kidd, Nash or Stockton?

[oolalaa]

Peak and career, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash or John Stockton? :confusedshrug:

I cant work it out.


All 3 of them were all time great playmakers/passers. I think any differences between them in this department is negligible.

All 3 of them had (I'm using past tense for Kidd/Nash because I think it's safe to say that their best is way behind them) insane longevity.

All 3 of them had very good but not great team success. Stockton had the most help. Kidd had the least.

Nash was comfortably the best scorer but by far the worst defensively. Kidd was the best defensively but undoubtedly the worst scorer. Stockton was right in the middle.

I've never really been comfortable with any particular order and the more I think about it the more confused I tend to get.

My provisional career ranking is often 1. Nash, 2. Stockton, 3. Kidd but then my mind wanders....

- What could Kidd have accomplished if he played with Smaloan? (Sloan + Malone)
- How much did the no hand checking rules help Nash?
- Stockton, in his entire 19 year NBA career, only made 2 All-NBA 1st teams.


ANY IDEAS?

[StateOfMind12]

1. Nash
2. Stockton
3. Kidd

I don't think the hand-check helped Nash that much as most people think. I think it has more to do with the fact that he was finally going to be able to run the show and run the show full time with Phoenix. Don Nelson's Mavericks teams played a ton of iso-ball which isn't Nash's strength. Nash's strength is playing pick and roll basketball and the Suns did that and did it to death and that was the ultimate reason for his success.

Not allowing hand-checks was not what made Nash so successful after the 2004 season, playing on a different and new team that suited his strength was.

I don't think Kidd has any argument over Stockton at all. Kidd rebounded better than him and that was about it and rebounding is the last thing I care about when it comes to picking between PGs.

I expect a lot of ignorant people to start saying things like Nash doesn't play defense so nothing he does matters anymore even though there is literally no proof what so ever that Nash is a bad defender. Nash was an underrated defender to me because I thought he was just average while everyone thought he was just a liability and nothing more.

[akts]

I would have taken stockton. Nash next and kidd. Stock was ready to war. So much so that he earned a rep as being fiesty to dirty. Along with his leadership skills, on point passing, timely threes and ferocious defense.. He was a workhorse that you had a hard time overlooking. He like the other 2 had great fundamentals.. Yet working with sloan I think really emphasized it. Just watching the playoff battles he had in utah you knew they were going to make you work.

With any of these guys though you have a solid and favorable man at point.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

1.Stockton
2.Nash
3.Kidd

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm definitely going with Nash number 1. He's the worst defender, but at the point guard position, I'm focusing on offense more. Their passing ability is comparable, but Nash might be the guy I'd choose as a playmaker because he was so much more creative and capable as a scorer, and the best shooter of the 3. His '07 season is among the top shooting seasons ever.

Kidd from '99-'04 during his prime was great because he had more quickness pre-microfracture surgery, as well as great size. His defensive versatility was also a plus as he could guard 2s, and more importantly, he was a terrific help defender. He is also one of the great rebounding guards and his ability to get the rebound and start the break was reminiscent of Magic. Kidd was also as good as I've seen at creating something out of nothing when his team needed a basket.

Overall, Kidd's '03 season was easily his peak since he had improved his shooting before he got old and had the surgery.

Stockton was a good defender, and was ideal for running the offense like a true point guard. He was a good shooter and would score a certain amount of points for you, he was much more efficient than Kidd, but there is one problem I've had with him. He just didn't show the ability/mentality to take over games consistently, and despite being a PG, Utah could've used it at times to help out Malone. Kidd wasn't as efficient, but even before he was a solid shooter, he showed the willingness to try to put his team on his back when they needed it. He wouldn't make the flashy passes that Kidd and Nash would, but was as good as they come at the fundamental passes and also, his trademark one-handed passes off the dribble.

I'm more torn between Kidd and Stockton and who to put 2nd/3rd, but I'm going with Nash number 1. All 3 are brilliant passers.

Nash is the only one of these 3 who I'd say was a top 5 player, except perhaps Kidd during the lockout season in '99 which was an odd year.

[DStebb716]

Seems to me that Stockton/Nash/Kidd is a pretty definite list.

[Micku]

Career wise, Nash have more accomplishments due to MVPs.

Jason Kidd is the only champion out of the three with the Mavs.

Steve Nash bloom late, and hit his peak in his 30s. Nash might have the best longevity in terms of offense, and Stockton is not bad as well. Nash is the best offensely and is not afraid to take over games at times. He is clutch too.

Stockton was never the best player on his team obviously, and sometimes not consider the best PG even though he had epic numbers. And Stockton made 1st All NBA Team twice, not once. He got beat out by Penny and Tim Hardaway a bunch of times.

It depends on what you want. I would lean on Stockton because he is my ideal PG for running the offense. Good defender, solid shooter/scorer, not afraid to make dirty plays, tough and great passer. But you can't go wrong with either. It depends on what team you want to have.

[blacknapalm]

i'd go stockton just because i think he would help just about any team, no matter their makeup. he had fundamentals and brought intangibles. however, i'd be inclined to take a prime nash first so it's tough. i think nash had the better peak

[lakers_forever]

Stockton was Nash with defense. Also he became a great player in his third season. Nash only in his 5th and he wasn't even considered that great in his first really good year. So, Stockton > Nash.


Jason Kidd is Nash contemporary and during his prime, he was much better than Nash for most of their careers .

Plus Nash never even made to the finals (and he played in very talented teams).

1. Stockton

2. Kidd

3. Nash

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Stockton was Nash with defense. Also he became a great player in his third season. Nash only in his 5th and he wasn't even considered that great in his first really good year. So, Stockton > Nash.


Jason Kidd is Nash contemporary and during his prime, he was much better than Nash for most of their careers .

Plus Nash never even made to the finals (and he played in very talented teams).

1. Stockton

2. Kidd

3. Nash
This.
Stockton was the best defender of the three, plus he did everything that Nash did.
Kidd was second best defender, buy also a great floor general.

[StateOfMind12]

Nash could take over and put the team on his back to close out games while Stockton couldn't. Stockton gives you better and more defensive minded player but Nash gives you a better and more assertive scoring/offensive player.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Haha Lakers fans are still salty about 2006.

[lakers_forever]

All 3 of them had very good but not great team success. Stockton had the most help. Kidd had the least.


Nash had the most help. In their trips to the finals, the Jazz third best player was a broken Hornacek. After him, only average role players.


Nash had Dirk and Finley in their primes (or at least near) and a stacked team with the Mavs.

With the Suns, he had Stoudemire, Joe Jonhson and Marion in 05. In 07, he had Soutedmire, Marion plus Bell and Barbosa in their primes. Diaw was still good.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Just an observation but if Stockton played in Jordan's conference he would have never made it to the finals. :oldlol:

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Just an observation but if Stockton played in Jordan's conference he would have never made it to the finals. :oldlol:
:banghead:

[Rekindled]

offensively
Nash


stockton
kidd

stockton almost never carried his team on scoring ,neither did kidd.

defensively
Kidd
stockton







Nash

[HorryIsMyMVP]

:banghead:
Well it's true, Brah.

[swi7ch]

VERY tough choice but I'd go with the 2x MVP.

[SuperPippen]

In terms of passing, Stockton was probably the very best at simply recognizing where the ball needed to be, and getting it there as quickly and accurately as possible. His precision and craftiness when passing the ball was second to none.

When talking about actually creating scoring opportunities for others, or playmaking, Nash and Kidd are both superior to Stockton, IMO. On the fast break, Nash and Kidd are two of the very best open court leaders and and distributors of all time, even better than Stockton in this regard. Nash excelled at pushing the tempo on the break and delivering flashy, creative passes. Kidd was probably the best of the three, because - as ShaqAttack said - his ability to snag a rebound and go coast to coast was phenomenal.

