. Meanwhile Stockton had the unbreakable steals and assists record and didn't rely on run and gun offenses to pad his stats. Stockton could've scored more points, but he instead chose to set up teammates.

Nash is a good player, but I have never seen him as equal to Stockton, even with two MVPs. He's yet to lead a team to the finals. Not every great player can do that, but not every great player has had the quality of teams that Nash had in Dallas and Phoenix before Sarver destroyed the team through excessive thrift.

[ambchang]

I can agree on Nash being the more polished shooter, and able to pull of seemingly impossible shots, but the way I rate a shooter also comes with his own limitations. Kobe can pull of some of the craziest shots I have seen and make them, but I am not going to say he is a great shooter, guys like Rex Chapman comes to mind too, just circus after circus shots, but they are not really great shooters.

Nash takes and makes great crazy shots at a high percentage, but Stockton takes and makes normal everyday shots at a high percentage. I can call those more or less equal.

As for AI, I thought of him, but he really is too much of a ball-dominating SG than a real traditional PG. He is in the same veins of a Tiny or a Tim Hardaway, or even an Isiah Thomas, but he took it to a new level, and we are now seeing the next breed in Rose, Westbrooke, and Irving. Anyways, loved AIs game, always thought the man was underrated, and wondered what he would have done with a big man next to him (like a prime Shaq). He probably would have won multiple championships.

[stretch]

Meanwhile Stockton had the unbreakable steals and assists record and didn't rely on run and gun offenses to pad his stats. Stockton could've scored more points, but he instead chose to set up teammates.

This is retarded as hell.

Yeah, they didn't run and gun, they just whored the PnR to death with maybe the best PnR big man to ever play the game, and loaded up the rest of the roster with shooters. Don't act like Stockton didn't have his own gimmicky way to padding up his assist numbers. Truthfully, most PGs with huge assist stats had some sort of gimmicky way to get more assists, whether it was Stockton, Nash, or Magic.

Nash is without question the more skilled offensive player between him and Stockton. He could do basically everything on offense better than Stockton. About the only advantage Stockton had was being quicker, but even then, Nash has such great footwork and knows how to use his body to get himself open, that his lack of great speed is almost a non-factor.

[stretch]

Stockton takes and makes normal everyday shots at a high percentage.

So does Nash.

[ambchang]

Yeah, or course, that's why Nash is a great shooter as well.

Also agree that Stockton padded his assists. Check his recording breaking assist (passing Magic, I think). Passed to Malone, Malone fumbled, picked up the ball, did a whole bunch of moves, and scored, but Stockton got an assist!

The Jazz score-keepers should get credit for the Stockton assist record.

[Killakobe81]

Yeah, or course, that's why Nash is a great shooter as well.

Also agree that Stockton padded his assists. Check his recording breaking assist (passing Magic, I think). Passed to Malone, Malone fumbled, picked up the ball, did a whole bunch of moves, and scored, but Stockton got an assist!

The Jazz score-keepers should get credit for the Stockton assist record.

Fair point. Pretty sure plenty of other "score-keepers" do the same crap though but I think Utah's was one of the worst.

[lefty]

Yeah, or course, that's why Nash is a great shooter as well.

Also agree that Stockton padded his assists. Check his recording breaking assist (passing Magic, I think). Passed to Malone, Malone fumbled, picked up the ball, did a whole bunch of moves, and scored, but Stockton got an assist!

The Jazz score-keepers should get credit for the Stockton assist record.
Interesting post :tu

[lefty]

Interesting that you consider %'s completely account for a players ability to shoot the basketball. It fully accounts for Stockton's ability to shoot the ball exceedingly well in different manners than catch and shoot, such as pull ups, fade away, off-balance, off one leg, to the left, to the right, etc...

Stockton was a great and efficient shooter, but definitely not as polished of a shooter as Nash. Nash could consistently hit shots that Stockton couldn't, whether midrange or long range.
The main reason Stockton had such a good % is because he almost never forced shots
Most of hs shots were high % shots


Mark Price and Steve Nash take more difficult shots

[cd98]

This is retarded as hell.

Yeah, they didn't run and gun, they just whored the PnR to death with maybe the best PnR big man to ever play the game, and loaded up the rest of the roster with shooters. Don't act like Stockton didn't have his own gimmicky way to padding up his assist numbers. Truthfully, most PGs with huge assist stats had some sort of gimmicky way to get more assists, whether it was Stockton, Nash, or Magic.

