The John Stockton Thread

[MHSL82]

Check out this video on YouTube: the announcement is at the end.

John Stockton's last post-game press conference and retirement announcement - YouTube

I'm in a place where I can't have the volume on, but I'll watch it later. Thank you for the link, even if it turns out to be a different one than I remember (which I don't know if it is, yet).

 

[MHSL82]

Check out this video on YouTube: the announcement is at the end.

John Stockton's last post-game press conference and retirement announcement - YouTube

Here's the video here, if anyone wants to see it without going to YouTube. It's around 6:46 point of the video. I saw it during a break at work the first second I sat down on the couch - so I didn't know what it was about, so I wasn't braced for it. I liked Larry Miller's comment after that. A highlight video would truly be a long video. I also like the last thing Stockton said because I can't imagine how difficult emotionally answering tough questions would be on camera after making that big of a decision.

 

[MHSL82]

How about game manager for a Jamal?

All PGs should try to manage the game, like Stockton was our general. PGs need to be able to score, look at Stockton's FG percentage, but they don't need to be shoot-first. There's a balance and I realize the modern trend is to look for more scoring from your PG, but give me a 12 point 10 assist guy over a 22 and 5.

 

[nuraman00]

There's a balance and I realize the modern trend is to look for more scoring from your PG,

Is it really? Take away Stockton, and compare 15 PGs from the modern era to the previous era, however you want to define it.

I also think if you score more than 20, you'll have more than 5 assists. Just because you're handling the ball so much, you'll get more than 5.

Here are all guards 6'3 or shorter who averaged more than 20 but less than 6 assists:

Player Season Finder | Basketball-Reference.com

Scanning the list, there's not many players.

* A rookie Kyrie Irving

* Monta Ellis, who shares the court with Curry and Lee (averages 3+ assists himself)

* Westbrook in one of his worst years, maybe it was the lockout. He had averaged 8+ assists the year before and the year after (this year).

* One year from Gilbert Arenas (it wasn't a recurring trend). He averaged 6-7 assists the following two years, then he got hurt and sucked. We'll never know what his production would have been like over a sustained period, since he was only good for a 3-4 year span. He also played with Butler and Hughes, players who averaged 3-4 assists themselves. My guess is that if you stuck Arenas with one-dimensional SF/SGs (who one couldn't run offense though), like Korver or Marvin Williams, then Arenas would have averaged 1.5 - 2 more assists.

* One year from Mike Bibby (they later got Artest and ran the offense through him, and he averaged averaged 4.2 assists, while Brad Miller averaged 4.7 assists, and the Kings ranked 5th in team assists, so they were getting a lot of assists from their system)

* Iverson (I was a little surprised at this one, but then I looked at his career. He started getting a lot more assists, 7+ for a few years, from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008, a span of 5 years. So those Philly teams earlier in his career were probably not that good offensively (and that's true, they had a washed up offensively Mutombo, and Eric Snow, and a young Raja Bell and young Harpring). When he had slightly better players like Van Horn and Webber and Iguodala, his assists went up. As well as those Denver teams, which were better offensively than those early Philly teams.)

* Sidney Moncrief, but he looks to be the PG in name only. Paul Pressey averaged 6-8 assists for those Bucks teams in all of the years that Moncrief played. So they appeared to run their offense through Pressey, even though he was a SG/SF.


So a lot of these players who averaged less than 6 assists appeared to have outlier seasons (Westbrook, Arenas). Or players who played with SF/SFs who the offense was run though more, thus diminishing the PG's responsibilities. Those SG/SFs (or C in the Brad Miller case) had the offense run through them. The PG didn't need to create every play, those other guys would do it about 1/2 the time too.

I have a feeling Batum this year averages 3+ assists, based on how I've seen him used. They run the offense through him in the post more. Let me check.

Ok, I looked it up, Batum averages 4.5 assists. I wonder if Lillard can average more than 8.2 assists if they keep Batum's role the same in future years. Not that I'm too concerned about their offense, they're 12th in offense and given their talent level that's pretty good, but 24th in defense and 18th in rebounding, so I would say they need their backcourt to rebound more, as they only combine for 6 boards a game, which is pathetic.

