New Franchise. Nash or Stockton

[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 re ed as .

Yeah, they didn't run and gun, they just d 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

[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 re ed as .

Yeah, they didn't run and gun, they just d 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

In their primes. Think before you type.

[lefty]

Nash, because Stockton is nearly 50 years old.

DD

[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 mother er, Stockton s 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 mother er, Stockton s 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 s 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 s 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. , 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.

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. , 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 le 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 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.

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 bull 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.