Was Stockton a system player like DWill?

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Enough time has passed and everyone knows Sloan made DWills career. Was Stockton any different?

[OncePerMonth]

He benefited from it, but he was obviously super crafty offensively and defensively.

[Harison]

There is a massive difference between DWill and Stockton.

DWill was great as a cog in a system suitable to him, i.e. a system player.

Stockton was all-time great by playing intelligent and structured offense, i.e. he is extremely smart and he runs the offense as a well oiled machine. If not one "system" it would be another, but primarily rational and structured. I remember calling him a cyborg - cold-blooded, efficient with lazer-like precision passing and calculating like a machine.

It was different with Magic, who was a master of creating something out of chaos, Stockton couldnt play like that, nor Magic could play efficient offense like John did, they are the opposites. Therefore judging them as PG's you would have to decide whats more important - intelligent game plan run as a Swiss clock, or All-star game style Showtime.

Interesting note, I remember sometimes when Jazz had a clock running out and Sloan was asking Stockton if he needs a time-out for a play, John waved him out, and did perfect play on his own, on the fly.

Bottom line, DWill is a system player, Stockton is the system.

[played0ut]

^

That's a good definition. I remember seeing some clip where old timers would talk. They'd say the Jazz were consistently great but they were just that-- consistent.

And that even though they would lose to the JAzz, they wouldn't exactly 'fear' them the way they did Barkley's Suns (or 76'ers?) in that Barkley's team could explode for a juggernaut of points.

[Nick Young]

There is a massive difference between DWill and Stockton.

DWill was great as a cog in a system suitable to him, i.e. a system player.

Stockton was all-time great by playing intelligent and structured offense, i.e. he is extremely smart and he runs the offense as a well oiled machine. If not one "system" it would be another, but primarily rational and structured. I remember calling him a cyborg - cold-blooded, efficient with lazer-like precision passing and calculating like a machine.

It was different with Magic, who was a master of creating something out of chaos, Stockton couldnt play like that, nor Magic could play efficient offense like John did, they are the opposites. Therefore judging them as PG's you would have to decide whats more important - intelligent game plan run as a Swiss clock, or All-star game style Showtime.

Interesting note, I remember sometimes when Jazz had a clock running out and Sloan was asking Stockton if he needs a time-out for a play, John waved him out, and did perfect play on his own, on the fly.

Bottom line, DWill is a system player, Stockton is the system.
Jerry Sloan called every single play for Stockton every time down the court. With Deron, he allowed him to call his own plays. Does that not imply that Stockton was more of a system player then Deron?

[Harison]

^

That's a good definition. I remember seeing some clip where old timers would talk. They'd say the Jazz were consistently great but they were just that-- consistent.

And that even though they would lose to the JAzz, they wouldn't exactly 'fear' them the way they did Barkley's Suns (or 76'ers?) in that Barkley's team could explode for a juggernaut of points.

Jazz were never stacked, two great players and thats it. It would be enough today, not enough in the Golden era. Nobody feared Bulls either when Jordan was carrying it alone, even though he was putting up insane stats. Barkley's Suns only were feared for a few years when the team was stacked.

[9512]

It will be hard to say if stockton would have played the same way with a different teammate and coach since he played almost his entire career with Malone all but one year (rookie season) and Sloan as his only coach.

[IGOTGAME]

Dwill wasn't a system player.....he got hurt.

[Xiao Yao You]

It will be hard to say if stockton would have played the same way with a different teammate and coach since he played almost his entire career with Malone all but one year (rookie season) and Sloan as his only coach.
He was an all-star under Layden. He and Karl played arguably their best ball in the '88 playoffs by running the ball against the Lakers not settling for pick and roll in the half court like under Sloan.

[navy]

Dwill wasn't a system player.....he got hurt.
This. LOL at people dismissing D Will because of his ankles.

[hawksdogsbraves]

This current idea that D-Will is only a system player that has been going around lately is so dumb.

[HomieWeMajor]

I heard Malone only phucked that 13 year old because Stockon set him up

[JellyBean]

Nope. Stockton was doing the Utah Jazz thing when he was at Gonzaga. It helped to have media exposure.

[Pointguard]

It was different with Magic, who was a master of creating something out of chaos, Stockton couldnt play like that, nor Magic could play efficient offense like John did, they are the opposites. Therefore judging them as PG's you would have to decide whats more important - intelligent game plan run as a Swiss clock, or All-star game style Showtime.

