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

[TheBigVeto]

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

[Eat Like A Bosh]

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

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

[Go Getter]

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

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

[305Baller]

Dunno why but Ill take Nash. More explosive overall.

Stock was not flashy but was dang effective.

[LABean]

Give me Nash.

[Go Getter]

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

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

[Owl]

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

Fair enough, I personally don't think it's right to hold a guys situation against him and I feel thats what calling guys on losing teams numbers "empty stats" is doing.

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

[Hater]

I'll take Nash.

[bwink23]

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

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

[dunksby]

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

Nash is a ****n midget man

[NinjaSeal]

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

[bwink23]

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

[DaHeezy]

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

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

[bwink23]

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

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

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

[DaHeezy]

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

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

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