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

[G-train]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why? Nash if you look deeper was better than Stockton, Stockton has the longevity, but Nash was clearly the better player. I don't understand these inconsistencies. Just my opinion.

You mean Nash was a better scorer. Cos he aint a better passer, floor leader (close) or defender. Stock would average 18 assists a game these days now you can do a head fake dribble then spin and the passer gets an assist.

[D.J.]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why? Nash if you look deeper was better than Stockton, Stockton has the longevity, but Nash was clearly the better player. I don't understand these inconsistencies. Just my opinion.

Prime Nash was good for around 16/11 on 51-52% shooting. Prime Stockton was good for around 16/13-14 on about 50% shooting. And Stockton shot 38% from downtown for his career. They're similar on offense, but Stockton's D puts him above Nash.

[EricForman]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why? Nash if you look deeper was better than Stockton, Stockton has the longevity, but Nash was clearly the better player. I don't understand these inconsistencies. Just my opinion.

Well, the anti Nash guys seem to think Nash was the absolute worst defensive player ever AND Jason Kidd was a GP/Pippen/Zo type of defensive monsters or something.

[Clippersfan86]

Stockton. Unlike Nash... he was actually a very solid defender (plenty good enough for a PG). He was a very good scorer, best passer of all time probably next to Magic. He also had EXCELLENT longevity at an elite level. Gary Payton called Stockton the greatest player he's had to play against/guard after Jordan. He was an extremely physical, borderline dirty PG too.

[Fatal9]

You mean Nash was a better scorer. Cos he aint a better passer, floor leader (close) or defender. Stock would average 18 assists a game these days now you can do a head fake dribble then spin and the passer gets an assist.

Nash is a better playmaker than Stockton.

Stockton was arguably the best at delivering the ball, feeding the post, basically getting the ball exactly where it needed to be in a set but he was not a better playmaker, he was not better at breaking down defenses, or as creative/dynamic. If you want to give a PG the ball and ask him to create something, you'd give the ball to Nash, not Stockton. And obviously as scorers, there's a clear gap as well. Stockton's offense/scoring was consistent, Nash on offense had Stockton's consistency but on top of that also possessed a gear that made him go beyond what Stockton was capable of giving you.

You think Stockton would average 18 assists nowadays...I'll just say...okay.

[magnax1]

Gotta say Stockton. some might mention some of the big playoff games Kidd has had and say Stockton was never capable of such things but....I just dont buy it for the most part. He had a role to play and he played it. But he was a more than capable scorer. If you look into some of his exploits closing games in the playoffs its clear he put the team far ahead of his own scoring. He didnt care about anything but who won the game.

Hes had a few more off shooting games in the playoffs than I think people are aware of...but he was willing to put up shots if nobody had it going and the game was slipping away. I remember quite a few times the Jazz got knocked out and John was going harder than anyone down the stretch trying to fight it off.

He played hard every night for damn near 20 years. He took over late in finals games and never got love for it. He held a solid offense together for 15+ years and played defense on anyone you put in front of him. He was also a dick....who didnt care if you hated him if he got to win. He even set good screens and would go in with the bigmen and snatch a rebound if he had to though his numbers dont show it.

Nothing but respect for stockton. And the longevity lovers have to respect him. he was putting up like 13/11 when he was 38 and leading a 50+ win team.

A team the Mavs knocked out in the first round I believe but..still...

I agree with this. I think in general Stockton is one of the players that people seem to misrepresented on here most often. It just seems like people don't really know what they're talking about when they talk about him. They seem to compare him to Nash a lot when the only things they really had in common were their stats. I think the player he's most comparably to today is probably Rondo. Much better shooter, but he played the same way in that his only two objectives when he had the ball were to get inside to score, or get his team mates a good shot. He was extremely reluctant with the jumper just like Rondo. Probably not a great comparison, but it's the only one I can think of. Overall, I think he was considerably better then Kidd at most everything. The only area Kidd made more of an impact was probably one on one defense, and some versatility in certain situations.
The only other thing I'd really think is worth adding is that I think Stockton's longevity has been overblown. After 98, he was basically what Kidd has been on the Mavericks. In that he basically sat back, ran the offense as well as possible and once in a while was able to make a play for his team mates despite the limitations his age brought him. He wasn't a good defender like Kidd has been (he was actually pretty bad) but he also did some intangible things Kidd didn't do and probably did a better job on offense.
stockton

[D.J.]