Bottom line, DWill is a system player, Stockton is the system.
I think you got carried away. Riley always ran a system. When Stockton came in for Magic on the Olympic teams, the falloff of play was like an Allstar to regular second unit guy. NOT like another star. Magic was definitely as intelligent and could make up his mind noticeably quicker, with more zip on the ball. Magic could play as efficient offense as any player that every played the game. Stockton was good with two other players (Malone and one key shooter) - Magic was great with the whole team.

By the way you were talking I thought you were talking about Nash, who was indeed the system and was great with all five players as well. Nash is the one who doesn't get his due. Stocton milked that system til you couldn't milk it anymore. He was just more aggressive than DWill and more persistent in running the same play. Malone being a great finisher doesn't get enough attention either.

[lilteapot]

I heard Malone only phucked that 13 year old because Stockon set him up
lmao

[D-FENS]

I heard Malone only phucked that 13 year old because Stockon set him up

:applause:

[Dengness9]

Stockton was such a great player for so long.

Stockton having Malone is obviously key to his assists numbers, but he was a mastermind passer no matter what.

And Karl Malone didn't have any bearing on Stockton being the all time steals leader. Dude was a freak, especially for his size.

[FKAri]

I think you got carried away. Riley always ran a system. When Stockton came in for Magic on the Olympic teams, the falloff of play was like an Allstar to regular second unit guy. NOT like another star. Magic was definitely as intelligent and could make up his mind noticeably quicker, with more zip on the ball. Magic could play as efficient offense as any player that every played the game. Stockton was good with two other players (Malone and one key shooter) - Magic was great with the whole team.

By the way you were talking I thought you were talking about Nash, who was indeed the system and was great with all five players as well. Nash is the one who doesn't get his due. Stocton milked that system til you couldn't milk it anymore. He was just more aggressive than DWill and more persistent in running the same play. Malone being a great finisher doesn't get enough attention either.

Some harsh criticism. I don't know enough to comment either way on Stockton's play.

[Reggie43]

I think you got carried away. Riley always ran a system. When Stockton came in for Magic on the Olympic teams, the falloff of play was like an Allstar to regular second unit guy. NOT like another star. Magic was definitely as intelligent and could make up his mind noticeably quicker, with more zip on the ball. Magic could play as efficient offense as any player that every played the game. Stockton was good with two other players (Malone and one key shooter) - Magic was great with the whole team.

By the way you were talking I thought you were talking about Nash, who was indeed the system and was great with all five players as well. Nash is the one who doesn't get his due. Stocton milked that system til you couldn't milk it anymore. He was just more aggressive than DWill and more persistent in running the same play. Malone being a great finisher doesn't get enough attention either.

You do know that Stockton was playing through a leg fracture and a hand injury thoughout the Olympics?

[moe94]

I heard Malone only phucked that 13 year old because Stockon set him up
:roll:

[L.A. Jazz]

Like another one said, you cant blame Stockton for playing in Utah with Malone almost his whole career. Obviously it helps a (every) player to know what your coach and your teammates want. but i am sure he would have been an allstar elsewhere.

btw. milking every drop out of every play is the dream of every coach in the NBA for all players. thats maybe the best asset you can have and the biggest credit you could give to John.

[Real Men Wear Green]

The analysis in the OP is nonexistent. If you're going to use the term "system player" implying that Stockton and Williams only succeeded because of the system they were in and would not have stood out playing in other offenses you have to point out what they lacked why they wouldn't have done well for another coach. What about them would make them average if they played for Mike D'Antoni or Doc Rivers. Were they too slow? Lacking in court vision? Poor shooters or ball-handlers? Stupid? If the answer to these questions is "no" then how are they system players?

[GimmeThat]

without getting in the thing about Magic as a different type of PG, and without ever watching Stockton

he's probably the type of PG where if instead of sequences of options, if there were multiple options in one play at the same time, based on what the coaches is running, he'll find the guy as well as making that pass.

Magic probably just played along as the possession went and players moved in-relation or vice versa and found options

[JtotheIzzo]

It will be hard to say if stockton would have played the same way with a different teammate and coach since he played almost his entire career with Malone all but one year (rookie season) and Sloan as his only coach.

Except that Frank Layden was his coach for his first 4.2 seasons

[Pointguard]

You do know that Stockton was playing through a leg fracture and a hand injury thoughout the Olympics?

I don't recall that. Why was he on the team??? None the less, it was the same way every year at the all star game. I will admit that Stockton was a fish out of water at the all star games (at least at the Olympics it was a soft Princeton offense) because they didn't run a system in allstar games, like Harison said. Magic was picking who he wanted to be mvps at the all star game, while it was a chore for Stockton. Out of that system, I just don't see him the way I see Nash. While I definitely think he would be better than Dwill, as Stockton was always aggressive, had very good timing and was precise with his passes.