Defensively, Kidd was the most versatile and effective as both an on-ball and team defender. Stockton was a hard-nosed, tough defender who made up for his lack of physical gifts with tenacity, and a great nose for the ball. Nash's defense was obviously poor, mostly because of his lack of lateral quickness and and lack of real effort.

In the end, however, I have to rank Nash as my clear-cut number one choice here. His defensive woes are forgivable because of his superiority as a scorer and shooter. IMO, Nash is the greatest shooter of all time. He was fully capable of taking over games with his scoring whenever his team needed him to step up, and is only slightly behind Stockton and Magic for being the greatest passer of all time. His abilities as a playmaker and floor general rival those of Magic himself. Because of his brilliance on the offensive end, his struggles on the defensive end can be overlooked.

Stockton is my number 2 here. His game was simple, yet crafty. He was extremely intelligent, efficient, and consistent. Although he wasn't nearly as good of a shooter as Nash, he was still a great shooter, and a decent enough scorer because of his skill and intelligence. His defense was consistently solid as well, and his longevity, the fact that he effectively ran an offense for nearly two decades, gives him the number 2 spot.

Kidd is number 3. Although he was the most versatile of the three, and might have been the best all-around player, he had the most significant weakness in his game. He was able to overcome his shooting woes and inefficiency as a scorer because of his effectiveness in every other area of his game, but I just can't rank him above Nash or Stockton.

[magnax1]

I'll go with
Stockton
Nash
Kidd
With a pretty big gap between Nash and Kidd to me, and Stockton and Nash being moderately close.
Defensively Kidd was probably the best of the bunch just because of his ability to guard shooting guards, and the fact that he was a fantastic individual defender. Team defense wise Stockton was probably the best, and Nash was a dead last.
As far as scoring goes Nash takes it by a small margin over Stockton, with Kidd in a pretty clear last place. I don't really want my point guard going for 20 points a game every game while shooting 50 TS%. It just does more harm then it does good regardless of the situation, and that's what Kidd tried to do some seasons. Just in terms of offense in general Kidd is a pretty clear last, and only a few times in his career was his team even in the top half of the league in terms of offensive efficiency. Stockton was probably a bit better at getting inside and scoring between him and Nash, while Nash was better quite a bit as a 3pt and long range shooter, though Stockton was a great shooter too.
Passing wise Nash and Stockton are clearly the two best, with Stockton clearly in first between the two. Both of them are 2 of the 3 greatest passers though, so either way you're getting pretty much as good as you can get. Nash and Stockton are probably the two best pick and roll point guards ever, and both did almost perfect jobs of getting their team the best shot available almost every time down the floor. Kidd was great, but just not on that level.

[wagexslave]

Just an observation but if Stockton played in Jordan's conference he would have never made it to the finals. :oldlol:
Kind of like if Nash didn't play in Kobe's and Duncan's conference he would've made it to the finals.

[Peteballa]

Scalabrine

[tpols]

1. Kidd
2. Nash

3. Stockton

Kidd and Nash were true superstars capable of taking over/imposing their will at anytime. Stockton was just the 'do everything right'/perfect fundamentals guy, but he wasnt close to their peak levels of play. And peak levels of play is what wins championships. I dont want to just make the playoffs every year for 20 years and lose in every single one of them.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

1. Kidd
2. Nash

3. Stockton

Kidd and Nash were true superstars capable of taking over/imposing their will at anytime. Stockton was just the 'do everything right'/perfect fundamentals guy, but he wasnt close to their peak levels of play. And peak levels of play is what wins championships. I dont want to just make the playoffs every year for 20 years and lose in every single one of them.
:biggums:

[Clippersfan86]

This.
Stockton was the best defender of the three, plus he did everything that Nash did.
Kidd was second best defender, buy also a great floor general.

:facepalm . Kidd was BY FAR the best defender of this trio. Even 38 year old Kidd was probably a better defender than prime Stockton. Kidd is the 2nd best defensive PG in NBA history after Gary Payton and one of the best perimeter defending guards ever.

[Round Mound]

87-95 Stockton was the Best PG Ever besides Magic

[tpols]

:facepalm . Kidd was BY FAR the best defender of this trio. Even 38 year old Kidd was probably a better defender than prime Stockton. Kidd is the 2nd best defensive PG in NBA history after Gary Payton and one of the best perimeter defending guards ever.
Kidd did everything better than the other two except shoot.. and he's still the 2nd or 3rd leadiing 3 pt shooter EVER.:oldlol:

He was basically a 6'4 215 lb Rondo with a post game.. at that size naturally, and the ability to shoot better.

[SuperPippen]

:facepalm . Kidd was BY FAR the best defender of this trio. Even 38 year old Kidd was probably a better defender than prime Stockton. Kidd is the 2nd best defensive PG in NBA history after Gary Payton and one of the best perimeter defending guards ever.

While I respect your opinion on this matter, I think you're overrating Kidd's defensive prowess. Kidd was a quality defender, and versatile, but I wouldn't say he's one of the best defensive guards ever, let alone on GP's level.

[JtotheIzzo]

John Stockton is the most overrated player in NBA history.

-he was only a dream team member because of the Isiah slight.
-he go to run pick and roll all day with one of the best PF in NBA history (who was also far and away the biggest and strongest player in the league at the time).
-he was one of the dirtiest players in the league.
-he was never forced to score, carry his team or take difficult shots.
-in their second final ru he averaged 12/8.5/2.6
-he amassed a lot of his PG stats when the WC was more wide open and scoring oriented than almost any period in NBA history (look at the assist totals of his contemporaries, then compare Nash and Kidd with their contemporaries).

Nash was more than a few times forced to drop 30-40 points in playoff games to keep his team alive, Stockton wouldn't be able to do that.

Nash was forced to take big shots for his team, Stockton almost always left that up to Malone.

In my opinion, subbing in Nash or Kidd for Stockton would produce equal or greater results for the Jazz, although Kidd's jumper might not be steady enough for Jerry Sloan's offense.

The ranking is:

Nash
Kidd
Stockton

If we remove revisionist history, our love for the Jordan era, and NBA on NBC.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Kidd did everything better than the other two except shoot.. and he's still the 2nd or 3rd leadiing 3 pt shooter EVER.:oldlol:

He was basically a 6'4 215 lb Rondo with a post game.. at that size naturally, and the ability to shoot better.
Well I mean Kidd shoots way more 3's then other PG's mostly because he doesn't have a mid range game and isn't a great finisher. He can clank some 3's though if you give him time. He has made a living shooting these 3 pointers because team's sag off him. They aren't afraid of his penetration and his wide open 3 is pretty inconsistent. I have always thought this is the wrong way to play against him but what can you do?

[ralph_i_el]

ZEKE
stockton
Kidd
Nash

Nash never made the finals which makes him lowest on this list for me. The other guys both also played great D

[tpols]

Well I mean Kidd shoots way more 3's then other PG's mostly because he doesn't have a mid range game and isn't a great finisher. He can clank some 3's though if you give him time. He has made a living shooting these 3 pointers because team's sag off him. They aren't afraid of his penetration and his wide open 3 is pretty inconsistent. I have always thought this is the wrong way to play against him but what can you do?
Kidd in his prime was a good finisher.. bad shooter but he wasnt like Rondo where he wouldnt take a good look. He would easily be able to overpower other guards in the post and 'quick' lay it up after a hard backdown. His midrange shot was inconsistent.. you're right. He used to always try for banks from the mid range kind of like how Wade does now.

His defense/stripping ability(hands)/rebounding/fastbreak play/alleyoops/passing/competitiveness were off the charts though. His size and athleticism at the point guard position are the best since Magic.

