John Stockton at his best vs. Steve Nash at his best

[Lebron23]

Who do you think is/was the better point guard and player?

[roffie]

Nash!! better shooter too.

[inclinerator]

stockton better defender

[Eric Cartman]

Stockton >>>> Nash. (defensively)

[iamgine]

Who do you think is/was the better point guard and player?
Their scoring is pretty similar. Stockton put up higher assist number and was the much better defender. Besides, Nash was helped a lot by the rule change.

[LJJ]

Peak:
Nash > Stockton

Career:
Stockton >> Nash

[Rnbizzle]

I would say they're pretty equal, with Stockton being great offensively with the better defense and Nash leading some of the best offenses the NBA has ever seen.

[zass]

if they Stockton's team (jazz) vs Nash's team (any)

i will expect Nash be held out of the court bleeding.

[NinjaSeal]

john stockton is better offensively and defensively

the max apg in a season is stocktons

and the max spg is stocktons


stockton 17 ppg 14 apg 2.9 steals 3 turn overs

nash 18 ppg 11 apg .8 steals 3.8 turnovers best season


now you tell me whose better?

[NinjaSeal]

stockton went to the finals did nash ever get get there? no , if stockton had the 3rd and 4th and 5th players nash did , they may have beaten the bulls... maybe not....

[NinjaSeal]

stockton went further with a worse team.....nash had marion amare joe johnson quentin richardson jim jackson


stockton had malone and ostertag and hornaceck


thats why malones stats are better then amares also

malone was being spoonfed

[NinjaSeal]

the extra apg by stockton over nash result in why malone has more points then amare

so if you said nash...you dont know basketball

[NinjaSeal]

:violin: peak stockton

career stockton

[CavaliersFTW]

This is seriously tough...

Virtual draw... seriously, both of those guys are so elite I can't find a single reason to weigh one over the other.

[NinjaSeal]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2005.html

nash....5th best scorer on his team in points and 4th ppg....... look at his teams numbers!

now lets look at stocktons jazz

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1990.html

stockton....2nd best scorer on his team

not only does stockton have better apg and spg and 1 point difference in ppg

stockton is the facilitator and scorer

[NinjaSeal]

the numbers dont lie ...stockton is > nash and its not even close

a better comparision is magic johnson and stockton

[Xiao Yao You]

No comparison for Magic outside maybe Bird. He's in a class by himself.

[NinjaSeal]

No comparison for Magic outside maybe Bird. He's in a class by himself.

exactly

my post was a pun

but there is in longetivity and steals per game.... and assists per game

magic > in the finals

give stockton worthy and jabbar he will have rings too

[fos]

I <3 Nash and I think he could do things as a scorer that Stockton could not, that said Stockton a million times over. Peak scoring is almost the same with Stockton dropping an extra couple of assists and playing tough defense. I'll take the less flashy Stockton every day. FYI his 50th birthday is coming up soon and I still think he could give a team a productive 12-16 minutes off the bench :cheers:

[Go Getter]

Stockton of course.

[Xiao Yao You]

No doubt John could still run the Jazz offense better than Harris.

[dunksby]

Malone>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Amare

[rodman91]

Nash, he can create his shot and he has scoring abilities. Stockton was having hard time when he can't find open teammates.

Stockton is better defender though.

[donald_trump]

its hilarious how some of you are saying the scoring is even and the passing is miles apart.
nash made his teammates better with his passing, where you could say that stocktons passing was inflated due to his PF. nash proved he didnt need a dominant PF to get his numbers the season amare was out.

scoring is not close. stockton in his long career never reached over 30 points in more than 10 games. i think its something like 8 to be precise. and some of you are saying scoring is close? be real.
passing is a wash if anything. and defense obviously goes to stockton. though at the pg position, its not all that important.

nash as an offensive threat was better than stockton, and from your point guard, thats whats important. he was the better player.
he was the one on the team getting the mvp attention, where as on the jazz it was the PF.

