What's new
By:
Filters

John Stockton on the Dan Patrick Show

Ron Mexico said:
His stats are great but also inflated due to the System and Malone.
Click to expand...
Never was a fan of Sloan's "system." Overrated coach, especially on offense.
Ron Mexico said:
His highest Win Shares was 15.6(which was great but Curry, CP3 and Harden all had better seasons)...
Click to expand...
Comparing players from different eras is not very useful. The game is very different.
Ron Mexico said:
Mitchell was an elite rookie and took this team further than anyone expected and was even better in the playoffs when it mattered. He took over the finale game against OKC. Mitchell scored more than all the other starters put together for the Jazz to beat a team with 2 elite players in their prime. As a rookie he has done elite things and is in the conversation with some of the greatest players ever regardless of position. Who knows where his career will go but based on what we have seen so far in his NBA career he is on track to be one of the best.
Click to expand...
The potential is there, and Mitchell is very quickly climbing my list of favorite players. I don't think there's any reason to compare him with John, though. Very different players with very different styles of play. I prefer Quin's coaching style over Jerry's, as well. It's much more fun to watch.

One thing we can agree on is that Donovan Mitchell has no ceiling.
 
Stockton had longevity because he was a great player, not the other way around. He had 7-8 seasons that were better then Nash's two MVP years.

Let's see what Gary the Glove Payton had to say.

 
Thee jazz fan said:
Stockton had longevity because he was a great player, not the other way around. He had 7-8 seasons that were better then Nash's two MVP years.

Let's see what Gary the Glove Payton had to say.

Click to expand...


Thats cute.

So by posting that you agree with Payton that Stockton was a harder player to guard than Jordan. Therefore implying that Stockton was a better offensive player.

Do you think there is anyone else on the planet besides you two that would agree with that?

Maybe Payton was just being a little nostalgic and being a little over respectful to a fellow player from his era. Which by the way when he does that makes him look better because he can say his competition was the best ever.

I dont believe Payton really believes what he is saying.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Stockton had 7-8 seasons that were better then Nash's two MVP years.
Click to expand...

Lets take a look at Nashs MVP season compared to Stocktons best season.

Phoenix lost in the conference finals. Jazz lost the 4/5 matchup in the first round. Jazz were never very good during Stockton's peak. They only became good when he was clearly on his decline as I mentioned.

https://www.basketball-reference.co...ct=John+Stockton&player_id2=stockjo01&y2=1990

Stat Nash Stockton
PPG 18.8 > 17.2
eFG% .583 > .540
3% .439 > .416
FT% .921 > .819
TRB 4.2 > 2.6
TO were even although based on TO percentage Stockton had more TOs.
Assists 10.5 < 14.5
Blocks were even
Steals 0.8 < 2.7

Stockton had more assists and more steals but other than that Nash was better at just about everything including sucess. But I am guessing you are just looking at assists and steals as a reason he had a better season. Stocktons other seasons look even worse.

Also that was when Nash was 31. If you compare Stockton at that age he had started to decline and was worse than Nash at 31. Nash arguably got better the next year and stayed pretty good until 39. Stockton peaked at 28 and got worse every year after that. Look at what Stockton did in the finals years. He was not the reason we made it to the finals. He was solid but not elite or great those years. His peak years we chocked in the playoffs bad.


In the playoffs that year Nash improved from his regular season and Stockton was worse. Nashs team had success and Stocktons team got upset in the 1st round.
 
Nash took a lot more threes, which helped his points. Four more assists for Stockton amounts to at least eight more points. Of course, there is more to the game than offense, and Nash's defense was like a sieve in comparison. John was never a great one on one defender, but he was very good at sneaking up on guys. Three times the steals is pretty significant.

Stockton was a better two-way player, and played in arguably a tougher era against better players. But there I go comparing players from different eras, again. Will I never learn?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tak
Ron Mexico said:
Lets take a look at Nashs MVP season compared to Stocktons best season.

