Steve Nash vs John Stockton

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jjsole
Shawn Kemp would be a shoe-in for the HoF if not for his drug problems.

Your arguments SP33Demon are constantly full of excuses but the numbers and success don't lie. Nash is very good, altho Stockton is one of the greatest ever.

Shawn Kemp's numbers are nowhere close to anything Hall of Fame, and never will be, drug use or not.

 

[WhyteRyce]

Andre Miller averaged 10.9 assists one year in Cleveland. He also averaged more steals, more rebounds, more blocks, and fewer TOs than Nash did this season. And he did it with a worse supporting cast than Nash.

So obviously Miller>Nash>Stockton right?!

 

[torpid]

Stockton wins due to longevity right now. The level he played at for such a long time is something really amazing in basketball history. It would be really surprising to me if nash played so well for so long. Emmit Smith is not a valid comparison because even in his latter years stockton was one of the best PGs in the league, whereas smith slowly got worse and worse. IMO, stockton in his final years played as well as nash played for Dallas. Think about that a bit...

 

[phreakah]

john stockton is the best point guard to ever play in the nba

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: AntMan530
whose your favorite? I think both are great, but I dont miss john with nash playing so well in the recent years...he makes watch basketball entertaining.

i still think mark cuban messed up when he didnt resign nash to the mavs.

Nash is kind of a throwback to the era of Stockton, Bird, Magic Johnson and Jordan..you know, when they played team ball.

 

[Schwan]

Stockton rules!

 

[wyvrn]

Nash is being overrated by his MVPs. He is a good player, not a great one.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: phreakah
john stockton is the best point guard to ever play in the nba

Uh... no. That is far from true. I'm no NBA historian but I can say for sure Magic, Jerry West, and Oscar Robertson were all better.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: WhyteRyce
Andre Miller averaged 10.9 assists one year in Cleveland. He also averaged more steals, more rebounds, more blocks, and fewer TOs than Nash did this season. And he did it with a worse supporting cast than Nash.

So obviously Miller>Nash>Stockton right?!

Of course not, Nash is the biggest scoring threat out of the 3. Miller can't hold a candle to Nash's scoring ability, and Stockton falls short in MVP years.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: phreakah
john stockton is the best point guard to ever play in the nba

Uh... no. That is far from true. I'm no NBA historian but I can say for sure Magic, Jerry West, and Oscar Robertson were all better.

No love for the Houdini of the Hardwood, Bob Cousy? Text

 

[WhyteRyce]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: WhyteRyce
Andre Miller averaged 10.9 assists one year in Cleveland. He also averaged more steals, more rebounds, more blocks, and fewer TOs than Nash did this season. And he did it with a worse supporting cast than Nash.

So obviously Miller>Nash>Stockton right?!

Of course not, Nash is the biggest scoring threat out of the 3. Miller can't hold a candle to Nash's scoring ability, and Stockton falls short in MVP years.

Your entire argument for Nash over Stockton is based on your claims that Nash didn't have a HOF finisher and that he didn't get "pummeled" in the stat categories compared to Stockton's best years (and averaging 2 more rebounds a game at the PG spot really is important!).

Well, Miller was surrounded by terrible players while Nash was not. And Miller doesn't get pummeled in the stats category either. So by your logic, Miller should at least be on the same level as Nash.

Now if you want to bring consistency and team achievements into the argument, well then your case doesn't hold up.

And just to add to the argument, no Nash didn't have a HOF finisher. But he has a hell of a lot more firepower and shooters surrounding him then Stockton ever did.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: phreakah
john stockton is the best point guard to ever play in the nba

Uh... no. That is far from true. I'm no NBA historian but I can say for sure Magic, Jerry West, and Oscar Robertson were all better.

No love for the Houdini of the Hardwood, Bob Cousy? Text

Him too. There are probably others, I'm too lazy to do any research.

 

[SP33Demon]

One interesting thing I found, Nash is 6th all time in 3pt% (since 1980 when 3's were invented):
3pt

He's 2nd all time in FT%, only behind Price: FT

One guy you should check out is Kevin Johnson's stats in his prime from 1989 - 1992, too bad Magic/MJ were in the league then. Although KJ was never a 3pt threat (never took them, only shot 2 of them in 1989), his best year arguably beats John Stockton's considering he isn't a 3pt shooter (added Nash for the helluva it):

Johnson in 1989: 20.4ppg, 12.2apg, 4.2rpg, 1.7steals, 50.5%FG, N/A%3pt, 88.5%FT
Stockon in 1990: 17.2ppg, 14.5apg, 2.6rpg, 2.7steals, 51.4%FG, 41.6%3pt, 81.9%FT
Nash from 2006: 18.8ppg, 10.5apg, 4.2rpg, 0.8steals, 51.2%FG, 43.9%3pt, 92.1%FT

KJ's team that year was swept by Magic's(MVP) Lakers. Then the Laker's were swept by Isiah's Bad Boys, and Isiah/Dumars (both got a single 3rd place vote for MVP that year) had worse stats than both KJ and Magic individually.

