ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #9 - John Stockton vs. Walt

[G.O.A.T]

Make your arguments here for the next 48 hours on rather John Stockton or Walt Frazier should advance and continue to move higher on the list. Put the players name you are voting for in BOLD so I don't miss it when I tally. The loser of this poll will be ranked #10 in our project.

Only members listed on the project roster will have their votes counted. Anyone may add their opinion and or argument as long as it's constructive. Our roster is now finalized. If you like the project and think you can make it better please add your opinion. If you;d like to join in the forwards, centers or all-time top 67 project, please let me know via PM. The Final Roster is listed below....

The Roster

L.Kizzle
ThaSwagg3r
Rose
WillC
G.O.A.T
1987 Lakers
neyca
Toizumi
Shaqattack3234
Magnax1
RobertdeMeijer
iamgine
nycelt84
KGMN
SteveNashMVPcro

Crossover (added after initial vote)
bizil (added after initial vote)
Boston C's (added at #20)
Gotterdammerung (added at #17)
SuperPippen (added at #14)
Big164 (added at #13)
PTB Fan (added at #13)
Droid101 (added at #11)
D.J. (added at #11)
Miller for 3 (added at #10)
Odinn (added at #9)
OmniStrife (added at #9)
HylianNightmare (added at #9)
Pushxx (added at #9)
MasterDurant24 (added at #9)
Clippersfan86 (added at #9)

ThaRegul8r (contributor)
NugzHeat3 (contributor)
Psileas (contributor)
Kblaze8855 (contributor)
alexandreben (contributor)
EricForman (contributor)




http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/34589/pollStockton.jpg

19 seasons
11x all-NBA
11x all-star
5x all-defensive
9x Assists Leader
2x Steals Leader
1993 ASG MVP
1st All-time in Assists
1st All-time in Steals
Played 82 games in 16 of 18 possible seasons

Votes (11)
Clippersfan86
magnax1
Odinn
iamgine
nycelt84
Big 164
Droid101
WillC
RobertdeMeijer
SuperPippen
Boston C's

http://www.walt-frazier.com/waltfrazier.jpg

13 seasons
6x all-NBA
7x all-star
6x all-defensive
2x NBA Champion (1970 & 1973)
1975 ASG MVP
Averaged 18-8-10 in 1970 Finals; had 39 points and 9 assists in game seven
Averaged 22-7-7 in the playoffs from 1969-1974 while Knicks were title contenders


Votes (12)
ThaSwagg3r
Shaqattack3234
1987_Lakers
D.J.
bizil
Gotterdammerung
SteveNashMVPcro
MasterDurant24
Miller for 3
G.O.A.T
L. Kizzle
ThaRegula8r

[Clippersfan86]

Definitely Stockton. I'm not going to pretend I saw Walt play (none of us have probably) but based on limited footage, stats, achievements all favor Stockton (besides his lack of rings of course). My vote counts this round right G.O.A.T?

[G.O.A.T]

Just read the damn intro post. Your named is listed home slice.

[magnax1]

Stockton I'll explain more later, but I'm kind of multitasking right now. All I have to really say is that when people talk about Walt, they always seem to only point out his best games, which were great, but never really point out what his average game was like. Which were never terribly fantastic to me. I mean, what is he really? Just a better version of Payton (not skill set, but impact wise) who I wouldn't consider terribly close to Stockton.
Walt probably won't get his full credit in this thread because of the amount of people who watched him, but I'll still take Stockton.

[Clippersfan86]

Just read the damn intro post. Your named is listed home slice.

K cool. I saw it... but was more or less verifying because I thought I'd be in last round and didn't get in.

[Miller for 3]

I will vote tommorrow but I suspect this will be another Stockton blow out

[L.Kizzle]

This is actually a good match-up.

I think the only thing that Stockton has on Clyde is passing. Clyde was probably even a better shooter. Clyde was the better scorer and defender.

As a pure point guard, Stockton was better, but as a player (over even just a guard) you gotta go with Frazier. So that's really what it boils down to, are we picking the better guard or the better point guard (totally different?)

There personnel accolades are about even (All-Stars and All-NBA's give or take a few more for Stockton.) Walt has 2 titles and Stockton had two records.

[Big164]

Most of us werent even born when Walt played, but I bet we could name more players from his Knicks squad than Stocktons Jazz. Earl the pearl, Phil Jackson, Jerry Lucas, Willis reed.

This is definitely one Im going to wait on, dont wanna make the same mistake I did with Kidd/Nash.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Walt "Clyde" Frazier gets my vote.

Walt Frazier was the most underrated PG to ever play IMO. I have Walt over Stockton for the same reason why I have Isiah over Stockton. The two championship rings and because of his ability to close out a game. Walt was a flat out better scorer than Stockton was. Walt has had numerous 20+ ppg seasons while Stockton has had none. No Walt may not have averaged as many apg as Stockton did either and he may not have been as good of a passer. However, the advantage that Frazier has on scoring is bigger IMO especially the ability to close out a game. Frazier also has the edge defensively, Frazier also gets left out as being one of the greatest defenders of all-time frequently. I would argue that Frazier was arguably the best defensive PG to ever play the game, yes above Payton and certainly as hell above both Stockton and Kidd.


It wouldn't surprise me if Stockton wins due to longevity......but he really shouldn't. Stockton gets really overrated in that aspect and he gets really overrated for being this "pure PG." This "pure PG" talk is overrated in my opinion. How many "pure pass-first PGs" have actually won a championship?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Walt Frazier

I obviously haven't seen as much of Walt as I have of Stockton, but I do know that he was a good offensive guard and considered one of the best defensive guards ever.

I'm not sure I'd rank either this highly(partially due to the fact that I'm always less sure of my opinions on players before my time such as Walt), but given what he accomplished such as the 2 rings, his big game 7 performance in the 1970 finals and the fact that he probably should have been the 1970 finals MVP, I have less of a problem with Walt being ranked this high than Stockton.

[SuperPippen]

I'll contribute to the discussion and make my vote tomorrow, but I think this will be a pretty tough decision, if only for Frazier's bad-ass muttonchops.

Those chops have got to give him at least 1,000,000,000 intangible points.

[1987_Lakers]

This is Walt Frazier all the way. Fraizer in his prime was considered a top 3-5 player in the league & he was winning championships as the main man. Stockton was never on the level Frazier was.

I actually see Frazier as one of the most underrated PGs & Stockton as one of the most overrated.

[L.Kizzle]

Walt "Clyde" Frazier gets my vote.

Walt Frazier was the most underrated PG to ever play IMO. I have Walt over Stockton for the same reason why I have Isiah over Stockton. The two championship rings and because of his ability to close out a game. Walt was a flat out better scorer than Stockton was. Walt has had numerous 20+ ppg seasons while Stockton has had none. No Walt may not have averaged as many apg as Stockton did either and he may not have been as good of a passer. However, the advantage that Frazier has on scoring is bigger IMO especially the ability to close out a game. Frazier also has the edge defensively, Frazier also gets left out as being one of the greatest defenders of all-time frequently. I would argue that Frazier was arguably the best defensive PG to ever play the game, yes above Payton and certainly as hell above both Stockton and Kidd.


It wouldn't surprise me if Stockton wins due to longevity......but he really shouldn't. Stockton gets really overrated in that aspect and he gets really overrated for being this "pure PG." This "pure PG" talk is overrated in my opinion. How many "pure pass-first PGs" have actually won a championship?
You could insert Clyde's name with Payton, almost identical. And GP is what four spots back? But I guess the difference is those two titles Clyde has at his peak/prime.

I think the reason Clyde didn't average a lot of assist cause he was on of the most unselfish teams ever. Just watching the few games of his I've seen and the highlights, he could get to the basket and/or get a shot anytime he wanted. He could have averaged way more than the 21 and 6 he got at his peak. His teams were just so unselfish.

Also, dude was just smooth as hell (on and off the court.) Of course, he got his style was playground legend Pee Wee Kirkland (and possibly some moves too.)

[Rekindled]

you are kidding right? i am a knicks fan, even i dont think Clyde is better than Stock. stockton is a top3 pg ever.

[Pointguard]

Frazier one of a very few franchise players in the 70's. And the lead part of one of the best teams ever.

[L.Kizzle]

you are kidding right? i am a knicks fan, even i dont think Clyde is better than Stock. stockton is a top3 pg ever.
This isn't a point guard battle though.

[Kblaze8855]

Fraizer in his prime was considered a top 3-5 player in the league & he was winning championships as the main man.

Im not sure about that. for one...he finished 4th in MVP voting..once. Other than that he was never higher than 6th. And his title winning teams were straight stacked. some of the least discussed stacked team of all time. But stacked. There were years they had 6 key players who were currently or recently all stars. One year even with Reed injured they had 5 additional hall of famers in or near their primes and another guy who was an all star 3 years earlier. The Knicks were just star after star after star.

There were games he had 6 and 6 and they blew out the Lakers inthe finals.

That wasnt a team anyone was just an obvious main man on and if anyone was it was Reed.

Any time I hear the players of the time discuss it they seem to give Reed the credit.

Always mention the team and its passing and defense and all...but Reed gets the most love.

[Butters]

John Stockton

Dude should be breezing until spots 3-4

[L.Kizzle]

Im not sure about that. for one...he finished 4th in MVP voting..once. Other than that he was never higher than 6th. And his title winning teams were straight stacked. some of the least discussed stacked team of all time. But stacked. There were years they had 6 key players who were currently or recently all stars. One year even with Reed injured they had 5 additional hall of famers in or near their primes and another guy who was an all star 3 years earlier. The Knicks were just star after star after star.

There were games he had 6 and 6 and they blew out the Lakers inthe finals.

That wasnt a team anyone was just an obvious main man on and if anyone was it was Reed.

Any time I hear the players of the time discuss it they seem to give Reed the credit.

Always mention the team and its passing and defense and all...but Reed gets the most love.
It was a two man team, the other guys (not sounding disrespectful) were role players once they got to the team, well besides Dave DeBusschere. Jerry Lucas was in his last seasons, Pearl wasn't the same player he was in Baltimore. Bill Bradley and Dick Barnett (only all-star game in 1968 Fraziers rookie season) were each one time All-Stars. Cazzie Russell was an All-Star after leaving New York.

[GP_20]

Peak KJ > Peak Stockton

[ThaSwagg3r]

Peak KJ > Peak Stockton
:oldlol:

Your boy even said his toughest matchup ever was John Stockton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-cG7uUBYxo

[magnax1]

It was a two man team, the other guys (not sounding disrespectful) were role players once they got to the team, well besides Dave DeBusschere. Jerry Lucas was in his last seasons, Pearl wasn't the same player he was in Baltimore. Bill Bradley and Dick Barnett (only all-star game in 1968 Fraziers rookie season) were each one time All-Stars. Cazzie Russell was an All-Star after leaving New York.
Monroe was definitely not a role player. He was a 20 ppg player in New York.

[L.Kizzle]

:oldlol:

Your boy even said his toughest matchup ever was John Stockton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-cG7uUBYxo
I'd take GP Gloves word over the real Gary Payton any day. :oldlol:

[GP_20]

:oldlol:

Your boy even said his toughest matchup ever was John Stockton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-cG7uUBYxo

Not going to hi-jack this thread. But just leave 1 post. That should say it all.




Peak Stats:


John Stockton (89-92)

16.8ppg
14.0appg
3.0rpg
2.9spg
51.0% FG
84.0% FT
3 Time All-Defensive 2nd

Kevin Johnson (89-92)

21.2ppg
11.1apg
3.8rpg
1.6spg
50.0% FG
84.3% FT

Kevin Johnson clearly the better scorer, while John Stockton clearly the better passer/playmaker. Stockton seems to have a defensive edge too. We'll look more into this later.


Playoff Stats:


John Stockton:

16.9ppg
13.8apg
3.5rpg
46.4% FG
2.2spg


Kevin Johnson:

21.6ppg
11.6apg
3.8rpg
46.9% FG
1.5spg


Interestingly, Stockton shooting struggled a lot in the playoffs. KJ actually had a higher over FG%. Though Stockton still dished a lot of assists, he was clearly worse in the playoffs than he was in the regular season. While KJ was arguably better.



During both of their peaks, here are the awards they got


John Stockton

3 All-NBA 2nds
1 All-NBA 3rd

Kevin Johnson

3 All-NBA 2nds
1 All-NBA 3rd

Surprisingly, both never made All-NBA 1st in their peaks. But the reason was obvious, Magic and Jordan were also peaking at this time. But as you can see, this comparison is close.


Team Successwise:

John Stockton:

4 Playoff Appearances
3-4 in Playoff Series
1 WCF


Kevin Johnson:

4 Playoff Appearances
5-4 in Playoff Series
2 WCF


Though one should note, Stockton was doing this as the 2nd best player on his team, while Kevin Johnson was the best. Also KJ, helped turn a franchise around (Steve Nash like), while Stockton helped continue the Jazz's success.



So in such a close comparison (with small KJ edge), how does one have a clear decision? Their head to head meetings...Here are the box scores from 14 consecutive meetings beginning from the Spring of 1989, to the fall of 1993. This is also a test of how good Stockton's defense actually was.



http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/PHO19890405.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/PHO19900214.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/UTA19900313.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/PHO19900409.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/UTA19901102.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/PHO19901103.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/UTA19910206.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/PHO19910402.html

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1991&b=19911130&tm=phx

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1991&b=19920131&tm=uta

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1991&b=19920301&tm=phx

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1991&b=19920403&tm=uta

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1992&b=19930411&tm=phx

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1993&b=19931127&tm=phx


Final Statistics:


Kevin Johnson:

30.4 points
10.8 assists
51.8% FG
88.1% FT
1.8 steals
Record: 10-4

John Stockton:

16.4 points
12.5 assists
50.0% FG
87.9% FT
1.9 steals
Record: 4-10


So during this 14 game span, Kevin Johnson averaged 30/11 on John Stockton at 52% shooting! This is almost unheard of today. Stockton was great too, but he was clearly outplayed by KJ. And the team win-loss results show it. This was KJ as the best player on his team, and without Barkley while Stockton had Malone. Their win-loss records were the same, but over here, with KJ's domination, the Sun's went 10-4 against the Jazz.






Thus with that



Winner: Kevin Johnson

[GP_20]

I'd take GP Gloves word over the real Gary Payton any day. :oldlol:
Payton never guarded peak KJ or peak Stockton that much. He guarded prime Stockton and prime KJ, and that could go either way.


Ok I'm leaving from this thread

[L.Kizzle]

Monroe was definitely not a role player. He was a 20 ppg player in New York.
The two season they finished under .500?

[ThaSwagg3r]

I guess Stockton never made the all-nba first team in '94 and '95. :rolleyes: Your credibility? It just went down the drain.

Peak KJ > Peak Stockton is like saying you can vote and participate in this thread......oh wait. :oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

Jerry Lucas was putting up 19/16 the year before he was a Knick and 17/13/4 his first year there. Earl only played 4 years on the Bullets. he spent most of his career on the Knicks. His numbers were not the same but when he got there he was on a stacked team and playing 20 minutes a game. he was putting up 20/5 on a career high 525 shooting after everyone was gone. This is the late 70s. He was always a capable scorer. he just didnt do it much during their stacked years. he put up better numbers in 77 than eh did in 71 on the Bullets. DeBusschere was a star. Cazzie was their second leading scorer when they started contending and a 20+ppg all star once he left the Knicks. I suspect he didnt forget how to score between 68 and then.