[StateOfMind12]

Nash, he can create his shot and he has scoring abilities. Stockton was having hard time when he can't find open teammates.

Stockton is better defender though.
Yup, pretty much this. Nash was just the better offensive player than Stockton. Stockton was the better defender but defense for PG just don't make much of an impact.


Malone>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Amare
You forgot to add Sloan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D'Antoni although Gentry was a good coach but Gentry only coached Nash with a championship contending team for one season in 2010.

[Go Getter]

its hilarious how some of you are saying the scoring is even and the passing is miles apart.
nash made his teammates better with his passing, where you could say that stocktons passing was inflated due to his PF. nash proved he didnt need a dominant PF to get his numbers the season amare was out.

scoring is not close. stockton in his long career never reached over 30 points in more than 10 games. i think its something like 8 to be precise. and some of you are saying scoring is close? be real.
passing is a wash if anything. and defense obviously goes to stockton. though at the pg position, its not all that important.

nash as an offensive threat was better than stockton, and from your point guard, thats whats important. he was the better player.
he was the one on the team getting the mvp attention, where as on the jazz it was the PF.


Stockton is all-time steals leader yet that isn't important defensively? Nash only averages ONE point more career-wise yet is a much better scorer? Passing is a wash when Stockton takes care of the ball way better? Nash made teammates better, but the all-time assist leader rode Karl's coattails?

You are quite stupid.

[Go Getter]

Yup, pretty much this. Nash was just the better offensive player than Stockton. Stockton was the better defender but defense for PG just don't make much of an impact.


You forgot to add Sloan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D'Antoni although Gentry was a good coach but Gentry only coached Nash with a championship contending team for one season in 2010.


Stockton had more steals than ANYONE at ANY position yet his defense didn't matter because he played the point?


:facepalm

Doesn't matter what position he played those steals got his team extra possessions. THAT MATTERS FOOL!

[SwooshReturns]

At his peak? Steve Nash.

Longevity, Career? John Stockton

[Owl]

Stockton is all-time steals leader yet that isn't important defensively? Nash only averages ONE point more career-wise yet is a much better scorer? Passing is a wash when Stockton takes care of the ball way better? Nash made teammates better, but the all-time assist leader rode Karl's coattails?

You are quite stupid.
With regard to bolded (and everyone else who completely ignored the pace of the league); at a much slower pace and in less mpg. Also the thread refers to "at his best" which means you should probably be ignoring Nash's first few years, in a comparison of careers of course it matters that Stockton's peak was basically the length of his career, wheras Nash to a while (somewhat because of injuries and lack of opportunities) to become productive in the NBA, but not in a conversation about their peaks.

Given pace distorts things in Stockton's favour for points lets look at peak usage rate.
Nash 24.4 (02-03)
Stockton 20.9 (90-91)
So Nash was certainly capable of shouldering a larger offensive load.

Nash made teammates better, but the all-time assist leader rode Karl's coattails?
I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't agree with Stockton riding Malones coattails but there is some merit to this position


he was the one on the team getting the mvp attention, where as on the jazz it was the PF.
In Utah Malone was always the star, in Phoenix Nash was the 2x MVP and (combined with the system) gave Amare stats he never saw the like of again. Marion too (though he had been impressive before Nash's arrival) rapidly dropped off after being traded.

I'd take Stockton over Nash by a fair distance career wise at this point (though Nash is still going at an amazing rate so the gap is definitely closing).

Peak wise I'd take Nash on offense, obviously Stockton was much better on D. Overall I'd say it's about a tie.

[Go Getter]

With regard to bolded (and everyone else who completely ignored the pace of the league); at a much slower pace and in less mpg. Also the thread refers to "at his best" which means you should probably be ignoring Nash's first few years, in a comparison of careers of course it matters that Stockton's peak was basically the length of his career, wheras Nash to a while (somewhat because of injuries and lack of opportunities) to become productive in the NBA, but not in a conversation about their peaks.