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
One interesting thing I found, Nash is 6th all time in 3pt% (since 1980 when 3's were invented):
3pt

He's 2nd all time in FT%, only behind Price: FT

One guy you should check out is Kevin Johnson's stats in his prime from 1989 - 1992, too bad Magic/MJ were in the league then. Although KJ was never a 3pt threat (never took them, only shot 2 of them in 1989), his best year arguably beats John Stockton's considering he isn't a 3pt shooter (added Nash for the helluva it):

Johnson in 1989: 20.4ppg, 12.2apg, 4.2rpg, 1.7steals, 50.5%FG, N/A%3pt, 88.5%FT
Stockon in 1990: 17.2ppg, 14.5apg, 2.6rpg, 2.7steals, 51.4%FG, 41.6%3pt, 81.9%FT
Nash from 2006: 18.8ppg, 10.5apg, 4.2rpg, 0.8steals, 51.2%FG, 43.9%3pt, 92.1%FT

KJ's team that year was swept by Magic's(MVP) Lakers. Then the Laker's were swept by Isiah's Bad Boys, and Isiah/Dumars (both got a single 3rd place vote for MVP that year) had worse stats than both KJ and Magic individually.

can you explain why shooting percentages mean so much to you? jordan never had the best shooting percentages, yet no one will argue he's the best SG, if not player, to ever play the game.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: WhyteRyce

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: WhyteRyce
Andre Miller averaged 10.9 assists one year in Cleveland. He also averaged more steals, more rebounds, more blocks, and fewer TOs than Nash did this season. And he did it with a worse supporting cast than Nash.

So obviously Miller>Nash>Stockton right?!

Of course not, Nash is the biggest scoring threat out of the 3. Miller can't hold a candle to Nash's scoring ability, and Stockton falls short in MVP years.

Your entire argument for Nash over Stockton is based on your claims that Nash didn't have a HOF finisher and that he didn't get "pummeled" in the stat categories compared to Stockton's best years (and averaging 2 more rebounds a game at the PG spot really is important!).

Well, Miller was surrounded by terrible players while Nash was not. And Miller doesn't get pummeled in the stats category either. So by your logic, Miller should at least be on the same level as Nash.

Now if you want to bring consistency and team achievements into the argument, well then your case doesn't hold up.

And just to add to the argument, no Nash didn't have a HOF finisher. But he has a hell of a lot more firepower and shooters surrounding him then Stockton ever did.

First off, Andre Miller's team finished 29-53. Even Magic or MJ wouldn't win an MVP with a record like that. Second, Nash decimates Miller in all 3 shooting percentages, not even close. He scored roughly 1 more basket per game, and assist/reb were roughly the same. Pretty obvious who gets the nod there. By this argument, you would be saying that Kobe Bryant should have been in the running for MVP when his team was 34-48, he avg'd 28ppg, 6apg, 6rpg.

Yeah Nash has better talent than Miller's Cav's, but that doesn't mean sht. You have to still motivate them to perform. Look at the Sixers this year with the Rookie of the Year(Igoudala), AI and CWebb: 38-44 record. I guarantee you if AI had 60 wins he would have given Nash a run for his money for MVP, as would have Lebron/Kobe. Just because you have the talent isn't always a guarantee that they will perform, and an MVP makes teammates perform above and beyond expectations.

Stockton had solid/great role players in Hornacek, Russell, and Ostertag (for D). Karl Malone is better than anyone on the Suns. The Suns' talent is more evenly spread than Stockton's, and noone is going to argue that Stockton/Malone pick and roll was probably the best/most dominant of all time. Nash doesn't really have a bread and butter like that so he has to make sure everyone contributes. If he could just pick and roll with a Malone type all day, sure it would be easy to rack up an extra 2 assists or so per game. I don't think you could say PHO is better overall because of that.