Im nto acting like I know them top t obottom...but calling them a 2 man team when the players themselves talk about nothing but their outstanding teamwork and how nobody was bigger than the team. All I hear about them is the passing. All I see in games I watch of theirs. Watching an old Willis reed special(I made a video on him I never uploaded) those guys are spreading the ball around and attacking from everywhere.

That is the last team you can call a 1 or 2 man team. And if you have to put one guy over the rest....id have to say what they players said when I saw them asked. Willis Reed was the captian for a reason.

[L.Kizzle]

Not going to hi-jack this thread. But just leave 1 post. That should say it all.




Peak Stats:


John Stockton (89-92)

16.8ppg
14.0appg
3.0rpg
2.9spg
51.0% FG
84.0% FT
3 Time All-Defensive 2nd

Kevin Johnson (89-92)

21.2ppg
11.1apg
3.8rpg
1.6spg
50.0% FG
84.3% FT

Kevin Johnson clearly the better scorer, while John Stockton clearly the better passer/playmaker. Stockton seems to have a defensive edge too. We'll look more into this later.


Playoff Stats:


John Stockton:

16.9ppg
13.8apg
3.5rpg
46.4% FG
2.2spg


Kevin Johnson:

21.6ppg
11.6apg
3.8rpg
46.9% FG
1.5spg


Interestingly, Stockton shooting struggled a lot in the playoffs. KJ actually had a higher over FG%. Though Stockton still dished a lot of assists, he was clearly worse in the playoffs than he was in the regular season. While KJ was arguably better.



During both of their peaks, here are the awards they got


John Stockton

3 All-NBA 2nds
1 All-NBA 3rd

Kevin Johnson

3 All-NBA 2nds
1 All-NBA 3rd

Surprisingly, both never made All-NBA 1st in their peaks. But the reason was obvious, Magic and Jordan were also peaking at this time. But as you can see, this comparison is close.


Team Successwise:

John Stockton:

4 Playoff Appearances
3-4 in Playoff Series
1 WCF


Kevin Johnson:

4 Playoff Appearances
5-4 in Playoff Series
2 WCF


Though one should note, Stockton was doing this as the 2nd best player on his team, while Kevin Johnson was the best. Also KJ, helped turn a franchise around (Steve Nash like), while Stockton helped continue the Jazz's success.



So in such a close comparison (with small KJ edge), how does one have a clear decision? Their head to head meetings...Here are the box scores from 14 consecutive meetings beginning from the Spring of 1989, to the fall of 1993. This is also a test of how good Stockton's defense actually was.



http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/PHO19890405.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/PHO19900214.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/UTA19900313.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/PHO19900409.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/UTA19901102.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/PHO19901103.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/UTA19910206.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/PHO19910402.html

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1991&b=19911130&tm=phx

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1991&b=19920131&tm=uta

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1991&b=19920301&tm=phx

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1991&b=19920403&tm=uta

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1992&b=19930411&tm=phx

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1993&b=19931127&tm=phx


Final Statistics:


Kevin Johnson:

30.4 points
10.8 assists
51.8% FG
88.1% FT
1.8 steals
Record: 10-4

John Stockton:

16.4 points
12.5 assists
50.0% FG
87.9% FT
1.9 steals
Record: 4-10


So during this 14 game span, Kevin Johnson averaged 30/11 on John Stockton at 52% shooting! This is almost unheard of today. Stockton was great too, but he was clearly outplayed by KJ. And the team win-loss results show it. This was KJ as the best player on his team, and without Barkley while Stockton had Malone. Their win-loss records were the same, but over here, with KJ's domination, the Sun's went 10-4 against the Jazz.






Thus with that



Winner: Kevin Johnson

This isn't about peak though, if it was T-Mac would be in the top 5 and not barley making this list.

[magnax1]

The two season they finished under .500?
No? He took a more limited role, but he was still an all star caliber player. The team was full of guys like that. He only averaged like 2 less ppg per 36 compared to the year before he came to new York.

[GP_20]

I guess Stockton never made the all-nba first team in '94 and '95. :rolleyes: Your credibility? It just went down the drain.

Peak KJ > Peak Stockton is like saying you can vote and participate in this thread......oh wait. :oldlol:

Maybe you didn't say the 89-92 statement above. KJ's peak was from 89-92. Stockton was just as good or better in 89-92 as he was in 94 and 95, but only difference was Magic and Jordan were out of the league. So not sure what the 2 All-NBA 1sts in 94 and 95 have to do with anything.

KJ and Stockton's peaks overlapped in 89 to 92 (both were as good as they every have been), and the results clearly favor KJ, factoring everything

-regular season
-playoffs
-team success
-awards
-head to head (rape)

I mean, when you factor everything, and there is a clear winner, there is no debate.

[GP_20]

This isn't about peak though, if it was T-Mac would be in the top 5 and not barley making this list.

And I never made a statement other than peak. Of course Stockton > KJ for career, but let's not laugh at the peak comparison. KJ takes it easily.




Guys don't respond to me, I will be forced to respond back if anyone says anything negative about KJ. Thanks.

[Kblaze8855]

Nothing like a guy claiming something 3 people on the planet believe is indisputably true....

[knickswin]

I think this list is messed up for Stockton even being this high, but whatever.

I'm going with Walt.

Now, generally speaking I'm an new>old guy and it's true that Walt did not have a modern NBA level handle or a modern NBA level jumper, but Walt was a flat-out baller in a more old school sense. He understood the game about as well as anyone could. He was not a Steve Nash, Chris Paul type passer who set his teammates up every possesion, he was more like Larry Bird where he made the smart, right play whenever he got the ball. He was a great scorer too though. Excellent, excellent defender, played the passing lanes extremely well. Obviously he is very accomplished with his winning teams and championships.

He currently is the color commentator for the Knicks and you really get the sense that he understands the game listening to him. I remember when Carmelo had his first game as a Knick, Clyde said that he believes making one's teammates better is what truly makes a player a superstar and I have to agree. That is exactly the prescription Amar'e and particularly Carmelo need in my opinion: don't force things, take advantage of the defensive attention you get and make the right play. It took me a couple of months of watching Carmelo on my team to realize the only thing holding him back from being truly great is the willingness to become a playmaker, but Clyde called it on the first night.

[fos]

Stockton. :banana:

[L.Kizzle]

Payton never guarded peak KJ or peak Stockton that much. He guarded prime Stockton and prime KJ, and that could go either way.


Ok I'm leaving from this thread
Besides GPs first season and maybe even the second season, everything looks about the same stats wise between the two in head to head.

[L.Kizzle]

Jerry Lucas was putting up 19/16 the year before he was a Knick and 17/13/4 his first year there. Earl only played 4 years on the Bullets. he spent most of his career on the Knicks. His numbers were not the same but when he got there he was on a stacked team and playing 20 minutes a game. he was putting up 20/5 on a career high 525 shooting after everyone was gone. This is the late 70s. He was always a capable scorer. he just didnt do it much during their stacked years. he put up better numbers in 77 than eh did in 71 on the Bullets. DeBusschere was a star. Cazzie was their second leading scorer when they started contending and a 20+ppg all star once he left the Knicks. I suspect he didnt forget how to score between 68 and then.

Im nto acting like I know them top t obottom...but calling them a 2 man team when the players themselves talk about nothing but their outstanding teamwork and how nobody was bigger than the team. All I hear about them is the passing. All I see in games I watch of theirs. Watching an old Willis reed special(I made a video on him I never uploaded) those guys are spreading the ball around and attacking from everywhere.

That is the last team you can call a 1 or 2 man team. And if you have to put one guy over the rest....id have to say what they players said when I saw them asked. Willis Reed was the captian for a reason.
I didn't really mean a 2 man team as I explained early that this was a great team. Maybe the two most important players were Willis and Walt.

[knickswin]

I wasn't alive when Walt played (I've seen him play plenty, but I wasn't alive for it) but my parents and their siblings were and they talk about it all the time because it was pretty much the peak of the Knicks, Walt was the star on that team.

[GP_20]

A little on topic debate now


The fact is Stockton has become very overrated. He was never considered that valuable in his prime (never finishing Top 6 in MVP voting), not a player who can take over and dominant, always a clear-cut 2nd fiddle (Malone was clearly the best on the team), which is supported by the fact that Malone always got more MVP votes than Stockton. The reason you hear them so much as a duo is because of their chemistry and records broken together. But actual players? Karl Malone was clearly the best in Utah, and there was no debate during the time.

Walt Frazier on the other hand led his team to the championship as the best player (73), while Stockton, as the 2nd best player on his team for 18 years was able to win nothing.

[D.J.]

Walt Frazier


Not quite as good of a shooter, but a good one. He was the better scorer, rebounder, and defender. Walt is the best defender from the PG position. He's slightly above Payton in that regard. Walt also won 2 titles as the main guy. In '70 with the Knicks, he put up 21/8/6 on 52% shooting. His numbers fell a bit in the playoffs, but he still put up 16/8/8 on 48% shooting. In '73, he put up 21/7/6 on 49% shooting(22/7/6 on over 51% shooting in the playoffs). Frazier was putting up Scottie Pippen type numbers from the PG position. Frazier for his career is a 21/7/6 player. These are the advantages in Walt's favor:


-Scoring
-Rebounding
-Defense
-Multiple titles as the go to guy


Stockton was the better playmaker, passer, and was a bit more efficient offensively. Stockton never really dominated though. He got the job done and was a tenacious player, but you never really thought of him as a top player in the league, like you would with Magic, Bird, Jordan, Malone, Barkley, Olajuwon, or Ewing. Frazier flat out dominated. 21/7/6 for his career and for a 6'4" PG.

[L.Kizzle]

Walt Frazier


Not quite as good of a shooter, but a good one. He was the better scorer, rebounder, and defender. Walt is the best defender from the PG position. He's slightly above Payton in that regard. Walt also won 2 titles as the main guy. In '70 with the Knicks, he put up 21/8/6 on 52% shooting. His numbers fell a bit in the playoffs, but he still put up 16/8/8 on 48% shooting. In '72, he put up 23/7/6 on 51% shooting(24/7/6 on over 53% shooting in the playoffs). Frazier was putting up Scottie Pippen type numbers from the PG position. Frazier for his career is a 21/7/6 player. These are the advantages in Walt's favor:


-Scoring
-Rebounding
-Defense
-Multiple titles as the go to guy


Stockton was the better playmaker, passer, and was a bit more efficient offensively. Stockton never really dominated though. He got the job done and was a tenacious player, but you never really thought of him as a top player in the league, like you would with Magic, Bird, Jordan, Malone, Barkley, Olajuwon, or Ewing. Frazier flat out dominated. 21/7/6 for his career and for a 6'4" PG.
You sure he wasn't? Ever seen his stroke.

[D.J.]

You sure he wasn't? Ever seen his stroke.


Then he would have cracked 50% more than 3 times.

[L.Kizzle]

Then he would have cracked 50% more than 3 times.
How many times did Jerry West crack 50% ... You do realize a lot of folks weren't crackin 50% in the 60s and 70s. Even big men weren't but a select few.

Him doin 3 times says something.

[ThaSwagg3r]

You sure he wasn't? Ever seen his stroke.
If we are basing jumpers out of beauty, Reggie Miller would fall out of the top 10. There is no shooting statistic that Stockton didn't have over Frazier.

[L.Kizzle]

If we are basing jumpers out of beauty, Reggie Miller would fall out of the top 10. There is no shooting statistic that Stockton didn't have over Frazier.
I said stroke not form, Ben Wallace has excellent form ...

[Kblaze8855]

Walt also won 2 titles as the main guy.

Reed was all nba first team over Kareem, won MVP, and finals MVP...

But Frazier was the main man?

This was back when the players voted...and Reed got 10 times the MVP votes Walt did.

The players gave the teams second fiddle 10 times the MVP votes?

[GP_20]

Reed was all nba first team over Kareem, won MVP, and finals MVP...

But Frazier was the main man?

This was back when the players voted...and Reed got 10 times the MVP votes Walt did.

The players gave the teams second fiddle 10 times the MVP votes?

Whoever said that was wrong.

But Frazier still won a title as the best player on his team. Stockton, as the 2nd best player on his team all his career won......nothing.

[D.J.]

How many times did Jerry West crack 50% ... You do realize a lot of folks weren't crackin 50% in the 60s and 70s. Even big men weren't but a select few.

Him doin 3 times says something.


And Stockton did it 12 times, including shooting over 40% from downtown multiple times before the line was moved up. He was the better shooter.



Reed was all nba first team over Kareem, won MVP, and finals MVP...

But Frazier was the main man?

This was back when the players voted...and Reed got 10 times the MVP votes Walt did.

The players gave the teams second fiddle 10 times the MVP votes?


Willis Reed was very overrated. For someone that pulled down a massive amount of rebounds, he wasn't that good of a defender. He made the All-NBA 1st team only once and only 1 All-Defensive team. Frazier on the other hand, has 4 All-NBA 1st teams and 7 All-Defensive teams(all 1st teams). Frazier outscored Reed most of the time, led the offense, and was the much better defender for his position.

[L.Kizzle]

And Stockton did it 12 times, including shooting over 40% from downtown multiple times before the line was moved up. He was the better shooter.
You're not understanding me. If no one was doin it and HE did it, that should tell you something right?

When Stockton was over 50% who else was? Jordan, Drexler, Kevin Johnson, Alex English, Mark Price, Magic, Joe Dumars, ect, ect, ect.





Willis Reed was very overrated. For someone that pulled down a massive amount of rebounds, he wasn't that good of a defender. He made the All-NBA 1st team only once and only 1 All-Defensive team. Frazier on the other hand, has 4 All-NBA 1st teams and 7 All-Defensive teams(all 1st teams). Frazier outscored Reed most of the time, led the offense, and was the much better defender for his position.
Willis Reed wasn't overrated, there was only 2 center spots instead of four guard spots. He played with Wilt and Russel than Wilt and Kareem. So that's 2 spots right there. On defense Wilt and Russell and Wilt and Thurmond, 2 more spots.

[ThaRegul8r]

My vote here would be for Clyde. GOAT defensive PG ever (or alongside Payton for his fans), and one of the greatest big-game guards in the history of the game. Should have been 1970 NBA Finals MVP, and Willis Reed himself said after winning the '73 Finals MVP:

[Collie]

Stockton.

Walt was a better scorer, could take over when they needed him to, and was a better defender. In a vacuum, I'd say he had a higher peak than Stockton ever had.

Thing is, Stockton was no slouch as a defender himself, was a better passer, and the biggie here: He had longevity on his side.

I'd take the extra 8 Stockton years.

[Kblaze8855]

he wasnt a very good defender? Funny. Ive heard from Kareems mouth that he was an outstanding defender. Same for Wilt. I heard some of his teammates saying he was a better defender than anything and he came into the league looking to disrupt teams offenses and be like Bill Russell. Ive seen old games with people mentioning how despite being undersized he was able to push big centers outside the paint and make them catch it outside comfort zones. I dont think not making a lot of all D teams means he wasnt a great defender. Not in an era with Wilt and Thurmond.

[Sarcastic]

This isn't even a fair vote, since everyone who voted Stockton never even saw a Frazier highlight, let alone an entire game he played. They just look at his assist total and say "ZOMG he was great".

[magnax1]

KBlaze is definitely right about Reed. I never watched one of those Knicks games being replayed and thought Frazier was as good as Reed, or that it was really even question to me up until Reeds last year or two. Reed one his MVP because of his defense and intangibles, so to say he wasn't a great defender is well.... dumb.

[D.J.]

When Stockton was over 50% who else was? Jordan, Drexler, Kevin Johnson, Alex English, Mark Price, Magic, Joe Dumars, ect, ect, ect.