 

[nuraman00]

I know there are some PGs on the low end like Aaron Brooks or Jameer Nelson (who is averaging a career high in assists this year with 7.0 but has been a 5 apg player for most of his career), but I'm wondering how an average to above average PG across the modern era to the previous era compares.

There have also been players who just weren't good at scoring or assisting, like Steve Blake, in his prime.

I don't think they're too different, and I'm seeing players like Vazquez (9.1 assists per game), Calderon, Wall, Rondo, Paul, Williams, Miller, Parker, Lillard (for a rookie), Rubio who are great at assists, and then Irving, Lawson, who might get better, might not, have to see in a few years.

Comparing that to PGs from a previous era like Strickland, Porter, Mark Jackson, Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway, Penny Hardaway, Mark Price, Kenny Anderson. Even guys like Marbury and Damon Stoudamire would average 7-9 assists.

I am trying to keep HOFs like Stockton, Kidd, and Payton out of this, as I think this discussion was more about an average to above average PG trend.

But again, why don't you create some benchmarks for scoring or assists or usage rate (What % of possessions you looked to score) and how you want to define eras, and we can see how many PGs fit your criteria of what you want, and what you don't want. And again, I prefer to exclude the top 2-3 HOFs because a "trend" typically doesn't include them but the "other guys".

And then we can see if some of the PGs were indeed the sole ballhandlers, or whether there was a situation like that Bucks one or like playing with Kobe Bryant, where there is just a dominant other player that has the offense run through him.

 

[MHSL82]

Is it really?

Yes, I'm talking about how PGs are valued and are given the respect. People want their PGs to score points or else they are minimized in the discussion. Even if not great, more so now than before. If Deron averaged 14 points and 2.5 more assists, I believe he would have had less attention despite contributing the same points.

Take away Stockton...

No, thank you.

[C]ompare 15 PGs from the modern era to the previous era, however you want to define it.

I also think if you score more than 20, you'll have more than 5 assists. Just because you're handling the ball so much, you'll get more than 5.

I forgot that you take things so literally. 5 assists to me means less than 10. I know it's rare, but I want a 8-10 apg PG. Deron was that. We might never have one, but that to me is the goal. It might not happen often, but if this weren't a scoring-oriented league, it would be more likely to happen. I say this because the PG who can score more will be chosen over the one who can get more assists. These aren't mutually exclusive, of course, but I'd be looking for the big assist guy. One caveat, though, you need a good system and teammates to get assists - so it is a bit of chicken and the egg, but it doesn't prevent having the pass first PG first.

To clarify, I wouldn't pass down a Deron type of scorer who had Deron's assists, too, but I would draft the best assist man I could who has vision, selflessness, etc., even if I doubted his scoring pedigree (though shooting percentage would be important). Hard to find, but possible to emphasize.

Here are all guards 6'3 or shorter who averaged more than 20 but less than 6 assists:

Player Season Finder | Basketball-Reference.com

Scanning the list, there's not many players.

* A rookie Kyrie Irving

* Monta Ellis, who shares the court with Curry and Lee (averages 3+ assists himself)

* Westbrook in one of his worst years, maybe it was the lockout. He had averaged 8+ assists the year before and the year after (this year).

* One year from Gilbert Arenas (it wasn't a recurring trend). He averaged 6-7 assists the following two years, then he got hurt and sucked. We'll never know what his production would have been like over a sustained period, since he was only good for a 3-4 year span. He also played with Butler and Hughes, players who averaged 3-4 assists themselves. My guess is that if you stuck Arenas with one-dimensional SF/SGs (who one couldn't run offense though), like Korver or Marvin Williams, then Arenas would have averaged 1.5 - 2 more assists.

