How overrated is John Stockton on ESPNs List?

[IGOTGAME]

Seriously the guy is rated top 20 and was never in contention for the best player in the league. Could you imagine a coach thinking he is a better player than David Robinson or DWade.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

True. People talk about Kobe being "unfairly rated" yet Wade was the guy devalued entirely.

When you think about it though we're talking about ESPN. :oldlol: Not exactly setting the world on fire with their basketball acumen.

[eeeeeebro]

stockton was nash before nash

[24-Inch_Chrome]

stockton was nash before nash
:whatever:

[Akrazotile]

Seriously the guy is rated top 20 and was never in contention for the best player in the league. Could you imagine a coach thinking he is a better player than David Robinson or DWade.


Stockton is the all time assists and steals leader. Hes basically the Wilt of point guards.

If you glorify Wilt based on stats, you have to have Stockton pretty high as well.

[KelticForce1349]

Stockton is the all time assists and steals leader. Hes basically the Wilt of point guards.

If you glorify Wilt based on stats, you have to have Stockton pretty high as well.


I can understand why some people are going to cry foul at his ranking but they probably have only seen highlights of him playing. I think it's much easier for someone to make an argument for GOAT point guard with Stockton than it is with Robinson as Center or Wade as a SG. I would assume that bumps him up the list over those other players.

For the record, I am not saying Stockton is the very best point guard ever.

[ArbitraryWater]

stockton was nash before nash

just, you know, a good bit better

[Akrazotile]

just, you know, a good bit better

And also their games werent even similar other than being white and making a lot of assists. Nash was a three point shooter and did a lot of drive and kick. Stockton was a pick n roll aficianado and also beat guys off the dribble a lot and finished at the rim. Stockton was also much more stout as a defender.

Stockton was basically like Chris Paul except without turning passive for long stretches when his team needed him to be aggressive. Which is pretty damn good.

[WadeStan]

Stockton was better than Nash... definitely not Wade and some other guys on that list... but Nash for sure. He didn't have the shooting Nash had, but he was no slouch and could get the rim better. He was also far more clutch than guys like Nash and Paul. Astronomically better defender than Nash too. Would've had 2 rings to show for it if it wasn't for MJ and the Mailman never delivering on Sundays.

[WillC]

ESPN: Where John Stockton is better than Elgin Baylor.

[imnew09]

Better than Wade lol


Fk espn

[CakeorDeath]

The isssue is that ESPN hasn't really identified what the list is evaluating. "100 Best" is a highly subjective term.

Is this a ranking of the 100 best individual players, in terms of a combination of skillset, athletic ability, etc.? Almost certainly not, given the way the list has played out so far.

Is the list a ranking of impact on the game? Perhaps. Seems more likely than option 1 above.

Take the Stockton vs. Wade argument that seems to be prevalent in this thread so far (and in any thread discussing ESPN's ranking system since Wade's position was revealed; Wade fans have been butthurt ever since). In their primes, who was the better basketball player? Wade. Who would win one on one? Wade. Who has left a bigger mark on the history of basketball? Stockton, by a mile. Wade will never sniff Stock on assists, steals, consecutive playoff appearances, etc. He's currently tied with Stock on the all time points list, at age 34.

Was Wade a better basketball player than Stockton? Yes. Does Stockton occupy a more hallowed place in the history of basketball than Wade? Yes.

[Akrazotile]

The isssue is that ESPN hasn't really identified what the list is evaluating. "100 Best" is a highly subjective term.

Is this a ranking of the 100 best individual players, in terms of a combination of skillset, athletic ability, etc.? Almost certainly not, given the way the list has played out so far.

Is the list a ranking of impact on the game? Perhaps. Seems more likely than option 1 above.

Take the Stockton vs. Wade argument that seems to be prevalent in this thread so far (and in any thread discussing ESPN's ranking system since Wade's position was revealed; Wade fans have been butthurt ever since). In their primes, who was the better basketball player? Wade. Who would win one on one? Wade. Who has left a bigger mark on the history of basketball? Stockton, by a mile. Wade will never sniff Stock on assists, steals, consecutive playoff appearances, etc. He's currently tied with Stock on the all time points list, at age 34.