On that list, the only pure shooters were English and Price. Dumars didn't become an elite shooter until the tail end of Isiah's career.



Willis Reed wasn't overrated, there was only 2 center spots instead of four guard spots. He played with Wilt and Russel than Wilt and Kareem. So that's 2 spots right there. On defense Wilt and Russell and Wilt and Thurmond, 2 more spots.


And if he was that great, he would have gotten more than 1 All-NBA 1st team and 1 All-NBA Defensive 1st team. Not to mention there weren't as many good bigs in the 60's and 70's like there were in the 90's. He didn't dominate defensively at his position like Frazier did.

[L.Kizzle]

On that list, the only pure shooters were English and Price. Dumars didn't become an elite shooter until the tail end of Isiah's career.
Is Stockton a pure shooter to you?





And if he was that great, he would have gotten more than 1 All-NBA 1st team and 1 All-NBA Defensive 1st team. Not to mention there weren't as many good bigs in the 60's and 70's like there were in the 90's. He didn't dominate defensively at his position like Frazier did.
He made 1 All-NBA team cause he played at the same time as three top 7 players all-time (who played his position center at that. Do I have to name those 3 players?) Also, he made one Defensive 1st team cause again he played with arguably the three best defensive centers ever (do I have to name them too?)

[D.J.]

He made 1 All-NBA team cause he played at the same time as three top 7 players all-time (who played his position center at that. Do I have to name those 3 players?) Also, he made one Defensive 1st team cause again he played with arguably the three best defensive centers ever (do I have to name them too?)


I'm not going to cut him slack for that. It took Wilt having a 12 game season for Willis to get his 1st team selections. Maybe if his D was a bit better, he'd have more 1st teams.

[L.Kizzle]

I'm not going to cut him slack for that. It took Wilt having a 12 game season for Willis to get his 1st team selections. Maybe if his D was a bit better, he'd have more 1st teams.
WHAT! Or maybe Wilt's D was just that damn good. Don't know if you're serious or not.

[Kblaze8855]

So...if you arent a better defender than Lakers era defense first wilt...or Nate thurmond..you arent a great defender?

Really?

That really the message you are looking to get across?

[magnax1]

So...if you arent a better defender than Lakers era defense first wilt...or Nate thurmond..you arent a great defender?

Really?

That really the message you are looking to get across?
It's not like Frazier would've ever gotten on all defensive teams over those guys either.

[Collie]

Bill Russell:


The Knicks in the late 1960s, for example, had one of the best defensive units in the game. In 1969, we faced them in the play-offs after they had taken us six times in seven regular-season games. Before our series against them in the Eastern Divisional Finals started, I took home the statistics from the regular season and studied them. I was aware that the Knicks had done a great job of closing us down, and I wanted to see if anything in the numbers would give me a clue. As a player and a coach, I didn't look at statistics the way sportswriters and fans did. I wasn't interested in who scored most, got the most rebounds or assists. I was after clues that would let me see patterns, what it was that enabled the Knicks to succeed against us. The stats, this time, revealed something startling about the Knicks' defense.

I noticed that in each of the regular-season games against them, I had taken no more than five or six shots. Now the guy guarding me and the backbone of the Knicks defense was Willis Reed. Because I hadn't been shooting much, Reed had been free to help out on defense. He had been able to leave me safe in the assumption that I wasn't likely to get the ball and shoot.

The Knicks gained from this in the way they used Walt Frazier in tandem with Reed. Frazier, a great player who really never received enough credit, was as good a defensive player as there was. So Frazier, when Willis moved away from me to help out, would go after a likely shooter and drive him toward Reed. Again and again, our best or most likely shooters found themselves stifled or hemmed in. How to defeat that? The answer for the play-offs was clear. Don't give Willis Reed that kind of freedom. To break the defense, I needed to shoot the ball. It was as simple as that.

http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadershop/4598-9excerpt.html

[ThaRegul8r]

So...if you arent a better defender than Lakers era defense first wilt...or Nate thurmond..you arent a great defender?

Really?

That really the message you are looking to get across?

It's not like Frazier would've ever gotten on all defensive teams over those guys either.

This makes no sense. Wilt and Thurmond were centers. Frazier was a guard. He didn't have to get on the All Defensive Teams over them because they played different positions. Frazier was making First Team All-Defense with them.

(FYI, Frazier was first in the First Team All-Defense voting in 1969-70, second in 1970-71, third in 1972-73 and second in 1974-75.)

[Kblaze8855]

He knows they were at different positions. His point was...they were the best defensive players in the NBA. Not being ranked over them doesntmean you arent great yourself.

[magnax1]

This makes no sense. Wilt and Thurmond were centers. Frazier was a guard. He didn't have to get on the All Defensive Teams over them because they played different positions. Frazier was making First Team All-Defense with them.

(FYI, Frazier was first in the First Team All-Defense voting in 1969-70, second in 1970-71, third in 1972-73 and second in 1974-75.)
That was kind of the point I was making........ Guards don't have to make it over guys like Thurmond

[iamgine]

Do the contributors get to vote?

Anyways, John Stockton.

[ThaRegul8r]

Do the contributors get to vote?


Only members listed on the project roster will have their votes counted.

Contributors contribute. Hence why they are distinguished from the voting roster. But a simple look at the voting roster in the intro post,


The Roster

L.Kizzle
ThaSwagg3r
Rose
WillC
G.O.A.T
1987 Lakers
neyca
Toizumi
Shaqattack3234
Magnax1
RobertdeMeijer
iamgine
nycelt84
KGMN
SteveNashMVPcro

would have eliminated the need to ask the question. You're now the second person to ask if their vote counted who was already listed on the roster on the very first post of the thread.

[bizil]

Give me Clyde all the way! In terms of combining scoring, assists, and defense, Clyde and GP stand in a class by themselves. And Clyde has two rings to go with it. Stock has the all time assists and steals titles. And has as good of a longevity of any PG ever along with Nash. But Stock couldn't close out a game like Nash, Clyde, Magic, or Isiah. But Stock's longevity being great was so remarkable that on a GOAT list many will rate Stock ahead of Clyde. But peak value wise or even GOAT wise, Clyde is a top 4- 5 PG ever. For a GOAT list I feel these are the top 5 PG's:

Magic
Big O
Isiah
Clyde
Kidd

After these guys u can rank Payton, Stock, Nash, Cousy, Tiny in any number of ways. But I'm inclined to put Nash number 6 cause of the two MVPs and awesome longevity. But GP had great longevity as well.

[Clippersfan86]

Contributors contribute. Hence why they are distinguished from the voting roster. But a simple look at the voting roster in the intro post,



would have eliminated the need to ask the question. You're now the second person to ask if their vote counted who was already listed on the roster on the very first post of the thread.

Why are you being such a tight ass about it G.O.A.T? It's a forum and it's normal to skim and miss details. I didn't say anything when you were a dick to me earlier but really?? I love your contributions with these threads but no need to condecend contributors.

[Odinn]

It's too hard to compare.
Frazier played only 13 seasons and only 10 of them were legit. Frazier's Cavs career 3 seasons but just 68 games... Stockton played 19 seasons. It's too hard to compare their longevity especially.

I vote for John Stockton. Coz of his accomplishments and longevity. Peak wise, I'd choose Frazier over Stockton without a doubt.

[Fatal9]

Averaged 18-8-10 in 1970 Finals; had 39 points and 19 assists in game seven

He had 9 assists. (Probably) A typo in the boxscore changed his 9 assists to 19. 10 of those assists are simply made up or credited to him by mistake.

He still had an incredible game on both ends but the "19 assists" simply did not happen.

[G.O.A.T]

He had 9 assists. (Probably) A typo in the boxscore changed his 9 assists to 19. 10 of those assists are simply made up or credited to him by mistake.

He still had an incredible game on both ends but the "19 assists" simply did not happen.

Interesting. What is your source?
Everything I checked, including the book "Shoot the Lights Out" about the 69-70 team and the Finals box score archive has him for 19. In fact if only had 9, the team only had 20 for the game, by far their lowest output of the series if true.

EDIT: Just checked my files and NBA.com, SI.com and ESPN.com all have articles crediting him with 19...you might be under covering something big here.

[Odinn]

G.O.A.T, btw, if you're going to make a top 25 forwards project, I wanna be in the roster again. Just for record.:cheers:

[G.O.A.T]

Why are you being such a tight ass about it G.O.A.T? It's a forum and it's normal to skim and miss details. I didn't say anything when you were a dick to me earlier but really?? I love your contributions with these threads but no need to condecend contributors.

You really do need to slow down and read what people are writing. I wasn't even the one who made that response to you, that was ThaRegul8r quoting my first post to answer iamgines question. Also I don't remember being a dick to you. I remember letting you join the project and letting you know when your vote would start counting.

It's not a big deal, but you have to admit that it's hard to believe your reading other peoples arguments and not just voting your preconceived notion if you don't even read the opening post which is two and half paragraphs long.

[Miller for 3]

Im going with Walt Frazier

In the last thread I stated my issues with Stockton, so I won't repeat them. I pick Walt for a few reasons. As everyone knows, he is arguably the GOAT defensive PG. He is also one of the biggest clutch time performers ever. One of the few stars in history who's game elevated come playoff time He could take over games with his scoring in a way Stockton couldn't. Frazier's assists may not be that high, but that is because the Knicks were such a good passing team that had amazing ball movement, and he later had to share PG duties with Earl the Pearl. I don't think Stockton could lead a team like Walt did when Reed got hurt, or have a playoff run like his 73 one.

[Fatal9]

Interesting. What is your source?
Everything I checked, including the book "Shoot the Lights Out" about the 69-70 team and the Finals box score archive has him for 19. In fact if only had 9, the team only had 20 for the game, by far their lowest output of the series if true.

EDIT: Just checked my files and NBA.com, SI.com and ESPN.com all have articles crediting him with 19...you might be under covering something big here.

Yea, I always had him at 19 too because that's what the boxscore and all the articles of the game said, but he didn't have that many.

A poster on another board actually discovered this:

Here is his video of all the NYK field-goals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=953IPz0fJcA


Here's list of all field goals made and who assisted:
1st Q
1. Reed, Frazier AST (1)
2. Reed, Barnett AST (1)
3. DeBusschere, Bradley AST (1)
4. Bradley, Frazier AST (2)
5. DeBusschere, Barnett AST (2)
6. Bradley, no AST (1)
7. Frazier, no AST (2)
8. DeBusschere, Bradley AST (2)
9. Frazier, no AST (3)
10. Frazier, no AST (4)
11. Barnett, Bradley AST (3)
12. Bradley, Frazier AST (3)
13. Frazier, no AST (5)
14. DeBusschere, no AST (6)
15. Frazier, no AST (7)

2nd Q
16. DeBusschere, Reed AST (1)
17. Bradley, Frazier AST (4)
18. Bradley, Riordan AST (1)
19. Riordan, DeBusschere AST (1)
20. Riordan, Bradley AST (4)
21. Frazier, no AST (8)
22. Stallworth, no AST (9)
23. Barnett, no AST (10)
24. Barnett, no AST (11)
25. Russell, no AST (12)
26. Frazier, no AST (13)
27. Frazier, no AST (14)
28. Bowman, Frazier AST (5)

3rd Q
29. Bradley, Barnett AST (3)
30. Frazier, no AST (15)
31. Frazier, no AST (16)
32. Frazier, no AST (17)
33. DeBusschere, Bradley AST (5)
34. Bradley, Bowman AST (1)
35. Bowman, Frazier AST (6)
36. Barnett, Frazier AST (7)
37. DeBusschere, no AST (18)
38. DeBusschere, no AST (19)
39. Barnett, Frazier AST (8)

4th Q
40. Barnett, no AST (20)
41. Barnett, no AST (21)
42. Frazier, Barnett AST (4)
43. Barnett, Bradley AST (6)
44. Bradley, Stallworth (1)
45. Bowman, DeBusschere (2)
46. Barnett, Frazier AST (9)

So NYK total FG MADE: 46
21 unasisted
Frazier 9 AST
Bradley 6 AST
Barnett 4 AST
DeBusschere 2 AST
Reed 1 AST
Riordan 1 AST
Bowman 1 AST
Stallworth 1 AST

I watched the game again, counted myself and can confirm this (I had the game downloaded, but pretty sure full game is on youtube). It does seem odd that he went from averaging 9 apg for the series, to all of a sudden a 19 assist game, especially considering the Knicks didn't really play the kind of offense to allow a PG to rack up that many assists.


I think it might have been a typo, maybe an unintentional line in front of the "9" made it go down as 19, or the statkeepers just made it up to make the game that much more "legendary" (the game was played in New York after all).

[G.O.A.T]

Yea, I always had him at 19 too because that's what the boxscore and all the articles of the game said, but he didn't have that many.

A poster on another board actually discovered this:

Here is his video of all the NYK field-goals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=953IPz0fJcA



I watched the game again, counted myself and can confirm this (I had the game downloaded, but pretty sure full game is on youtube). It does seem odd that he went from averaging 9 apg for the series, to all of a sudden a 19 assist game, especially considering the Knicks didn't really play the kind of offense to allow a PG to rack up that many assists.


I think it might have been a typo, maybe an unintentional line in front of the "9" made it go down as 19, or the statkeepers just made it up to make the game that much more "legendary" (the game was played in New York after all).

Yeah a lot of those numbers don't jive with the boxscore.

Bradley, Barnett and DeBusschere all have more assists than the boxscore credited them with.

That certainly does make it look like an even better game, but 10 assists is a lot to add. This isn't Andre Miller getting a freebie a game at home all season, this is outright lying. Are any of those unassisted baskets gray area? You know to explain a few of the 10 assists discrepancy?

[Soothing Layup]

Stockton was capable of so much more shooting/scoring wise. But he was too true to the PG position. Always passing and never taking the big shots, always cherry pickin' to Malone. It's a shame when someone plays the PG position EXACTLY how it's supposed to be played and he doesn't get enough credit.

Stocktons steals record will never be broken and it's hard to believe that his assist record will be broken, too.

[Fatal9]

Yeah a lot of those numbers don't jive with the boxscore.

Bradley, Barnett and DeBusschere all have more assists than the boxscore credited them with.

That certainly does make it look like an even better game, but 10 assists is a lot to add. This isn't Andre Miller getting a freebie a game at home all season, this is outright lying. Are any of those unassisted baskets gray area? You know to explain a few of the 10 assists discrepancy?

All the "maybe" assists were taken into account by him, and the highest it comes to is 9. This includes assists for example where Bradley took 3 dribbles and scored.

[Doranku]

All the "maybe" assists were taken into account by him, and the highest it comes to is 9. This includes assists for example where Bradley took 3 dribbles and scored.

Yeah, and I just watched the video and counted all of the "for sure" unassisted shots and came up with 21 just as that poster did.

There's no way Frazier had even close to 19 assists in that game after watching that video.

[Gotterdammerung]

Walt "clyde" Frazier every day of the week and twice on sundays. He was a cool customer who always played hard, strong enough to muscle inside, slick enough to get by bigger, stronger defenders, and never forced a shot. He could rebound like a bigger player, hit the open man and play world-class defense.

Like Stockton Frazier learned the value of a team oriented game under a demanding coach in Holzman. Thus he gave up personal numbers for team success. Freedom with no structure ends in chaos, while within a system freedom becomes creativity.

Unlike Stockton, Frazier adjusted his game to the demands of the game and stepped up bigger when his teammates shrank. Stockton played the same every game. :rolleyes:

[iamgine]

Can we conclude that stats before 80s are massively unreliable then?