Magic was alone in his passing because he could totally take defenders out of the play (totally turn them around) before the pass. Something nobody else has been able to duplicate. Magic could unbalance one side of the floor before passing to that side. No player has been more precise, spontaneous and with as good of judgement as Magic. It takes like 30 seconds for this video to be relevant to what I'm saying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOMVCxjVtF4

[GimmeThat]

I don't recall that. Why was he on the team??? None the less, it was the same way every year at the all star game. I will admit that Stockton was a fish out of water at the all star games (at least at the Olympics it was a soft Princeton offense) because they didn't run a system in allstar games, like Harison said. Magic was picking who he wanted to be mvps at the all star game, while it was a chore for Stockton. Out of that system, I just don't see him the way I see Nash. While I definitely think he would be better than Dwill, as Stockton was always aggressive, had very good timing and was precise with his passes.

Magic was alone in his passing because he could totally take defenders out of the play (totally turn them around) before the pass. Something nobody else has been able to duplicate. Magic could unbalance one side of the floor before passing to that side. No player has been more precise, spontaneous and with as good of judgement as Magic. It takes like 30 seconds for this video to be relevant to what I'm saying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOMVCxjVtF4


well, Magic could recognize offense so much, he could disregard defense.

Stockton had to recognize defense so much, yes, asking him to pay attention to offense after that was like a fish out of water.

#system

[Reggie43]

@Pointguard

Stockton injured his leg in an Olympic qualifying tournament while he injured his hand midway through the Olympics. He missed the first four games and played limited minutes the rest of the way.

[Pointguard]

well, Magic could recognize offense so much, he could disregard defense.

Stockton had to recognize defense so much, yes, asking him to pay attention to offense after that was like a fish out of water.

#system
What are you saying. You're using an incorrect word in there. Are you saying Stockton became unfocused because he played defense???

[Pointguard]

@Pointguard

Stockton injured his leg in an Olympic qualifying tournament while he injured his hand midway through the Olympics. He missed the first four games and played limited minutes the rest of the way.
I got it Reg, I see that it did happen. I realize he had to keep the spot because they were blocking out Isiah at that spot. Stockton should not have been on the team in the first place. Do you think he was a better passer than Nash?

[Reggie43]

I got it Reg, I see that it did happen. I realize he had to keep the spot because they were blocking out Isiah at that spot. Stockton should not have been on the team in the first place. Do you think he was a better passer than Nash?

Yes because its hard to argue against the numbers that Stockton put up.

[Legends66NBA7]

Deron Williams regarded himself as a system player.

[ninephive]

If by "system player" you mean you could throw someone else in there and they would become the all-time leader in assists and steals, who the heck knows? I would lean toward no in this case obviously. The problem is we only live in the reality of what actually happened, so these hypotheticals are the only things guys like Chris Paul will have to hold on to unless he stops choking in the playoffs...could Chris Paul have made the Finals or even the WCF if he had Karl Malone and Jerry Sloan instead of Blake Griffin and Doc Rivers? We'll never know. Malone was an MVP player, which Blake Griffin is getting closer to each season (finished 3rd in voting this season). Doc Rivers is a championship coach, unlike Sloan. Too many moving pieces to ever say definitively.

The irony of using "system player" to lessen a player's value is that they are part of the system. If Chris Paul and the Clippers were ever good enough to execute a good system, then you could call him a system player. I don't look at "systems" as a discredit to the player.

[Young X]

If by "system player" you mean you could throw someone else in there and they would become the all-time leader in assists and steals, who the heck knows? I would lean toward no in this case obviously. The problem is we only live in the reality of what actually happened, so these hypotheticals are the only things guys like Chris Paul will have to hold on to unless he stops choking in the playoffs...could Chris Paul have made the Finals or even the WCF if he had Karl Malone and Jerry Sloan instead of Blake Griffin and Doc Rivers? We'll never know. Malone was an MVP player, which Blake Griffin is getting closer to each season (finished 3rd in voting this season). Doc Rivers is a championship coach, unlike Sloan. Too many moving pieces to ever say definitively.

The irony of using "system player" to lessen a player's value is that they are part of the system. If Chris Paul and the Clippers were ever good enough to execute a good system, then you could call him a system player. I don't look at "systems" as a discredit to the player.WTF are you talking about no one even brought up Paul. You're obsessed. :oldlol:

D-Will called himself a system player.

[Mass Debator]

Stockton would've been great in any system. Great shooter, accurate passer, tight ball handles, high IQ, crafty, motivated and skilled on D, and stayed healthy.

