ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #10 - John Stockton vs. Jason Kidd

[L.Kizzle]

I haven't seen a good argument for Stockton yet, just "he has the assist record" type posts. Why wasn't Mark Jackson a part of this project then? He played forever and put up a ton of assists in a time when assists were given out more frequently as well.

Let's see, not only does he has the assist record. He has the steals records. He led the league in assist 9 times, in steals 2 times. He's a 11 time All-star, and 11 time All-NBA players. Also, 5 times all-defense and has 2 Gold Medals.

Let's see, Mark Jackson is 3rd All-Time in assist (a distant third), 25th in steals, led the league in assist once. Made one All-star game and won rookie of the year.

That's why Mark Jackson isn't part of this project.

[iamgine]

[magnax1]

2005
1. Duncan
2. Shaq
Garnett
Wade
Dirk
Kobe (didn't have a better season, but a clearly better player)
7th at best. Nash



2006
Wade
Kobe
Dirk
Duncan
Garnett
6th at best Nash

2007
Kobe
Duncan
Dirk
LeBron
Garnett
Wade
7th at best Nash


Not a Legit top 3-5 player from '05-'07 or ever...

I do have to say, in 05 Wade is arguable, Dirk I definitely wouldn't take over Nash, but then you forgot Tmac, who was surely better then lots of the guy you listed for 05. However Nash definitely has a case over some of those guys you listed, and a good case as a top 5 player in 05.

[SuperPippen]

A player like Stockton, IMO, really exemplifies the most valuable traits of both Nash and Kidd. Significantly better defender and ball-thief than Nash, significantly better shooter than Kidd, even better durability than both, slightly better play maker than Kidd, slightly better in transition than Nash, etc.

Stockton was a quality shooter, superior to Kidd but not at Nash's level, and was a tough, nose-to-the-grindstone player in pretty much every aspect of his game. He gave a great amount of effort every game, for TWO decades.

His durability and longevity are simply ASTOUNDING. For a fifth of a century, he was one of the the quietest workhorses in the NBA. Even at the age of 41, he was STILL playing quality seasons. Even if one argue that a good deal of his success was contingent upon the chemistry that he and Malone developed over the course of their careers, his assist numbers are still jaw-dropping. IMO, he would have been just as good without Malone, even if his stats might have been a little less impressive.

Kidd has had a similarly lengthy career, and yet the only aspect of his game that I feel is truly, significantly superior to Stockton's is his rebounding. Kidd was a great defender, sure, but I feel that that gap between him and Stockton in that regard isn't wide enough to offset the areas that Stockton trumps Kidd in.

I could go on, but enough has already been said in this thread.

Anyway, I vote for John Stockton.

[Gotterdammerung]

John Stockton was more of a classic prototypical point guard than anyone else in league history. Better shooter than Cousy, more fundamentally sound than Frazier, nastier than Nash, and more cerebral than Jason Kidd.

Like Nash, Stockton shot only when he had to. Probably just as good at changing speed off the dribble if not better. More importantly he knew how to jump into his defender while shooting and draw the foul, move without the ball, nail open shots and steal key offensive rebounds. Nobody perfected the screen & roll better and more interestingly he set sharp screens on bigger, stronger players by leading with elbows. See Jazz-Rockets games 1 & 2 of their west finals in 1997 where Stockton got Barkley in early foul trouble.

He was handcuffed by Sloan's limited offensive sets, but on fastbreaks u could tell his judgment was exceptional. I have a sneaking suspicion that Stockton made Karl Malone look far better than he really was.

Kidd was the better rebounder, better athlete, better defender and a better leader. But Stockton was the better point guard, and the differences are far smaller in his case than in Nash's.
Kidd is awesome but Stockton was better -- only by a thin margin.

[G.O.A.T]

I do have to say, in 05 Wade is arguable, Dirk I definitely wouldn't take over Nash, but then you forgot Tmac, who was surely better then lots of the guy you listed for 05. However Nash definitely has a case over some of those guys you listed, and a good case as a top 5 player in 05.

Good call on T-MAC I did forget, that was his first year with Houston right?

Dirk was the franchise guy above Nash on Dallas the year before, so I feel justified there.

After seeing how close Wade (before the injury) came to knocking my Pistons out, I feared him. I never feared Nash, so I feel Wade was better. The next year he proved it I believe.

He certainly has a case from '05-'07, but I don't think he has a case for MVP.

Why is he the only MVP (besides McAdoo in a year where the Kareem missed the playoffs, Erving and Gilmore were in the ABA and Rick Barry {the real 1975 MVP} was hated by everyone) to never make the Finals in his prime?

I can admit I am someone who focuses on the negative with Nash in arguments here, but I love him as a player. Back in my NBA Live playin' Dallas Dallas was my squad and Nash got me 20-25 assists per game.

I always go back to this though. In March of 2005 I said the Suns would never be a real title contender with Nash as their best player. That the system could revive the franchise but bring it a title. I compared it to the KJ/Chambers Suns under Cotton in the early 90's. Turns out both teams had the same amount of success, but Nash never got his Barkley.

Anyway, I have no problem with someone saying Nash was a top five player, but saying he reached a different level than Kidd, AI, Payton or Stockton is simply untrue by my recollection and watch the entire careers of all those guys.