[knickswin]

I think the stats undersell how good of a passer Clyde was. He was an old school point guard who played before there was a perimeter, but he always made the smart play.

[Rose]

I'm staying out of this one since, Walt was away before my time.

[nycelt84]

I go with John Stockton. His longevity puts him over the top for me.

[Big164]

Ill be honest. I dont see Walt Frazier as a top 5 Point guard nor as a top 5 shooting guard. He's behind 5 who are better playmakers and 5 who are better scorers. Not the best at anything.

Stockton on the other hand is The Dark Lord of Assists, and this will keep him in most PG discussions. He made the finals twice with Jeff Hornacek being his 2nd option. Compare that to Walts 3rd and 4th options(Willis Reed, Jerry Lucas) who are both Hall of Famers.

I'll take John Stockton.

[L.Kizzle]

Ill be honest. I dont see Walt Frazier as a top 5 Point guard nor as a top 5 shooting guard. He's behind 5 who are better playmakers and 5 who are better scorers. Not the best at anything.

Stockton on the other hand is The Dark Lord of Assists, and this will keep him in most PG discussions. He made the finals twice with Jeff Hornacek being his 2nd option. Compare that to Walts 3rd and 4th options(Willis Reed, Jerry Lucas) who are both Hall of Famers.

I'll take John Stockton.
Can't compare a early 70s team to a late 90s team. Knicks weren't the only team with hall of famers. Lakers had 4, bucks had two and a pretty good Dandridge. Bullets had 3, Hawks had two and Lou Hudson, Pistons had two ect ect ect

[Clippersfan86]

Just read the damn intro post. Your named is listed home slice.

When I said tight ass this and the post to Imagine is what I meant. This was from you. I read your intro listing the accolades and anything you type up... but I skimmed over the voters list which IMO is normal. All we look for is our name and I just looked briefly. Either way it's all good.. you just seemed pretty serious about it.

[Big164]

Can't compare a early 70s team to a late 90s team. Knicks weren't the only team with hall of famers. Lakers had 4, bucks had two and a pretty good Dandridge. Bullets had 3, Hawks had two and Lou Hudson, Pistons had two ect ect ect
None of them were New York. The Knicks went 7 deep!

Walt Frazier
Dave Debusscher
Bill Bradley
Earl Monroe
Willis Reed
Jerry Lucas
Phil Jackson

All hall of famers.

[L.Kizzle]

None of them were New York. The Knicks went 7 deep!

Walt Frazier
Dave Debusscher
Bill Bradley
Earl Monroe
Willis Reed
Jerry Lucas
Phil Jackson

All hall of famers.
Phil Jackson for real. Lucas was past his prime.

[Droid101]

Those chops have got to give him at least 1,000,000,000 intangible points.
Although this is the most compelling argument I've ever heard, I'm going to have to vote for John Stockton.

The records he holds (and will hold forever!) are a big deal, even with no rings.

Anything that happened before 1973 is just too fuzzy for me. So maybe I should abstain.

But I won't. Stock was just too consistent, too good, for too long.

[WillC]

Walt Frazier was awesome but John Stockton had the better career.

If I was starting a team, I'd take Stockton. He guaranteed about 50ish wins per season for 15+ seasons. Frazier had a nice peak but didn't have the same longevity.

I have to say it though, I hate choosing Stockton over Clyde.

[Soothing Layup]

If stockton loses this I will lose all faith in this board.

[IGOTGAME]

If stockton loses this I will lose all faith in this board.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49285&page=11

that is when I lost faith.

[Soothing Layup]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myMvojT6zIc

at the 1:15 mark you can see Stockton schooling MJ. And again at the end.

[Miller for 3]

If I was starting a team, I'd take Stockton. He guaranteed about 50ish wins per season for 15+ seasons.




WTF, no he didn't. The Jazz had their most team success when Stockton played fewer minutes and was given less control of the offense. They had the best offense in the league when Stockton missed 18 games and played less than 30 a game in 98. Malone gave your team a better shot at 50+ wins for 15+ years than Stockton did.

[D.J.]

HTF is Stockton winning this? :wtf:

[Soothing Layup]

HTF is Stockton winning this? :wtf:

better player.

[D.J.]

better player.


Most of ISH voted for Nash over Kidd. Seriously, WTF?

[ThaSwagg3r]

Frazier is losing because nobody knows who he is. It's a shame really because he is the third greatest PG of all-time IMO. He is not only ahead of Stockton me but also ahead of Isiah, Cousy, etc..

[Yung D-Will]

Most of ISH voted for Nash over Kidd. Seriously, WTF?

Actually last time we had a big thread about it most of Ish voted Kidd over Nash...

And Yes Stockton is better than every pg not named Isiah,Magic or Oscar

[knickswin]

Frazier is losing because nobody knows who he is. It's a shame really because he is the third greatest PG of all-time IMO. He is not only ahead of Stockton me but also ahead of Isiah, Cousy, etc..


This. He is not forgotten in New York though, dude's a legend here.

[ShaqAttack3234]

And Yes Stockton is better than every pg not named Isiah,Magic or Oscar

I've never understood that unless someone wants to go purely by who played the traditional point guard role the best instead of who the best players were(in which case the list would look different anyway).

But Stockton was never a top 5 player in the NBA at any time and really wasn't an MVP candidate at any point or a true franchise player, imo. So I still can't figure out how he ends up ranked as high as he does.

[Soothing Layup]

Stockton was a beast. Could get you 17 ppg and is the all time leader in assists and steals.

Not hating on Clyde but he isn't even top 30 in either category, and Stockton could be argued the better shooter, too. Stocktons longevity was also better.

Clyde was good, Stockton was better.

[Soothing Layup]

I've never understood that unless someone wants to go purely by who played the traditional point guard role the best instead of who the best players were(in which case the list would look different anyway).

But Stockton was never a top 5 player in the NBA at any time and really wasn't an MVP candidate at any point or a true franchise player, imo. So I still can't figure out how he ends up ranked as high as he does.

It's pretty simple. Stockton wasn't popular, he was in the Jordan Era arguably the most talented era, and he was a past first PG. Stockton was what every Karl Malone, Barkley, and Michael Jordan want on their team.

A guy who can give you assist after assist, steal after steal, and also has a really good shot so you HAVE to guard him. Stockton was the best 2nd banana to ever play the game. Stockton knew his place, and knew his position. He was the real deal.

[Yung D-Will]

I've never understood that unless someone wants to go purely by who played the traditional point guard role the best instead of who the best players were(in which case the list would look different anyway).

But Stockton was never a top 5 player in the NBA at any time and really wasn't an MVP candidate at any point or a true franchise player, imo. So I still can't figure out how he ends up ranked as high as he does.

Well first when it comes to comparing him to other players like Nash and Kidd he's the only one who IMO didn't have a glaring weakness like Kidd's inefficent shooting or Nash's defense and I feel because of his playmaking he was even more complete than Payton. And that even though he wasn't a top 5 player his longevity allowed him to stay a top pg for more years than a lot of players play their whole career. And he might not have been flashy but he got it done on both ends, Efficient shooting, Most assist in Nba history, Steals, Pick and rolls and he did it on a consistent basis until he was basically 40 .


Now When it comes to comparing him to a person like Walt I can honestly say I have no idea how to compare because the most of him I've seen in MSG replays.

[ShaqAttack3234]

It's pretty simple. Stockton wasn't popular, he was in the Jordan Era arguably the most talented era, and he was a past first PG. Stockton was what every Karl Malone, Barkley, and Michael Jordan want on their team.

A guy who can give you assist after assist, steal after steal, and also has a really good shot so you HAVE to guard him. Stockton was the best 2nd banana to ever play the game. Stockton knew his place, and knew his position. He was the real deal.

I never said he wasn't good, but first of all, he was not the best sidekick ever, and when ranking all time greats, the fact that he didn't prove consistently that he could take over games(and Utah could've benefited him from doing it more often than he did, particularly when Malone struggled) I simply can't put him over guys who did show that ability.


Well first when it comes to comparing him to other players like Nash and Kidd he's the only one who IMO didn't have a glaring weakness like Kidd's inefficent shooting or Nash's defense

And despite Kidd's shooting, I saw him take over more games when he had to and carry his teams at times. Nash was never a good defensive player, but I'll deal with that(particularly at the guard position) and then take Nash's ability to set up his teammates just as well and take over a game when necessary(but only when necessary as Nash was a pass first player as well).

I guess I have less of a problem with him being ranked so high on point guard lists than when I see him top 25 or top 30 on all time lists.

[IGOTGAME]

It's pretty simple. Stockton wasn't popular, he was in the Jordan Era arguably the most talented era, and he was a past first PG. Stockton was what every Karl Malone, Barkley, and Michael Jordan want on their team.

A guy who can give you assist after assist, steal after steal, and also has a really good shot so you HAVE to guard him. Stockton was the best 2nd banana to ever play the game. Stockton knew his place, and knew his position. He was the real deal.

nope, he is overrated. Back in 2007 the board voted Stockton over Kobe Bryant. There was no justification for it. Kobe was/is just better at giving teams the opportunity to win championships. That pretty much sums it up for me.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49285&page=11

[Big164]

I've never understood that unless someone wants to go purely by who played the traditional point guard role the best instead of who the best players were(in which case the list would look different anyway).

But Stockton was never a top 5 player in the NBA at any time and really wasn't an MVP candidate at any point or a true franchise player, imo. So I still can't figure out how he ends up ranked as high as he does.
Dennis Rodman was never a top 5 player or MVP candidate.. Hes never even been the 2nd best player on his team.

Yet some call him the greatest rebounder of all time. Rodman and Stockton get kudos for being the best at what they do.

Being the best at one thing is better than being a B- at everything. Frazier isnt top 10 in any category, and as a hybrid player, he is looking up at Magic, Isiah, and Robertson who were better scorers and passers.

[Skep]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myMvojT6zIc

at the 1:15 mark you can see Stockton schooling MJ. And again at the end.


Stockton had so many clutch moments. That shot over barkley is one of my all time favorites.


Fvck the rockets

[magnax1]

I've never understood that unless someone wants to go purely by who played the traditional point guard role the best instead of who the best players were(in which case the list would look different anyway).

But Stockton was never a top 5 player in the NBA at any time and really wasn't an MVP candidate at any point or a true franchise player, imo. So I still can't figure out how he ends up ranked as high as he does.
Nash wouldn't have been a top 5 player ever in the early 90s either. If you consider Nash a franchise player, then so was Stockton because he did almost everything better excluding shooting the ball. I don't really know what you're trying to say about him honestly, unless you consider this to be true of both players.

[Dasher]

Are we really arguing Stockton over Frazier?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Dennis Rodman was never a top 5 player or MVP candidate.. Hes never even been the 2nd best player on his team.

Yet some call him the greatest rebounder of all time. Rodman and Stockton get kudos for being the best at what they do.

Being the best at one thing is better than being a B- at everything. Frazier isnt top 10 in any category, and as a hybrid player, he is looking up at Magic, Isiah, and Robertson who were better scorers and passers.

As far as the Rodman comparison, how is it even relevant that he gets called the best rebounder ever? I'm not talking about Stockton's ranking as a passer, but as an overall player.


Nash wouldn't have been a top 5 player ever in the early 90s either. If you consider Nash a franchise player, then so was Stockton because he did almost everything better excluding shooting the ball. I don't really know what you're trying to say about him honestly, unless you consider this to be true of both players.

No, I don't believe Stockton did pretty much everything better outside of shooting. The only thing I consider Stockton better at is defense, I consider passing to be pretty much a wash and I give Nash a noticeable advantage as a scorer.

And there are a few years where Nash would have an argument for top 5 in the early 90's, imo.

And regardless of era(and admittedly criteria and strength on the candidates varies), there's a big difference between winning 2 MVPs and finished 2nd one other time, and never finishing higher than 7th, and getting a total of 1 first place vote in your career.

[SteveNashMVPcro]

Walt Frazier

[ThaRegul8r]

I think the stats undersell how good of a passer Clyde was. He was an old school point guard who played before there was a perimeter, but he always made the smart play.

And Red Holzman's system depressed his assists. For example, in 1972-73, Frazier averaged 5.9 assists per game, but that was because Bill Bradley and Jerry Lucas averaged 4.5 each, Earl Monroe averaged 3.8, and Dave DeBusschere averaged 3.4. One person didn't rack up a big number of assists on those Knicks teams.

[ThaRegul8r]

Stockton was a beast. Could get you 17 ppg and is the all time leader in assists and steals.

Not hating on Clyde but he isn't even top 30 in either category

It irks me when people say stuff like this. Completely ignoring the fact that steals weren't even officially recorded for almost half Frazier's career. So how in the world is he supposed to be in the top 30?

And during that time in which steals weren't officially recorded, Frazier had a 15-steal game November 26, 1969 against Atlanta. That's four more than the "official" record established by Larry Kenon in 1976 and tied by Kendall Gill in 1999. He had seven steals in the third quarter, which would have been the record until Lafayette Lever had eight in 1985, 16 years later. Oh yeah, he had 33 points to boot (Kenon had 29 when he had 11 steals, and Gill had 15).

So it's ridiculous to say Frazier isn't at or near the top in steals, when one clearly doesn't have this knowledge.

[MasterDurant24]

Walt Frazier would of least been top 5 in steals if they were recorded for his career, if he played as long as Stockton he would be the all time leader. Frazier was a better defender than Stockton, and I have him in the top 5 point guards defensively. Frazier was the second best player on a championship team(Willis Reed was the best player that year on the Knicks), and was the best player for another championship team, a team that made the Finals(but lost), and a 1st place team. In that game where Willis Reed hobbled onto the court, Walt Frazier had 36 and 19. I also think that Frazier was an underrated passer, but I'm not gonna say he was at an equal level to Stockton. I

[bizil]

And Red Holzman's system depressed his assists. For example, in 1972-73, Frazier averaged 5.9 assists per game, but that was because Bill Bradley and Jerry Lucas averaged 4.5 each, Earl Monroe averaged 3.8, and Dave DeBusschere averaged 3.4. One person didn't rack up a big number of assists on those Knicks teams.

Great point! That team was one of the most well balanced teams ever. They could beat u anyway pretty much. They had a very cerebral and skilled team. So with that system, it made the assists numbers deceiving. But if u know the game, u know Clyde was a great passer.

[bizil]

Walt Frazier would of least been top 5 in steals if they were recorded for his career, if he played as long as Stockton he would be the all time leader. Frazier was a better defender than Stockton, and I have him in the top 5 point guards defensively. Frazier was the second best player on a championship team(Willis Reed was the best player that year on the Knicks), and was the best player for another championship team, a team that made the Finals(but lost), and a 1st place team. In that game where Willis Reed hobbled onto the court, Walt Frazier had 36 and 19. I also think that Frazier was an underrated passer, but I'm not gonna say he was at an equal level to Stockton. I

I agree. Clyde was indeed a great and underrated passer. But I've always felt Magic, Stock, Big O, Kidd, Nash, and Isiah were the best passers of all time.

[bizil]

Frazier is losing because nobody knows who he is. It's a shame really because he is the third greatest PG of all-time IMO. He is not only ahead of Stockton me but also ahead of Isiah, Cousy, etc..

I think Frazier has a case as the third best PG of all time. My top four are Magic, Big O, Isiah, and Clyde. I wouldn't complain one bit if someone has Clyde 3 and Isiah 4. But I feel those are the four greatest PG's of all time. And each has their own distinctive style they are the best at. But something they all have in common is the fact they have takeover scoring ability to go with their great floor general skills.