* One year from Mike Bibby (they later got Artest and ran the offense through him, and he averaged averaged 4.2 assists, while Brad Miller averaged 4.7 assists, and the Kings ranked 5th in team assists, so they were getting a lot of assists from their system)

* Iverson (I was a little surprised at this one, but then I looked at his career. He started getting a lot more assists, 7+ for a few years, from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008, a span of 5 years. So those Philly teams earlier in his career were probably not that good offensively (and that's true, they had a washed up offensively Mutombo, and Eric Snow, and a young Raja Bell and young Harpring). When he had slightly better players like Van Horn and Webber and Iguodala, his assists went up. As well as those Denver teams, which were better offensively than those early Philly teams.)

* Sidney Moncrief, but he looks to be the PG in name only. Paul Pressey averaged 6-8 assists for those Bucks teams in all of the years that Moncrief played. So they appeared to run their offense through Pressey, even though he was a SG/SF.


So a lot of these players who averaged less than 6 assists appeared to have outlier seasons (Westbrook, Arenas). Or players who played with SF/SFs who the offense was run though more, thus diminishing the PG's responsibilities. Those SG/SFs (or C in the Brad Miller case) had the offense run through them. The PG didn't need to create every play, those other guys would do it about 1/2 the time too.

I have a feeling Batum this year averages 3+ assists, based on how I've seen him used. They run the offense through him in the post more. Let me check.

Ok, I looked it up, Batum averages 4.5 assists. I wonder if Lillard can average more than 8.2 assists if they keep Batum's role the same in future years. Not that I'm too concerned about their offense, they're 12th in offense and given their talent level that's pretty good, but 24th in defense and 18th in rebounding, so I would say they need their backcourt to rebound more, as they only combine for 6 boards a game, which is pathetic.

I think to understand my point of view, you have to understand my personality. Basketball-wise, I know I'm not sound. I like there to be an assist guy and a scorer. Stockton and Malone. I'm an individual guy, not so much a team guy. But rather than being an AI fan, my individual stat is assists. That's the type of PG I would be if I were to play. I'd be the passing QB, not the dual threat or running QB - even though I understand the benefit of being 2 dimensional.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a team guy when it comes to winning. The Jazz won because they were playing like a team. I think assists is the team-oriented stat. If you can get an assist, it involves others and may be contagious. If you score, it helps but people might start watching. So I guess, it's not just assists, it's distributing the ball.

It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I can't really say "getting assists is better" because that presumes points are scored. Whereas saying shoot-first implies that there are some misses. If you pass down shots that are open just to pass the ball, that could hurt your team if they don't score. Not passing up the shot would have been better. If you can't shoot or are unwilling, that hurts your team. So shooting well and opportunistically, is important.

 

[nuraman00]

* Do you think Lebron James is a PG?

He might have averaged 8+ assists only once, but I do, based on how he plays and the decisions he makes.

* I think shoot-first should come with a clear explanation that the player is a lower efficiency shooter. Because if a PG is a 48-52% FG shooter, and he has range, then he should be a more featured part of the offense.

Here's an imperfect example: For several years (not sure about the recent years), Tony Parker was a top 5 scorer for points in the paint. That is comparing him to all players, bigs and guards. Because he was so good around the paint (and had a good FG%), I think he should have been used the way he was, because he's one of the better options on the team.

Plus, taking into account their system, it opens up all of the 3's the the Spurs would hit. The Spurs have always been one of the top 3-point % and 3-point making teams. A team like the Jazz, for example, haven't been. So because the 3-pointer is so important to the Spurs, they need to draw the defense into the paint in as many ways possible, whether it's through Duncan, Parker, or Ginobili. Parker's drives into the paint open things for their shooters like Bonner, Stephen Jackson, Roger Mason, Hedo, Brent Barry, Bowen, Ginobili, Kerr.

So again in Parker's case, he should keep driving because he's a high efficiency shot-maker in the paint, and it opens things up for the Spurs shooters.

I also think in the Jazz case, you're used to seeing one-dimensional SF and SGs who you can't run the offense through.

If a pass-first PG played with someone like Wade or Pierce or Bryant or seemingly Batum (although this is only the first year he's played like this), as well as with a PF, then the PG probably wouldn't get 8 assists a game.