Phoenix lost in the conference finals. Jazz lost the 4/5 matchup in the first round. Jazz were never very good during Stockton's peak. They only became good when he was clearly on his decline as I mentioned.

https://www.basketball-reference.co...ct=John+Stockton&player_id2=stockjo01&y2=1990

Stat Nash Stockton
PPG 18.8 > 17.2
eFG% .583 > .540
3% .439 > .416
FT% .921 > .819
TRB 4.2 > 2.6
TO were even although based on TO percentage Stockton had more TOs.
Assists 10.5 < 14.5
Blocks were even
Steals 0.8 < 2.7

Stockton had more assists and more steals but other than that Nash was better at just about everything including sucess. But I am guessing you are just looking at assists and steals as a reason he had a better season. Stocktons other seasons look even worse.

Also that was when Nash was 31. If you compare Stockton at that age he had started to decline and was worse than Nash at 31. Nash arguably got better the next year and stayed pretty good until 39. Stockton peaked at 28 and got worse every year after that. Look at what Stockton did in the finals years. He was not the reason we made it to the finals. He was solid but not elite or great those years. His peak years we chocked in the playoffs bad.


In the playoffs that year Nash improved from his regular season and Stockton was worse. Nashs team had success and Stocktons team got upset in the 1st round.
Click to expand...

Disingenuous analysis at best. What you call Nash being "better at just about everything" is an insignificant difference. .043 better at eFG%? .023 better at shooting the 3? Really? The only significantly better stat Nash had over Stockton is rebounding, but you know very well that Stoudamire wasn't a good rebounder, that was always the knock on his game, and that forced Nash to be more active on the glass. Stockton had Malone and Eaton.

On the other hand, those assists and steals numbers do stand out, specially if you are talking about a PG. 4 more assists and 1.9 steals per game is a huge difference, you can't just dismiss them or overlook them.

Odd take about the playoffs "choke", playoffs success is team success, there's no other way to look at it. If we follow your logic and we count playoff success on who's the better player then Tatum is a better rookie than Mitchell because he's on the conference finals. Would you stand by that conclusion?

There's a discussion to be had between Stockton, Magic, Zeke and others PGs, but Nash isn't on it. There's no way that any person who have watched those two play can entertain the thought that Nash was a better player than Stockton.
 
Tak said:
Disingenuous analysis at best. What you call Nash being "better at just about everything" is an insignificant difference. .043 better at eFG%? .023 better at shooting the 3? Really? The only significantly better stat Nash had over Stockton is rebounding, but you know very well that Stoudamire wasn't a good rebounder, that was always the knock on his game, and that forced Nash to be more active on the glass. Stockton had Malone and Eaton.

On the other hand, those assists and steals numbers do stand out, specially if you are talking about a PG. 4 more assists and 1.9 steals per game is a huge difference, you can't just dismiss them or overlook them.

Odd take about the playoffs "choke", playoffs success is team success, there's no other way to look at it. If we follow your logic and we count playoff success on who's the better player then Tatum is a better rookie than Mitchell because he's on the conference finals. Would you stand by that conclusion?

There's a discussion to be had between Stockton, Magic, Zeke and others PGs, but Nash isn't on it. There's no way that any person who have watched those two play can entertain the thought that Nash was a better player than Stockton.
Click to expand...
Nash also played in a very high inflation system.

Sincerely,

7 seconds
 
Stockton was an all time great
Archie Moses said:
Nash also played in a very high inflation system.

Sincerely,

7 seconds
Click to expand...
thats a big one there. I'm not going to argue that Magic is the better player, but I will argue till I'm blue in the face that Stockton is the better point guard. I don't really think that can be disputed.
 
Had he wanted to, Stockton could've averaged 25 and 12. Stockton always seemed to manage to turn on the scoring whenever the jazz needed it, and was a great finisher at the rim.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Had he wanted to, Stockton could've averaged 25 and 12. Stockton always seemed to manage to turn on the scoring whenever the jazz needed it, and was a great finisher at the rim.
Click to expand...
If that were true, the Jazz would have multiple championships. Part of Stockton's greatness was that Malone was such a great finisher. Those are easy assists when the roll man on the P&R can't be stopped.