[zizozain]

Jerry Sloan: John Stockton Was A Perfect Player


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/20/69099435_8cbe94552b.jpg



Jerry Sloan believes that John Stockton is the closest thing he's ever seen to a perfect NBA player.

Sloan mused about Stockton's play in the wake of Patriots coach Bill Belichick's claim that recently retired linebacker Tedy Bruschi was a "perfect player."

"I'd never heard that before," Sloan told the Salt Lake Tribune, "but it certainly would represent John Stockton in almost every aspect of basketball."

[97 bulls]

I wouldn't feel uncomfortable having Stockton run any system or offense. As a PG. He had no weakness as a PG. He could even breakdown PGs on isos if he had an advantage.

People give me a hard time because I say hes a better PG than Magic but it true. Magic is a better basketball player because he was unique and can do things Stock couldn't like rebound and post up. But from a PG perspective and the positions role? Stockton was better.

[steve]

I wouldn't feel uncomfortable having Stockton run any system or offense. As a PG. He had no weakness as a PG. He could even breakdown PGs on isos if he had an advantage.

People give me a hard time because I say hes a better PG than Magic but it true. Magic is a better basketball player because he was unique and can do things Stock couldn't like rebound and post up. But from a PG perspective and the positions role? Stockton was better.

Stockton had fewer holes in his overall game than Magic but there were certain things Magic was better at than Stockton and he was significantly better than Stockton at those things. Magic was also 6'8" at a position where 6'4" is considered huge.

Also, the idea of Stockton being a "system player" is weird in the same way calling Nash one is. Stockton was a system player in the sense that he played in the same system his entire career (seriously, Layden and Sloan ran the same offense), but both coaches put the ball in Stockton's hands. Systems are only as good as the players who run them and any system that relies on the point guard to make decisions on just about every play should never be used as a detriment for evaluating that player. If you have a player like Stockton (or Nash or Paul or Thomas or Archibald or whomever) it is in your best interest to craft a system that puts the decisions of the offense on that player because the offense is always better the more control that player has.

[97 bulls]

Stockton had fewer holes in his overall game than Magic but there were certain things Magic was better at than Stockton and he was significantly better than Stockton at those things. Magic was also 6'8" at a position where 6'4" is considered huge.
Id agree if those few things were rebounding and posting up. But those aspects aren't really needed in a PG. What else did Magic have over Stockton from a PG postion in your opinion

[IGOTGAME]

Name me an offense that Stockton would't excel in his role.

[steve]

Id agree if those few things were rebounding and posting up. But those aspects aren't really needed in a PG. What else did Magic have over Stockton from a PG postion in your opinion

Pure scoring, which is fairly important to being an elite point guard. The biggest thing Stockton had going for him was consistency and rarely making the wrong play but you had to beg Stockton to score and it was good that he rarely called his own number but it also hurt his team because he was reluctant to actively seek out his own shot even when his team needed, especially when the Jazz constantly had a shortage of players who could create on the wing.

[Pointguard]

Id agree if those few things were rebounding and posting up. But those aspects aren't really needed in a PG. What else did Magic have over Stockton from a PG postion in your opinion
*He could feed the post better.
*Knew the teams sweet spots better.
*Could run a fast break better.
*Could see over the defense.
*Could get two or three offenders off balance.
*Could get easy baskets better.
*Was more intuitive
*Was the best bounce passer ever
*Was the best passer ever
*Was a better creator
*Could see a play develop better
*Seemed to be a better leader/motivator
*Made split decisions quicker
*Could get other players involved better
*Could highlight different players better
*Had more go to moves
*Was stronger and had more zip on his pass
*Controlled the pace better
*Was faster
*Could get the crowd involved.
*Was a better scorer
*Could adapt better
*Could play more different styles
*Could play off the ball
*Caused more offensive havoc
*Ran the most efficient offense ever
*Played a more varied game
*Executed more clutch plays
These things immediately come to mind. There are more.

[steve]

*He could feed the post better.
*Knew the teams sweet spots better.
*Could run a fast break better.
*Could see over the defense.
*Could get two or three offenders off balance.
*Could get easy baskets better.
*Was more intuitive
*Was the best bounce passer ever
*Was the best passer ever
*Was a better creator
*Could see a play develop better
*Seemed to be a better leader/motivator
*Made split decisions quicker
*Could get other players involved better
*Could highlight different players better
*Had more go to moves
*Was stronger and had more zip on his pass
*Controlled the pace better
*Was faster
*Could get the crowd involved.
*Was a better scorer
*Could adapt better
*Could play more different styles
*Could play off the ball
*Caused more offensive havoc
*Ran the most efficient offense ever
*Played a more varied game
*Executed more clutch plays
These things immediately come to mind. There are more.