Given pace distorts things in Stockton's favour for points lets look at peak usage rate.
Nash 24.4 (02-03)
Stockton 20.9 (90-91)
So Nash was certainly capable of shouldering a larger offensive load.

I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't agree with Stockton riding Malones coattails but there is some merit to this position

In Utah Malone was always the star, in Phoenix Nash was the 2x MVP and (combined with the system) gave Amare stats he never saw the like of again. Marion too (though he had been impressive before Nash's arrival) rapidly dropped off after being traded.

I'd take Stockton over Nash by a fair distance career wise at this point (though Nash is still going at an amazing rate so the gap is definitely closing).

Peak wise I'd take Nash on offense, obviously Stockton was much better on D. Overall I'd say it's about a tie.
1. Some of my post was questioning another poster, not my actual words.
2. You underrate defense.
3. I do not think Nash deserved two MVP's considering all the players in the league that were better then him at the time (and before him) that don't even have one or only one. Steve Nash more valuable than Shaq?:no:
4. Stockton was a star too, he just didn't flash his muscles or do fancy dunks or behave like a clown. He was understated and professional.
5. How is the gap closing when Nash isn't doing anything but putting up empty stats on a middling team?

[SteveNashMVPcro]

Well I'm a homer and I'm gonna pick Nash
But it's actualy realy close.You may say that Nash's career PPG average is only 1 point above Stockton's but Nash was the go to guy for the Suns and he more often than not delieverd by scoring when the Suns needed.Stock could also score when needed but not in the volume as Nash nor as efficient.
Playmaking and passing is a toss up tbh.Stockton averaged more APG but that doesn't make him instantly a better playmaker/passer.Both ran p'n'r to perfection,could pass both in open and half court.It's just hard to say who is better.
On D it's Stockton all the way.He was a better on ball defender,better ball stealer,team defender etc.But Nash gets underrated here.He's not a good defender but he's average.Curently he's too slow to keep up with fast PGs but in his prime he could do it.The problem was that the Suns and the Mavs played awfull team defence.That just made Nash look worse than he really is.

Putting up empty stats on a middling team?The Suns are 1-9 in the last 2 seasons without him. 1 TO ****ING 9 Nash is still valuable to his team almost as any other player in the league

[Round Mound]

Stockton was everything that Nash had but with Better Defense and Had a Silent Yet Agressive Personality some called him Dirty (that was his will to win).

Stockton all the way

[Go Getter]

Stockton was everything that Nash had but with Better Defense and More Agressive Demenor, some called him Dirty (that was his will to win).

Stockton all the way
:applause:

[Go Getter]

Well I'm a homer and I'm gonna pick Nash
But it's actualy realy close.You may say that Nash's career PPG average is only 1 point above Stockton's but Nash was the go to guy for the Suns and he more often than not delieverd by scoring when the Suns needed.Stock could also score when needed but not in the volume as Nash nor as efficient.
Playmaking and passing is a toss up tbh.Stockton averaged more APG but that doesn't make him instantly a better playmaker/passer.Both ran p'n'r to perfection,could pass both in open and half court.It's just hard to say who is better.
On D it's Stockton all the way.He was a better on ball defender,better ball stealer,team defender etc.But Nash gets underrated here.He's not a good defender but he's average.Curently he's too slow to keep up with fast PGs but in his prime he could do it.The problem was that the Suns and the Mavs played awfull team defence.That just made Nash look worse than he really is.

Putting up empty stats on a middling team?The Suns are 1-9 in the last 2 seasons without him. 1 TO ****ING 9 Nash is still valuable to his team almost as any other player in the league
1. Nash is a below average defender. Don't kid yourself. Stockton guarded Isiah, KJ, etc...all his competitors....Nash does not.
2. The Suns team as of now is not competitive. They aren't a factor on the league right now. Not a knock on Nash but it is what it is.
3. Records while stars are out could be deceiving. What games were they? The team isn't that good right now...they could have lost some of those WITH Steve in the lineup.