Was Wade a better basketball player than Stockton? Yes. Does Stockton occupy a more hallowed place in the history of basketball than Wade? Yes.


This is basically exactly what I was gonna post.

Lists like these often lean heavily on things like records and historical significance, since comparing players across eras is so tough. Who knows, if Stock grew up playing today's game maybe hed spend more time working on his three and shoot like steph curry. You never know. If Wade had played in the 80s maybe he doesnt get the same medical treatments to stay healthy and explosive or the same benefit from the rule changes.

If Bill Russell played today maybe hed be Deandre Jordan. Or maybe hed be Bill Russell. It's impossible to say.

These lists mostly just rank historical relevance when it's all said and done.

[Long Duck Dong]

stockton was nash before nash

Nash was a great (tho dirty) defender? :confusedshrug:

[Young X]

Stockton was basically like Chris Paul except without turning passive for long stretches when his team needed him to be aggressive. Which is pretty damn good.?

Stockton was more passive than Paul and Nash.

The main criticism of him is he didn't/couldn't take over when his team needed more scoring because unlike those guys he didn't have a 1 on 1 game.

He only has 2 playoff games scoring 30+.

[tmacattack33]

Two words: Longevity and Consistency

Go here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stockjo01.html

Look at his games played...82, 82, 82, 82, 82, and on and on and on. Dude was durable as fukk.

Then notice he averaged 11+ assists for 9 straight years, and only missed 4 games throughout that entire stretch. Wade would be lucky to go one season without missing 4 games.

[CakeorDeath]

?

Stockton was more passive than Paul and Nash.

The main criticism of him is he didn't/couldn't take over when his team needed more scoring because unlike those guys he didn't have a 1 on 1 game.

He only has 2 playoff games scoring 30+.

:facepalm

Anyone who criticizes Stockton for not taking over games either never watched Stockton play, or doesn't understand basketball. Or both.

It's really easy to understand once you achieve the ability to comprehend one very simple concept: individual scoring is not the ONLY way to dominate a game. For a point guard, individual scoring is probably the least efficient and most risky way to try to dominate a game.

Stockton absolutely dominated, but he rarely needed to score himself to do it. You're saying he didn't take over the offense when his team needed more points; how often does that happen when you have the #2 scorer in the history of basketball?

Stockton averaged 9.1 shots per game for his career. Find me another top ten point guard in history that even came close. No one does. Nash is the closest, but benefits from very slow early years and injury riddled late years.

Why didn't Stock shoot more? Because he was dedicated to finding his team a better shot than a point guard jacking up a contested 25 footer. Run the offense correctly, and you should get a better shot than that.

He didn't take over? You mean he refused to abandon the well-oiled machine that was Jerry Sloan's offense in order to "get his?" Yeah, I guess he didn't. And that's a bad thing?

People on ISH underrate Karl Malone all the time, saying his scoring record is really Stockton's and that Stockton "made" Malone. But then when it is time to rate Stockton, they say Stockton couldn't score. So which is it?

I think it's mostly underrating a guy that refused to play sexy. Nothing pretty about Stockton's game, until you see the line at the end. 15 points, 13 assists, and 3 steals on 50% shooting every night for 20 years? Yeah, he sucks.

[Akrazotile]

?

Stockton was more passive than Paul and Nash.

The main criticism of him is he didn't/couldn't take over when his team needed more scoring because unlike those guys he didn't have a 1 on 1 game.

He only has 2 playoff games scoring 30+.


But Stock always forced the issue. He's a huge part of why Karl Malone is #2 all-time in NBA scoring history. Stockton was a scrapper and a gamer. He didn't try to play outside himself and 'take over' in crunch time by chucking up shots, but he always kept the pressure on as a floor general.

Whereas Chris Paul often inexplicably puts the ball in other guys' hands early in the possession when the game gets tight, even when he's their best option for creating some kind of opportunity.

[CakeorDeath]

Two words: Longevity and Consistency

Go here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stockjo01.html

Look at his games played...82, 82, 82, 82, 82, and on and on and on. Dude was durable as fukk.

