What's new

Mark Jackson Just Can't Let It GO

butthurt.jpg
 
I understand someone putting Stockton up there but I wouldn't. He never really shot enough for me. Jose Calderon is a guy who reminds me of him when it comes to shooting now. A guy who you think could maybe be a great shooter but never really shoots enough to know.

Stockton didn't become the world's greatest ever distributor by being anything less than a great shooter.

For comparison, he scored only about 2 points less per game than Steve Nash over about ten prime seasons, while assisting 3 more per game. I consider Nash a great shooter and less than two more shots a game isn't enough to separate him from Stockton.
 
Ya maybe you guys are right. When I think of Stockton I just never really think "one of the greatest shooters ever". Looking at the numbers though I guess I should start thinking that.

Random question though. Was Stockton ever criticized for not shooting enough in the same way Mavs fans criticize Calderon? Stockton only took 1.5 threes per game and I realize the game has changed but that still seems a bit low for such a great shooter.
 
I always wished Stockton would shoot more, because I, like most fans, knew his shots had a great chance of going in. He could shoot very accurately from any spot on the floor. He didn't have perfect form and I wouldn't bunch him in with Ray Allen or Curry, who are pure shooters. Then again, Michael Jordan didn't have a pure jumper either, but to say he wasn't a very good shooter would be crazy.
 
Perspective

First, Stockton was a great shooter.

However, you really need to calibrate eFG% to the player's role on the team. You have to be careful to not compare apples to bananas.

Stock was pass-first and shot much less than, say shooters like Miller or Curry. He was less likely to take a contested shot, he would instead work for a better shot for himself or others. Stock took higher percentage shots when compared to others who are primary scorers for their team, who are relied upon to score with frequency and therefore not be as selective. If Stockton were asked to score 25 a game, his FG% would drop significantly.

Stockton is elite, but below the likes of Miller, Curry, Nash, Bird, Horny, Mullin, Dirk, Ray Allen, Rick Barry, Jerry West for this reason. Stockton is probably top 50, definitely not top 20.

And, yes, Jackson is a #$%$
 
Ya maybe you guys are right. When I think of Stockton I just never really think "one of the greatest shooters ever". Looking at the numbers though I guess I should start thinking that.

Did you watch him much? I'm guessing not, from your next question. But he had a beautiful shot and basically whenever he put it up, I thought "That's going in!" Especially when he was left unguarded, he was money.

Bigby Wolf said:
Random question though. Was Stockton ever criticized for not shooting enough in the same way Mavs fans criticize Calderon? Stockton only took 1.5 threes per game and I realize the game has changed but that still seems a bit low for such a great shooter.

Yes, fans often said Stockton should shoot more.
 
Link to article? Can't find it on the front page.

Here, for example:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...s-stir-with-comments-about-John-Stockton.html

By Jody Genessy, Deseret News

SALT LAKE CITY — Mark Jackson rankled some Utah Jazz fans on Monday when word started to spread on Twitter about a backhanded compliment he gave John Stockton.

NBA.com writer David Aldridge explored some of the all-time best backcourt combos to evaluate whether or not Golden State's coach was correct in calling Splash Brothers Steph Curry and Klay Thompson “the best-shooting backcourt tandem in the history of the game.”

Aldridge listed multiple top-tier shooting backcourts: Portland’s Clyde Drexler and Terry Porter; Mo Cheeks and Andrew Toney of the Sixers; Oscar Robertson and Jon McGlocklin of the Royals/Bucks; Vern Fleming and Reggie Miller of the Pacers; Mark Price and Craig Ehlo of the Cavs; Jerry West and Gail Goodrich of the Lakers; and, of course, Stockton and Jeff Hornacek of the Jazz.

The case for and against those duos was made in the interesting article, but Jackson, a teammate of Stockton's in 2002-03, insisted it’s a moot point.

"Whatever you want to rank 'shooting,' my two guys are the greatest shooting, jump-shooting tandem, that this league has ever seen," Jackson told NBA.com. "And that's not even close. And I'm not guessing. I've watched all the greats, and it's with all due respect."

Turns out, Jackson had more respect for Hornacek’s shooting than Stockton’s.

"Hornacek -- great shooter. John Stockton -- good to very good shooter. Not a great shooter,” Jackson said. “Don't get me wrong. He was an all-time great player. But John Stockton would not be considered a great shooter."

Here’s how the four players stack up in some basic shooting statistics:

Thompson (three years): 43.6 percent from the field; 40.9 percent from 3-point range; 83.1 percent on free throws.

Curry (five years): 46.2 percent from the field; 44.0 percent from 3-point range; 89.5 percent on free throws.

Stockton (19 years): 51.5 percent from the field; 38.4 percent from 3-point range; 82.6 percent on free throws.

Hornacek (14 years): 49.6 percent from the field; 40.3 percent from 3-point range; 87.7 percent on free throws.

Just for fun comparison’s sake, check out the effective field goal percentage from basketball-reference.com:

Stockton, Jackson’s version of a “good to very good shooter,” had a stellar eFG percentage of .546 over nearly two decades. Incidentally, that is the same mark the sweet-shooting Curry has had since entering the league in 2010.

Hornacek tallied a .530 eFG percentage compared to .523 for Thompson in his third year.

“Steph can pull up off the dribble, in traffic. They're two of the better guys we've seen at those positions,” Hornacek recently told Aldridge. “But John and I could shoot it a little, too.”
 
Stockton was a great shooter. He had an unorthodox shot and shooting was not his primary responsibility, but he was a great shooter. If Stockton wanted to score 20ppg he could have easily. Mark Jackson is a hype machine and couldn't shoot the ball at all, so I don't hold too much stock in his Stockton comments.
 
I understand someone putting Stockton up there but I wouldn't. He never really shot enough for me. Jose Calderon is a guy who reminds me of him when it comes to shooting now. A guy who you think could maybe be a great shooter but never really shoots enough to know.
Not enough shots? John Stockton took 13,658 shots in his career (19 seasons), Steve Nash took 12,844 shots (18 seasons). If you take nearly 14,000 shots in your career and hit 52% of those shots, I don't care how you spin it...you are a great shooter.
 
To me, "great shooter" just comes secondary to best ever distributor. Moot point.
 
Back
Top