[ThaRegul8r]

Walt Frazier


Not quite as good of a shooter, but a good one. He was the better scorer, rebounder, and defender. Walt is the best defender from the PG position. He's slightly above Payton in that regard. Walt also won 2 titles as the main guy. In '70 with the Knicks, he put up 21/8/6 on 52% shooting. His numbers fell a bit in the playoffs, but he still put up 16/8/8 on 48% shooting. In '72, he put up 23/7/6 on 51% shooting(24/7/6 on over 53% shooting in the playoffs). Frazier was putting up Scottie Pippen type numbers from the PG position. Frazier for his career is a 21/7/6 player. These are the advantages in Walt's favor:


-Scoring
-Rebounding
-Defense
-Multiple titles as the go to guy


Stockton was the better playmaker, passer, and was a bit more efficient offensively. Stockton never really dominated though. He got the job done and was a tenacious player, but you never really thought of him as a top player in the league, like you would with Magic, Bird, Jordan, Malone, Barkley, Olajuwon, or Ewing. Frazier flat out dominated. 21/7/6 for his career and for a 6'4" PG.

You sure he wasn't? Ever seen his stroke.

Then he would have cracked 50% more than 3 times.

How many times did Jerry West crack 50% ... You do realize a lot of folks weren't crackin 50% in the 60s and 70s. Even big men weren't but a select few.

Him doin 3 times says something.

DID YOU KNOW:


Walt Frazier, the New York Knickerbockers' top draft choice in 1967, has established himself throughout the NBA as the greatest defensive guard in the game. His performance on the court has been so superior, he is considered a defensive genius.

Clyde, the nickname the Knicks have for Walt, is noted for his fast hands and repeated steals. Along with his defensive prowess it makes him a triple threat to his challengers. As team captain, Frazier was the leading scorer for the Knicks in each of the last four seasons and ranked fourth among the NBA playmakers with a 5.9 assist record. His playoff shooting of .508 (738 goals on 1454 attempts) is second only to that of Wilt Chamberlain (.522) in the history of the NBA.

- April 5, 1975

[magnax1]

I consider passing to be pretty much a wash
I definitely don't see a case for that. Nash is probably the third best passer ever to me, but even then there is an obvious gap in where he is capable of putting the ball compared to Stockton and Magic.

and I give Nash a noticeable advantage as a scorer.
If there is a gap, it's very minimal. Nash peaked out on 19 ppg on low 60s TS%, Stockton on 17 ppg on low 60s TS%. I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that if passing is a wash, and Stockton is a way better defender, the 2 ppg ends up pushing you towards Nash.



And regardless of era(and admittedly criteria and strength on the candidates varies), there's a big difference between winning 2 MVPs and finished 2nd one other time, and never finishing higher than 7th, and getting a total of 1 first place vote in your career.
That's some very faulty logic though. By that Standard Isiah is far behind Nash too, who I'd consider better then both Stockton and Nash in their peaks.

[L.Kizzle]

Still haven't made my decision yet. I went with Stockton at first, than leaned towards Clyde ...

[G.O.A.T]

And regardless of era(and admittedly criteria and strength on the candidates varies), there's a big difference between winning 2 MVPs and finished 2nd one other time, and never finishing higher than 7th, and getting a total of 1 first place vote in your career.

Stockton is the only player ranked in my top 50 that never finished in the top five of an MVP vote.

That said, I don't think using Nash's MVP votes is fair. I would have never even put Nash in the top five of my ballot. A lot of people feel that way. The MVP voting is nice, but when you and your team don't back it up, not just that year, but any year, it takes a lot (for me all) of the meaning way. It means the MVP voters were wrong based on the historical precedent of the award.

I do think Nash peaked higher, but no so much so as to put him on a different level. Nash made 3 all-NBA 1st teams, Stockton 2. That to me speaks much closer to the difference between Steve Nash at his best and Stockton at his.

[tontoz]

Stockton is the only player ranked in my top 50 that never finished in the top five of an MVP vote.

That said, I don't think using Nash's MVP votes is fair. I would have never even put Nash in the top five of my ballot. A lot of people feel that way. The MVP voting is nice, but when you and your team don't back it up, not just that year, but any year, it takes a lot (for me all) of the meaning way. It means the MVP voters were wrong based on the historical precedent of the award.

I do think Nash peaked higher, but no so much so as to put him on a different level. Nash made 3 all-NBA 1st teams, Stockton 2. That to me speaks much closer to the difference between Steve Nash at his best and Stockton at his.



If Nash played at the same time as Magic, Jordan and Bird he probably wouldn't have any All-NBA first teams or MVPs.

[G.O.A.T]

If Nash played at the same time as Magic, Jordan and Bird he probably wouldn't have any All-NBA first teams or MVPs.

Not sure what Bird would have to do with it, but Stockton didn't make any first teams when MJ or Magic were active either.

It's pretty obvious that nobody was cracking the 1st team from '87-'91 while MJ and MJ were in their primes.

[tontoz]

Not sure what Bird would have to do with it, but Stockton didn't make any first teams when MJ or Magic were active either.

It's pretty obvious that nobody was cracking the 1st team from '87-'91 while MJ and MJ were in their primes.


If not for Magic it is a safe bet Stockton would have more 1st teams. He would have kept Nash off the first time just like he did with stockton.

Bird, Magic and Jordan had the MVP locked down from 83 to 92. Nash would not have won an MVP during that time.

[G.O.A.T]

Which is exactly my point. If not for Magic it is a safe bet Stockton would have more 1st teams.

I don't think so actually. Maybe in 1989 he'd have made 1st team over KJ, but KJ would have got the nod in 1990 and Stockton feel to third team in 1991. Plus if Magic isn't in the league, the whole MJ/Isiah thing doesn't happen and Isiah probably makes 1st team in '88, '89 and '90 like he deserved.

[L.Kizzle]

If not for Magic it is a safe bet Stockton would have more 1st teams. He would have kept Nash off the first time just like he did with stockton.

Bird, Magic and Jordan had the MVP locked down from 83 to 92. Nash would not have won an MVP during that time.
Not to mention Zeke, Drexler, KJ, Timmy, Price and Dumars.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I definitely don't see a case for that. Nash is probably the third best passer ever to me, but even then there is an obvious gap in where he is capable of putting the ball compared to Stockton and Magic.

Well, I don't see this obvious gap, but I really doubt either of us are going to change their mind on that, and not really much of a point in arguing it when you yourself rank Nash top 3 as a passer


If there is a gap, it's very minimal. Nash peaked out on 19 ppg on low 60s TS%, Stockton on 17 ppg on low 60s TS%. I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that if passing is a wash, and Stockton is a way better defender, the 2 ppg ends up pushing you towards Nash.

You're going purely by numbers, I'm not when I'm talking about scoring or passing. Nash was much more creative off the dribble, better at getting to the rim, a better shooter, better at hitting and creating tough shots when he had to ect. I just saw much more of an ability to takeover games, but he didn't let it get in the way of taking over games.

And as far as the numbers you brought up, Nash also had a 19 ppg on 65 TS%(led the league) and 61 eFG%(also led the league). As well as a playoff run of 24 ppg on 60 TS% in 15 games and another of 20+ on 62 TS% in 20 games. That 30 ppg series on even better efficiency.

And Nash also had 9 playoff games with 30+, including games of 48 and 39 points.

Stockton didn't have any 30+ playoff games between 1991-2003 as you can see with Basketball-Reference's game finder

And from 1988-1990, he had just the following 2 games

30 points game 1 vs Warriors
34 points game 3 vs Warriors

Didn't check pre-1988 playoff games due to Stockton's low averages, so most likely, he had two 30+ playoff games in his career, both vs Don Nelson's Warriors who gave up 117 points that year.

Which doesn't mean that Stockton didn't play well in the playoffs, but he just didn't prove that he could consistently takeover like Nash, which could have helped when Malone struggled.


That's some very faulty logic though. By that Standard Isiah is far behind Nash too, who I'd consider better then both Stockton and Nash in their peaks.

I haven't seen as much of a mid 80's Isiah, so I'm less comfortable commenting on how good he was at the time compared to Detroit's contending and title years.



That said, I don't think using Nash's MVP votes is fair. I would have never even put Nash in the top five of my ballot. A lot of people feel that way. The MVP voting is nice, but when you and your team don't back it up, not just that year, but any year, it takes a lot (for me all) of the meaning way. It means the MVP voters were wrong based on the historical precedent of the award.

Due to my own objections over a pretty good amount of MVP selections, I have to acknowledge this point.

Personally, I lean towards Nash as the correct choice for 2005, or at worst, top 3 with only Shaq and Dirk having a good argument over him, imo with Garnett missing the playoffs and Duncan missing 16 games.

2006 is tougher. Sometimes I lean towards Kobe as the correct choice despite winning just 45 games, or Dirk who had the best combination of individual success and team success. Lebron also has a case over Nash, and Billups got a lot of consideration(though he wasn't quite good enough as a player for me to be comfortable with him winning).

I think his 2nd place finish in 2007 was correct, and can see a case for him winning that year, though Dirk deserved it, imo.


I do think Nash peaked higher, but no so much so as to put him on a different level. Nash made 3 all-NBA 1st teams, Stockton 2. That to me speaks much closer to the difference between Steve Nash at his best and Stockton at his.

Fair enough, though when Stockton made his 2 first teams the competition at the guard position didn't seem as strong. The other first team guard in '94 was Sprewell, who I watched more in his Knick days.

The 2nd team guards were KJ and Mitch Richmond, though KJ also had injuries and missed 15 games. Richmond was a good player, but putting up 23/4/4 on a 28 win team.

In '95, the other first team guard was Penny(great player one of my favorites back then), though the second team guards were Richmond again and Payton who was just entering his prime so a bit better competition than in '94.

In '05, the other guard who made the first team was Iverson(31/8 player, scoring champ in what he called his best season though I consider that to be 2001). Second team guards were Wade who was just entering his prime and Ray Allen in arguably his best season on a 52 win team. So, competition was a bit better at the guard position for first team than '95, but not a huge difference, imo.

The other first team guard in '06 was Kobe in his 35 ppg season. Second team guards were Dwyane Wade and Chauncey Billups. Billups got a good amount of MVP consideration that year, and this is the strongest competition yet for first team, imo.

The final year was 2007 and while the other first team guard was Kobe, competition in general for this honor was a bit weaker, imo with quite a few of the top guards dealing with injuries. Second team guards were Arenas and McGrady.

[magnax1]

You're going purely by numbers, I'm not when I'm talking about scoring or passing. Nash was much more creative off the dribble, better at getting to the rim, a better shooter, better at hitting and creating tough shots when he had to ect. I just saw much more of an ability to takeover games, but he didn't let it get in the way of taking over games.

And as far as the numbers you brought up, Nash also had a 19 ppg on 65 TS%(led the league) and 61 eFG%(also led the league). As well as a playoff run of 24 ppg on 60 TS% in 15 games and another of 20+ on 62 TS% in 20 games. That 30 ppg series on even better efficiency.

And Nash also had 9 playoff games with 30+, including games of 48 and 39 points.

Stockton didn't have any 30+ playoff games between 1991-2003 as you can see with Basketball-Reference's game finder

And from 1988-1990, he had just the following 2 games

30 points game 1 vs Warriors
34 points game 3 vs Warriors

Didn't check pre-1988 playoff games due to Stockton's low averages, so most likely, he had two 30+ playoff games in his career, both vs Don Nelson's Warriors who gave up 117 points that year.
I agree to a certain extent. I don't know about Nash being much better getting to the rim, as that's probably where the majority of Stockton's points came from. Nash probably got there and kicked it out more often, but I don't think he had a higher % of points from inside. The two only real differences to me was that Nash was a better shooter off the dribble, and he took shots Stockton would have passed up. I'm not saying Nash is selfish or anything (he obviously wasn't) but just that at points in the game Stockton was unselfish to a fault.



Which doesn't mean that Stockton didn't play well in the playoffs, but he just didn't prove that he could consistently takeover like Nash, which could have helped when Malone struggled.
Well in that system nobody "tookover" They continued to run their set offense in the last few minutes like they always did, with a few exceptions. The biggest problem wasn't Stockton not taking over. He did when needed, but he just wasn't the level of scorer as guys on the other teams like Jordan and Hakeem. Their problem was that Malone rarely was able to even get a good shot off.
I don't really see Nash doing a whole lot better then Stockton when they do try and go on scoring runs though. Maybe a little just because Nash has an easier time getting long shots off whenever he wants. However they were both really good from only being in the 15-19 ppg range, because they were both much better scorers who sacrificed for the team.
I still don't get your conclusion of scoring being the difference though. Nash is probably better, but it's really minimal. Defense isn't, and you can say all you want about point guard defense not being a big factor, but their scoring is awfully similar any way you want to look at it.

[RobertdeMeijer]

This is really hard for me to say. I'm glad to see that Frazier has made it so high on this list, which he deserves. At first thought, I inuitively thought Stockton. Then I thought of how Walt was just as good, but played such an important part in one of the most celebrated teams in NBA history (eary 70s Knicks).

Perhaps Wilt was greater. But I'm still going for John Stockton. His greatness is hard to compare to others because of his longetivity (how great is it to play so long?) and his records (how great is it to have two records that won't be broken anytime soon?)

In the end, I think history should remember both, but Stockton should be remembered more. It's very subjective, though.

[SuperPippen]

This is really hard for me to say. I'm glad to see that Frazier has made it so high on this list, which he deserves. At first thought, I inuitively thought Stockton. Then I thought of how Walt was just as good, but played such an important part in one of the most celebrated teams in NBA history (eary 70s Knicks).

Perhaps Wilt was greater. But I'm still going for John Stockton. His greatness is hard to compare to others because of his longetivity (how great is it to play so long?) and his records (how great is it to have two records that won't be broken anytime soon?)

In the end, I think history should remember both, but Stockton should be remembered more. It's very subjective, though.

After much deliberation, I think you summed up my thoughts quite nicely.

An argument like this, IMO, is very, very subjective. Maybe it's unfair to consider players and remember them more favorably because we saw them play in the modern era. After all, we don't know nearly as much as we'd like to know about Walt as we do about Stockton.

Even so, I just feel like John Stockton should, at the end of the day, be considered as a greater player than Walt Frazier. If only by a nose.

[Big164]

An argument like this, IMO, is very, very subjective. Maybe it's unfair to consider players and remember them more favorably because we saw them play in the modern era. After all, we don't know nearly as much as we'd like to know about Walt as we do about Stockton.


I disagree. If we had ZERO footage of Stockton his case would be just as strong because of his records.

The simple way to transcend era's and be remembered is to rewrite the record book. Thats why Babe Ruth, Jim Brown, and Wilt are constantly making lists even though no one saw them play.

[Boston C's]

I'll give my vote to stockton... these are getting so hard to decide now lol

[G.O.A.T]

Voting update


http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/34589/pollStockton.jpg

Votes (11)
Clippersfan86
magnax1
Odinn
iamgine
nycelt84
Big 164
Droid101
WillC
RobertdeMeijer
SuperPippen
Boston C's


http://www.walt-frazier.com/waltfrazier.jpg

Votes (8)
ThaSwagg3r
Shaqattack3234
1987_Lakers
D.J.
bizil
Gotterdammerung
SteveNashMVPcro
MasterDurant24



Still with a vote remaining

L.Kizzle
Rose
G.O.A.T
neyca
Toizumi
KGMN
Crossover
PTB Fan
Miller for 3
OmniStrife
HylianNightmare
Pushxx

Voting closes in four hours

[tontoz]

I don't think so actually. Maybe in 1989 he'd have made 1st team over KJ, but KJ would have got the nod in 1990 and Stockton feel to third team in 1991. Plus if Magic isn't in the league, the whole MJ/Isiah thing doesn't happen and Isiah probably makes 1st team in '88, '89 and '90 like he deserved.