Nash is without question the more skilled offensive player between him and Stockton. He could do basically everything on offense better than Stockton. About the only advantage Stockton had was being quicker, but even then, Nash has such great footwork and knows how to use his body to get himself open, that his lack of great speed is almost a non-factor.

Obviously you never really watched Stockton play. Because it is ignorant to assume that it is not significantly easier to pad stats when you compare a Suns offense that had a goal of getting a shot up in 7 seconds or less...(i.e. lots of shots, good and bad, but lots of shots and passes for lots of shots) versus running pick and rolls in a half court offense against a team that is set and that has a game plan every night to stop the pick and roll and can't because Stockton was so good at running it.

Chew on this, in a half court, pick and roll game, he racked up so many assists that even great passing point guards like Nash and Kidd will never come close to matching his assist record.

And we won't talk about defense, where Stockton has an unbreakable steals record, and Nash consistently gave up layups to the other team.

[cd98]

The main reason Stockton had such a good % is because he almost never forced shots
Most of hs shots were high % shots


Mark Price and Steve Nash take more difficult shots

Not to be a big Stockton pusher today, but coaches want their players taking good shots. Taking low percentage shots doesn't make one a better offensive player because occassionally the low percentage shots go in. I'm sure Stockton could have taken more shots, including low percentage shots, and equaled scoring totals the likes of Nash, but his game was built around making other better. Nash had to be a scoring threat before he could create for others.

[lefty]

Not to be a big Stockton pusher today, but coaches want their players taking good shots. Taking low percentage shots doesn't make one a better offensive player because occassionally the low percentage shots go in. I'm sure Stockton could have taken more shots, including low percentage shots, and equaled scoring totals the likes of Nash, but his game was built around making other better. Nash had to be a scoring threat before he could create for others.

I agree

They have different roles

[DaDakota]

Nash, because Stockton is nearly 50 years old.

DD

[djohn2oo8]

Nash, because Stockton is nearly 50 years old.

DD

:lol In their primes. Think before you type.

[lefty]

Nash, because Stockton is nearly 50 years old.

DD
:lol

[resistanze]

Not to be a big Stockton pusher today, but coaches want their players taking good shots. Taking low percentage shots doesn't make one a better offensive player because occassionally the low percentage shots go in. I'm sure Stockton could have taken more shots, including low percentage shots, and equaled scoring totals the likes of Nash, but his game was built around making other better. Nash had to be a scoring threat before he could create for others.

Well if Nash is indeed taking 'low percentage shots'...this proves that he's indeed the better shooter, since Nash is a 50/40/90 shooter. I don't think you can say Stockton could've taken the shots Nash does and still shoot the same percentage.

[Kidd K]

John Stockton.

Equal to or better passer. Much better defender. Only slightly worse shooter but still good scorer.

Stockton's also a tough guy that rarely ever got hurt. It's hard not to want a guy like that as part of the backbone of your team.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Even though I hate the dirty motherfucker, Stockton shits on all of today's PGs. I assume most people in this thread who choose Nash would be fairly young and haven't watched that much of Stockton.

[stretch]

Even though I hate the dirty motherfucker, Stockton shits on all of today's PGs. I assume most people in this thread who choose Nash would be fairly young and haven't watched that much of Stockton.

I assume you are a nostalgic dumbass that doesn't know what you are talking about, to make a statement that Stockton shits on all PG's today, when this is a league that has guys like Nash, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Tony Parker (even though I don't like him and think he's overrated) and plenty more damn good PG's. He probably runs an offense better than most PG's today, but had his own share of flaws too. So much of it depends on what you want for your team.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I assume you are a nostalgic dumbass that doesn't know what you are talking about, to make a statement that Stockton shits on all PG's today, when this is a league that has guys like Nash, Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Tony Parker (even though I don't like him and think he's overrated) and plenty more damn good PG's. He probably runs an offense better than most PG's today, but had his own share of flaws too. So much of it depends on what you want for your team.

So he runs an offense better than them and is a better defender than them ( doubt you'd argue about that ). Then what does he lack that puts him behind a Darrick Rose or a Steve Nash?

[stretch]

So he runs an offense better than them and is a better defender than them ( doubt you'd argue about that ). Then what does he lack that puts him behind a Darrick Rose or a Steve Nash?

I don't see him being any better of a defender than Rose or CP3.

I'll take Nash and CP3's ability to run an offense over Stockton.