[StateOfMind12]

Stockton had more steals than ANYONE at ANY position yet his defense didn't matter because he played the point?


:facepalm

Doesn't matter what position he played those steals got his team extra possessions. THAT MATTERS FOOL!
It is not that his defense doesn't matter. It's that Stockton's defensive superiority does not overcome Nash's offensive superiority. I've never seen anyones defense get more overblown and criticized than Nash's and I'm not even exaggerating here. It's like everything Nash does is negated because he doesn't play defense which is false anyways because Nash was never that bad of a defender as most claim.

[SwooshReturns]

It is not that his defense doesn't matter. It's that Stockton's defensive superiority does not overcome Nash's offensive superiority. I've never seen anyones defense get more overblown and criticized than Nash's and I'm not even exaggerating here. It's like everything Nash does is negated because he doesn't play defense which is false anyways because Nash was never that bad of a defender as most claim.
Agreed. I've never considered him as bad a defender as the general public does. There have been elite PGs just as bad, maybe worse. Stockton's longevity and durability are astounding, but at the absolute peak of their abilities ... I think Nash is slightly better. It's the same way I take Mark Price pre-injuries at the height of his powers to be slightly better than Stockton as well.

[Go Getter]

It is not that his defense doesn't matter. It's that Stockton's defensive superiority does not overcome Nash's offensive superiority. I've never seen anyones defense get more overblown and criticized than Nash's and I'm not even exaggerating here. It's like everything Nash does is negated because he doesn't play defense which is false anyways because Nash was never that bad of a defender as most claim.
In comparison Stockton's D makes Nash's look bad--VERY bad. You might want to watch some actual Stockton games. He mixed it up like few PG's ever did.

Nash's offensive superiority to Stockton is overblown. Stock could have scored more if he wanted to and he shot the ball at a nice clip too. Stock's game is just superior to Nash's....more balanced, tougher, less turnovers, more steals, better man-to-man defense, better passing (due to less turns).....people just don't remember because it's been awhile.

[Go Getter]

Agreed. I've never considered him as bad a defender as the general public does. There have been elite PGs just as bad, maybe worse. Stockton's longevity and durability are astounding, but at the absolute peak of their abilities ... I think Nash is slightly better. It's the same way I take Mark Price pre-injuries at the height of his powers to be slightly better than Stockton as well.
So at their peaks:

1. Nash
2. Price
3. Stockton

I think you're really disrespecting Stock here.

[SteveNashMVPcro]

1.Right now? Probaly.In his prime no.Other PGs would score big on him ocasionaly but so did players on any other position vs the Suns.But I don't think there's a PO series tge Suns/Mavs lost due to Nash's D.If he really was a belove average defender that would've happend.
2.Well yeah sucks to ve a Suns fan :(
3.True still by watching a single average Suns game from the past 2 season or from 2004-2007 you can clearly see how awful the Suns look without him on the floor.This current Suns team with for example Brooks IMO would be a 10 win team

[Go Getter]

1.Right now? Probaly.In his prime no.Other PGs would score big on him ocasionaly but so did players on any other position vs the Suns.But I don't think there's a PO series tge Suns/Mavs lost due to Nash's D.If he really was a belove average defender that would've happend.
2.Well yeah sucks to ve a Suns fan :(
3.True still by watching a single average Suns game from the past 2 season or from 2004-2007 you can clearly see how awful the Suns look without him on the floor.This current Suns team with for example Brooks IMO would be a 10 win team


That's what happens when you put the ball in one players hands so much....when said player is not playing it takes time to adjust. Not necessarily the team's fault or Nash's.

Nash has always been a poor defender--sorry man it is what it is.

