Stockton is the GREATER player no doubt, but the BETTER? His longevity obviously crushes Paul, but better? I really don't think so... I'm a big fan of Stockton's 88-89 season so I'll use that, but feel free to plug in any season.
Base stat lines are:
Stockton- 17/14/3/3/0
Paul- 23/11/6/3/0
Per 100 possessions this turns to:
Stockton- 22/17/4/4/0
Paul- 32/16/8/4/0
Advanced stats Paul is miles ahead... And yet you say there's no debate?
https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&y1=1989&p1=stockjo01&y2=2009&p2=paulch01&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=
I like how you conveniently left out the fact that Paul took 5 more shots a game than Stockton did that year.
Take that into account and have them shoot the same amount of shots the stats look like this per 36 mins:
John Stockton - 15.9 PPG, 12.7 APG, 2.8 RPG, 3 SPG, 53.8% from field.
Chris Paul - 14.5 PPG, 10.3 APG, 5.2 RPG, 2.6 SPG, 50.3% from field.
You can do that same thing with Stockton's stats from the next year as well:
John Stockton - 16.6 PPG, 14 APG, 2.5 RPG, 2.6 SPG, 51.4% from field.
Chris Paul 14.5 PPG, 10.3 APG, 5.2 RPG, 2.6 SPG, 50.3% from field.
And we are talking about one statistical season from Paul, I could compare Stockton's stats every year from a 10-year span to Paul's 2008-09 and he would still compare favorably.
The only stat Paul wins is rebounds and that season he had Tyson Chandler as the leading rebounder pulling down 8.5 boards a game not like Stockton who had Malone pulling down 10-12 a game as well as Eaton pulling down 7-9 a game. The two years I compared Stockton to Paul, Malone averaged 10.7 RPG and Eaton 10.3 RPG, the next year Malone pulled down 11.1 a game and Eaton 7.3.
Stockton played in a tougher era and had to go through hand checking. There is no comparison.