Reply With Quote
Apparently not enough to ever actually win, though
jazz
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.
Apparently not enough to ever actually win, though
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 ed for the next 3 years.
Not with Dwight trying to break his way into acting and playing basketball simultaneously actually.
You didn't use blue font so I am going to get butthurt and throw out a dozen names of better shooters.
Except for D, did prime Stockton rank above prime Nash in any other category
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.
Stockton
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 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.
Stockton ting on Bird in this pic
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 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.
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.
both of them
Isiah FTW
I know I'm off-topic
Hey I can agree with that. ty 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 ...both of them
Isiah FTW
I know I'm off-topic
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
Stockton
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.
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.
Last edited by cd98; 08-21-2012 at 09:06 AM.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