[tpols]

ZEKE
stockton
Kidd
Nash

Nash never made the finals which makes him lowest on this list for me. The other guys both also played great D
Nash was a leader that could dictate a game's outcome at will though.. Stockton just seems like he would run through his motions but could never put the pedal down past what he always rode at.

[StateOfMind12]

ZEKE
stockton
Kidd
Nash

Nash never made the finals which makes him lowest on this list for me. The other guys both also played great D
This has to be the dumbest reason why. So if one guy is flat out better than two other players but that one player didn't accomplish a feat. that two other players did, he is somehow worse? :facepalm :confusedshrug:

It's not Nash's fault he didn't play in weak conferences like Kidd did. It's also not Nash's fault that he played with a coach (D'Antoni) that didn't give a crap about anything other than offense. He realistically only had one shot to make it to the Finals and that was in 2010 and he had lost to the eventual champs that season.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

This has to be the dumbest reason why. So if one guy is flat out better than two other players but that one player didn't accomplish a feat. that two other players did, he is somehow worse? :facepalm :confusedshrug:

It's not Nash's fault he didn't play in weak conferences like Kidd did. It's also not Nash's fault that he played with a coach (D'Antoni) that didn't give a crap about anything other than offense. He realistically only had one shot to make it to the Finals and that was in 2010 and he had lost to the eventual champs that season.
You are forgetting THIS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvkKdXLwt0U

[SuperPippen]

ZEKE
stockton
Kidd
Nash

Nash never made the finals which makes him lowest on this list for me. The other guys both also played great D

Stockton and Kidd were both significantly better on the defensive end than Nash, that's true. But Nash is significantly better than both Kidd and Stockton on the offensive end. At which end of the floor would you rather have your PG display his supremacy? :confusedshrug:

And people really put too much stock in this "he made the Finals/has a ring business." Making the Finals does not automatically make one a better player.

[ralph_i_el]

This has to be the dumbest reason why. So if one guy is flat out better than two other players but that one player didn't accomplish a feat. that two other players did, he is somehow worse? :facepalm :confusedshrug:

It's not Nash's fault he didn't play in weak conferences like Kidd did. It's also not Nash's fault that he played with a coach (D'Antoni) that didn't give a crap about anything other than offense. He realistically only had one shot to make it to the Finals and that was in 2010 and he had lost to the eventual champs that season.

well all of those guys are comparable in skill and I like them all, but Kidd willed his team to the finals, which Nash did not do and stockton has the edge on Nash because of his D.

It's less of Nash NOT making the finals, and more of what the other two guys went through to get to the finals

[ralph_i_el]

Stockton and Kidd were both significantly better on the defensive end than Nash, that's true. But Nash is significantly better than both Kidd and Stockton on the offensive end. At which end of the floor would you rather have your PG display his supremacy? :confusedshrug:

And people really put too much stock in this "he made the Finals/has a ring business." Making the Finals does not automatically make one a better player.

I wouldn't say that nash was significantly better than either of those guys on O. Maybe Kidd, but the difference between him and Stockton are not huge in my eyes in terms of offensive impact

[tpols]

well all of those guys are comparable in skill and I like them all, but Kidd willed his team to the finals, which Nash did not do and stockton has the edge on Nash because of his D.

It's less of Nash NOT making the finals, and more of what the other two guys went through to get to the finals
I have Kidd over Nash very slightly but this is dumb reasoning because Nash played against better teams than Kidd did. Kidd's teams probably werent making the finals over Shaq/Kobe or the multiple champion Spurs either.. and if stockton was transposed into this era there's no way in hell his were making it with equal talent.

[ralph_i_el]

I have Kidd over Nash very slightly but this is dumb reasoning because Nash played against better teams than Kidd did. Kidd's teams probably werent making the finals over Shaq/Kobe or the multiple champion Spurs either.. and if stockton was transposed into this era there's no way in hell his were making it with equal talent.

kidd faced worse teams obviously, but he also was on an inferior team as well. He really carried those guys to the finals twice imo

Nash had some stacked teams.

please don't make me down on Nash anymore to defend my position. He's one of my favorite players of all time but I can't put him above Stockton. I could have him tied with kidd and be comfortable with that.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

I have Kidd over Nash very slightly but this is dumb reasoning because Nash played against better teams than Kidd did. Kidd's teams probably werent making the finals over Shaq/Kobe or the multiple champion Spurs either.. and if stockton was transposed into this era there's no way in hell his were making it with equal talent.
And 2007 was Nash's year to win it all and it was proven to be rigged. You know by Tim Donaghy. The FBI proved it and all that.

[Round Mound]

Stockton is the most overrated player in NBA history.

:no: :facepalm :roll: :oldlol:

-he was only a dream team member because of the Isiah slight.

He Was Better than Isiah at Everything but Slashing-Driving to the Basket

-he go to run pick and roll all day with one of the best PF in NBA history (who was also far and away the biggest and strongest player in the league at the time).

He Designed this with Sloan for Malone. He was the Creator of Malone`s Offense (Stronger guys where Barkley, Shaq, Mahorn many)

-he was one of the dirtiest players in the league.

Bird was Dirty...Even MJ was Dirty. Thats how u Play to Win Sometimes You Can`t Avoid Doing Something Over the Limit to Win

-he was never forced to score, carry his team or take difficult shots.

He Hit the Shot Was the Most Important Shot in Jazz History. That Shot that Made the Jazz go to the NBA Finals in 1997. He Took Over the Last 4-5 Minutes of the Game

-in their second final ru he averaged 12/8.5/2.6

Jordan and Harper where Garding Him...Both Had Been For a Long Time One of The Best Perimeter Defenders Out There

-he amassed a lot of his PG stats when the WC was more wide open and scoring oriented than almost any period in NBA history (look at the assist totals of his contemporaries, then compare Nash and Kidd with their contemporaries).

:facepalm Stockton Averaged More Assist Per Game Than Other PGs because he Knew How To Destribute the Ball Not Just For Malone but For Everyone on the Court Better than Anyone in NBA History (including Magic, my 3rd Favorite Player...I Admit to It...I Saw Both Play)

Barkley: "No One Made Better Desicions With the Ball than Stockton, Ever"
K.Smith: "He had the Perfect Mixture of Knowing When To Shoot, Not To Shoot, Pass and Create than Any PG Ever"
Isiah: "He is the Perfect Example of a Pure PG"

Nash was more than a few times forced to drop 30-40 points in playoff games to keep his team alive, Stockton wouldn't be able to do that.

He Did Not Need To. He had Malone and Hornacek who where 20 PPG Scorers.

Nash was forced to take big shots for his team, Stockton almost always left that up to Malone.

:wtf: :facepalm :rolleyes: Malone Shot 46% for his Whole Play-Off Career and Out of those 19 Runs he Only Shot Over 50% TWICE.

Malone Never Took the Big Shots. He Wasn`t Know for Being Clutch Ever.

In my opinion, subbing in Nash or Kidd for Stockton would produce equal or greater results for the Jazz, although Kidd's jumper might not be steady enough for Jerry Sloan's offense.

The ranking is:

Nash
Kidd
Stockton

If we remove revisionist history, our love for the Jordan era, and NBA on NBC

No More To Say. Than U Should Do This :hammerhead:

[Go Getter]

Stockton
Kidd
Nash

[Go Getter]

Stockton is the most overrated player in NBA history.

:no: :facepalm :roll: :oldlol:

-he was only a dream team member because of the Isiah slight.

He Was Better than Isiah at Everything but Slashing-Driving to the Basket

-he go to run pick and roll all day with one of the best PF in NBA history (who was also far and away the biggest and strongest player in the league at the time).