I guess you can cling to the notion of a "pass-first" PG being a better PG than a PG who can pass AND score. For me - and I'm a Jazz fan and Laker hater - I have to be honest and say I'd take Magic 10 out of 10 times as my PG over Stockton.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Had he wanted to, Stockton could've averaged 25 and 12. Stockton always seemed to manage to turn on the scoring whenever the jazz needed it, and was a great finisher at the rim.
Click to expand...

Haha. You are hilarious. You love to romanticize the Stockton.

Why wouldn't Stockton want to turn it up every game, every year, every playoff series, like you say he was capable of doing? Wouldnt that make the team better? Wouldnt that help win playoff series and championships? He had one year where he put up those numbers in the first round (3) games (88/89). You would think with the lack of help the Jazz typically had he would have tried to shoulder the scoring load a little more. There were a lot of playoff games where the Jazz could have used Stockton's super hidden scoring abilities.
 
Gas said:
Haha. You are hilarious. You love to romanticize the Stockton.

Why wouldn't Stockton want to turn it up every game, every year, every playoff series, like you say he was capable of doing? Wouldnt that make the team better? Wouldnt that help win playoff series and championships? He had one year where he put up those numbers in the first round (3) games (88/89). You would think with the lack of help the Jazz typically had he would have tried to shoulder the scoring load a little more. There were a lot of playoff games where the Jazz could have used Stockton's super hidden scoring abilities.
Click to expand...

Because he was that good at running an offense, that's what the team needed, plus I'm not the only one that thought this, several former players from that era have said as much, let's also not forget that Stockton is part of the original top 50 list all time and the second one made as well. He's one of the greats, get over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Because he was that good at running an offense, that's what the team needed, plus I'm not the only one that thought this, several former players from that era have said as much, let's also not forget that Stockton is part of the original top 50 list all time and the second one made as well. He's one of the greats, get over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He is one of the greats. Just not as good as you think he was. He's always a little bit worse than you think he was.. You are always over the top with him.
 
Jack Strop said:
If that were true, the Jazz would have multiple championships. Part of Stockton's greatness was that Malone was such a great finisher. Those are easy assists when the roll man on the P&R can't be stopped.

I guess you can cling to the notion of a "pass-first" PG being a better PG than a PG who can pass AND score. For me - and I'm a Jazz fan and Laker hater - I have to be honest and say I'd take Magic 10 out of 10 times as my PG over Stockton.
Click to expand...
Do you want to know why the Jazz never won a ring? Because Karl Malone choked.

After the Bulls beat the Jazz in their first finals matchup, there was a newspaper article about a psychologist who came up with some sort of analysis showing BB players' mental tendencies. His conclusion -- I'm paraphrasing -- was that when Karl Malone played against a player whom he thought was better than himself, he played scared. The analysis also showed that when Jordan played against the NBA's toughest, he raised his game. (I can't remember the labels the psychologist used to describe these character traits.)

Being a Jazz homer, I discounted the article as nonsense, except that there seemed to be kernels of truth in what the psychologist said. The next year's playoffs showed that the psychologist may have been right. In every round leading up to the finals, Malone simply dominated everyone, but when he matched up against Jordan in the finals, he played tentative -- missing clutch free throws and having the ball stolen from him with 20 seconds left in a must-win game, thereby setting up Jordan's "push-off" game winner.

It was never Stockton's fault that we lost in the finals.
 
Nash should have won 3 MVP's not just 2! Nash was a true consummate pro, a great passer and great shooter. That being said, Stockton has 2 career records that Nash will never see or touch...Assists and steals! Neither won a championship and that's a shame! Malone was thinking about free agency one year and then it all cleared up for him! He said "I'm staying with Stockton! The other point guards in this league....you never know whether there going to pass you the ball or throw it in the stands!"
 
Everyone understands that no one beat the Bulls in their prime, right?

No one. 6 finals, 6 rings.

There is one team that faced them twice, one of which was jobbed by the officials. Forget the push-off, a 5-point swing in a hotly contested game is the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top