LOL are you serious? Stockton was outplaying Isiah by a mile in the 88/89 and 89/90 seasons. It wasn't even close.

During those two years Isiah only averaged 1/2 more points than Stockton. Stockton's TS% was 10% better than Isiah and he averaged 5 more assists per game.

Stockton was 2nd team All-NBA both years and All-NBA defense 2nd team one year. Isiah didn't even make the 3rd team either year.

[Miller for 3]

GOAT you missed my vote from earlier. It was on page 5, but here it is again


Im going with Walt Frazier

In the last thread I stated my issues with Stockton, so I won't repeat them. I pick Walt for a few reasons. As everyone knows, he is arguably the GOAT defensive PG. He is also one of the biggest clutch time performers ever. One of the few stars in history who's game elevated come playoff time He could take over games with his scoring in a way Stockton couldn't. Frazier's assists may not be that high, but that is because the Knicks were such a good passing team that had amazing ball movement, and he later had to share PG duties with Earl the Pearl. I don't think Stockton could lead a team like Walt did when Reed got hurt, or have a playoff run like his 73 one.

[tontoz]

As far as the title to the thread goes i didn't see Frazier play enough to feel i can judge him fairly.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm going to try and push a few of you left who haven't voted towards Frazier.

To me it is an easy vote even though I don't think there is a huge gap between them and they aren't that far apart in my all-time rankings. However to me there is a fundamental difference between the type of player Frazier proved to be and the type of player Stockton proved to be.

Stockton proved he could be an assest to just about any team for almost two decades of service. However considering he was paired with on of the best 25 players of all-time for all of their mutual primes and never captured a title, it's safe to say Stockton wasprobably never an elite (top 3-5) player in the NBA capable of carrying a contending team to a title as their best player.

The above description of which Stockton falls short is exactly what Walt Frazier was.

Frazier was the best player on the 1973 Champions averaging 21-7-7 for the season and 22-7-6 for the playoffs while shooting over 50% from the field. He was part of a 1A/1B duo with Willis Reed on the 1970 Champions and was the teams best player in the finals averaging 18-8-9 on 55% shooting. Frazier had 36 points, 9 assists, 7 rebounds and 5 steals in game seven of the '70 Finals. That's important too, not only was it one of the greatest game seven performances in NBA history, it also means Frazier was the best player on the floor in a game where Elgin Baylor, Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain were all oppose him.

I can't see Stockton taking on and outplaying three of his eras best players. I can't see Stockton being the best player on a title team either.

Stockton had the better career if you take the team results out, but yu can't do that and even when you do he isn't as good a player as Frazier. Frazier was a better scorer, a better defender and is not lacking in any aspect of his game to the extent where Stockton could hypothetically be clearly better in a given situation.

Thus my vote and hopefully at least two more of yours is for Walt Frazier.

[magnax1]

Well you can talk about his team success, but Frazier played with a player just as good as Malone in Reed, and then Earl Monroe, another top 100 player, Jerry Lucas as an all star for 1 year and Debusschere, another player who would surpass Stockton/Malone's third option by a considerable margin. I honestly don't think Frazier would be as successful as Stockton if he was put on the Jazz. People love to talk about scoring, but Malone would not have been a 30 ppg scorer in the late 80s/early90s without Stockton, and without that the Jazz would've struggled to make the playoffs. I don't think Frazier was ever a player capable of carrying a contending team to a title in the sense you speak of. He was the second best player on stacked teams, it's not quite the same as the way most titles are won.

[MasterDurant24]

Well you can talk about his team success, but Frazier played with a player just as good as Malone in Reed, and then Earl Monroe, another top 100 player, Jerry Lucas as an all star for 1 year and Debusschere, another player who would surpass Stockton/Malone's third option by a considerable margin. I honestly don't think Frazier would be as successful as Stockton if he was put on the Jazz. People love to talk about scoring, but Malone would not have been a 30 ppg scorer in the late 80s/early90s without Stockton, and without that the Jazz would've struggled to make the playoffs. I don't think Frazier was ever a player capable of carrying a contending team to a title in the sense you speak of. He was the second best player on stacked teams, it's not quite the same as the way most titles are won.
He was the best player on the '73 Knicks that won a championship. Earl Monroe didn't put up big numbers till once the Knicks were falling off, Willis Reed was an old man physically by then.

[G.O.A.T]

LOL are you serious? Stockton was outplaying Isiah by a mile in the 88/89 and 89/90 seasons. It wasn't even close.

During those two years Isiah only averaged 1/2 more points than Stockton. Stockton's TS% was 10% better than Isiah and he averaged 5 more assists per game.

Stockton was 2nd team All-NBA both years and All-NBA defense 2nd team one year. Isiah didn't even make the 3rd team either year.

I assume your basing that opinion off stats and based on stats your correct. However when you consider the context, you can see how that wasn't really the case.

From 1988 to 1990 the Pistons and Jazz meet five times when Stockton and Isiah were in the line-up. The Pistons won four of five times.

Isiah averaged 21.4 ppg 5.0 rpg 8.4 apg and shot 52% from the field
Stockton averaged 17.4 ppg 2.0 rpg 9.6 apg and shot 45% from the field

That was my prime Pistons and NBA watching days. I went to 30 games a year ad saw the rest on TV plus all the Sunday games which I still have most of on tape. At no point did I even consider Stockton on Isiah's level. No Pistons fan would have traded Isiah for John.

There are a lot of reasons Isiah having pedestrian numbers and even more for why he was left off the all-NBA teams then. The main reason for the numbers, he choose to because he was asked to. Isiah always shined against the best guards in the leauge. He was up for those games and his teammates let him take the alpha role. Isiah played on a team with three capable PG's and 5-7 guys who could score 20 pointson any given night, he wasn't going to pile up huge averages in that scenario, not if the team was going to be it's best.

I can assure you that if you hoped in a time machine and went to 1990, you would know Isiah was better than Stockton, Stockton himself would tell you...

From Jerry Green's book "The Detroit Pistons: Capturing a Remarkable Era" released in 1991...

"Isiah is the toughest competitor in the game, we can outplay anyone and he won't back down. He is one of the guys I admire most and I want to get where he and the Pistons are at."

-John Stockton

[magnax1]

He was the best player on the '73 Knicks that won a championship. Earl Monroe didn't put up big numbers till once the Knicks were falling off, Willis Reed was an old man physically by then.
He probably was the best on 73, but that team still outclassed the other teams talent wise on a pretty massive level, probably much more so then the team in 70.

[G.O.A.T]

Well you can talk about his team success, but Frazier played with a player just as good as Malone in Reed, and then Earl Monroe, another top 100 player, Jerry Lucas as an all star for 1 year and Debusschere, another player who would surpass Stockton/Malone's third option by a considerable margin. I honestly don't think Frazier would be as successful as Stockton if he was put on the Jazz. People love to talk about scoring, but Malone would not have been a 30 ppg scorer in the late 80s/early90s without Stockton, and without that the Jazz would've struggled to make the playoffs. I don't think Frazier was ever a player capable of carrying a contending team to a title in the sense you speak of. He was the second best player on stacked teams, it's not quite the same as the way most titles are won.

Lucas and Monroe were not on the 1970 team and Lucas was well past his prime when he got to the Knicks his third and final NBA stop.

From 1971 on Frazier was the best player on those Knick teams. He them in scoring and assists and FG% amongst starters in the regular and postseason each year. Reed was constantly injured and while the Knicks were deep, they were taking on teams with nearly as much depth in many cases. Frazier had the Knicks in the Finals in 1972 as well, with Reed sidelined for the entire playoffs.

You need to look into Fraziers career a little deeper before you make up your mind. You didn't know about some major factors of his career.

[pauk]

John Stockton!

[MasterDurant24]

He probably was the best on 73, but that team still outclassed the other teams talent wise on a pretty massive level, probably much more so then the team in 70.
They beat the Lakers, who had three hall of famers in Goodrich, West, and Chamberlain. Chamberlain was old but still grabbing 18.6 rebounds and shooting about 73%. West was old but still better than Bradley or Monroe at the time. They also had Jim McMillian with 19 ppg and Happy Hairston with 16 and 13. Both of those players numbers increased in the playoffs. The Knicks beat the Celtics who had John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, and Jo Jo White. Paul Silas and Don Nelson were good as well. The first round they beat the Bullets who were very good with Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Mike Riordan, Phil Chenier, and Archie Clark. The Knicks didn't outclass any of those teams on a massive level.

[tontoz]

I assume your basing that opinion off stats and based on stats your correct. However when you consider the context, you can see how that wasn't really the case.

From 1988 to 1990 the Pistons and Jazz meet five times when Stockton and Isiah were in the line-up. The Pistons won four of five times.



Of course because they were better. That is why they won titles. Isiah wasn't playing with Blue Edwards and Thurl Bailey.



No Pistons fan would have traded Isiah for John.


I think the words Pistons fan are self explanatory.


The main reason for the numbers, he choose to because he was asked to. Isiah always shined against the best guards in the leauge. He was up for those games and his teammates let him take the alpha role. Isiah played on a team with three capable PG's and 5-7 guys who could score 20 pointson any given night, he wasn't going to pile up huge averages in that scenario, not if the team was going to be it's best.


That is pure nonsense. I agree that Isiah played with several capable scorers so how do you explain his horrible shooting? His TS% in 89/90 was virtualy identical to John Wall this year and Wall's jumper was one of the worst in the league. Plus Wall played on a bad team and had to force some bad shots.

Isiah played on a title team and didn't have to take bad shots and still shot like ass. And with all those capable scores he still averaged 5 fewer
assists than Stockton.

As far as Stockton's quotes that is the way he was. He never talked trash on the court and never said anything negative or even remotely controversial off it.

I don't need a time machine to go back to 1990. I was an NBA fan at the time and i knew then just like i know now that Stockton was outplaying Isiah easily, at least during the regular season.

[magnax1]

From 1988 to 1990 the Pistons and Jazz meet five times when Stockton and Isiah were in the line-up. The Pistons won four of five times.

Isiah averaged 21.4 ppg 5.0 rpg 8.4 apg and shot 52% from the field
Stockton averaged 17.4 ppg 2.0 rpg 9.6 apg and shot 45% from the field
Comparing them head to head doesn't mean much when he was playing on the best defensive team of all time up to that point. You could also go out and probably put point guards head to head against Tony parker on the mid 00 Spurs and see their stats take a hit too even though he's always been an average too poor defender. It just really doesn't mean much.


That was my prime Pistons and NBA watching days. I went to 30 games a year ad saw the rest on TV plus all the Sunday games which I still have most of on tape. At no point did I even consider Stockton on Isiah's level. No Pistons fan would have traded Isiah for John.
The opposite is also true. No Jazz fan would've traded Stockton for Isiah. There was a reason, even after adding a 3rd all NBA team Isiah didn't make any of the teams. He just wasn't that fantastic of a player. It doesn't have to do with the statistics. Dumars, who had even worse stats and played on the same team made the third team in 1990.
Isiah was a great player at one point. By 89 and 90, he was a borderline all star though. He could never really put together a consistent string of games, but then his overall play would get exaggerated because he could from time to time put on dominant performances like he used too. I get that you're a Piston fan, but looking at it fairly, you can't really say that he deserved to be on an all NBA team over the guys who were picked.

[magnax1]

Lucas and Monroe were not on the 1970 team and Lucas was well past his prime when he got to the Knicks his third and final NBA stop.
I don't think I specified which team. And Lucas averaged something like 17 ppg his first year on the Knicks. You can disagree, but I know about Fraizer. I've watched most of the games available of him, and I know who played on his teams.

[ThaRegul8r]

To me it is an easy vote even though I don't think there is a huge gap between them and they aren't that far apart in my all-time rankings.

It's not really a difficult decision for me either. But then again, I actually know who Frazier is and what he did, which is not the case for many people voting, who are just going with the name they know.

[magnax1]

They beat the Lakers, who had three hall of famers in Goodrich, West, and Chamberlain. Chamberlain was old but still grabbing 18.6 rebounds and shooting about 73%. West was old but still better than Bradley or Monroe at the time.
They also didn't have much depth, and all the guys you listed had their best years behind them (except maybe Goodrich)



They also had Jim McMillian with 19 ppg and Happy Hairston with 16 and 13. Both of those players numbers increased in the playoffs.
I might be wrong, but I think that's the year Hairston was injured.




The Knicks beat the Celtics who had John Havlicek, Dave Cowens, and Jo Jo White.
I can't find that series on youtube, but it seems like the only real close series on paper.

[NugzHeat3]

I don't think so actually. Maybe in 1989 he'd have made 1st team over KJ, but KJ would have got the nod in 1990 and Stockton feel to third team in 1991. Plus if Magic isn't in the league, the whole MJ/Isiah thing doesn't happen and Isiah probably makes 1st team in '88, '89 and '90 like he deserved.
Magic not being in the league won't change the fact that Isiah's numbers would still pale in comparison to guys like KJ, Stockton, Drexler and the likes.

This matters because sportswriters are often dumb and don't go beyond the statsheet. All those guys were on playoff teams as well so those guys wouldn't consider the "huge numbers on bad teams" excuse.

I think Isiah could have put up bigger numbers in a free flowing system that catered to his game but he really didn't have to since the Pistons were such a balanced and dominant team. He didn't decline until those ankle injuries in 1991.

As for the reason he didn't make the All-NBA teams or get MVP consideration, I think he was blackballed a bit. I don't think he was ever an MVP caliber player because he isn't really close to Jordan, Magic or Bird any way you put it but he should have been a perennial member in the top 10.

Isiah's peers seem to respect him to a much greater extent than the sportswriters during that era so something doesn't add up.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm going to try and push a few of you left who haven't voted towards Frazier.

To me it is an easy vote even though I don't think there is a huge gap between them and they aren't that far apart in my all-time rankings. However to me there is a fundamental difference between the type of player Frazier proved to be and the type of player Stockton proved to be.

Stockton proved he could be an assest to just about any team for almost two decades of service. However considering he was paired with on of the best 25 players of all-time for all of their mutual primes and never captured a title, it's safe to say Stockton wasprobably never an elite (top 3-5) player in the NBA capable of carrying a contending team to a title as their best player.

The above description of which Stockton falls short is exactly what Walt Frazier was.

Frazier was the best player on the 1973 Champions averaging 21-7-7 for the season and 22-7-6 for the playoffs while shooting over 50% from the field. He was part of a 1A/1B duo with Willis Reed on the 1970 Champions and was the teams best player in the finals averaging 18-8-9 on 55% shooting. Frazier had 36 points, 9 assists, 7 rebounds and 5 steals in game seven of the '70 Finals. That's important too, not only was it one of the greatest game seven performances in NBA history, it also means Frazier was the best player on the floor in a game where Elgin Baylor, Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain were all oppose him.

I can't see Stockton taking on and outplaying three of his eras best players. I can't see Stockton being the best player on a title team either.

Stockton had the better career if you take the team results out, but yu can't do that and even when you do he isn't as good a player as Frazier. Frazier was a better scorer, a better defender and is not lacking in any aspect of his game to the extent where Stockton could hypothetically be clearly better in a given situation.

This is a really good post, especially the bold part because it really makes me think about the best way to evaluate players. So much of it comes down to breaking down skill sets, picking apart player's games, looking at stats ect.

But the purpose of the game is to win championships, and being the best player on a championship team means you're pretty damn good for 2 reasons.