 

[WhyteRyce]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

First off, Andre Miller's team finished 29-53. Even Magic or MJ wouldn't win an MVP with a record like that. Second, Nash decimates Miller in all 3 shooting percentages, not even close. He scored roughly 1 more basket per game, and assist/reb were roughly the same. Pretty obvious who gets the nod there. By this argument, you would be saying that Kobe Bryant should have been in the running for MVP when his team was 34-48, he avg'd 28ppg, 6apg, 6rpg.

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Nash looks more impressive because he doesn't have Amare (a great finisher like Malone) and while down in steals/assists, he wins in reb and 10% better FT%.

I'm not saying that Andre Miller was/is an MVP candidate or should be considered a great PG. My point was that you are making a lot of arbitrary decisions about which statistics are important to back up your claim. Especially since you downplay assists of all things when comparing two PGs

Oh wow, Nash averages 2 more rebounds in a style of play that emphasis shooting the ball a lot which leads to lots more rebounds. Amazing! The assist number between Nash and Miller are roughly the same? Well too bad the assist number between Nash and Stockton are not. Same with steals. A whole 2% better in 3pt than Stockton? Is that really a big deal?

And again, if you are comparing team success then Stockton has Nash beat.

If you think Nash is a better PG than Stockton, that's fine. Everyone has their own opinion and there is no definitive law on this. But you'll have a hard time trying to convince people of this using statistics unless you fudge the math a lot

 

[greys2k]

th@nk g0d s0m30n3 fin@lly t0ld n@sh t0 st0p licking hi$ b@ng$

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
One interesting thing I found, Nash is 6th all time in 3pt% (since 1980 when 3's were invented):
3pt

He's 2nd all time in FT%, only behind Price: FT

One guy you should check out is Kevin Johnson's stats in his prime from 1989 - 1992, too bad Magic/MJ were in the league then. Although KJ was never a 3pt threat (never took them, only shot 2 of them in 1989), his best year arguably beats John Stockton's considering he isn't a 3pt shooter (added Nash for the helluva it):

Johnson in 1989: 20.4ppg, 12.2apg, 4.2rpg, 1.7steals, 50.5%FG, N/A%3pt, 88.5%FT
Stockon in 1990: 17.2ppg, 14.5apg, 2.6rpg, 2.7steals, 51.4%FG, 41.6%3pt, 81.9%FT
Nash from 2006: 18.8ppg, 10.5apg, 4.2rpg, 0.8steals, 51.2%FG, 43.9%3pt, 92.1%FT

KJ's team that year was swept by Magic's(MVP) Lakers. Then the Laker's were swept by Isiah's Bad Boys, and Isiah/Dumars (both got a single 3rd place vote for MVP that year) had worse stats than both KJ and Magic individually.

can you explain why shooting percentages mean so much to you? jordan never had the best shooting percentages, yet no one will argue he's the best SG, if not player, to ever play the game.

Jordan's FG% is exceptional, he's on par with Nash and beats Nash in his prime. He wasn't big on 3's just like KJ, and his FT% is good (83/84%). However, his real strength was his unbelievable ability to score regardless of who was on him, and at the same time push his (average to above average) teammates to win. a. lot. Also was his insane all around game: 1st Team All NBA Defense (he led the NBA in steals 3 times for example), his great rebounding and passing ability. MJ was as close to the total package as you'll ever see in the NBA: leader, top scorer with one of the top FG%, top defender, with smart passing and above average rebounding.

I think if Kobe can win 2-3 more rings: by playing smarter by not forcing shots (higher FG%), ups his assists to around double digits while still scoring 25+, the MJ comparisons will be there. I don't think he'll ever be on MJ's level of defense but he potentially could surpass Micheal's passing ability if he worked on it and became smarter at reading defenses (and more comfortable with teammates like Odom).

 

[ballmode]

STOCKTON! /thread

 

[Inspector Jihad]

how old are you sp33d demon? I've come to the conclusion only children take just the stats into account when discussing sports, which would make you a child...or atleast someone with the capabilities of a child.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: WhyteRyce

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

First off, Andre Miller's team finished 29-53. Even Magic or MJ wouldn't win an MVP with a record like that. Second, Nash decimates Miller in all 3 shooting percentages, not even close. He scored roughly 1 more basket per game, and assist/reb were roughly the same. Pretty obvious who gets the nod there. By this argument, you would be saying that Kobe Bryant should have been in the running for MVP when his team was 34-48, he avg'd 28ppg, 6apg, 6rpg.

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Nash looks more impressive because he doesn't have Amare (a great finisher like Malone) and while down in steals/assists, he wins in reb and 10% better FT%.