He Designed this with Sloan for Malone. He was the Creator of Malone`s Offense (Stronger guys where Barkley, Shaq, Mahorn many)

-he was one of the dirtiest players in the league.

Bird was Dirty...Even MJ was Dirty. Thats how u Play to Win Sometimes You Can`t Avoid Doing Something Over the Limit to Win

-he was never forced to score, carry his team or take difficult shots.

He Hit the Shot Was the Most Important Shot in Jazz History. That Shot that Made the Jazz go to the NBA Finals in 1997. He Took Over the Last 4-5 Minutes of the Game

-in their second final ru he averaged 12/8.5/2.6

Jordan and Harper where Garding Him...Both Had Been For a Long Time One of The Best Perimeter Defenders Out There

-he amassed a lot of his PG stats when the WC was more wide open and scoring oriented than almost any period in NBA history (look at the assist totals of his contemporaries, then compare Nash and Kidd with their contemporaries).

:facepalm Stockton Averaged More Assist Per Game Than Other PGs because he Knew How To Destribute the Ball Not Just For Malone but For Everyone on the Court Better than Anyone in NBA History (including Magic, my 3rd Favorite Player...I Admit to It...I Saw Both Play)

Barkley: "No One Made Better Desicions With the Ball than Stockton, Ever"
K.Smith: "He had the Perfect Mixture of Knowing When To Shoot, Not To Shoot, Pass and Create than Any PG Ever"
Isiah: "He is the Perfect Example of a Pure PG"

Nash was more than a few times forced to drop 30-40 points in playoff games to keep his team alive, Stockton wouldn't be able to do that.

He Did Not Need To. He had Malone and Hornacek who where 20 PPG Scorers.

Nash was forced to take big shots for his team, Stockton almost always left that up to Malone.

:wtf: :facepalm :rolleyes: Malone Shot 46% for his Whole Play-Off Career and Out of those 19 Runs he Only Shot Over 50% TWICE.

Malone Never Took the Big Shots. He Wasn`t Know for Being Clutch Ever.

In my opinion, subbing in Nash or Kidd for Stockton would produce equal or greater results for the Jazz, although Kidd's jumper might not be steady enough for Jerry Sloan's offense.

The ranking is:

Nash
Kidd
Stockton

If we remove revisionist history, our love for the Jordan era, and NBA on NBC

No More To Say. Than U Should Do This :hammerhead:
Stockton also led the NBA or LEADS the NBA in all time steals but I guess that is die to Malone to?


Who took and made the biggest shot in Jazz history to beat your favorite player?


I thought so.

[Myth]

1. Stockton
2. Kidd
3. Nash

[Clippersfan86]

While I respect your opinion on this matter, I think you're overrating Kidd's defensive prowess. Kidd was a quality defender, and versatile, but I wouldn't say he's one of the best defensive guards ever, let alone on GP's level.

2nd best defensive PG ever may be debatable for some... but he was CLEARLY a better defender than Stockton and Nash :confusedshrug: .

[StateOfMind12]

I'm not sure why people are saying it's a foregone conclusion that Kidd was a better defender than Stockton. Kidd was an overrated defender himself and there are plenty of series where Kidd was torched by PGs that you would never expect to torch him. Kidd was bigger and more versatile than Stockton and Nash obviously so he could probably defender more positions but that doesn't necessarily make him the best defender of the group or better than Stockton.

Also, Kidd is not even close to being the 2nd greatest defensive PG either, GTFO with that. Heck, Gary Payton isn't even the greatest defensive PG ever, it's Walt Frazier.

[NewYorkNoPicks]

Prime Kidd was amazing. When he came to the tri-state area, I remember kids in the park no longer immitating Iverson crossovers, but precision and artistic passing. Kidd made it cool to dish the ball

[tpols]

I'm not sure why people are saying it's a foregone conclusion that Kidd was a better defender than Stockton. Kidd was an overrated defender himself and there are plenty of series where Kidd was torched by PGs that you would never expect to torch him. Kidd was bigger and more versatile than Stockton and Nash obviously so he could probably defender more positions but that doesn't necessarily make him the best defender of the group or better than Stockton.

Also, Kidd is not even close to being the 2nd greatest defensive PG either, GTFO with that. Heck, Gary Payton isn't even the greatest defensive PG ever, it's Walt Frazier.
Every player has been 'burned' on defense. Jason Kidd's man defense was exceptional.. but that wasnt even his strongest suit on defense. His help defense, specifically doubling and stripping post players down low and swiping at slashers after they have their man beat were his best defensive attributes. Also his playing of the passing lanes and defensive rebounding.. it all made him an extremely high impact player on the defensive side of the ball.

It's like comparing Bruce Bowen to Pippen when you only talk about man D. Sure Bruce could play that as well as Pippen but he couldnt double, steal, rotate, or rebound as well as him and each one of those defensive abilities are on display just as much as individual man defense is.

[Ketchup]

Stockton was Nash with defense. Also he became a great player in his third season. Nash only in his 5th and he wasn't even considered that great in his first really good year. So, Stockton > Nash.



Umm no. That is a terrible description of Stockton and Nash.

Nash was far better offensively. He could hurt you with penetration and scoring in a way that Stockton couldn't.
I've seen it mentioned on this board a few times, and I'll bring it up again, Stockton has only scored 30 points something like 8 times in his career. Not exactly great.

And at point guard, there is only so much a defender can do there, so offense>defense at that position. Nash is comprehensively the better point guard in my opinion.

[Go Getter]

^yet there isn't a big difference in their career scoring averages. Also, Nash got to learn behind Kidd before he got put in the drivers seat while John pretty much played a lot as a young guard.


Stocktons impact on d is severely understated. If Nash were HALF as good as John at stealing the ball ISH posters would be calling him the GOAT. Stockton had more steals than Jordan, Pippen, Cheeks, Magic,Hakeem, etc etc. That's HUGE.

[MJ(Mean John)]

Prime kidd
Then prime GP

[JtotheIzzo]

Stockton is the most overrated player in NBA history.

:no: :facepalm :roll: :oldlol:

-he was only a dream team member because of the Isiah slight.

He Was Better than Isiah at Everything but Slashing-Driving to the Basket

-he go to run pick and roll all day with one of the best PF in NBA history (who was also far and away the biggest and strongest player in the league at the time).

He Designed this with Sloan for Malone. He was the Creator of Malone`s Offense (Stronger guys where Barkley, Shaq, Mahorn many)

-he was one of the dirtiest players in the league.

Bird was Dirty...Even MJ was Dirty. Thats how u Play to Win Sometimes You Can`t Avoid Doing Something Over the Limit to Win

-he was never forced to score, carry his team or take difficult shots.

He Hit the Shot Was the Most Important Shot in Jazz History. That Shot that Made the Jazz go to the NBA Finals in 1997. He Took Over the Last 4-5 Minutes of the Game

-in their second final ru he averaged 12/8.5/2.6

Jordan and Harper where Garding Him...Both Had Been For a Long Time One of The Best Perimeter Defenders Out There

-he amassed a lot of his PG stats when the WC was more wide open and scoring oriented than almost any period in NBA history (look at the assist totals of his contemporaries, then compare Nash and Kidd with their contemporaries).

:facepalm Stockton Averaged More Assist Per Game Than Other PGs because he Knew How To Destribute the Ball Not Just For Malone but For Everyone on the Court Better than Anyone in NBA History (including Magic, my 3rd Favorite Player...I Admit to It...I Saw Both Play)

Barkley: "No One Made Better Desicions With the Ball than Stockton, Ever"
K.Smith: "He had the Perfect Mixture of Knowing When To Shoot, Not To Shoot, Pass and Create than Any PG Ever"
Isiah: "He is the Perfect Example of a Pure PG"

Nash was more than a few times forced to drop 30-40 points in playoff games to keep his team alive, Stockton wouldn't be able to do that.