[SteveNashMVPcro]

Yep true still it shows you what impact Nash made on the team.

Bit below average still IMO

[Bigsmoke]

Nash

[Owl]

1. Some of my post was questioning another poster, not my actual words.
2. You underrate defense.
3. I do not think Nash deserved two MVP's considering all the players in the league that were better then him at the time (and before him) that don't even have one or only one. Steve Nash more valuable than Shaq?:no:
4. Stockton was a star too, he just didn't flash his muscles or do fancy dunks or behave like a clown. He was understated and professional.
5. How is the gap closing when Nash isn't doing anything but putting up empty stats on a middling team?
1)Ok
2)I think (as another earlier poster said) D tends to be less important in evaluating small players than for bigs. Elite defensive big men can change a whole teams approach. Small players for the most part only affect their matchup. But I happily acknowledge that Stockton is much better at this end. Just differing opinions.:cheers:
3)I don't think Nash deserved those MVPs either, certainly not 2 anyway. But it does reflect the percieved difference in importance between Nash to his team and Stockton to his (Stockton's highest MVP vote finish was 7th in 89, and I know that seems stupidly low for a player of his calibre but it should be pointed out nonetheless)
4) Stockton was great. No argument here (though I'm unsure who the "clown contrast is with).
5) Really? Others have adressed this. But put simply if you think the Suns' problem is Steve Nash you haven't even glanced at their roster never mind saw them play or saw their stats.

[lbj23clutch]

Stockton played in an era where big men were the dominant position. The 80's and 90's were the golden age of big man. Nash plays in a guards era where the focus is more on the perimeter. So I think it's unfair to say Nash is a better scorer because I don't think Nash would be able to score as much during Stockton's era where the focus were more on centers. Plus factor in the rule changes and it's much easier for guards in this generation. Like I said it's now a league of guards in this era.


Also the gap on defense is MUCH bigger in favor of Stockton compared to the gap on scoring(which is minimal), so I'd go with Stockton.

[Xiao Yao You]

Agreed. I've never considered him as bad a defender as the general public does. There have been elite PGs just as bad, maybe worse. Stockton's longevity and durability are astounding, but at the absolute peak of their abilities ... I think Nash is slightly better. It's the same way I take Mark Price pre-injuries at the height of his powers to be slightly better than Stockton as well.

Price was a hell of a player but come on! He was a better pure shooter but other than that Stockton was on another level. Nash is comparable as an offensive player but throw in defense and the screens John set and it's hard to take any little man over him.

[TheBigVeto]

Nash is GOAT PG, so Nash.
Nash = combination of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

I like Steve Nash better, Nash had a better prime and was just very enjoyable to watch.

Stockton has a better career. So far. Who knows? Nash might play till he's 45

[Go Getter]

1)Ok
2)I think (as another earlier poster said) D tends to be less important in evaluating small players than for bigs. Elite defensive big men can change a whole teams approach. Small players for the most part only affect their matchup. But I happily acknowledge that Stockton is much better at this end. Just differing opinions.:cheers:
3)I don't think Nash deserved those MVPs either, certainly not 2 anyway. But it does reflect the percieved difference in importance between Nash to his team and Stockton to his (Stockton's highest MVP vote finish was 7th in 89, and I know that seems stupidly low for a player of his calibre but it should be pointed out nonetheless)
4) Stockton was great. No argument here (though I'm unsure who the "clown contrast is with).
5) Really? Others have adressed this. But put simply if you think the Suns' problem is Steve Nash you haven't even glanced at their roster never mind saw them play or saw their stats.


1. No one in particular just players that like to clown in-game (for better or worse).
2. I never said Nash is the problem, I'm saying stats are empty when your team isn't competing for a title. That's just my opinion though.

[305Baller]

Dunno why but Ill take Nash. More explosive overall.

Stock was not flashy but was dang effective.

[LABean]

Give me Nash.