Then notice he averaged 11+ assists for 9 straight years, and only missed 4 games throughout that entire stretch. Wade would be lucky to go one season without missing 4 games.

Especially incredible given his height and weight. 6'1" and 170? I know dudes that size who can't play rec ball more than twice a week due to "nagging injuries."

[Akrazotile]

:facepalm

Anyone who criticizes Stockton for not taking over games either never watched Stockton play, or doesn't understand basketball. Or both.

It's really easy to understand once you achieve the ability to comprehend one very simple concept: individual scoring is not the ONLY way to dominate a game. For a point guard, individual scoring is probably the least efficient and most risky way to try to dominate a game.

Stockton absolutely dominated, but he rarely needed to score himself to do it. You're saying he didn't take over the offense when his team needed more points; how often does that happen when you have the #2 scorer in the history of basketball?

Stockton averaged 9.1 shots per game for his career. Find me another top ten point guard in history that even came close. No one does. Nash is the closest, but benefits from very slow early years and injury riddled late years.

Why didn't Stock shoot more? Because he was dedicated to finding his team a better shot than a point guard jacking up a contested 25 footer. Run the offense correctly, and you should get a better shot than that.

He didn't take over? You mean he refused to abandon the well-oiled machine that was Jerry Sloan's offense in order to "get his?" Yeah, I guess he didn't. And that's a bad thing?

People on ISH underrate Karl Malone all the time, saying his scoring record is really Stockton's and that Stockton "made" Malone. But then when it is time to rate Stockton, they say Stockton couldn't score. So which is it?

I think it's mostly underrating a guy that refused to play sexy. Nothing pretty about Stockton's game, until you see the line at the end. 15 points, 13 assists, and 3 steals on 50% shooting every night for 20 years? Yeah, he sucks.


Same page broski :cheers:

[Young X]

I'm not really criticizing Stockton for not taking over but I'm saying that's one of the things people criticize Stockton for.

Malone struggled with his scoring at times and Utah needed a 2nd scorer. Stockton wasn't the type to fill that void because it wasn't his game.

I heard Isiah Thomas say the same thing about Stockton, that if he would've looked to be more aggressive and change his game at times than the Jazz might've won a championship.

NOT that I agree/disagree with him but it's a criticism some people have of Stockton. It's definitely something that is truer about Stockton than other great PG's.

[DMAVS41]

Very...CP3 is definitely better than Stockton ever was imo.

[greatest-ever]

Very, i have him in my top 30 and maybe even top 25, but to put him ahead of Drob, Kg and Wade is pretty head scratching. 2 decades with a real top 20 player and only manged 2 finals and a goose egg in championships.

[Blue&Orange]

True. People talk about Kobe being "unfairly rated" yet Wade was the guy devalued entirely.

When you think about it though we're talking about ESPN. :oldlol: Not exactly setting the world on fire with their basketball acumen.
ESPN devaluated a Lebron teammate? Say it ain't so.

[Akrazotile]

Wade peaked earlier than most players, so I think a lot of people forget what a stud he was. And after his third year the team was completely irrelevant until Lebron showed up. So again, a lot of it just comes down to circumstance and the way each player made headlines throughout their career. Players who have a more ideal kind of 'storybook' career often get priority. If you win at the end like MJ or Elway, everyone just remembers the winning. If things are a bit more uneven people somehow count it against you.

[keantona]

Not at all overrated

[1987_Lakers]

As a straight up basketball player I would take many point guards over Stockton, but the fact that he played around 20 years at a high level is why many people have him ranked so high when talking about point guards all-time.

[GrapeApe]

Stockton is tricky to rank, but in terms of the ESPN list it's another example of wild inconsistency. They presumably ranked him based on his impressive resume in it's entirety, yet they ranked Wade behind guys with clearly inferior overall resumes. There's no logic or consistency to it at all.

[T_L_P]

I don't think any sane GM would draft Stockton over Robinson. The guy was never a top five player in the league.

[ballinhun8]

Not at all.


For my money he's behind just Magic, Isiah, and the Big O.