He Did Not Need To. He had Malone and Hornacek who where 20 PPG Scorers.

Nash was forced to take big shots for his team, Stockton almost always left that up to Malone.

:wtf: :facepalm :rolleyes: Malone Shot 46% for his Whole Play-Off Career and Out of those 19 Runs he Only Shot Over 50% TWICE.

Malone Never Took the Big Shots. He Wasn`t Know for Being Clutch Ever.

In my opinion, subbing in Nash or Kidd for Stockton would produce equal or greater results for the Jazz, although Kidd's jumper might not be steady enough for Jerry Sloan's offense.

The ranking is:

Nash
Kidd
Stockton

If we remove revisionist history, our love for the Jordan era, and NBA on NBC

No More To Say. Than U Should Do This :hammerhead:

Your use of emoticons only shows the weakness in your words.

Now here is where I son your entire argument and prove the fallacies in your emoticon laden tripe.

Sit back and enjoy.

Isiah >>>>> Stockton, no one with a brain disagrees. Stockton actually got punked in the regular by Bobby Hurley during those early scrimmages to the point where his teammates were losing faith in him as an elite player.

Bird dirtier?...lol, now you are reaching. Stockton was dirty, so bad was his reputation for being dirty that he ranks FOURTH ALL TIME in this list behind on Laimbeer, Rodman and Bruce Bowen.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/530978-the-50-dirtiest-players-in-nba-history

Ron Harper one of the best defenders out there? Stop it man, please. and those averages were the REGULAR SEASON, not the playoffs, did they play the Bulls 82 times?

Of course Barkley will hype up Stockton, Malone was his main competition.

Hornacek's highest ppg in Utah was 16.5 ppg

They went to Malone in the clutch, surely u remember Jordan's steal on the low post...or perhaps you were in diapers then?

Face it, Stockton would easily be replaced by Kidd or Nash.

[MJ(Mean John)]

Your use of emoticons only shows the weakness in your words.

Now here is where I son your entire argument and prove the fallacies in your emoticon laden tripe.

Sit back and enjoy.

Isiah >>>>> Stockton, no one with a brain disagrees. Stockton actually got punked in the regular by Bobby Hurley during those early scrimmages to the point where his teammates were losing faith in him as an elite player.

Bird dirtier?...lol, now you are reaching. Stockton was dirty, so bad was his reputation for being dirty that he ranks FOURTH ALL TIME in this list behind on Laimbeer, Rodman and Bruce Bowen.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/530978-the-50-dirtiest-players-in-nba-history

Ron Harper one of the best defenders out there? Stop it man, please. and those averages were the REGULAR SEASON, not the playoffs, did they play the Bulls 82 times?

Of course Barkley will hype up Stockton, Malone was his main competition.

Hornacek's highest ppg in Utah was 16.5 ppg

They went to Malone in the clutch, surely u remember Jordan's steal on the low post...or perhaps you were in diapers then?

Face it, Stockton would easily be replaced by Kidd or Nash.


Or even Gary.

[JtotheIzzo]

Or even Gary.


Without question, Gary Payton was the best PG of that era, and when you overrate PG defense like a lot of posters here do (defense is important, my point is people give it too much value, it is not 50/50 despite the cliche of it being half the game).

[CavaliersFTW]

Stockton followed by Kidd for me

[Go Getter]

Without question, Gary Payton was the best PG of that era, and when you overrate PG defense like a lot of posters here do (defense is important, my point is people give it too much value, it is not 50/50 despite the cliche of it being half the game).
Gp has a case for best PG of his era but it is certainly debate worthy and defense is half the game if not more. Defense turns into offense bit not vice versa.

[Mr Exlax]

It depends on the rest of the team. I'd say Kidd would be the one you could fit on any team.

[oolalaa]

I guess I've always thought that Stockton was overrated. There seemed to always be a couple of point guards who were better than him at any point during his career. He wasn't on the level of prime Kevin Johnson or prime Gary Payton (who destroyed him in the '96 WCFs). Was he better than Mark Price before his injuries? Or Penny Hardaway? He got shredded by Terry Porter in the '92 WCFs, too.

Everyone remembers his clutch heroics in '97 & '98, and they shouldn't be dismissed, but it seems that his entire career is based on them. That, and his insane longevity.

He got to play with the 4th greatest power forward of all time (To me at least) and one of the best coaches of all time....for his entire career! How many others have that good fortune? What would Kidd have given to play with someone as good as Malone? (In his prime) Especially one who could run the floor as well as him.


But, saying all that, I've always thought Kidd was a little overrated, too! :oldlol: Just like Stockton, his career & legacy seem to rest on the fact that he made back to back finals (In a shitty conference). What about him losing in the first round of the playoffs 4 out 5 years before that?? (And the only time he escaped the 1st round was when they went up against a Duncan-less Spurs). Sure, his cast wasn't great in Phoenix, but come one Jason, is that all you can muster?

He obviously was someone who thrived on fast breaks - his grab a rebound, go coast to coast routine was awesome to watch - but in the playoffs, when things slow down and defences tighten up, there are a lot less opportunities for that. Maybe that's why, outside of his 1st 2 years in New Jersey, his scoring routinely dropped from the regular season to the playoffs.


I love Nash. I do think that the no hand checking rules helped him to a certain extent (His slash and kick game was perfectly suited to exploit the changes), but we can never know to what extent exactly, so I'm willing to give him a pass, considering his all time great shooting and his willingness and his ability to take over a game with his scoring more than the other 2.

[oolalaa]

1. Nash
2. Stockton
3. Kidd

I don't think the hand-check helped Nash that much as most people think. I think it has more to do with the fact that he was finally going to be able to run the show and run the show full time with Phoenix. Don Nelson's Mavericks teams played a ton of iso-ball which isn't Nash's strength. Nash's strength is playing pick and roll basketball and the Suns did that and did it to death and that was the ultimate reason for his success.

Not allowing hand-checks was not what made Nash so successful after the 2004 season, playing on a different and new team that suited his strength was.

I don't think Kidd has any argument over Stockton at all. Kidd rebounded better than him and that was about it and rebounding is the last thing I care about when it comes to picking between PGs.

I expect a lot of ignorant people to start saying things like Nash doesn't play defense so nothing he does matters anymore even though there is literally no proof what so ever that Nash is a bad defender. Nash was an underrated defender to me because I thought he was just average while everyone thought he was just a liability and nothing more.

Perhaps, but Nash's slash and kick game was just about prefect to exploit the changes - they gave him a lot more room to operate. The more space you have, the faster and more accurate your passes to the open guy in the corner will be.

[Go Getter]

Don't forget Nash had the best jump shooting PF PF all time on his team (who went on to a better record and a ring after Nash left) and quite possibly one of the best finishing PF ever in prime Amare.

[necya]

Stock
Kidd
Nash

[tpols]

Don't forget Nash had the best jump shooting PF PF all time on his team

And dont forget that both him and that jumpshooting PF both werent in their primes at that time, and they would have had had to go through the championship Spurs or the Kobe/Shaq Lakers to ever win anything.


and quite possibly one of the best finishing PF ever in prime Amare.
LOL how did Amare do without Nash? What a joke.. Extremely obvious who was benefitting off who.

[Go Getter]

And dont forget that both him and that jumpshooting PF both werent in their primes at that time, and they would have had had to go through the championship Spurs or the Kobe/Shaq Lakers to ever win anything.


LOL how did Amare do without Nash? What a joke.. Extremely obvious who was benefitting off who.
Amare did worse but Dirk did better, much better.

[tpols]

Amare did worse but Dirk did better, much better.
Thats because Dirk was a much, much better player than Amare.. a true stand alone superstar. Too bad MVP caliber Nash never played with him in Pheonix.