[Go Getter]

It's funny that most people like Nash because he's a pure PG but in this case he's the better scorer and not necessarily better at running a team.

It's a good debate though, I don't down anyone for taking Nash.

[Owl]

1. No one in particular just players that like to clown in-game (for better or worse).
2. I never said Nash is the problem, I'm saying stats are empty when your team isn't competing for a title. That's just my opinion though.
Fair enough, I personally don't think it's right to hold a guys situation against him and I feel thats what calling guys on losing teams numbers "empty stats" is doing.

I'd agree it's easy to put up impressive numbers on a middling team than a good one (on a bad team its hard to be efficient, especially as a pg).

[Hater]

I'll take Nash.

[bwink23]

Nash is GOAT PG, so Nash.
Nash = combination of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.


This would make a great edition to the dumbest things you've heard on ISH....thank you...:pimp:

[dunksby]

Nash is GOAT PG, so Nash.
Nash = combination of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird.
Nash is a ****n midget man :lol

[NinjaSeal]

I posted on the first page the stats stockton wins by assists and less turn over plus more steals

[bwink23]

Give me Stockton...pure point guard, great anticipation, great shooter and tough as nails.

[DaHeezy]

I think Stockton gets a little overrated due to his high assist totals. He accumilated them from being part of the most effective pick and roll in the history of the game. Karl Malone essentially gave Stockton that title. I don't think Stockton was that much particularily better at D as well. He was know for being dirty. Does that make Mahorn the best defender of all-time?
He didn't particularily drive to the basket well either. He was a great shooter, but not in Nash's class, especially at creating your own shoot.
Stockton was a prototypical PG, and was very effective at it. But Nash can take over games without scoring.

The thread asked at their very best, and at their very best Nash was better. Career wise I'll agree with Stockton

[bwink23]

I think Stockton gets a little overrated due to his high assist totals. He accumilated them from being part of the most effective pick and roll in the history of the game. Karl Malone essentially gave Stockton that title. I don't think Stockton was that much particularily better at D as well. He was know for being dirty. Does that make Mahorn the best defender of all-time?
He didn't particularily drive to the basket well either. He was a great shooter, but not in Nash's class, especially at creating your own shoot.
Stockton was a prototypical PG, and was very effective at it. But Nash can take over games without scoring.

The thread asked at their very best, and at their very best Nash was better. Career wise I'll agree with Stockton


Being dirty, and NBA all-time leader in steals...what more do you really want from a 6'0 guard?? :confusedshrug:

[DaHeezy]

Being dirty, and NBA all-time leader in steals...what more do you really want from a 6'0 guard?? :confusedshrug:

I'm more talking one-on-one defense.

His steals totals are impressive, although longevity plays a role. Iverson led the league in steals, does that make him an elite one on one defender?

[bwink23]

I'm more talking one-on-one defense.

His steals totals are impressive, although longevity plays a role. Iverson led the league in steals, does that make him an elite one on one defender?


Is Nash an elite one-on-one defender?? :confusedshrug:

[DaHeezy]

Is Nash an elite one-on-one defender?? :confusedshrug:

I didn't say he was, I'm saying Stockton is a little overrated in those regards.

[bwink23]

I didn't say he was, I'm saying Stockton is a little overrated in those regards.


Certainly not compared to Steve Nash.

[rodman91]

Stockton got killed in finals because Bulls defended passing lines well and Stocton wasn't able to pass his man for score or driving double teams to create easy looks for his teammates.

I think that's more important than being better defender for that size of player. He was tough,dirty & great at steals but not somebody to stop good scorers.

[DKLaker]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2005.html

nash....5th best scorer on his team in points and 4th ppg....... look at his teams numbers!

now lets look at stocktons jazz

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1990.html

stockton....2nd best scorer on his team

not only does stockton have better apg and spg and 1 point difference in ppg

stockton is the facilitator and scorer


Thank you!!!! These kids and these idiotic comparison threads :banghead: :banghead:

[Xiao Yao You]

Stockton got killed in finals because Bulls defended passing lines well and Stocton wasn't able to pass his man for score or driving double teams to create easy looks for his teammates.