Also want to add Stockton at 40 put up 13/8/3 with 2 SPG and shot just under 52% from the field.

[Clippersfan86]

Prime Nash was good for around 16/11 on 51-52% shooting. Prime Stockton was good for around 16/13-14 on about 50% shooting. And Stockton shot 38% from downtown for his career. They're similar on offense, but Stockton's D puts him above Nash.

As well as the intangibles. Sure Nash is a great leader... but Stockton is a tier above Nash with doing all the dirty work and running a team.

[SunsCaptain]

I know I really wanted to see the Nash vs Stockton debate....Kidd is going to get destroyed. Nash should have moved on but biased polls with limited votes to a select number of people is going to be that way.

[Kblaze8855]

For people who voted for Kidd in the last round & Stockton in this round can you tell me why?

I dont have a vote(was asked a while back but im not that worried about who wins...I just say what I think). But I thought kidd should have won. this?

I wouldnt be forced to disregard half the game to vote for one of the players.

You could argue nash plays better offense than Kidd. Cant argue he plays better basketball. just have to decide if you care about the ability to be good...all the time. Or if you dont mind a player who is great on one end but the worst player on the floor on the other.

me? i care. Not a big deal if someone else doesnt...but I cant get past it.

No problem with that here.

[Clippersfan86]

I know I really wanted to see the Nash vs Stockton debate....Kidd is going to get destroyed. Nash should have moved on but biased polls with limited votes to a select number of people is going to be that way.

Stockton is basically Nash with much better defense, better passing and nearly equally good offensive efficiency and numbers. Trust me Nash would get destroyed too. Kidd was a better defender than Stockton and a better rebounder... but Stockton didn't give up enough defense to lose to Kidd. So yes Kidd is going to get owned.

[G-train]

Nash is a better playmaker than Stockton.

Stockton was arguably the best at delivering the ball, feeding the post, basically getting the ball exactly where it needed to be in a set but he was not a better playmaker, he was not better at breaking down defenses, or as creative/dynamic. If you want to give a PG the ball and ask him to create something, you'd give the ball to Nash, not Stockton. And obviously as scorers, there's a clear gap as well. Stockton's offense was consistent, Nash's offense was consistent AND on top of that he could give you 25+ pts when needed and do a lot more things to takeover the game.

You think Stockton would average 18 assists nowadays...I'll just say...okay.

Well he averaged 14-15 when it was judged much more harshly, its not unrealistic at all.

[G-train]

Well, the anti Nash guys seem to think Nash was the absolute worst defensive player ever AND Jason Kidd was a GP/Pippen/Zo type of defensive monsters or something.

Nash is one of the worst defenders of the 00's, unquestionably in my mind. I can barely watch him.

Jason Kidd at least tried.

[D.J.]

Well he averaged 14-15 when it was judged much more harshly, its not unrealistic at all.

He averaged 13+ in 5 consecutive seasons and 12+ in 8 consecutive seasons. Nash has never topped 11.6 and that's with him having better shooters and overall offensive players.

[Kblaze8855]

I think the player he's most comparably to today is probably Rondo. Much better shooter, but he played the same way in that his only two objectives when he had the ball were to get inside to score, or get his team mates a good shot. He was extremely reluctant with the jumper just like Rondo. Probably not a great comparison, but it's the only one I can think of.

Kinda the midpoint between Rondo and Chris Paul...when Paul is refusing t oscore and pissing you off.

Hes "Let my teammates get theirs' chris paul mixed with Rondo...but with a jumper.

really is hard to compare him to anyone.