So in this case, it's not that the PG is a dual threat, it's that there's an alternate threat on the team that the offense is also run through.

I'm just pointing this out since you said you look at the individual PGs assists, so I'm pointing out sometimes there are other factors as to why the PG doesn't get more assists, such as having another threat to run the offense through.

In Portland's case, I see that Terry Porter averaged 9-10 assists for a few years, while playing with Drexler. But in 1992, the 2nd year they went to the Finals, Porter averaged 5.8 assists and Drexler averaged 6.7 assists. It seems that the offense started running through Drexler more, instead of the just the PG. How would you feel about the type of system that Adelman used in Portland, with multiple threats running the offense and generating assists, or like what he did in Sacramento where Webber, Divac, Brad Miller, Doug Christie all averaged 4+ assists along with PG? In both of Adelman's stops, Portland and Sacramento, they had great team assists, but not from an individual player.

Or, what about in 1986, where Drexler averaged 8.0 assists, as Portland was transitioning from Darnell Valentine to Terry Porter? It wasn't for a lack of Porter's ability, as he showed in future years he was a constant 9+ assist guy. But at that point in time, they felt Drexler was their best playmaker, and that Porter was still too young to take the reigns, so they ran it through Drexler.

Nash may be averaging 8.8 assists this year, but it's taking playing at an incredible pace to get those assists. If the Lakers played at a moderate pace, I doubt he'd be getting 8 assists a game because of how much Bryant and Gasol have the offense run through them.

The year Stockton averaged 14.5 assists, he played on one of the slowest offenses, he could have gotten a little more of the Jazz had wanted to play faster.


I like bigs who get assists, so I always notice when one gets 3-5 assists or even more.


As for the 10apg benchmark, I think it's rare in any era to have 10apg players. Kidd only did it 3 times, so he would probably be ruled out. I think it's just hard to get 10apg, and you know Kidd tried. I'm sure there were many factors that kept him from getting that. Maybe some of it was the Nets lack of talent. The years the Nets went to the Finals, they were still terrible offensive teams, ranking 18th or worse. They were bottom 22 in some of the other years. They were good because of their defense. They had the #1 defense or top 5 some of those years.

Here are players that have done it 4 or more times:

Stockton
Magic
Nash
Oscar
Kevin Johnson
Isiah Thomas
Deron

You're only looking at 3 per era or so anyways, and you're looking at a less alive era from 1967 - 1983 in terms of someone who could repeatedly do it (Oscar-->Magic).

Rondo will probably have a 4th season in his career, he's on his 3rd.

Chris Paul could too. He had 3 such seasons, and he could have 10 assists this year, he has 9, but because of the Clippers blowouts, he's playing 3 less minutes per game than he ever has in any season.


So I think trying to draft a player who a GM thinks could get 10apg is hard, because so few exist. Even the ones who tried like Kidd or Mark Jackson couldn't do it more often. Terry Porter has several seasons with 9+ assists, and he probably would have had a a few 10+ assist seasons if he didn't play in Portland's system with Drexler constantly averaging 5+ assists and all their teamwide passing.

I'm surprised Isiah Thomas has 4 seasons.

Some guy named Kevin Porter had 3 such seasons in the 70s.

Kevin Porter NBA & ABA Stats | Basketball-Reference.com



I personally think Calderon could have done it a few times if he played on a superb defensive team that could mask his defensive weakness. Calderon was a FA though, not a draft pick. And I'm not surprised he went to Toronto, as an international city like that probably suits his lifestyle preferences more. Calderon doesn't play as many minutes as other PGs because of his defense, he gets subbed out. But I think you know the way he plays.



I also think GMs do try to find such PGs, but sometimes they don't or won't translate at the NBA level.

For example, have you heard of Jared Jordan? He was the Clippers draft pick in 2009. He averaged 8.8 assists in college his one year. He never played a NBA minute.

I'm sure the team wanted him to succeed, but he must have done so poorly in summer league and training camp that they had to cut him. But if he was good enough, another team would have signed him, right? He never got another contract offer. Again, I think given his skillset of assists, teams would have liked to see him succeed, but for whatever reason, it didn't translate. He was drafted, so therefore he was valued, right?