[NugzHeat3]

Steve Nash
John Stockton
Jason Kidd

I guess I've always thought that Stockton was overrated. There seemed to always be a couple of point guards who were better than him at any point during his career. He wasn't on the level of prime Kevin Johnson or prime Gary Payton (who destroyed him in the '96 WCFs). Was he better than Mark Price before his injuries? Or Penny Hardaway? He got shredded by Terry Porter in the '92 WCFs, too.

Everyone remembers his clutch heroics in '97 & '98, and they shouldn't be dismissed, but it seems that his entire career is based on them. That, and his insane longevity.

He got to play with the 4th greatest power forward of all time (To me at least) and one of the best coaches of all time....for his entire career! How many others have that good fortune? What would Kidd have given to play with someone as good as Malone? (In his prime) Especially one who could run the floor as well as him.

I agree with you in the sense that there were always PGs better than him at some point. Him and Mark Price in 1992 and 1993 are virtually the same level to me. Kevin Johnson had a few years where he was better than him. Penny was better for a couple of years. Same goes for Payton later towards the 90s.

But I don't think this is really fair. Terry Porter had a great series and on paper it looks like he outplayed him but a lot of that has to do with the way Porter was getting pts too. They ran him off screens quite a bit and Stock was working as hard as he possibly could so I can't really blame him there and like always, Porter and Portland did a lot of damage in transition where Stockton can't do much. Of course, Porter scored on him in the halfcourt set as well which is bound to happen considering he had a decent size advantage and he was really good at using his body to create space and protect the ball. He'd do that against any PG the size of Stock.

Same goes for the series vs GP. Stockton was brutally injured.


In Stockton's case, he lets his bandaged body do the talking. He is playing with a damaged hamstring and groin, and there is still a purple bruise where David Robinson kicked him in the thigh. He claims he is not the least bit injured, but that was not the same fluid Stockton who threw a horrifying cross-court pass that ended Game 2 and who had just 7 points, 6 assists and shot 3 of 8 from the foul line in Game 3.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/26/sports/nba-playoffs-the-odds-get-longer-for-jazz-s-odd-couple.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Karl and Seattle knew Stock was banged up so they made him the focal point of their defense throwing multiple traps at him knowing he couldn't evade them as easily and was forced to pick up his dribble and pass out of the double team. This also made sure they couldn't run plays with Stockton and Malone as much since Stock couldn't run the PnR or throw an entry pass.


The defensive maneuver that has caused Utah the most problems in this series is the trap. The Sonics bring two quick, long-armed defenders out on Jazz point guard John Stockton, trying to force a turnover or at least take time off the 24-second clock.

Sloan said the trap, which essentially leaves three Sonics guarding four Jazzmen, should be seen as an opportunity, rather than a hindrance.
``If we get to our spots, I don't think three guys can guard four,'' he said. ``They've got two guys guarding John Stockton, right? That leaves three guys guarding four.''

Chiesa said the biggest problem has been that the first teammate Stockton passes the ball to has typically held the ball too long, allowing the trapping Sonics time to matchup again.


Sloan says Sonics are double teaming Stock but the Jazz aren't paying as much focus on GP.

MISLEADING MATCHUPS: There continues to be a lot of talk about the Gary Payton-Stockton and Shawn Kemp-Malone matchups, which Sloan and the Jazz continue to downplay.

``If we double-teamed Payton everytime he had the ball, then you could call it a matchup,'' Sloan said. ``It's a mismatch.''


I'm not aiming this at you specifically but people really need to stop making assumptions and jumping to conclusions just based on head to head stats.

My issue with Stockton is simple. He simply wasn't enough of a scorer or had an aggressive enough mindset. That's why coaches overwhelmingly said KJ was the better player in 1991.

It's part of the reason why I believe Jazz lost to the Rockets in 1994 and 1995. Houston couldn't guard PGs to save their lives and that was the only glaring weakness of that team. The Suns had KJ nearly single handily beat Houston in some of those games. I saw Rod Strickland in the 1994 playoffs abuse Smith and Cassell off the dribble, get to the middle and cause defensive breakdowns. That was a career series for them. Penny lit them up in the finals but that's obviously a huge mismatch but where was Stock? MIA. It's not that I think he couldn't take advantage of Cassell and Kenny but he was just unwilling and didn't exploit the mismatch as much as he should. Game 1 of the 1995 playoffs vs Houston, he actually scored 28 pts, hit the GW lay up off a screen and roll and got praised by the Jazz paper, Desert News.

Sloan could say the same of Stockton, who seemed determined to compel the Jazz to win. Sometimes criticized - gently, of course - for not shooting enough, the prototypical point guard fired up 19 shots, hitting 12, for 28 points.


You can even see Sloan says that Stock doesn't always shoot off the PnR DESPITE the defense being reluctant to come off Malone and the shot being there for him. Nash has never had this issue.


Stockton said the pick-and-roll -- in which a forward or center sets a screen near the key to free a guard to roll to an open area if the defense doesn't switch assignments -- "obviously is a tough play to guard. Fortunately, the shots fell for us on those plays. A lot of attention was being paid to Karl, and that left somebody open. It happened to be Jeff, and it happened to be me."

Utah Coach Jerry Sloan said his team "had to go to the pick-and-roll when we couldn't get the ball inside. Sometimes John is reluctant to shoot it on a pick-and-roll. I think he knew he had to take those shots today."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/15/sports/pro-basketball-jazz-picks-and-rolls-and-wins.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm


The Rockets' superstars did; Hakeem Olajuwon totaled 12 points and five rebounds in the fourth quarter, Clyde Drexler had eight points, three rebounds, two assists. Malone had nine points and three rebounds for the Jazz, but Stockton missed all four of his shots, had one point, didn't have an assist.
^Pivotal game 5 of the 1995 playoffs where they got eliminated. Terrible 4th quarter by Stock.

He's also not as good of a defender as advertised. I sure as hell don't value his man defense that highly (though I don't value PG defense a lot in general) when plenty of quicker points abused him off the dribble. It's why they mentioned DT might have a weakness against quicker points in the documentary with Hurley getting to the lane because Stock wasn't that great at stopping dribble penetration. He was an excellent team defender though with huge hands for stripping post players, nice anticipation in the passing lanes and just played hard every minute he spent on the floor.

[D.J.]

Peak- 1)Kidd- an MVP candidate(got robbed IMO), took his team to back-to-back Finals. 2)Nash- he was a league MVP and took over games offensively. Only thing that keeps him below Kidd is failing in the postseason with good teams and home court. 3)Stockton- he was never the MVP or MVP candidate Nash and Stockton were.

Career- 1)Kidd- he's was still getting it done at age 39. Won a ring at 38 as the starter and has been doing it for 18 years. 2)Stockton- Putting up solid numbers even at 41. 3)Nash- only one of the 3 to not make the Finals. Also didn't start to become a solid player until 4-5 years into his career.

[Xiao Yao You]

Depends on the make-up of the team. If I could hide Steve defensively and needed a more willing scorer I'd go with him. If scoring wasn't an issue and defense was Stock. Hard to go wrong with either. You can have Kidd's bricks.

[wagexslave]

And dont forget that both him and that jumpshooting PF both werent in their primes at that time, and they would have had had to go through the championship Spurs or the Kobe/Shaq Lakers to ever win anything.


LOL how did Amare do without Nash? What a joke.. Extremely obvious who was benefitting off who.
Amare was damaged goods even before he parted ways with Nash, so of course having Nash helped get the best of him. He was f***ing beastly even without Nash on the court before he got injured. Did everyone forget Amare won Rookie Of The Year over the much hyped Yao Ming before Nash even re-joined the Suns?