A lot of those things are really subjective.

[97 bulls]

Pure scoring, which is fairly important to being an elite point guard. The biggest thing Stockton had going for him was consistency and rarely making the wrong play but you had to beg Stockton to score and it was good that he rarely called his own number but it also hurt his team because he was reluctant to actively seek out his own shot even when his team needed, especially when the Jazz constantly had a shortage of players who could create on the wing.
Very true. But by the same token, Magic could not be called to play any kind of defense. He had a suspect jump shot. Both aspects that are needed to play PG. Magic (while great) had amazingly great talent around him. Im not gonna hold it against Stock that he didnt score more. Thats not a PGs job. And besides. He was a scoring threat.

In my opinion the most important aspects of being a PG are running the offense, being able to play defense, pass the ball efficiently without having a lot of TOs, have a strong jump shot, hit your FTs at a high percentage, and be able to score. Stockton was great at every one of those facets. Magic was great at some and Bad at others. Especially defense.

[Young X]

In my opinion the most important aspects of being a PG are running the offense, being able to play defense, pass the ball efficiently without having a lot of TOs, have a strong jump shot, hit your FTs at a high percentage, and be able to score. Stockton was great at every one of those facets. Magic was great at some and Bad at others. Especially defense.Magic late in his career had a very good jumper, he ran offenses better than pretty much everyone in history (better than Stockton), had a very good AST/TO ratio, hit his FT's at a higher rate than Stockton (lead the league once), and is the best PG scorer maybe ever besides Robertson (way better than Stockton, Stockton wasn't a great scorer). What was he bad at besides defense?

[IGOTGAME]

*He could feed the post better.
*Knew the teams sweet spots better.
*Could run a fast break better.
*Could see over the defense.
*Could get two or three offenders off balance.
*Could get easy baskets better.
*Was more intuitive
*Was the best bounce passer ever
*Was the best passer ever
*Was a better creator
*Could see a play develop better
*Seemed to be a better leader/motivator
*Made split decisions quicker
*Could get other players involved better
*Could highlight different players better
*Had more go to moves
*Was stronger and had more zip on his pass
*Controlled the pace better
*Was faster
*Could get the crowd involved.
*Was a better scorer
*Could adapt better
*Could play more different styles
*Could play off the ball
*Caused more offensive havoc
*Ran the most efficient offense ever
*Played a more varied game
*Executed more clutch plays
These things immediately come to mind. There are more.

the bold are the silliest ones. others are silly as well.

[97 bulls]

Magic late in his career had a very good jumper,
Stickton had a great jumpshot from the start


He ran offenses better than pretty much everyone in history (better than Stockton),
I disagree.


had a very good AST/TO ratio,
So did Stockton


hit his FT's at a higher rate than Stockton (lead the league once),
Stockton was an excellent FT shooter as well


and is the best PG scorer maybe ever besides Robertson (way better than Stockton, Stockton wasn't a great scorer).
Stockton did score though. And lets not forget that Magic did play in the 80s. And played in that up tempo fast break offense.


What was he bad at besides defense?
Thats was really it honestly. His jump shot did improve later in his career. But defense is half of the game. And I dont think its less important than offense.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

The analysis in the OP is nonexistent. If you're going to use the term "system player" implying that Stockton and Williams only succeeded because of the system they were in and would not have stood out playing in other offenses you have to point out what they lacked why they wouldn't have done well for another coach. What about them would make them average if they played for Mike D'Antoni or Doc Rivers. Were they too slow? Lacking in court vision? Poor shooters or ball-handlers? Stupid? If the answer to these questions is "no" then how are they system players?

DWill said hes a system player:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

"And that system (in Utah) was a great system for my style of play. I'm a system player, and I loved Coach (Jerry) Sloan's system. I loved the offense there. We could've been a really good team. We just weren't that good defensively as a group."

[Young X]

I disagree.Magic literally ran the best offense in NBA history.

Stockton did score though. And lets not forget that Magic did play in the 80s. And played in that up tempo fast break offense.No matter how you slice it, Magic was on another level as a scorer, Magic actually took over games with his scoring when his team needed it on multiple occations unlike Stockton. Stockton never even scored 30+ in a playoff game.

[Pointguard]

the bold are the silliest ones. others are silly as well.
Well it was for people who understand the game. Not cheerleaders that get confused when the players change hoops at halftime.

[Pointguard]

A lot of those things are really subjective.