I think that Rondo has been valued for his assists. Rondo was the first PG drafted in 2006, and it wasn't for his shooting. He wasn't drafted very high though, as bigs were drafted first, or Brandon Roy, etc. Size usually edges out, whether right or wrong.

I think Rubio has been valued for his assists. That's what made him a prospect in the first place. And during the Olympics in 2008, that's what the nation wanted to see on the big stage, how Rubio would play for Spain, especially in the Gold Medal game. He was one of the anticipated players to watch for on that Spanish team.

If you look at Rubio's Adidas commercial, all of the highlights are passing.

Marc Stein refers to Vazques as Passquez every week in his Power Rankings, hence showing his valuing of assists.

Remember Shaun Livingston? He was another HS PG prospect who was drafted with the 4th pick in 2004 for his passing. He just didn't develop within his first 4 years, then suffered a major injury in 2007 which has now kept him to 3rd string status who gets cut every midseason.

I also think Telfair was drafted out of HS for his passing ability, but he just couldn't play at the NBA level. A short PG, who also couldn't shoot, it just didn't work out.

I think there are a lot of prospects who people think could be good but just can't do it at the NBA level. Or they get hurt.

Bobby Hurley was drafted for his passing, and averaged 6.1 assists in 26 mins his rookie year, but then got hit by a drunk driver 19 games into the season and his career was never the same after that.

It appears that there's a few players who people thought could be good assisters either got hurt, couldn't play at the NBA level, or just weren't 10apg good. It's rare for them to get that good.


I think you're correlating PGs having less assists with having more points, but they could be having less assists than before (how hard it is to get 10+ assists) and they could be scoring less too.

That's why I suggested looking at an average PG in an era instead of a top one, to see if there is a trend.

But you also explained how you feel the perception toward PGs is too. In which case I can't quantify a perception about attitudes.

 

[nuraman00]

So what I'm seeing is that you have PGs that averaged 10apg once or twice, but not more than that.

So if they did it once or twice, why couldn't they do it again?

I don't think it's because they changed their mentality. The PGs that could reach this, had to have been pass-first.

So there must be other factors that contributed to each unique case.

For example, with Jose Calderon, I've brought up his Assist % before, but I know you don't like it when I use that. But what I'm trying to show is that because his assist % is high, that he has the same mentality as other pass-first PGs. But his case, he's not able to get 10apg, partially because they have to take him off the floor for defense. He plays less minutes, because he's a defensive liability.

Calderon shoots even less than Stockton did, for example.

Mark Price and Terrell Brandon were other PGs who averaged a lot of assists, but not quite 10. Price only had 2 seasons with 9+, 9.1 and 10.4. And he shot about the same amount as Stockton. I think Price had the same kind of pass-first mentality, but just because he didn't average 10apg+, doesn't mean he was more of a shoot-first either.

With other players, maybe the team changed schemes a little, or brought in another player to run the offense through, such as a SG or SF.

Maybe those other teams took more 3's. The PG is the least likely to get an assist on a 3-pointer, unless it's a player that can hit 3's coming off screens (Ray Allen, Stojakovic, Reggie Miller, Korver). But most 3-point shooters are catch-and-shoot players. For those players, a big man or SF/SG is most likely to get an assist, because the ball was in the paint, and one of them kicked it back out to a 3-point shooter.

The Jazz rarely attempted 3's, ranking worse than 20s in most of the Stockton years (and many years in the 27-29 range).

The Spurs, meanwhile, attempt a lot of 3's, many years in the top 10.

Maybe the team is blowout out a lot of teams, and thus the PG plays less minutes. I've mentioned that the Jazz rarely had a top record in the Stockton years, which is partially why he or Malone didn't get more MVP consideration, and why Sloan didn't get more Coach Of The Year recognition.

So the Jazz were likely in closer games, and thus needed more from their PGs.

Chris Paul this year, for example, averages 3 less minutes than normal, and the Clippers have one of the best point-differentials, +9.6. A quick scan at the Jazz reveals they only had 7+ once, in 1997 (+9.6).