Also I'm going to go Stockton here which makes it 13-3, I'm going to call this one seeing as it is no impossible for Kidd to win with only 25 voters.

[magnax1]

Good call on T-MAC I did forget, that was his first year with Houston right?

Yeah, probably the last year he played like Orlando TMac

Dirk was the franchise guy above Nash on Dallas the year before, so I feel justified there.

A lot changed with Nash. He went from borderline all NBA to MVP winner. I think Dirk and Nash held eachother back in Dallas. However, I don't see why anyone would take Dirk in 05. I'd without question take the guy who gets his 11-12 assist average, and averages 15 points a game on top 5 efficiency and then goes out and proves he's capable of scoring 25 a night in the playoffs over the guy who sits at the top of the key and Isos for 25 points without the ability to create shots for anyone but himself.

After seeing how close Wade (before the injury) came to knocking my Pistons out, I feared him. I never feared Nash, so I feel Wade was better. The next year he proved it I believe.

The next year he was a lot better though. I'd easily take 06 Wade over Nash. 05, it's close, and would be obvious if not for Wade playing like the best player in the league in the playoffs (though Nash was amazing too) I'd probably take Wade, but it's definitely really really close.

He certainly has a case from '05-'07, but I don't think he has a case for MVP.

I don't think he was deserving of MVP in 06, that was obviously Kobe to me despite his record. 05, is tough. Shaq was definitely the better player, but Nash was relied upon to take an offense to an all time level or else have his team play at a poor level. Duncan is also a worthy candidate, and he might actually be my choice for 05 despite not many suggesting him. 07, I'd take Nash as the MVP.
EDIT: It's worth mentioning that those were kind of weak MVP races though. Nobody like Jordan or Shaq was gunning for it, and Duncan never got the credit he deserved after his scoring #s went down.

Why is he the only MVP (besides McAdoo in a year where the Kareem missed the playoffs, Erving and Gilmore were in the ABA and Rick Barry {the real 1975 MVP} was hated by everyone) to never make the Finals in his prime?

A lot of reasons. In 05 losing Joe Johnson squashed the tiny chance they had to beat out the Spurs, who I thought at the time were plainly better. 06 They didn't have a chance. 07 was their only real chance to me, and they lost it when those guys got suspended. 08 they could've made it before the trade, but after that they never were at a top shelf talent level to me.

I can admit I am someone who focuses on the negative with Nash in arguments here, but I love him as a player. Back in my NBA Live playin' Dallas Dallas was my squad and Nash got me 20-25 assists per game.

I always go back to this though. In March of 2005 I said the Suns would never be a real title contender with Nash as their best player. That the system could revive the franchise but bring it a title. I compared it to the KJ/Chambers Suns under Cotton in the early 90's. Turns out both teams had the same amount of success, but Nash never got his Barkley.

Well I just don't really think they were ever as good as the Spurs. First off, Nash to me probably isn't a guy like Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Jordan Hakeem etc. who can bring in championships as the first option. Secondly, they were just never as good as talented in terms who they put around Nash as the Spurs. I think if he was ever put in a situation like Dirk this year where they had a top offense with lots of depth that allowed them to play defense, then he could've won. That's unlikely though. I just don't think players like them win championships very often. As first options that is.

Anyway, I have no problem with someone saying Nash was a top five player, but saying he reached a different level than Kidd, AI, Payton or Stockton is simply untrue by my recollection and watch the entire careers of all those guys.

Completely agree. I think he was considerably better then Payton, but I'd also say that of the rest of those guys. I've never been a fan of Payton because he never really reached the offensive plateau of any all time guard that he's compared too.

[G.O.A.T]

A lot changed with Nash. He went from borderline all NBA to MVP winner. I think Dirk and Nash held eachother back in Dallas. However, I don't see why anyone would take Dirk in 05. I'd without question take the guy who gets his 11-12 assist average, and averages 15 points a game on top 5 efficiency and then goes out and proves he's capable of scoring 25 a night in the playoffs over the guy who sits at the top of the key and Isos for 25 points without the ability to create shots for anyone but himself.

Did Nash get that much better or did the system and his role change so that he could put up much better numbers?

Cuban and the Mavs took Dirk over Nash and Dirk won a title and Nash never even got there. Maybe Nash had a better year in '05 than Dirk, but Dirk was the better player and the guy I'd rather have. That's all I am saying.

Good stuff as usual magnax!

[magnax1]

Did Nash get that much better or did the system and his role change so that he could put up much better numbers?

I don't like people saying the system changed for Nash, because in Phoenix he became the system. Players and coaches have left, and Nash has been the only consistent building block for that team over five years (well Amare to a certain extent, but he was always injured) but they've continued to be the best offense in the league for the most part.

Cuban and the Mavs took Dirk over Nash and Dirk won a title and Nash never even got there. Maybe Nash had a better year in '05 than Dirk, but Dirk was the better player and the guy I'd rather have. That's all I am saying.

I don't really agree. I know it's not popular to say now that Dirk has won a championship, but I don't value a guy who's only scorer that terribly much, especially when there are quite a few better ones out there over the years.

Good stuff as usual magnax!

Thanks