Either you didn't have unusual talent around you(by good cast standards) in which case you have to be a really good player who performs at a very high level consistently. Or you have a really talented team, in which case you have to be a pretty damn good player yourself to stand out as the best among a team with quite a few good players, and that also means your game has to fit into a situation where you won't always have the ball.

And there are a lot of great players who I'm not convinced could fit into either situation, and maybe that's what should separate the best to some degree, and why so much emphasis is put on titles.



Magic not being in the league won't change the fact that Isiah's numbers would still pale in comparison to guys like KJ, Stockton, Drexler and the likes.

This matters because sportswriters are often dumb and don't go beyond the statsheet. All those guys were on playoff teams as well so those guys wouldn't consider the "huge numbers on bad teams" excuse.

I think Isiah could have put up bigger numbers in a free flowing system that catered to his game but he really didn't have to since the Pistons were such a balanced and dominant team. He didn't decline until those ankle injuries in 1991.

As for the reason he didn't make the All-NBA teams or get MVP consideration, I think he was blackballed a bit. I don't think he was ever an MVP caliber player because he isn't really close to Jordan, Magic or Bird any way you put it but he should have been a perennial member in the top 10.

Isiah's peers seem to respect him to a much greater extent than the sportswriters during that era so something doesn't add up.

Good post as usual, I think that factoring in the system is very important. When Detroit was winning, Dumars handled the ball quite a bit, and they'd give the ball to a variety of guys depending on the night such as Vinnie Johnson, or they'd isolate or post up Aguirre, James Edwards ect. Not situations where Isiah will always have an opportunity for an assist, and certainly less opportunities than more ball-dominant point guards.

[bizil]

This is a really good post, especially the bold part because it really makes me think about the best way to evaluate players. So much of it comes down to breaking down skill sets, picking apart player's games, looking at stats ect.

But the purpose of the game is to win championships, and being the best player on a championship team means you're pretty damn good for 2 reasons.

Either you didn't have unusual talent around you(by good cast standards) in which case you have to be a really good player who performs at a very high level consistently. Or you have a really talented team, in which case you have to be a pretty damn good player yourself to stand out as the best among a team with quite a few good players, and that also means your game has to fit into a situation where you won't always have the ball.

And there are a lot of great players who I'm not convinced could fit into either situation, and maybe that's what should separate the best to some degree, and why so much emphasis is put on titles.




Good post as usual, I think that factoring in the system is very important. When Detroit was winning, Dumars handled the ball quite a bit, and they'd give the ball to a variety of guys depending on the night such as Vinnie Johnson, or they'd isolate or post up Aguirre, James Edwards ect. Not situations where Isiah will always have an opportunity for an assist, and certainly less opportunities than more ball-dominant point guards.

Agreed! Thomas-Dumars is one of top 3-5 backcourts of all time. One major reason is because either one could run the point. Early in Zeke's career, he didn't have a Joe D type guard with him. And when u throw n the 'Wave, u have one of the greatest three guard rotations of all time. The Pistons are known as the Bad Boys and very physical and D oriented. But when u combine that with that 3 guard rotation and great scorer like Aguirre, it was an awesome mix. To be frank, MJ and the Bulls caught them earlier than I thought they would. Which is a tribute to them. Cause they went on to become a true dynasty.

[G.O.A.T]

The opposite is also true. No Jazz fan would've traded Stockton for Isiah. There was a reason, even after adding a 3rd all NBA team Isiah didn't make any of the teams. He just wasn't that fantastic of a player.

There is a reason, but that's not it.

If you like to know I'll tell you, if you'd like to tell me why I am wrong, go ahead and do that.

[bizil]

Stock's longevity being great player is a major factor and to be applauded. But Clyde at his best was really the total package at PG. I mean he could check PG's, SG's and many SF's of that era. He had scoring takeover ability and was an excellent passer (even though the Holtzman system makes his passing underrated.) When u combine scoring, D, and running a team, he's the GOAT PG. GP is right there as well, but Clyde has two rings as well. In a draft I would take Clyde. But Stock's longevity is crazy. He stayed a top 10 PG for damn near all of his career. And at various points, he was most ranked anywhere from 1-4 at the PG spot. I think Nash is headed for that kind of longevity. Which will have to bump him up on the list as time goes on for PG's. Especially with those two MVPs.

[NugzHeat3]

This is a really good post, especially the bold part because it really makes me think about the best way to evaluate players. So much of it comes down to breaking down skill sets, picking apart player's games, looking at stats ect.

But the purpose of the game is to win championships, and being the best player on a championship team means you're pretty damn good for 2 reasons.

Either you didn't have unusual talent around you(by good cast standards) in which case you have to be a really good player who performs at a very high level consistently. Or you have a really talented team, in which case you have to be a pretty damn good player yourself to stand out as the best among a team with quite a few good players, and that also means your game has to fit into a situation where you won't always have the ball.

And there are a lot of great players who I'm not convinced could fit into either situation, and maybe that's what should separate the best to some degree, and why so much emphasis is put on titles.




Good post as usual, I think that factoring in the system is very important. When Detroit was winning, Dumars handled the ball quite a bit, and they'd give the ball to a variety of guys depending on the night such as Vinnie Johnson, or they'd isolate or post up Aguirre, James Edwards ect. Not situations where Isiah will always have an opportunity for an assist, and certainly less opportunities than more ball-dominant point guards.
Very true. I remember a few games in the early 90s where they had Dumars playing point and Isiah coming off screens and curls for quick catch and shoots.

You rarely, if ever saw that with other PGs during the era. Most of them were much more ball dominant than him and didn't play with a quality back up, either except for Mark Price who had Terrell Brandon. And likewise, Price is probably one of the players that was limited a bit in terms of what he could do.

[magnax1]

There is a reason, but that's not it.

If you like to know I'll tell you, if you'd like to tell me why I am wrong, go ahead and do that.
You can say that the reason isn't because he wasn't good enough, but I won't agree. I just don't think he deserved to make it over the guys who made it over him. He was past his prime, inconsistent, inefficient, and despite not holding the ball as much, which he's been heavily applauded for, he averaged as many turnovers as he did when he was the centerpiece of the offense. I even looked one time at his 1990 game logs and found that something like 30 of his 80 games he shot under 40%. He was an all NBA player at one point, but not when he was a champion.

[Kblaze8855]

If you watch how Isiah attacked before the title years and how he attacked when they were a better team it should be obvious why he shot worse.

And it was not losing the ability.

He got the ball later in the shot clock with them playing inside out, or having him off the ball with Dantley and even Edwards later getting the bal la lot. And far more of his shots were shots they needed quickly instead of him just dribbling into a comfortable look as he did earlier or going to the basket in transition. He would have a change to attack and dribble in a circle and wait for the team to come down and run plays he was hardly involved in then end up doing a quick move vs a locked in defender one on one from 19 feet if it didnt work out.

I cant speak in 81 Isiah. But the longer he played the more he deferred to the team. His shot attempts didnt drop much but it was clear he was kinda picking up the scraps instead of attempting to get the best shot he could for himself.

He would have had better numbers being more selfish but the team would have been worse.

Hes on the short list of guys who would have probably shot better had they shot more.

[G.O.A.T]

You can say that the reason isn't because he wasn't good enough, but I won't agree. I just don't think he deserved to make it over the guys who made it over him. He was past his prime, inconsistent, inefficient, and despite not holding the ball as much, which he's been heavily applauded for, he averaged as many turnovers as he did when he was the centerpiece of the offense. I even looked one time at his 1990 game logs and found that something like 30 of his 80 games he shot under 40%. He was an all NBA player at one point, but not when he was a champion.

No, just no.

You couldn't be more wrong and as someone who watched those teams extremley close ad has read everything written on them, it sounds like someone analyzing something they didn't see.

Isiah was according to him, me, Daly, McCloskey, his teammates, Magic, Larry Bird and every sports writer in Detroit who has written on the subject, better than ever during the 88-90 run. After the steal by Bird and the Pistons subsuquent elimination, Isiah rededicated himself and he figured it out. I promise you that is the truth.

[Sarcastic]

No, just no.

You couldn't be more wrong and as someone who watched those teams extremley close ad has read everything written on them, it sounds like someone analyzing something they didn't see.

Isiah was according to him, me, Daly, McCloskey, his teammates, Magic, Larry Bird and every sports writer in Detroit who has written on the subject, better than ever during the 88-90 run. After the steal by Bird and the Pistons subsuquent elimination, Isiah rededicated himself and he figured it out. I promise you that is the truth.

This is the problem with using stats to make assessments on players. The eye test always works better.

[magnax1]

No, just no.

You couldn't be more wrong and as someone who watched those teams extremley close ad has read everything written on them, it sounds like someone analyzing something they didn't see.

Isiah was according to him, me, Daly, McCloskey, his teammates, Magic, Larry Bird and every sports writer in Detroit who has written on the subject, better than ever during the 88-90 run. After the steal by Bird and the Pistons subsuquent elimination, Isiah rededicated himself and he figured it out. I promise you that is the truth.
I've watched the games, and I don't agree at all. Rededicating yourself doesn't make you any better after you slip beyond a certain point. To say he played within the team better, I can agree with. To say he was smarter, I can agree with. To say he was better I can't agree with at all. He was actually pretty bad in the 89 run (mostly because of injury I think) so to say he won that year because he rededicated himself, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[G.O.A.T]

I've watched the games, and I don't agree at all. Rededicating yourself doesn't make you any better after you slip beyond a certain point. To say he played within the team better, I can agree with. To say he was smarter, I can agree with. To say he was better I can't agree with at all. He was actually pretty bad in the 89 run (mostly because of injury I think) so to say he won that year because he rededicated himself, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. I am a little disappointed that after all the conversations we've had you have so little respect for my perspective.

[magnax1]

It makes perfect sense to me. I am a little disappointed that after all the conversations we've had you have so little respect for my perspective.
I never said I didn't have respect. I do, I think you're among the best posters on this board. I don't have to agree to respect you.
I even get what you're saying. He played differently. That doesn't mean he's better though. If someone convinced him to give up the ball more in 85 or 86, and you dump him on that team, don't they do the same thing as they did in 89 or 90? Probably even better?

[magnax1]

And by the way, I think we just have fundamentally different way we view players GOAT. Most of the time when I disagree, I can see where you're coming from, but I feel you value more intangible things, that are hard for me to put a value on without feeling I have succumb to someone else's bias.

[Gotterdammerung]

And by the way, I think we just have fundamentally different way we view players GOAT. Most of the time when I disagree, I can see where you're coming from, but I feel you value more intangible things, that are hard for me to put a value on without feeling I have succumb to someone else's bias.

Actually that's quite difficult to do.

Intangibles are just aspects of the game you cannot reduce to raw numbers, but they are pretty much obvious: heart, clutch, mental toughness, coachability, chemistry, and other context based situations.

Most of the GOAT are talented and have many intangible values, but not all of them are equal, and more importantly: they're not necessarily subjective.

However, they're subject to the eyeball test. You need to watch the guys play, with who, when they raise their games, how they sublimate with others, etc., etc.

Stats-obsessed nerds never get this. :no:

[L.Kizzle]

WALT FRAZIER is my vote

[G.O.A.T]

The Nerds won this one...first real glaring mistake I feel we've made thus far.

But that's the way the cookie crumbles. Some pretty good discussion and that's the real point anyway.

Stockton advances 11-10

Stockton v. Wade begins in a 15 mins...

[magnax1]

Actually that's quite difficult to do.

Intangibles are just aspects of the game you cannot reduce to raw numbers, but they are pretty much obvious: heart, clutch, mental toughness, coachability, chemistry, and other context based situations.

Most of the GOAT are talented and have many intangible values, but not all of them are equal, and more importantly: they're not necessarily subjective.

However, they're subject to the eyeball test. You need to watch the guys play, with who, when they raise their games, how they sublimate with others, etc., etc.

Stats-obsessed nerds never get this. :no:
I think you misunderstood what I was talking about.
I was talking about things you can't really see in games. Leadership and other intangible qualities that aren't really basketball skills but relate to basketball. Things that don't really qualify under the "eye test"

[G.O.A.T]

WALT FRAZIER is my vote

This ties it...what do we do?

Do I count the vote, even though it was after the deadline, but before I closed the voting?

Do we go to sudden death and allow contributor votes like in the previous tie or do I advance Stockton because he was the leader at midnight?

[1987_Lakers]

This ties it...what do we do?

Do I count the vote, even though it was after the deadline, but before I closed the voting?

Do we go to sudden death and allow contributor votes like in the previous tie or do I advance Stockton because he was the leader at midnight?

I think it's a good idea to allow the contributors to have a vote in this round. L.Kizzle did post his vote RIGHT before you announced Stockton had advanced.

[magnax1]

Just count the vote, it's not like the time limit is a huge deal, right?

[ThaSwagg3r]

ThaRegul8r (contributor)
NugzHeat3 (contributor)
Psileas (contributor)
Kblaze8855 (contributor)
alexandreben (contributor)
EricForman (contributor)


Have these guys be the tiebreaker.....last time it was NugzHeat3 that did it with Clyde vs. Nash. I wouldn't mind if he did it again, he is definitely one of the better posters on this site.

[L.Kizzle]

This ties it...what do we do?

Do I count the vote, even though it was after the deadline, but before I closed the voting?

Do we go to sudden death and allow contributor votes like in the previous tie or do I advance Stockton because he was the leader at midnight?
In some voting, you went over 48 hours. I think one or two didn't even last a whole 24 hours. If all the voting was exactly 48 hours than I wouldn't count the vote. But some have went over and under ...

[G.O.A.T]

ThaRegul8r (contributor)
NugzHeat3 (contributor)
Psileas (contributor)
Kblaze8855 (contributor)
alexandreben (contributor)
EricForman (contributor)


Have these guys be the tiebreaker.....last time it was NugzHeat3 that did it with Clyde vs. Nash. I wouldn't mind if he did it again, he is definitely one of the better posters on this site.
There it is then...first one of you six to post decides it...

Thanks to everyone for their input, great points.

[ThaRegul8r]

My unofficial vote is already on record:


My vote here would be for Clyde.

If contributor votes now count, my vote stays the same.

[Soothing Layup]

You guys are trying to hard to make Clyde advance. It's pretty disrespectful to Stockton who is definitely deserving of this win. Sad day.

[LJJ]

There it is then...first one of you six to post decides it...

Thanks to everyone for their input, great points.

That is random as shit. Have all of them vote.

You might as well flip a coin otherwise.

[Big164]

If Stockton was down 1 point after 48 of regulation, would he be given an extra 4 hours of overtime to tie and then another double overtime for the chance to win?

Probably not, Stockton never could close out games.

[tontoz]

If you watch how Isiah attacked before the title years and how he attacked when they were a better team it should be obvious why he shot worse.

And it was not losing the ability.

He got the ball later in the shot clock with them playing inside out, or having him off the ball with Dantley and even Edwards later getting the bal la lot. And far more of his shots were shots they needed quickly instead of him just dribbling into a comfortable look as he did earlier or going to the basket in transition. He would have a change to attack and dribble in a circle and wait for the team to come down and run plays he was hardly involved in then end up doing a quick move vs a locked in defender one on one from 19 feet if it didnt work out.

I cant speak in 81 Isiah. But the longer he played the more he deferred to the team. His shot attempts didnt drop much but it was clear he was kinda picking up the scraps instead of attempting to get the best shot he could for himself.

He would have had better numbers being more selfish but the team would have been worse.

Hes on the short list of guys who would have probably shot better had they shot more.