You also mentioned that the Jazz never had a legit backup for Stockton.

The Clippers have Bledsoe and Crawford, and soon Billups too, who can play PG.

Ok, Paul shoots a little more in the 4th, but that's because Griffin and Jordan can't be counted on, and they can't make FTs either, so Paul shooting is the best option for the way they run the team. Although I think a better coach could run different sets so other players could get good shots too. But those other players wouldn't create an assist for the PG in my way, it would be more about big to big passing, like Odom to Griffin. Just like Boozer to Noah or Noah to Boozer in Chicago.

That brings up another idea. What if the Jazz had two bigs that could pass to each other, like other teams have had (Grizzlies, Hawks, Bulls, Spurs with Duncan to Robinson, etc.)? That's just another way one could run the offense, rather than through the PG.

None of this is taking away from Stockton, but rather trying to examine why other PGs haven't done 10apg more often.

As this discussion is more about PGs in general.


And maybe it doesn't happen more often just because. I've mentioned that I don't think Tinsley could get 10apg even if he tried. When watching how the offense works, it just doesn't look like he could get that many, and he is averaging 5.25 FGAs in his 12 starts. So he's shooting even less than a Stockton, for example. With barely any FTAs either, lol.


So from my observations from watching other teams, sometimes I see PGs with a similar passing mentality, yet they still don't seem capable of averaging 10apg. And they're not shooting much either, about the same, or in Tinsley's case, less than a Stockton. I think some of it is about the Jazz schemes. (I don't think it's the same Flex offense as the Sloan one.) And maybe Hayward takes on more of a creator role than Hornacek.

So there must be other reasons why it's so hard to do. I've listed some possible ones. It could be a combination of a lot of things. I don't think teammates make that much of a difference, whether good ones or bad ones. But schemes do (such as having a SF/SF to run the offense through, instead of SG/SF/PF as finishers only).

So I don't think it's from a lack of trying to get assists, but for whatever reasons, it just doesn't seem to happen. Because I'm seeing PGs that don't shoot much, but also don't get 10apg either (while playing decent minutes), and I think they have the right mentality to try and get 10 apg.

Again, this post is more about whether PGs have the same mentality as other pass-first, and I think they do, even if they don't average 10apg. Because some of these guys, I think they're making the right decision, and also not shooting much, when I watch them play.

 

[MHSL82]

Seriously speaking, if sackataters and I switched usernames without telling you but continued to write in our styles (but not about the same things as we normally do - i.e. no Alex Smith rants from me posting as sackataters), how long would it take for you to tell the difference?

Same question, but assume we were trying to fool you. Sackataters (posting as MHSL82) would be pumping up Jeremy Lin and Alex Smith and I would be talking about ghost towns and Mo Williams over Tinsley. Sackataters (as MHSL82) would be writing long, sometimes statistic gibberish that aren't that sound and heavily based upon opinion and with always the conclusion that he wants John Stockton PGs. How long?

 

[nuraman00]

Jumeax
I put Stockton Hgiher than Kobe
Kobe is volume, consistency and longevity
But the the highest ranked all-time stat he has is 2nd all time missed shots
(more than any of the other top 10 all time scorers)

Stockton (who went to College)
Has a ridiculousl lead in all time Assists
All time Steals Leader
thas two #1
and had career 51.5 FG%

If in some parrellet universe stockton had been transported trhough time and played with Shaq
in Shaq's time,
that would have been a Nightmare
less
2 fans like this.

 

[MHSL82]

Jumeax
I put Stockton Hgiher than Kobe
Kobe is volume, consistency and longevity
But the the highest ranked all-time stat he has is 2nd all time missed shots
(more than any of the other top 10 all time scorers)

Stockton (who went to College)
Has a ridiculousl lead in all time Assists
All time Steals Leader
thas two #1
and had career 51.5 FG%

If in some parrellet universe stockton had been transported trhough time and played with Shaq
in Shaq's time,
that would have been a Nightmare
less
2 fans like this.