Please point them out.

[Real Men Wear Green]

DWill said hes a system player:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

"And that system (in Utah) was a great system for my style of play. I'm a system player, and I loved Coach (Jerry) Sloan's system. I loved the offense there. We could've been a really good team. We just weren't that good defensively as a group."I stand corrected, though I still don't believe the skills he showed in Utah couldn't have succeeded in a variety of offenses.

[97 bulls]

Magic literally ran the best offense in NBA history.
Magic literally had the best offense to run with.


No matter how you slice it, Magic was on another level as a scorer, Magic actually took over games with his scoring when his team needed it on multiple occations unlike Stockton. Stockton never even scored 30+ in a playoff game.
Im not arguing as to whether or not Magic was a better scorer. He is. But just because he was a better scorer than Stockton doesnt mean Stockton was a bad scorer. Can you say the same about the defensive side of the ball?

[steve]

Okay, most of these you have absolutely no basis for measurement. Maybe some anecdotal evidence but for the most part you're just pulling random stuff out of thin air. If you have to answer these with "he just did" then it is at best subjective and nothing people should pay any mind to.


*He could feed the post better.
What are you basing this on?


*Knew the teams sweet spots better.
I'm not sure how you would make this argument or even able to prove it.


*Could run a fast break better.
He also played on a team that ran the fast break considerably more and at best you're splitting hairs.


*Could see over the defense.
This is true, but you don't exactly point out why this effective or particularly relevant. Plenty of players can see over the defense. Part of your problem here is you take a singular coherent point and then proceed to break it up into three or four different parts.


*Could get two or three offenders off balance.
This phrase doesn't make any sense.


*Could get easy baskets better.
See the point a few spaces above.


*Was more intuitive
How do you even go about determining such a thing?


*Was the best bounce passer ever
This is the height of subjectivity here. Manu Ginobili makes some of the best passes I've ever seen but it doesn't mean his passes are necessarily more effective or they lead to more baskets.


*Was the best passer ever
Also subjective. Considering he used more possessions than Stockton wouldn't he have had more total assists or assists per game than Stockton?


*Was a better creator
This is true but again, you don't really elaborate and kind of repeat yourself.


*Could see a play develop better
This is one of the biggest "just trust me on this one" here.


*Seemed to be a better leader/motivator
Played on better teams.


*Made split decisions quicker
I have no idea how you would ever prove this conclusion to someone who didn't already agree with you.


*Could get other players involved better
Same goes for this.


*Could highlight different players better
And this.


*Had more go to moves
Maybe, but again, you're splitting up a larger point.


*Was stronger and had more zip on his pass
He was stronger but however much power he put on his passes more than Stockton (and considering the court is a finite space of not terribly significant distance, any velocity a player puts on the ball has diminishing returns at a certain point), it certainly didn't effect results at all.


*Controlled the pace better
Based on what exactly?


*Was faster
Not noticeably so to really have any sort of effect on the game.


*Could get the crowd involved.
Again, now sure how you'd go about measuring this, especially since Utah crowds can get pretty rabid (this is also a subjective argument that really doesn't carry much weight).


*Was a better scorer
Yes, but you've made this statement already.


*Could adapt better
I do not know what you're trying to say with this.


*Could play more different styles
Proven by what exactly, they both basically played in the same offenses their entire lives.


*Could play off the ball
And lifetime 38% three point shooter couldn't?


*Caused more offensive havoc
You're kind of repeating yourself and not really saying anything here.


*Ran the most efficient offense ever
True, but fun fact: the Stockton Jazz has an many teams in the top 50 All-Time offenses as the Magic Lakers.


*Played a more varied game
You've said this already.


*Executed more clutch plays
You mean he has more clutch plays that get repeated more often.

[Pointguard]

I will put the topic in bold so the topic doesn't get lost. Other times I will just say it in front of my response.

Okay, most of these you have absolutely no basis for measurement. Maybe some anecdotal evidence but for the most part you're just pulling random stuff out of thin air. If you have to answer these with "he just did" then it is at best subjective and nothing people should pay any mind to.


What are you basing this on?
Topic is Feeding the post. Size primarily. Magic could back anybody down and pass over them. If they were bigger than Magic, which rarely was the case - Magic ran around them. This was the excuse everybody attributed to Kareem not retiring in '82. Magic could feed the post better than anyone. Lost art now.



I'm not sure how you would make this argument or even able to prove it.
Sweet spots. Too hard to prove but Magic would have several years where 9 players would shoot over 500%. and the team over 520% and 545% one year (I'm referencing '86 thru '88 the phasing out Kareem years). You can't achieve that unless you are getting sweet spots.