I'm not saying that Andre Miller was/is an MVP candidate or should be considered a great PG. My point was that you are making a lot of arbitrary decisions about which statistics are important to back up your claim. Especially since you downplay assists of all things when comparing two PGs

Oh wow, Nash averages 2 more rebounds in a style of play that emphasis shooting the ball a lot which leads to lots more rebounds. Amazing! The assist number between Nash and Miller are roughly the same? Well too bad the assist number between Nash and Stockton are not. Same with steals. A whole 2% better in 3pt than Stockton? Is that really a big deal?

And again, if you are comparing team success then Stockton has Nash beat.

If you think Nash is a better PG than Stockton, that's fine. Everyone has their own opinion and there is no definitive law on this. But you'll have a hard time trying to convince people of this using statistics unless you fudge the math a lot

I'll agree that Stockton just off pure stats alone edges out Nash. Something I just looked up, leading the NBA 2X in steals is pretty dam impressive on top of assists (that should edge out big FT% chasm and minor reb and points edge that goes to Nash).

However, I think Nash is a better overall scorer on and off the dribble than Stockton ever was, as well as ball handler. We saw him scorch LA for 29 and 9, 32 and 12, and he scorched the Mavs in the playoffs last year for 48, 39, and 34 points. Even though playoffs consist of a very small percentage of both players' careers, Nash has consistently exploded and accepted the challenge to put his team on his back if possible. Looking at Stockton's stats, I'm not seeing that at all. In fact, the most points he's ever had came early in his career with 34. His best playoff game was probably 18 assists, 12 points unless I overlooked something.

Just by looking at game logs it's easy to tell that Stockton benefitted from Malone's presence. In the first 3 years or so in his prime, he racked up a bunch of 20 or more assist games. You won't see that from Nash. However, it's rare to see Stockton in the high 28+ pt range, whereas Nash has many of those.

Yep, I think IF Nash had a Karl Malone HoF type finisher his assists would be on par with Stockton's. But yeah, off pure stats alone I would say Stockton, in comparison to his peers of the era, may edge out Nash but it's close. But you always have to be aware of intangibles such as MJ/Magic/Karl Malone winning MVP over Stockton, and the fact that Stockton had Malone in the first place. No one from our era can hold a candle to MJ/Magic, and there are maybe one or two that are on par with Malone (Duncan, maybe KG).

 

[puffff]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: puffff

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
One interesting thing I found, Nash is 6th all time in 3pt% (since 1980 when 3's were invented):
3pt

He's 2nd all time in FT%, only behind Price: FT

One guy you should check out is Kevin Johnson's stats in his prime from 1989 - 1992, too bad Magic/MJ were in the league then. Although KJ was never a 3pt threat (never took them, only shot 2 of them in 1989), his best year arguably beats John Stockton's considering he isn't a 3pt shooter (added Nash for the helluva it):

Johnson in 1989: 20.4ppg, 12.2apg, 4.2rpg, 1.7steals, 50.5%FG, N/A%3pt, 88.5%FT
Stockon in 1990: 17.2ppg, 14.5apg, 2.6rpg, 2.7steals, 51.4%FG, 41.6%3pt, 81.9%FT
Nash from 2006: 18.8ppg, 10.5apg, 4.2rpg, 0.8steals, 51.2%FG, 43.9%3pt, 92.1%FT

KJ's team that year was swept by Magic's(MVP) Lakers. Then the Laker's were swept by Isiah's Bad Boys, and Isiah/Dumars (both got a single 3rd place vote for MVP that year) had worse stats than both KJ and Magic individually.

can you explain why shooting percentages mean so much to you? jordan never had the best shooting percentages, yet no one will argue he's the best SG, if not player, to ever play the game.

Jordan's FG% is exceptional, he's on par with Nash and beats Nash in his prime. He wasn't big on 3's just like KJ, and his FT% is good (83/84%). However, his real strength was his unbelievable ability to score regardless of who was on him, and at the same time push his (average to above average) teammates to win. a. lot. Also was his insane all around game: 1st Team All NBA Defense (he led the NBA in steals 3 times for example), his great rebounding and passing ability. MJ was as close to the total package as you'll ever see in the NBA: leader, top scorer with one of the top FG%, top defender, with smart passing and above average rebounding.

I think if Kobe can win 2-3 more rings: by playing smarter by not forcing shots (higher FG%), ups his assists to around double digits while still scoring 25+, the MJ comparisons will be there. I don't think he'll ever be on MJ's level of defense but he potentially could surpass Micheal's passing ability if he worked on it and became smarter at reading defenses (and more comfortable with teammates like Odom).