I think that's more important than being better defender for that size of player. He was tough,dirty & great at steals but not somebody to stop good scorers.

Got killed cuz Karl couldn't make a lay-up and Jerry was out coached.


His steals totals are impressive, although longevity plays a role.

As does consistency. His was amazing.

[Myth]

its hilarious how some of you are saying the scoring is even and the passing is miles apart.
nash made his teammates better with his passing, where you could say that stocktons passing was inflated due to his PF. nash proved he didnt need a dominant PF to get his numbers the season amare was out.

.

Just wanted to point out that though the sample size is tiny, the few games Malone missed while Stockton was in his prime, these are the stats Stockton put up:

1988-89
19 points, 20 assists, 8 steals
10 points, 10 assists, 6 steals

1991-92
13 points, 13 assists
In a game that Malone played 4 minutes and scored 0 field goals, Stockton had:
17 points, 14 assists

Again, this sample size is small, but the assists are consistent with what Stockton did with Malone in the line-up.

[Harison]

Stockton was slightly better all-around player than Nash, plus with an insanely long prime. There is no GM who would pick Nash over Stockton, if they would knew how players would turn out.

[TAZORAC]

john stockton is better offensively and defensively

the max apg in a season is stocktons

and the max spg is stocktons


stockton 17 ppg 14 apg 2.9 steals 3 turn overs

nash 18 ppg 11 apg .8 steals 3.8 turnovers best season


now you tell me whose better?

STOCKTON would never or did ever been seriously considered for MVP. Nash had better seasons, Stockton had an overall better career

[Go Getter]

STOCKTON would never or did ever been seriously considered for MVP. Nash had better seasons, Stockton had an overall better career
John Stockton, in today's NBA, with no hand-checking, and his smarts and grit would totally be considered for an MVP.

Nash would never be considered an MVP in the 80's. I tend to think his numbers would decrease when other players could beat him up a bit.

[StateOfMind12]

Stockton was slightly better all-around player than Nash, plus with an insanely long prime.
We're comparing peaks here, not primes.



There is no GM who would pick Nash over Stockton, if they would knew how players would turn out.
I love it when people say such a thing especially when they have absolutely no evidence of it being true.


STOCKTON would never or did ever been seriously considered for MVP. Nash had better seasons, Stockton had an overall better careerTo be fair, back then other than Magic, PGs were never the ones getting credit, big men/finishers were.

[bwink23]

STOCKTON would never or did ever been seriously considered for MVP. Nash had better seasons, Stockton had an overall better career


Michael Jordan was playing during his prime....:facepalm

[Legends66NBA7]

Michael Jordan was playing during his prime....:facepalm

So what ?

And even with Jordan out of the way, he still got the highest in MVP voting... 7th place.

There were far better players than Stockton during his playing days.

And he wasn't getting MVP when Karl Malone was on the same team.

[rodman91]

Got killed cuz Karl couldn't make a lay-up and Jerry was out coached.


9.7 ppg & 8.7 apg.. Malone had great finals compared to that.

[Xiao Yao You]

We're comparing peaks here, not primes.



I love it when people say such a thing especially when they have absolutely no evidence of it being true.

To be fair, back then other than Magic, PGs were never the ones getting credit, big men/finishers were.

Good point. Stockton was always higher in my book than Malone.

[Xiao Yao You]

There were far better players than Stockton during his playing days.

He was one of the best for a very long time.


Malone had great finals compared to that.

How many assits does he get if Malone makes the lay-ups? Yes Karl finally showed up after they were down 3-1. Way to go Mr. Clutch!