[JtotheIzzo]

Thats because Dirk was a much, much better player than Amare.. a true stand alone superstar. Too bad MVP caliber Nash never played with him in Pheonix.

Good point, and there has been a lot of revisionist history about the Mavericks in this thread.

They did go to the finals and they did win a championship since Nash's departure, but they also had many bad years (3 first round exits) and Dirk was questioned and ridiculed to the point where he had to go on a extended hiding trip in Australia. Full power to him for coming back strong, but I think with Nash in Dallas, they see all the victories and probably more deep playoff runs.

In 03 with Nash they lost 4-2 to a very good Spurs team in the WCF and the team had a nice balanced rotation.

In 04 (Nash's last season) they toyed with the line up and ended up regressing. Antoine Walker started a lot of games at center for crisesakes, and with him, an aging Finley and Antawn Jamison there wasn't enough touch for Dirk and even Nash couldn't keep everyone happy. The team had no size and no real shot at winning.

In 05 they dropped Nash, but more importantly they got rid of Antoine and Antawn and picked up A LOT OF QUALITY PIECES who got them on their way to their first finals a season later (Erick Dampier, Jerry Stackhouse, Jason Terry,Devin Harris). Josh Howard also developed into a B-list star, and Marquis Daniels become a great rotation guy.

It wasn't the subtraction of Nash that made Dallas better it was getting rid of redundant parts (Antoine and Antawn...who BTW along with older Michael Finley basically do the same thing, so having them all on the floor with Dirk is just bad strategy, 04 was a shit show), BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY it was the addition of the above players that made them better.

[necya]

Peak- 1)Kidd- an MVP candidate(got robbed IMO), took his team to back-to-back Finals. 2)Nash- he was a league MVP and took over games offensively. Only thing that keeps him below Kidd is failing in the postseason with good teams and home court. 3)Stockton- he was never the MVP or MVP candidate Nash and Stockton were.

Career- 1)Kidd- he's was still getting it done at age 39. Won a ring at 38 as the starter and has been doing it for 18 years. 2)Stockton- Putting up solid numbers even at 41. 3)Nash- only one of the 3 to not make the Finals. Also didn't start to become a solid player until 4-5 years into his career.

it sounds dumb when you think about the players who were with Stockton. of course, he could not compete with MJ, Barkley, Robinson, Olajuwon and Ewing all in their ****ing prime. the 00's was just the worst era we have seen. love how they had a hard time to fullfil the all star rosters each year.

[Go Getter]

Thats because Dirk was a much, much better player than Amare.. a true stand alone superstar. Too bad MVP caliber Nash never played with him in Pheonix.
Excuses, excuses. Nash has done close to nothing with a lot of help. If he played with Malone people here would say that he made Malone so much better but as it stands it seems like people think he made Stockton into a great PG.


Kidd and Stockton are two way players......Nash is not.

If offense meant as much as you guys say the Suns would have a title by now.

[Go Getter]

Steve Nash
John Stockton
Jason Kidd


I agree with you in the sense that there were always PGs better than him at some point. Him and Mark Price in 1992 and 1993 are virtually the same level to me. Kevin Johnson had a few years where he was better than him. Penny was better for a couple of years. Same goes for Payton later towards the 90s.

But I don't think this is really fair. Terry Porter had a great series and on paper it looks like he outplayed him but a lot of that has to do with the way Porter was getting pts too. They ran him off screens quite a bit and Stock was working as hard as he possibly could so I can't really blame him there and like always, Porter and Portland did a lot of damage in transition where Stockton can't do much. Of course, Porter scored on him in the halfcourt set as well which is bound to happen considering he had a decent size advantage and he was really good at using his body to create space and protect the ball. He'd do that against any PG the size of Stock.

Same goes for the series vs GP. Stockton was brutally injured.


http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/26/sports/nba-playoffs-the-odds-get-longer-for-jazz-s-odd-couple.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Karl and Seattle knew Stock was banged up so they made him the focal point of their defense throwing multiple traps at him knowing he couldn't evade them as easily and was forced to pick up his dribble and pass out of the double team. This also made sure they couldn't run plays with Stockton and Malone as much since Stock couldn't run the PnR or throw an entry pass.



Sloan says Sonics are double teaming Stock but the Jazz aren't paying as much focus on GP.


I'm not aiming this at you specifically but people really need to stop making assumptions and jumping to conclusions just based on head to head stats.

My issue with Stockton is simple. He simply wasn't enough of a scorer or had an aggressive enough mindset. That's why coaches overwhelmingly said KJ was the better player in 1991.

It's part of the reason why I believe Jazz lost to the Rockets in 1994 and 1995. Houston couldn't guard PGs to save their lives and that was the only glaring weakness of that team. The Suns had KJ nearly single handily beat Houston in some of those games. I saw Rod Strickland in the 1994 playoffs abuse Smith and Cassell off the dribble, get to the middle and cause defensive breakdowns. That was a career series for them. Penny lit them up in the finals but that's obviously a huge mismatch but where was Stock? MIA. It's not that I think he couldn't take advantage of Cassell and Kenny but he was just unwilling and didn't exploit the mismatch as much as he should. Game 1 of the 1995 playoffs vs Houston, he actually scored 28 pts, hit the GW lay up off a screen and roll and got praised by the Jazz paper, Desert News.


You can even see Sloan says that Stock doesn't always shoot off the PnR DESPITE the defense being reluctant to come off Malone and the shot being there for him. Nash has never had this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/15/sports/pro-basketball-jazz-picks-and-rolls-and-wins.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm


^Pivotal game 5 of the 1995 playoffs where they got eliminated. Terrible 4th quarter by Stock.

He's also not as good of a defender as advertised. I sure as hell don't value his man defense that highly (though I don't value PG defense a lot in general) when plenty of quicker points abused him off the dribble. It's why they mentioned DT might have a weakness against quicker points in the documentary with Hurley getting to the lane because Stock wasn't that great at stopping dribble penetration. He was an excellent team defender though with huge hands for stripping post players, nice anticipation in the passing lanes and just played hard every minute he spent on the floor.


Give me the point guard that doesn't shoot a lot and has sticky fingers and is as tough as nails and you take the guy that shoots at every opportunity, can't guard worth a lick, and is always lying down on the sidelines.:wtf:

[NugzHeat3]

Give me the point guard that doesn't shoot a lot and has sticky fingers and is as tough as nails and you take the guy that shoots at every opportunity, can't guard worth a lick, and is always lying down on the sidelines.:wtf:
You take him.

I'll stick with Nash because he's clearly better.

Thanks.

[Go Getter]

You take him.

I'll stick with Nash because he's clearly better.

Thanks.
Stockton has him in assists, steals, and finals appearances. It's nowhere near as clear cut as you make it.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Stockton has him in assists, steals, and finals appearances. It's nowhere near as clear cut as you make it.
:hammerhead:

[D.J.]

You take him.

I'll stick with Nash because he's clearly better.

Thanks.


If you want the guy who's D is equivalent to a folding chair, then take him. I'll sacrifice a few points and take the guy that actually plays D.

[Go Getter]

If you want the guy who's D is equivalent to a folding chair, then take him. I'll sacrifice a few points and take the guy that actually plays D.
:applause:

[SuperPippen]

If you want the guy who's D is equivalent to a folding chair, then take him. I'll sacrifice a few points and take the guy that actually plays D.

You're really putting that much stock into a PG's D? And from a guy who isn't ever considered an all-time great defender?

Don't get me wrong, Stockton was a soild defender with great hands, but his defensive advantage - especially considering his position - is significantly outweighed by Nash's offensive advantage.

It's not as if we're talking about prime Gary Payton here.

[D.J.]

You're really putting that much stock into a PG's D? And from a guy who isn't ever considered an all-time great defender?