Jordan didn't win any championships when he was shooting over 50%. They all came in seasons when he didnt. his 3PT % was pretty awful his final year (with chicago) too. No one will say he was a better player in his earlier years though, because all his rings were won towards the end of his career.

What about playing in different eras? Certainly in the 90s, the nba was more defensive minded. You'll notice a lot of star players who shot really well in the early 90s saw their percentages drop around 95-98. Dont you think a player playing his prime years then might see his %'s lower?

What about playing styles? Van Gundy likes to play a halfcourt set rather than run and gun. Obviously, his players will score less, grab fewer rebounds, have fewer assists, shoot poorer, don't you agree?

Finally, let's create a hypothetical situation where Kobe goes nuts avgs 40pts and 2 assists for the next two years and lakers win the championship. Will anyone give a sh!t he didnt pass? Probably not. Nor will they care how many shots he throws up. What am I getting at? You need to win in this league to be considered the best. Putting Nash - a supposed team player - up on a pedestal based on hs numbers and MVPs is ironic because they're individual achievements, and he hasnt even come close to the ultimate team goal, a championship.

 

[torpid]

Stockton stepped his game up in the playoffs even more than nash did. Nash is a better scorer and ball handler. And passer probably too. It's just that much more impressive what stockton did in the playoffs when you consider that he wasn't a GREAT scorer. But he always had that dagger-in-the-heart shot late in playoff games. Chauncey Billups does that a lot too, making a shot to kill all hope and make you want to commit suicide as an opponent.

Nash doesn't quite have that yet.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: torpid
Stockton stepped his game up in the playoffs even more than nash did. Nash is a better scorer and ball handler. And passer probably too. It's just that much more impressive what stockton did in the playoffs when you consider that he wasn't a GREAT scorer. But he always had that dagger-in-the-heart shot late in playoff games. Chauncey Billups does that a lot too, making a shot to kill all hope and make you want to commit suicide as an opponent.

Nash doesn't quite have that yet.

How can you say the career assist leader wasn't a very good ball handler?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: puffff

Jordan didn't win any championships when he was shooting over 50%. They all came in seasons when he didnt. his 3PT % was pretty awful his final year (with chicago) too. No one will say he was a better player in his earlier years though, because all his rings were won towards the end of his career.

What about playing in different eras? Certainly in the 90s, the nba was more defensive minded. You'll notice a lot of star players who shot really well in the early 90s saw their percentages drop around 95-98. Dont you think a player playing his prime years then might see his %'s lower?

What about playing styles? Van Gundy likes to play a halfcourt set rather than run and gun. Obviously, his players will score less, grab fewer rebounds, have fewer assists, shoot poorer, don't you agree?

Finally, let's create a hypothetical situation where Kobe goes nuts avgs 40pts and 2 assists for the next two years and lakers win the championship. Will anyone give a sh!t he didnt pass? Probably not. Nor will they care how many shots he throws up. What am I getting at? You need to win in this league to be considered the best. Putting Nash - a supposed team player - up on a pedestal based on hs numbers and MVPs is ironic because they're individual achievements, and he hasnt even come close to the ultimate team goal, a championship.

Sure Jordan did. He won championships in 91-93 and 96-98:
1991 - 53.9%
1992 - 51.9%
1993 - 49.5%
1996 - 49.5%
1997 - 48.6%
1998 - 46.5%
He's a 49.7% career shooter too.

MJ only had 4 season where he shot >200 3 pointers (90,93,96,97), the next closest was 126 which isn't much and you can safely exclude them due to a small sample. In those 4 seasons he shot: 37.6, 35.2, 42.7, and 37.4 from 3pt range. Nash has a 42.1 career 3pt%. So while MJ was average from 3pt range, he really shined inside the arc.

I agree that run and gun will slightly inflate stats when working, but not by much. For example, PHO avg'd 108ppg and a good h.court team Miami, avg'd 100. That's only 4 baskets split between 5 starters + the bench when they hit their average. And, run and gun will only work if you can dictate that style to the opposition. Good halfcourt teams like Detroit slow the tempo down and take PHO out of their rhythm by killing the clock and getting good looks (what LAL did when they won). Shooting percentages aren't affected because you still have to make your shots.

Yeah if Kobe shot 50%+, had 40ppg, then nobody would care about assists because he would become an ultimate scorer of which we haven't seen since the old days. But that style hasn't been around for a long time and at some point you do need your teammates, more or less. Someone's going to have to score the other 50-70 points to get the W.