[NinjaSeal]

STOCKTON would never or did ever been seriously considered for MVP. Nash had better seasons, Stockton had an overall better career


stockton had a better peak season what are you talking about?

stocktons peak season has less turnovers more assists and steals with 1 less ppg

[Kiddlovesnets]

Stockton is a way better defender than Nash. You do not compare a PG who is not top 10 of all time to a top 5 PG...

[TheBigVeto]

Got killed cuz Karl couldn't make a lay-up and Jerry was out coached.



As does consistency. His was amazing.

P Jax never out coached anybody. He's just a dummy figure, overrated coach. Jordan did all the work for him.

[pauk]

Close, but John Stockton thx

[Xiao Yao You]

Jordan did all the work for him.

If it wasn't for the year after MJ first retired and the fact that the Lakers had been swept in consecutive years by an aging Jazz team before he arrived in LA and the fact that Kobe has done nothing but launch shots without him I might agree with you.

[Owl]

stockton had a better peak season what are you talking about?

stocktons peak season has less turnovers more assists and steals with 1 less ppg
Fortunately league pace was exactly the same those two years making those number comparisons exactly like for like, and not at all misleading.:rolleyes:

[Round Mound]

John Stockton was among the Best Defensive PGs for some time people. Then some say but KJ, Payton and Price all scored alot of points on him...true...but they also scored even more on other PGs not named Stockton.

Defensive Rating

1986-87 NBA 101.9 (6)
1987-88 NBA 102.2 (8)
1988-89 NBA 101.1 (6)

Defensive Win Shares

1987-88 NBA 4.9 (6)
1988-89 NBA 5.8 (4)
1990-91 NBA 4.7 (9)
1991-92 NBA 4.6 (9)
Career NBA 64.9 (18)

Stokcton was a 15-16 PPG on 53% FG/12-13 APG and 2.7 SPG in his Prime from 1987 to about 1995

Stockton > Nash

[WockaVodka]

Good point. Stockton was always higher in my book than Malone.
Would you mind explaining why? Malone was always considered a top 5 player in the league while Stockton may have never been considered top 10.

[donald_trump]

1. No one in particular just players that like to clown in-game (for better or worse).
2. I never said Nash is the problem, I'm saying stats are empty when your team isn't competing for a title. That's just my opinion though.

cool, so we can put down derrick roses season last season as empty stats.

[Jotaro Durant]

John Stockton was among the Best Defensive PGs for some time people. Then some say but KJ, Payton and Price all scored alot of points on him...true...but they also scored even more on other PGs not named Stockton.

Defensive Rating

1986-87 NBA 101.9 (6)
1987-88 NBA 102.2 (8)
1988-89 NBA 101.1 (6)

Defensive Win Shares

1987-88 NBA 4.9 (6)
1988-89 NBA 5.8 (4)
1990-91 NBA 4.7 (9)
1991-92 NBA 4.6 (9)
Career NBA 64.9 (18)

Stokcton was a 15-16 PPG on 53% FG/12-13 APG and 2.7 SPG in his Prime from 1987 to about 1995

Stockton > Nash
i notice u never use defensive stats for barkley or bird.............
beside the point this answer is stockton

[Xiao Yao You]

Malone was always considered a top 5 player in the league while Stockton may have never been considered top 10.

because people like scorers more than little white assist men not because of what they actually did on the court. Also John had to take a back seat to Magic and always had other little guys challenging his greatness. Was always different guys though while he continued at that level for a long time. Karl only had Barkley to challenge his spot at the top of his position. In Utah they've always went hand in hand but I always saw John on a different level. Would have been great to see him play with others in other systems. People here seem to forget what Nash did before he went back to Phoenix conveniently enough. He was too unselfish and loyal to the Jazz and his teammates other than that it's hard to fault anything about his game.

[TAZORAC]

I'd rather have NASH on my team.

[LongLiveTheKing]

Nash is better you basketball hipsters. 2x MVP.