I don't put very much stock into a PG's ability on defense. Most PG's are crappy defenders anyways. There are two areas you MUST have a strong defender at on any championship team: on the wing and in the middle. Virtually no PG can fit the mold of the necessary wing defender, as they are simply too small, and have too much to do offensively to spend all that energy. I actually cannot think of a single championship team, where the elite wing defender was a point guard. Hell, look at the Lakers squad right now. They have strong wing defenders in Kobe and Artest, and a strong interior presence in Howard. If they were to not win a championship, how likely is it that Nash's lack of defense is going to be the reason they lose in the end? I can promise you that it's not.

It's nice to have a PG who can defend, but it's not a necessity by any means. There are other places on the court that is MUCH more important to have strong defenders, and PG is the least important of all.

[monosylab1k]

I can agree on Nash being the more polished shooter, and able to pull of seemingly impossible shots, but the way I rate a shooter also comes with his own limitations. Kobe can pull of some of the craziest shots I have seen and make them, but I am not going to say he is a great shooter, guys like Rex Chapman comes to mind too, just circus after circus shots, but they are not really great shooters.

:lol Kobe is easily a top 10 pure shooter in the league, maybe top 5. His problem isn't his shooting ability, it's his shot selection.

[monosylab1k]

Nash, because Stockton is nearly 50 years old.

DD

How are the Rockets gonna do this season? Another dark horse 2-seed year from them?

[DaDakota]

How are the Rockets gonna do this season? Another dark horse 2-seed year from them?

Hopefully they are gonna do the right thing, go really young, and basically tank.

Time to break the mediocrity trend.

DD

[cd98]

I don't see him being any better of a defender than Rose or CP3.

I'll take Nash and CP3's ability to run an offense over Stockton.

I don't put very much stock into a PG's ability on defense. Most PG's are crappy defenders anyways. There are two areas you MUST have a strong defender at on any championship team: on the wing and in the middle. Virtually no PG can fit the mold of the necessary wing defender, as they are simply too small, and have too much to do offensively to spend all that energy. I actually cannot think of a single championship team, where the elite wing defender was a point guard. Hell, look at the Lakers squad right now. They have strong wing defenders in Kobe and Artest, and a strong interior presence in Howard. If they were to not win a championship, how likely is it that Nash's lack of defense is going to be the reason they lose in the end? I can promise you that it's not.

It's nice to have a PG who can defend, but it's not a necessity by any means. There are other places on the court that is MUCH more important to have strong defenders, and PG is the least important of all.

I don't understand some people. The guy has the all-time record for assists, a record that will never be broken. Nash, Kidd, Paul etc. will not come close to breaking his record. And yet they would run a team better? Seriously, the guy racked up assists in a half court set. That is way tougher than getting assists in a run and gun offense that took a shot every 7 seconds.

Defense is important for winning a championship. Stockton was a great defender and is the all-time steals leader, another stat record of his that will probably not be broken. He was also great a setting picks and drawing offensive fouls. I hated the guy personally, as a Spurs fan. But anyone that thinks his defense was a luxury and not necessary is fooling him/her self. His defense was a big part of that team's success.

Finally, we don't know what percentage Stockton would make of bad shot selection because he didn't take bad shots. He was a celebral player, and a great shooter. Just because he tried to make his teammates better instead of improving his scoring average by a few points, doesn't mean he was an inferior offensive player. He could have been a 20 point scorer, but he chose to be the all-time leader in assists. Why? Because that's what his team needed to win. That's the type of player I want starting on my basketball team at point guard.

That said, in their own right, Paul and Nash are great point guards. But Stockton is a more complete package, and played the right way more consistently, even if he made every non-Jazz fan hate his guts.

[Killakobe81]

Well I'm even more convinced now ... Nash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REp0LkNPx2c

Dude had 4 straight 20 point 15 assist game in a playoff series. And yes I get that they played at a fast pace, but Nash put up huge numbers against title contending Spur and Mavs teams ... sometimes with Bowen defending him.

[lefty]

And Stockton had a playoff assist record vs the mighty Lakers in 88


Some shit like 22-23 assists in a crucial game 5 @ the Forum, a game they almost won if it wasn't for Cooper's clutch jumper

[stretch]

I don't understand some people. The guy has the all-time record for assists, a record that will never be broken. Nash, Kidd, Paul etc. will not come close to breaking his record. And yet they would run a team better? Seriously, the guy racked up assists in a half court set. That is way tougher than getting assists in a run and gun offense that took a shot every 7 seconds.

Yeah, its sooooo much hard to get assists by whoring the PnR with perhaps the best PnR bigman to ever play the game, than a fast break attack. :rolleyes

Assists are easy to pick up in either situation. You mean to tell me Nash or CP3 couldn't average 11-13 assists a game by simply dumping off to an open Malone or a wide open Hornacek at the 3pt line every other offensive play of the game?