Even at his best isiah was never an efficient player. He had one season with a TS% better than 53%. he had no 3 point range at all, similar to Wade right now.

[NugzHeat3]

ThaRegul8r (contributor)
NugzHeat3 (contributor)
Psileas (contributor)
Kblaze8855 (contributor)
alexandreben (contributor)
EricForman (contributor)


Have these guys be the tiebreaker.....last time it was NugzHeat3 that did it with Clyde vs. Nash. I wouldn't mind if he did it again, he is definitely one of the better posters on this site.
Thanks man but I can't vote on this. Don't know much about Frazier.

With Nash and Drexler, I clearly knew who I was gonna go for.

[G.O.A.T]

If there are no objections...Frazier advances then.

[iamgine]

That is random as shit. Have all of them vote.

You might as well flip a coin otherwise.
I kind of agree. You might as well flip a coin.

Or just have a three way battle. Wade vs Stockton vs Frazier

[G.O.A.T]

I kind of agree. You might as well flip a coin.

Or just have a three way battle. Wade vs Stockton vs Frazier

No one objected last time we did this.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=234426&page=7

And how is it any more random than the way we are voting in the first place?

[iamgine]

If the way we are voting is like that, wouldn't you say it's much more random?

Lets say the first who vote Stockton or Frazier advances, that would be random isn't it?

[G.O.A.T]

If the way we are voting is like that, wouldn't you say it's much more random?

Lets say the first who vote Stockton or Frazier advances, that would be random isn't it?

what other method of tie-breaking would you suggest?

[iamgine]

I don't necessarily object, but it is kind of like a coin flip. If we're fine with a coin flip then sure.

How about GOAT don't vote but just tiebreak if needed? Since you're the one who close the poll. Kind of a designated tiebreaker.

[Big164]

Stockton was winning after 24 hours, 36 hours, 48 hours and even 52 hours. Im confused.

GOAT was saying that there was only 1 hour left to vote and then 3 hours after that deadline Kizzel comes in. What happened? lol

[G.O.A.T]

Stockton was winning after 24 hours, 36 hours, 48 hours and even 52 hours. Im confused.

GOAT was saying that there was only 1 hour left to vote and then 3 hours after that deadline Kizzel comes in. What happened? lol

The spirit of the project is to tally everyone's vote who wants to vote. L Kizzle got in right before I was able to close the poll, that vote tied it.

Do you think it was the wrong decision?


I don't necessarily object, but it is kind of like a coin flip. If we're fine with a coin flip then sure.

How about GOAT don't vote but just tiebreak if needed? Since you're the one who close the poll. Kind of a designated tiebreaker.

Not a bad idea, however I feel like more people would object and had it been done that way Drexler would have advanced, not Nash.

[LJJ]

The spirit of the project is to tally everyone's vote who wants to vote. L Kizzle got in right before I was able to close the poll, that vote tied it.

Do you think it was the wrong decision?


Bullshit. You clearly state in the OP the time limit for the voting is 48 hours. If there is a time limit there is a time limit, period. Not like this, where there is only a time limit when you agree with the results.

I'm just saying (I actually agree with Frazier over Stockton, that would be my vote.): If you are going to bend and flat out break the rules when you don't agree with the factual result of the poll (in this case Stockton advances tallying all the votes within the limit), then the entire premise of this is meaningless. Just post the "G.O.A.T. all time rankings" instead and be done with this sham of a "Insidehoops team ranking" where the validity of the voting is completely dependent on whether or not the creator agrees with the outcomes.

Simply follow the rules stated at the start of the poll. It's really that simple. Stockton wins the poll you created, not Frazier.

[iamgine]

Bullshit. You clearly state in the OP the time limit for the voting is 48 hours. If there is a time limit there is a time limit, period. Not like this, where there is only a time limit when you agree with the results.

I'm just saying (I actually agree with Frazier over Stockton, that would be my vote.): If you are going to bend and flat out break the rules when you don't agree with the factual result of the poll (in this case Stockton advances tallying all the votes within the limit), then the entire premise of this is meaningless. Just post the "G.O.A.T. all time rankings" instead and be done with this sham of a "Insidehoops team ranking" where the validity of the voting is completely dependent on whether or not the creator agrees with the outcomes.

Simply follow the rules stated at the start of the poll. It's really that simple. Stockton wins the poll you created, not Frazier.
Good observation. If GOAT didn't agree with the way the poll is going then he can easily just prolong the voting time but when he agrees he can close it right on 48 hours mark.

I don't think you do this GOAT but it is a good point. Not counting the votes after the 48 hours mark would really make it much simpler. If it's tied after 48 hours then GOAT will tiebreak, I think that's fair.

[G.O.A.T]

Bullshit. You clearly state in the OP the time limit for the voting is 48 hours. If there is a time limit there is a time limit, period. Not like this, where there is only a time limit when you agree with the results.

I'm just saying (I actually agree with Frazier over Stockton, that would be my vote.): If you are going to bend and flat out break the rules when you don't agree with the factual result of the poll (in this case Stockton advances tallying all the votes within the limit), then the entire premise of this is meaningless. Just post the "G.O.A.T. all time rankings" instead and be done with this sham of a "Insidehoops team ranking" where the validity of the voting is completely dependent on whether or not the creator agrees with the outcomes.

Simply follow the rules stated at the start of the poll. It's really that simple. Stockton wins the poll you created, not Frazier.

This would all be well and good if it were true and there were not an example of the exact opposite happening.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=234426&page=7

I counted a vote two hours after the 48 hour deadline (which has not been strcitly enforced once) for Steve Nash (I voted for Drexler) which tied it up. I then let a contributor break the tie and it went Nash's way.

All I was doing this last round was being consistent. In addition I asked what the group thought and the first four people to feedback (two Stockton voters, two Frazier voters) all said count the vote and go to contributor tie-breaker.

You've made no point, but certainly a fool of yourself.

So you can apologize or look continue to like an idiot, your choice.

[nnn123]

Jeez lol, will one of the freaking contributers just make a vote! Step up!!!

[nnn123]

Oh my mistake, didn't already know the decision was made for Frazier

[iamgine]

This would all be well and good if it were true and there were not an example of the exact opposite happening.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=234426&page=7

I counted a vote two hours after the 48 hour deadline (which has not been strcitly enforced once) for Steve Nash (I voted for Drexler) which tied it up. I then let a contributor break the tie and it went Nash's way.

All I was doing this last round was being consistent. In addition I asked what the group thought and the first four people to feedback (two Stockton voters, two Frazier voters) all said count the vote and go to contributor tie-breaker.

You've made no point, but certainly a fool of yourself.

So you can apologize or look continue to like an idiot, your choice.
I think we all know you didn't do it but as a rule, a strict time limit should be followed in the future to prevent a coinflip situation like that.

[G.O.A.T]

I think we all know you didn't do it but as a rule, a strict time limit should be followed in the future to prevent a coinflip situation like that.

I disagree. People have lives. If they can get on before I close the voting and we decided their vote should be counted, then it should be counted. This isn't a presidential election it's a stupid online list that should be about the discussion and education more than the order.

You are the only one of the 31 voters who has had any problem with this and the outcome went against your vote. Pardon me if I don't think your being completely unbiased. Where was your outrage after the Drexler/Nash vote? If the strict time limit was in effect Drexler would have moved on.

[iamgine]

I disagree. People have lives. If they can get on before I close the voting and we decided their vote should be counted, then it should be counted. This isn't a presidential election it's a stupid online list that should be about the discussion and education more than the order.

You are the only one of the 31 voters who has had any problem with this and the outcome went against your vote. Pardon me if I don't think your being completely unbiased. Where was your outrage after the Drexler/Nash vote? If the strict time limit was in effect Drexler would have moved on.
Umm I just realized the problem with the system after reading LJJ's post and merely pointed it out. I mean, this is a big project right, wouldn't you want to make a good system where everyone is clear on the rules and can't question your integrity plus eliminate randomness?

And I voted for Drexler so I don't know how I could be biased...

[G.O.A.T]

Umm I just realized the problem with the system after reading LJJ's post and merely pointed it out. I mean, this is a big project right, wouldn't you want to make a good system where everyone is clear on the rules and can't question your integrity plus eliminate randomness?

And I voted for Drexler so I don't know how I could be biased...

I don't think anyone who has followed the project is questioning the project integrity of the project unless you are.

As far as my integrity goes, it's an online forum I don't value anonymous me's integrity. Someone else is using my RealGM account as we speak, it's a username, my drivers license doesn't read DocHoops or G.O.A.T. Not a concern.

And again, not random. Consistent. The polls end when I close them. The time limit is so no one says "I thought I had longer" I won't close them early unless the result is imminent. I don't wait until the results suite me, I wait until I am home and have time to count the votes again to be sure I didn't miss any and create the next thread. Every poll has gone that way. I just screwed up and created a new thread before I viewed my post this time. L.Kizzle, who intended to vote earlier, voted as I was posting the results after re-tallying the votes.

Knowing everything you know now, do you really think there is any problem with that system?

[iamgine]

I don't think anyone who has followed the project is questioning the project integrity of the project unless you are.

As far as my integrity goes, it's an online forum I don't value anonymous me's integrity. Someone else is using my RealGM account as we speak, it's a username, my drivers license doesn't read DocHoops or G.O.A.T. Not a concern.

And again, not random. Consistent. The polls end when I close them. The time limit is so no one says "I thought I had longer" I won't close them early unless the result is imminent. I don't wait until the results suite me, I wait until I am home and have time to count the votes again to be sure I didn't miss any and create the next thread. Every poll has gone that way. I just screwed up and created a new thread before I viewed my post this time. L.Kizzle, who intended to vote earlier, voted as I was posting the results after re-tallying the votes.

Knowing everything you know now, do you really think there is any problem with that system?
See, I don't value anonymous me integrity either. How would anyone know you don't wait until the result suits you? I'm sure you don't, but as you said yourself, we don't value anonymous me integrity and to everyone else, you are an anonymous person yourself.

If you can have an improved system where that integrity question can never be asked, then why not use the improved system right?

[G.O.A.T]

If you can have an improved system where that integrity question can never be asked, then why not use the improved system right?

Because it would not be an improvement. There is no problem. Just leave the project if you object, you're the only one asking the question. Everyone else can see the obvious impartiality or doesn't give a ****, both appropriate stances to take...

[iamgine]

Because it would not be an improvement. There is no problem. Just leave the project if you object, you're the only one asking the question. Everyone else can see the obvious impartiality or doesn't give a ****, both appropriate stances to take...
I don't object, just pointing out that it could be improved. Anyone can see the tiebreaking system is randomness. And the time system is depending on GOAT's integrity. Why not remove both doubts if we can?

Do you think it's good that no one give a **** when there's a glaring weakness in system? I certainly don't.

[G.O.A.T]

Do you think it's good that no one give a **** when there's a glaring weakness in system? I certainly don't.

No, I don't think there is a glaring weakness. Because there isn't one.

[iamgine]

No, I don't think there is a glaring weakness. Because there isn't one.
You're right. There are two:


Tiebreaking system is randomness. And the time system is depending on GOAT's integrity.

[Niquesports]

You're right. There are two:
Were not voting these players into the HOF. WOW IT is G.O.A.T. Thread. If it means that much to you start your own.

[G.O.A.T]

You're right. There are two:

Honestly, I am in no mood. You're out of the project.

[iamgine]

Were not voting these players into the HOF. WOW IT is G.O.A.T. Thread. If it means that much to you start your own.
It doesn't. I'm merely pointing out two glaring weakness in the system. But then he got offended.

[iamgine]

Honestly, I am in no mood. You're out of the project.
No mood for discussion? I think what I wrote made sense.

[Story Up]

No mood for discussion? I think what I wrote made sense.
The project would be more ideal if all the contributors actually contribute. GOAT just gave others a chance to contribute; yet you're accusing him of lacking integrity? Lol.

The 48 hour limit should be contingent threshold; if people do share their votes who are a part of the project, then it should count. Seems like you're just taking things way too seriously...

[iamgine]

The project would be more ideal if all the contributors actually contribute. GOAT just gave others a chance to contribute; yet you're accusing him of lacking integrity? Lol.

The 48 hour limit should be contingent threshold; if people do share their votes who are a part of the project, then it should count. Seems like you're just taking things way too seriously...
Where did I accuse him of lacking integrity? :confusedshrug:

It's more I like creating systems and discussing it. Why not better the system when it has weakness right? :D

[Story Up]

Where did I accuse him of lacking integrity? :confusedshrug:

It's more I like creating systems and discussing it. Why not better the system when it has weakness right? :D

The weakness in the system is questionable integrity, if you aren't accusing GOAT of lacking integrity; then there is no weakness.

Why fuss about it?

[LJJ]

This would all be well and good if it were true and there were not an example of the exact opposite happening.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=234426&page=7

I counted a vote two hours after the 48 hour deadline (which has not been strcitly enforced once) for Steve Nash (I voted for Drexler) which tied it up. I then let a contributor break the tie and it went Nash's way.

All I was doing this last round was being consistent. In addition I asked what the group thought and the first four people to feedback (two Stockton voters, two Frazier voters) all said count the vote and go to contributor tie-breaker.

You've made no point, but certainly a fool of yourself.

So you can apologize or look continue to like an idiot, your choice.

You state in the beginning voting and arguments can be made within the next 48 hours. -FACT
Stockton wins the voting over 48 hours -FACT
you change the rules in retrospect to add another vote to Frazier -FACT

It's one, two three strikes you are out right?

I guess I am an "idiot" for pointing out what factually happened. Loose asshole you have there. Fakkit.

[G.O.A.T]

I guess I am an "idiot" .

Best part of the post.

Never changed any rules, already explained that. You're not even apart of the project.

[LJJ]

Best part of the post.

Never changed any rules, already explained that. You're not even apart of the project.

Nobody cares. The rules of the project are entirely subject to your whims, which invalidates completely what you are trying to do.

"Oh yeah, the time limit is sometimes 48 hours, sometimes 52 hours, sometimes 58 hours, it is whatever I feel like it really".

Nice consistency there. G.O.A.T. stands for Gay Obese Awkward Troll.

[iamgine]

The weakness in the system is questionable integrity, if you aren't accusing GOAT of lacking integrity; then there is no weakness.

Why fuss about it?
No, one of the weakness of the system is that it depends on GOAT's integrity. I'm not saying he has good or bad integrity cause no one knows. The issue isn't whether he lacks integrity or not. Also, that's not the only weakness.

Not fussing, I like discussing about system.

[Sarcastic]

The right call was made. Walt Frazier was a better player than Stockton. Longevity is important, but not nearly as important as peak.

[Butters]

Well,this list has about as much stock as the dump i took this morning.

[Big164]

Voting update


http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/34589/pollStockton.jpg

Votes (11)
Clippersfan86
magnax1
Odinn
iamgine
nycelt84
Big 164
Droid101
WillC
RobertdeMeijer
SuperPippen
Boston C's


http://www.walt-frazier.com/waltfrazier.jpg

Votes (8)
ThaSwagg3r
Shaqattack3234
1987_Lakers
D.J.
bizil
Gotterdammerung
SteveNashMVPcro
MasterDurant24



Still with a vote remaining

L.Kizzle
Rose
G.O.A.T
neyca
Toizumi
KGMN
Crossover
PTB Fan
Miller for 3
OmniStrife
HylianNightmare
Pushxx

Voting closes in four hours

^^Its the last line that caused the commotion. But I went back to look at Drexler/Nash and it indeed went over 48 hours as well.

On the bright side its better that this happened with Walt/Stockton, and not Magic/Kobe. That couldve ended really ugly.