He also played on a team that ran the fast break considerably more and at best you're splitting hairs.
Grab any youtube video of Stockton. Watch any Allstar game. Stockton was good, he was not great. He wasn't Nash/Kidd/CP3 on the break. He over thinks, he isn't fast, he has nearly twice as much assist and not one of them really makes you say he's got it.


This is true, but you don't exactly point out why this effective or particularly relevant. Plenty of players can see over the defense. Part of your problem here is you take a singular coherent point and then proceed to break it up into three or four different parts.
Seeing over the defense, gives you a panoramic view of what is happening. Magic didn't just see the floor better than anybody (Bird is way up on the list) but he could act on it better than anybody. Pippen would be put on PG just to obstruct their vision.


This phrase doesn't make any sense.
I meant to say defenders off balance or turned around, so that his target would have an easy path to the basket. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8Qbo0WqvOI watch how many baskets where defenders are stunned by the pass and are out of the play.


How do you even go about determining such a thing?
Intuition can be seen in new situations. Try finding a Stockton highlight in an allstar game? Watch allstar games.


This is the height of subjectivity here. Manu Ginobili makes some of the best passes I've ever seen but it doesn't mean his passes are necessarily more effective or they lead to more baskets.
Bounce passing is effective because it moves up into the shooting motion. Stockton actually rarely did it. He did sometimes but he did it in very small portions. Nash and Magic are the only two players you will see doing 30 foot bounce passes in traffic. Videos will back me up.


Also subjective. Considering he used more possessions than Stockton wouldn't he have had more total assists or assists per game than Stockton?

Magic has more assist per game. Grab the best Stockton video you have and there is no way you could think he was better than Bird, Nash, Kidd or Magic in passing. He amassed a ton on very simple plays which he did master. Its very similar to saying Malone was the second best scorer.


This is true but again, you don't really elaborate and kind of repeat yourself.

I'm using bullet points and hopefully some of this is very obvious.


This is one of the biggest "just trust me on this one" here.
Magic "could see a play develop" or how else could he manipulate defenders off of the ball and get more space for his receiving player.


Played on better teams.
When Stockton was a senior, and had all the records he rarely got more respect than his contemporaries. Better teams has nothing at all do with that. You really think they are equal leaders?


I have no idea how you would ever prove this conclusion to someone who didn't already agree with you.
Magic could run full speed, do a no look and hit the player on the dime. He did this a lot. He was a very clear headed quick thinker. Bill Walton said he never saw anything like it. But



He was stronger but however much power he put on his passes more than Stockton (and considering the court is a finite space of not terribly significant distance, any velocity a player puts on the ball has diminishing returns at a certain point), it certainly didn't effect results at all.
Right now the only player you see making cross court passes against good defensive teams on the regular is Lebron. Its relevant and keeps the whole court dangerous.


Based on what exactly?
Magic could run on made baskets against the best defensive team in the game. This was never an option for Stockton.


Not noticeably so to really have any sort of effect on the game.
You obviously never have seen Magic play if you say his speed doesn't have any effect on the game. They ran one of the best defenses out of the building.


Again, now sure how you'd go about measuring this, especially since Utah crowds can get pretty rabid (this is also a subjective argument that really doesn't carry much weight).

Are we really comparing Magic to Stockton in ability to make a Garden rock??? Grab any Stockton highlight reel and you rarely see something that will make you move. Magic will make you get up and dance. Once again I doubt that you seen either one of them play.


I do not know what you're trying to say with this.
Adaption. Stockton rarely played outside of the pick and role game in his career. He tried to play it in allstar games. They couldn't throw a loop at Chicago because they simply did not adapt. Magic could out run the best running teams or play half court. Magic could go in the post. Magic could play any position. He was one of the best adaptors ever. He morphed into Kareem in his first finals and had one of the best finals games ever.



Proven by what exactly, they both basically played in the same offenses their entire lives.
Magic wasn't the pg his first year and played with three different coaches with three different styles.



True, but fun fact: the Stockton Jazz has an many teams in the top 50 All-Time offenses as the Magic Lakers.
15 years to perfect one system that could make DWill look like an allstar.


You mean he has more clutch plays that get repeated more often.
Stockton ran that one play more than any player ever ran one play. It was the most monotonous play in basketball history.

Two videos of Stockton. One by Ish member https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAPu4nLzDbQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myMvojT6zIc I grab the ones with the most views.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You can argue that Stockton wasn't the greatest PG, but you cant deny he is one of greatest PGs ever. Top 3, anyway. Career 50+ % shooter, NBA record holder for assists and steals, multiple time All-NBA and All-Defensive Team player.