Don't get me wrong, Stockton was a soild defender with great hands, but his defensive advantage - especially considering his position - is significantly outweighed by Nash's offensive advantage.

It's not as if we're talking about prime Gary Payton here.


If your PG can't defend, that puts unnecessary pressure on your frontcourt players. Your PG blows his coverage, that means someone has to come out to help. Therefore, someone will in all likelihood be open. You don't need All-Defensive-esque defense at the point, but he has to provide better D than a folding chair.

And no, Nash's O isn't outweighing Stockton's D. Stockton and Kidd have both been to the Finals multiple times. Nash hasn't made it once. That's all I need to know.

[lilgodfather1]

Stockton imo. Best PG ever besides Magic of course.

[Go Getter]

You're really putting that much stock into a PG's D? And from a guy who isn't ever considered an all-time great defender?

Don't get me wrong, Stockton was a soild defender with great hands, but his defensive advantage - especially considering his position - is significantly outweighed by Nash's offensive advantage.

It's not as if we're talking about prime Gary Payton here.
Stockton has the most steals ever. That's no small feat. Who cares what position gets the steals?

[HorryIsMyMVP]

If your PG can't defend, that puts unnecessary pressure on your frontcourt players. Your PG blows his coverage, that means someone has to come out to help. Therefore, someone will in all likelihood be open. You don't need All-Defensive-esque defense at the point, but he has to provide better D than a folding chair.

And no, Nash's O isn't outweighing Stockton's D. Stockton and Kidd have both been to the Finals multiple times. Nash hasn't made it once. That's all I need to know.
I'd take Stockton over Nash personally but god damn you are a retard.

[Go Getter]

I'd take Stockton over Nash personally but god damn you are a retard.
Cmon, we all know It's a team game and both Stock and Steve are all time greats, it just that when you compare two guys like that you have to split hairs sometimes.

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Cmon, we all know It's a team game and both Stock and Steve are all time greats, it just that when you compare two guys like that you have to split hairs sometimes.
Yeah but not like that. Evaluate their play or how they played. Finals appearances? I mean really now. If you ever watched Steve in the play off's you would know it's not his fault for why they didn't advance. He was always a winner giving his team the best chance to advance. Sometimes it's just bad luck and he played against great team's. But the icing on the cake is one year it was actually rigged for the Spurs to win by a rogue ref (Tim Donaghy). And Nash played in the strongest conference in the NBA. The good ol Western conference. If Kidd been apart of that his entire career he wouldn't have his first 2 finals appearances. And his role with the Mavericks later on was fairly abysmal compared to Dirkules and company.

[Go Getter]

Yeah but not like that. Evaluate their play or how they played. Finals appearances? I mean really now. If you ever watched Steve in the play off's you would know it's not his fault for why they didn't advance. He was always a winner giving his team the best chance to advance. Sometimes it's just bad luck and he played against great team's. But the icing on the cake is one year it was actually rigged for the Spurs to win by a rogue ref (Tim Donaghy). And Nash played in the strongest conference in the NBA. The good ol Western conference. If Kidd been apart of that his entire career he wouldn't have his first 2 finals appearances. And his role with the Mavericks later on was fairly abysmal compared to Dirkules and company.
The best chance they had to win was to stop gunning and play some defense. Steve was the leader so he deserves some blame.

[D.J.]

I'd take Stockton over Nash personally but god damn you are a retard.


Your insult shows you're the retard. The fact that you can't argue my claim and have to resort to ad hominems shows you're the retard.



Evaluate their play or how they played.


Simple. Guys like Kidd, Stockton, and Payton were two way players. Nash is not and never has been.



Finals appearances? I mean really now. If you ever watched Steve in the play off's you would know it's not his fault for why they didn't advance.


Proving my point that you're the retard. Michael Jordan got crucified when the Bulls lost to the Pistons in 1990. You making Nash exempt from any blame is retarded in itself.



He was always a winner giving his team the best chance to advance.


Really? So losing to the Spurs with home court 2 out of 3 seasons gave his team the best chance to advance. We're talking multiple 60 win seasons and losing with home court more than once. Unacceptable.



Sometimes it's just bad luck and he played against great team's.


Every all-time great has had some bad luck from time to time. That's life. And great players that are on great teams find ways to get past other great players and great teams.



But the icing on the cake is one year it was actually rigged for the Spurs to win by a rogue ref (Tim Donaghy). And Nash played in the strongest conference in the NBA. The good ol Western conference. If Kidd been apart of that his entire career he wouldn't have his first 2 finals appearances. And his role with the Mavericks later on was fairly abysmal compared to Dirkules and company.


Excuses. The Suns won more than 60 games on more than one occasion in that "good ol' Western Conference".

[HorryIsMyMVP]

Who did Stockton or Kidd beat in their primes that were better then the dynasty Spurs? Also why don't people awknowledge the one year Amare and Marion were healthy together it was proven rigged. Nash and Marion beat the Lakers in 2006 with out Amare. These guys all have injury problems but Nash.

[Bigsmoke]

peak

Nash
Kidd
Stockton

overall
Nash "barely"
Stockton
Kidd

[D.J.]

Who did Stockton or Kidd beat in their primes that were better then the dynasty Spurs?


What dynasty? They couldn't even win back-to-back titles. Title, 1st round exit, WCF, 2nd round exit, title, 2nd round exit, title, 2nd round exit, title. So basically, if they weren't winning it all, they were out in round 2.




Also why don't people awknowledge the one year Amare and Marion were healthy together it was proven rigged.


That was game 4, which tied the series. The Suns had a home game, which they lost. Then they had Amare and Marion back for game 6, and lost that one as well. So take your conspiracy theory and shove it.



Nash and Marion beat the Lakers in 2006 with out Amare. These guys all have injury problems but Nash.


You beat a Laker team that won 45 games and only because Kobe put up 35 a night.

[JtotheIzzo]

The getting to the finals argument is flawed because Kidd's trip with NJ were a joke. He was the benefactor of a shit conference and when he went with Dallas, he wasn't the reason they made it.
Stockton earned his trips to the finals no doubt, and it is a flaw in the Nash argument that he never made it, but lets be real here, we are discussing individual abilities.
Also, we are tremendously overrating Stockton's defense, in today's NBA he would be a poor defender. He couldn't even dream of staying in front of Rose, Rondo, Westbrook, Parker and every other quick PG that populates the NBA landscape, his feet were too slow, and HE WOULD NOT get away with his clutch and grab defense like he did in the hand check days. He'd be every bit the poor defender Nash is, maybe worse because Nash is quicker.

[D.J.]

The getting to the finals argument is flawed because Kidd's trip with NJ were a joke. He was the benefactor of a shit conference and when he went with Dallas, he wasn't the reason they made it.


He made it in back-to-back years. And you don't punish a player because you feel his trip to the Finals was easy. If anyone had an eas trip to the Finals, it was LeBron in '07. The Cavs didn't even face a winning team until the ECF.



Stockton earned his trips to the finals no doubt, and it is a flaw in the Nash argument that he never made it, but lets be real here, we are discussing individual abilities.

Also, we are tremendously overrating Stockton's defense, in today's NBA he would be a poor defender. He couldn't even dream of staying in front of Rose, Rondo, Westbrook, Parker and every other quick PG that populates the NBA landscape, his feet were too slow, and HE WOULD NOT get away with his clutch and grab defense like he did in the hand check days. He'd be every bit the poor defender Nash is, maybe worse because Nash is quicker.


Individual abilities huh? Well Nash didn't exactly outscore Stockton by a huge amount. Stockton scored nearly the same number of points and on at least equal efficiency, if not slightly better.

And Stockton's D is not overrated. He was borderline dirty, but he stayed with his man, unlike Nash. Stockton would be just fine in today's league.