Chris Paul is better than John Stockton

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017186]Even without the 3 Price was a more dangerous offensive player, that alone puts more pressure on the defense. John Stockton isn't going to bust the game wide open with his scoring. And Sloan not being a fan of the 3 may have shifted with an actual marksman on the roster. We don't know for sure, but a good coach is going to maximize the tools in his chest. I mean look at Price busting the Bulls ass here:

[video=youtube;_X4lXwneeXo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X4lXwneeXo&ab_channel=MJ23HisAirnessForever[/video]

You think Sloan is going to say 'you know what Mark, we don't really need any of that'.[/QUOTE]

Yes i do. Saw it many times. Was sloans way or the highway. Porter would have feasted even more with price guarding him too. He was a good coach because of john and karl

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15017199]Yes i do. Saw it many times. Was sloans way or the highway. Porter would have feasted even more with price guarding him too. He was a good coach because of john and karl[/QUOTE]

That would be to the teams detriment then. Porter would have feasted but the point is Price would have went back at him much more than Stockton did, and even if Sloan was bull-headed he worked with what he had. If Stockton was a more potent scorer I doubt he's capping the team just to be stubborn, nor restricting Price when that could be the difference in the outcome of a game or series.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15017185]Rudy is better than both.[/QUOTE]

Win Shares Per 48 Minutes
1. Rudy Gobert .227
2. John Stockton* .209
3. Karl Malone* .207
4. Adrian Dantley* .205

Player efficiency rating

1. Adrian Dantley* 24.1
2. Karl Malone* 24.1
3. Rudy Gobert 22.1
4. John Stockton* 21.8

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017202]That would be to the teams detriment then. Porter would have feasted but the point is Price would have went back at him much more than Stockton did, and even if Sloan was bull-headed he worked with what he had. If Stockton was a more potent scorer I doubt he's capping the team just to be stubborn, nor restricting Price when that could be the difference in the outcome of a game or series.[/QUOTE]

Sure he is. Jazz were at their best offensively running as we saw in the 88 playoffs under the comedian Sloan made them a half court team

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15017203]Win Shares Per 48 Minutes
1. Rudy Gobert .227
2. John Stockton* .209
3. Karl Malone* .207
4. Adrian Dantley* .205

Player efficiency rating

1. Adrian Dantley* 24.1
2. Karl Malone* 24.1
3. Rudy Gobert 22.1
4. John Stockton* 21.8[/QUOTE]
Rudy's the GOAT Jazz player, arguably Wolves too.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15017205]Sure he is. Jazz were at their best offensively running as we saw in the 88 playoffs under the comedian Sloan made them a half court team[/QUOTE]
Eh, he worked with what he had. And I seriously doubt he lasts decades as a coach if the Jazz higher-ups think he's capping the team's potential due to his own inflexibility.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15017206]Rudy's the GOAT Jazz player, arguably Wolves too.[/QUOTE]

Offensive Rating
1. Rudy Gobert 131.7
2. Fred Hoiberg 128.

Win Shares Per 48 Minutes
1. Rudy Gobert .199
2. Kevin Love .189
3. Kevin Garnett* .185

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15017207]Eh, he worked with what he had. And I seriously doubt he lasts decades as a coach if the Jazz higher-ups think he's capping the team's potential due to his own inflexibility.[/QUOTE]

They went from 1st to 3rd in their division twice. He wouldnt have lasted decades anywhere but utah. How long did he last in chicago?

Sloan did like gobert at the draft combine. Give credit where it is due

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15017209]They went from 1st to 3rd in their division twice. He wouldnt have lasted decades anywhere but utah. How long did he last in chicago?[/QUOTE]

Don't know, and irrelevant to my point. I'm just saying I think Price isn't strongly handicapped to reduce his ability as a scorer. You think otherwise, and for something that can't be proven one way or another, not something I'm spending my afternoon pointlessly going back and forth over.

VORP

1. LeBron James 156.61
2. Michael Jordan* 116.05
3. John Stockton* 106.53
4. Karl Malone* 98.96
5. Chris Paul 98.92

Both men are incredible for different reasons. John is the GOAT of pure PG's. He was often the third or fourth option on his team and not only was he durable and consistent but more successful in the sense he made the playoffs every..single...season. Jordan and Lebron didn't do that...that's Bill Russell/Jerry West level of success with less talent around him.

Chris Paul nobody got screwed out of more MVP's than Chris Paul, Chris Paul made every team he played for better. He is both a high IQ player and an incredible athlete and he got the best out of his teammates. I give the edge to John Stockton because he was so durable, and he never left the Jazz

[QUOTE=John8204;15017218]VORP

1. LeBron James 156.61
2. Michael Jordan* 116.05
3. John Stockton* 106.53
4. Karl Malone* 98.96
5. Chris Paul 98.92

Both men are incredible for different reasons. John is the GOAT of pure PG's. He was often the third or fourth option on his team and not only was he durable and consistent but more successful in the sense he made the playoffs every..single...season. Jordan and Lebron didn't do that...that's Bill Russell/Jerry West level of success with less talent around him.

Chris Paul nobody got screwed out of more MVP's than Chris Paul, Chris Paul made every team he played for better. He is both a high IQ player and an incredible athlete and he got the best out of his teammates. I give the edge to John Stockton because he was so durable, and he never left the Jazz[/QUOTE]

Not sure being screwed by the jazz gives him an edge. Could have made more money elsewhere and who knows what another coach and team may have brought out of him?

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15017203]Win Shares Per 48 Minutes
1. Rudy Gobert .227
2. John Stockton* .209
3. Karl Malone* .207
4. Adrian Dantley* .205

Player efficiency rating

1. Adrian Dantley* 24.1
2. Karl Malone* 24.1
3. Rudy Gobert 22.1
4. John Stockton* 21.8[/QUOTE]

I love how you continue to be insistent on utilizing numbers that are well known to skew favorably towards low volume bigs, despite this almost certainly having been explained to you more times than I can count on two hands :lol

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15017223]I love how you continue to be insistent on utilizing numbers that are well known to skew favorably towards low volume bigs, despite this almost certainly having been explained to you more times than I can count on two hands :lol[/QUOTE]
3 Low volume hall of famers :facepalm