Lots of great players never win NBA Championships -- and that shouldn't detract from the individual player's greatness, since basketball is a team sport.

I'd take Stockton over DWill on his toughness alone.

[TheBigVeto]

No. Stockton is 2nd GOAT PG, a legend.

[oarabbus]

I wouldn't feel uncomfortable having Stockton run any system or offense. As a PG. He had no weakness as a PG. He could even breakdown PGs on isos if he had an advantage.

People give me a hard time because I say hes a better PG than Magic but it true. Magic is a better basketball player because he was unique and can do things Stock couldn't like rebound and post up. But from a PG perspective and the positions role? Stockton was better.


This. Stockton was the better PG... but Magic was 6'9". Magic at 6'1" <<< Stockton

[ILLsmak]

The analysis in the OP is nonexistent. If you're going to use the term "system player" implying that Stockton and Williams only succeeded because of the system they were in and would not have stood out playing in other offenses you have to point out what they lacked why they wouldn't have done well for another coach. What about them would make them average if they played for Mike D'Antoni or Doc Rivers. Were they too slow? Lacking in court vision? Poor shooters or ball-handlers? Stupid? If the answer to these questions is "no" then how are they system players?

By system, when deron said system, I think he meant a system not specifically Utah's. I mean, magic or nash have a system, too.

It's just personality. Some people prefer order and are creative within it and some people prefer freedom. It really cannot be said one is better. As for Stockton not playing as well in asg lol... I imagine it's hard for him to get hype for that. It could be literally as simple as that's the way they learned the game.

-Smak

[L.A. Jazz]

For me John is like Bill Russell who never wanted to play ball after retirement because he only played to win. they both modelled their game to win games. allstargames (Barcelona 1992 was just a long allstar weekend) doesnt count for them. i can understand that, thats why i hardly ever watch the allstargame.

[Pointguard]

For me John is like Bill Russell who never wanted to play ball after retirement because he only played to win. they both modelled their game to win games. allstargames (Barcelona 1992 was just a long allstar weekend) doesnt count for them. i can understand that, thats why i hardly ever watch the allstargame.
Bill Russell was obsessed with winning.

If you got game and solid fundamentals it doesn't leave you when you play a scrimmage. You get better through scrimmage in unkown situations.

I have Stockton as an all time great for sure. Top five PG which is amazing considering that Frazier, Magic, Archibald, Isiah and Nash might all have very impressive accolades.

[IGOTGAME]

Bill Russell was obsessed with winning.

If you got game and solid fundamentals it doesn't leave you when you play a scrimmage. You get better through scrimmage in unkown situations.

I have Stockton as an all time great for sure. Top five PG which is amazing considering that Frazier, Magic, Archibald, Isiah and Nash might all have very impressive accolades.

Some players don't take all star games seriously.

Some players don't take poor comp in exhibition games as seriously or they don't try to force their game because they know it isn't suited for it.

[moe94]

A lot of those things are really subjective.

Not just that, they're mostly complete nonsense based on absolutely nothing aside from bias.

[eliteballer]

No but playing with Malone in the pick and roll and the lack of other ballhandlers on his Utah teams definitely inflated his assists a bit.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Seems like many NBA players during that time thought Malone benefited more from Stockton than the other way around. Or that's what I get from interviews and such.

[Pointguard]

Not just that, they're mostly complete nonsense based on absolutely nothing aside from bias.

I will answer anything put to me. You haven't refuted anything I said and I gave like a 30 point list and I could have done more. And when I backed it up, there hasn't been one counter point. If you can't trust your eyes, you aren't going to be able to see.

To make it easier for you to back up your points, show us a video, where you see Stockton's strongest points outside of the pick and role. He didn't do things that stood out. He was big good at making the right set play and was super consistent at it.

This is fair and easy. I'm sure you won't get behind what you are saying though. I provided a couple of his more popular videos and I didn't make them. Here is your chance to contribute a video and show your knowledge on the subject.

[Xiao Yao You]

Seems like many NBA players during that time thought Malone benefited more from Stockton than the other way around. Or that's what I get from interviews and such.

I think so.


He didn't do things that stood out.

He stood out to me the first time I saw him play. I thought they should have traded their all-star pg immediately.

[Pointguard]

He stood out to me the first time I saw him play. I thought they should have traded their all-star pg immediately.
I admit he did stand out when I first saw him too but it was because he was aggressive, gritty, had tenacity and could execute very well. And he stayed that way for about 12 years. He also was very consistent.