Defense is important for winning a championship. Stockton was a great defender and is the all-time steals leader, another stat record of his that will probably not be broken. He was also great a setting picks and drawing offensive fouls. I hated the guy personally, as a Spurs fan. But anyone that thinks his defense was a luxury and not necessary is fooling him/her self. His defense was a big part of that team's success.

And how many championships did that team win? None. Perhaps if they had another wing defender that was capable of matching up a little better with Jordan and Pippen, they could have beaten the Bulls, but no, apparently they expected John Stockton to be their elite wing defender, which obviously was completely useless against the Bulls.


Finally, we don't know what percentage Stockton would make of bad shot selection because he didn't take bad shots. He was a celebral player, and a great shooter. Just because he tried to make his teammates better instead of improving his scoring average by a few points, doesn't mean he was an inferior offensive player. He could have been a 20 point scorer, but he chose to be the all-time leader in assists. Why? Because that's what his team needed to win. That's the type of player I want starting on my basketball team at point guard.

Hmm... sounds an awful lot like Nash too.


That said, in their own right, Paul and Nash are great point guards. But Stockton is a more complete package, and played the right way more consistently, even if he made every non-Jazz fan hate his guts.

I don't disagree that Stockton is a more complete package, and was super underrated. But being a more complete package doesn't make you a superior player to build around, or superior player in general. David Robinson was a more complete package than Shaq, but only a dumbass would build a team around Robinson over Shaq (I'm sure ambchang will come in here with some bullshit argument as usual). Shaq may have basically been a one trick pony, but his one trick, was better than other players 5 or 6 tricks.

[ambchang]

Of course I would build a team with Robinson over Shaq. Shaq was good for 3 years, Robinson for 6.

Let's see what Robinson could have done with a semi-competent guard like Hardaway/Kobe/Wade. The Spurs would have won 6 titles in a row over the Bulls and Rockets.

Book it.

[Clipper Nation]

Even though I hate the dirty motherfucker, Stockton shits on all of today's PGs.
CP3 is the only point guard in the post-Jordan era who's anywhere near Stockton's level, tbh....

[stretch]

Of course I would build a team with Robinson over Shaq. Shaq was good for 3 years, Robinson for 6.

Let's see what Robinson could have done with a semi-competent guard like Hardaway/Kobe/Wade. The Spurs would have won 6 titles in a row over the Bulls and Rockets.

Book it.

Only 3 years?

rofl

[stretch]

CP3 is the only point guard in the post-Jordan era who's anywhere near Stockton's level, tbh....

lol nash

lol kidd

[BigTex342006]

I am a huge Nash fan and respect his game immensely. However, Stockton's defense vs Nash has a bigger gap than Nash's offense vs Stockton. Plus, Stockton's longevity and toughness were almost unmatched. You can't go wrong with either one though.

These are two of the all-time greats that if you didn't know them would be picked dead last in a street/neighborhood basketball pick-up game. And they would kick your ass, as these two pasty faced white boys could play some hoop...

[Killakobe81]

I was a defender so I appreciate that. But no way is their offensive games as close as those would have you believe ... Stockton never carried an offense the way Steve has. And even though I gave Stockton the edge on clutch shots that video proves otherwise. the guy won 2 MVPs and though I felt Lebron and Kobe deserved one of each the fact that he won them and deserved strong consideration regardless just leads me to choose Nash.

[BigTex342006]

I was a defender so I appreciate that. But no way is their offensive games as close as those would have you believe ... Stockton never carried an offense the way Steve has. And even though I gave Stockton the edge on clutch shots that video proves otherwise. the guy won 2 MVPs and though I felt Lebron and Kobe deserved one of each the fact that he won them and deserved strong consideration regardless just leads me to choose Nash.


Like I said, they are/were both great guards and you picking Nash over Stockton is reasonable and defendable. However, I watched Stockton play over most of his career and he was never asked to carry the offensive load. Nash may have the better offensive numbers, but it is pretty close. Nash was never a 20 pt per game scorer.

Nash's best offensive years - 18.8, 18.6, 17.9, 17.7, 16.9, 16.5, 15.6, 15.5

Stockton's best off. years - 17.2, 17.2, 15.8, 15.1, 15.1, 14.7, 14.7, 14.7

I don't see a whole lot of difference there...

They played in so different of offensive systems it is hard to compare and/or know what would have been the outcome should the two be switched...