Interesting, I like to separate players into position and not compare overall, but I give the nod to Jordan, even though I love Stockton's game and hate Jordan's pushoff and wins over us. I did like him because of his name. I liked Michael Jackson because of his face, just kidding, I don't look like him.

 

[MHSL82]

Darn lockout year! Stockton would have over 16,000 assists if not for that.

But look at the numbers after his knee surgery - they go from 10.5 (pre-surgery) to 8.5 (after surgery) to 7.5 assists (lockout). Maybe if he hadn't had the knee problem it would have been 10.5 to 10.0 to 9.5, etc.

Yes, I know, what if Magic didn't have HIV/AIDS, etc. (Not singling out Magic, just acknowledging that I know that others have illnesses and injuries that affect their career. It goes for points, too - what if Jordan's father wasn't killed. Chamberlain said he wouldn't have retired if he thought someone would catch his record. What if he were more paranoid? We wouldn't have seen the 8 assists per game season, just more of the scoring.) Not interested in comparisons, just wondering how the total numbers would change.

 

[nuraman00]

Shanemansj13, I don't know if you're still checking this thread, but one incident from the Cavs still bugs me.

Ilguskas made the All-Star game in 2003. Yet he only played 3 minutes, 57 seconds.

Someone made a comment that maybe it was because East All-Star coach held a grudge from some Pistons-Cavs rivalry.

But that was a huge injustice. All the injuries Ilgauskas went through, he finally makes a ASG, and plays the least amount of minutes I've ever seen anyone healthy play. (Sometimes a player will be banged up and request to not play much, but that wasn't the case with him).

I wanted to see him have his moment at the ASG.

Also, do you have any fun memories from Daughtery-Malone or Price-Stockton matchups?

 

[Shanemansj13]

Shanemansj13, I don't know if you're still checking this thread, but one incident from the Cavs still bugs me.

Ilguskas made the All-Star game in 2003. Yet he only played 3 minutes, 57 seconds.

Someone made a comment that maybe it was because East All-Star coach held a grudge from some Pistons-Cavs rivalry.

But that was a huge injustice. All the injuries Ilgauskas went through, he finally makes a ASG, and plays the least amount of minutes I've ever seen anyone healthy play. (Sometimes a player will be banged up and request to not play much, but that wasn't the case with him).

I wanted to see him have his moment at the ASG.

Also, do you have any fun memories from Daughtery-Malone or Price-Stockton matchups?

IMO, Ilgauskas had other seasons where he got jipped. And he has had foot problems his whole career, but still a very good career. I agree, I thought he shOuld hVe his time with all his hard work.

I grew up in 90's. I don't remember Daughtry and Price too much. I remember The Mailman and Stockton always playn Jordan and the Bulls in the Finals. I remember always cheering for the Jazz with Hornacek, Russell, and those guys. I hated MJ. But I grew up watching Shawn Kemp, Ilgauskas, Danny Ferry, etc.

I was probably to young to the greats Price and Daughtry in their prime.

 

[nuraman00]

IMO, Ilgauskas had other seasons where he got jipped. And he has had foot problems his whole career, but still a very good career. I agree, I thought he shOuld hVe his time with all his hard work.

I grew up in 90's. I don't remember Daughtry and Price too much. I remember The Mailman and Stockton always playn Jordan and the Bulls in the Finals. I remember always cheering for the Jazz with Hornacek, Russell, and those guys. I hated MJ. But I grew up watching Shawn Kemp, Ilgauskas, Danny Ferry, etc.

I was probably to young to the greats Price and Daughtry in their prime.

Thanks.

Yeah he had foot problems early in his career, from from about 2003 and later, he remained very healthy.

 

[MHSL82]

Here are Stockton's worst streaks (most of them lasted only 2-3 games:

0-8 (0%) in '87 and '90.
1-12 (8.3%) in a '99 playoff win (14 assists and 12 points)
2-15 (13.3%) in '01.
2-14 (14.3%) in '99
3-18 (16.7%) in '97
4-22 (18.2%) in '96
3-16 (18.8%) in '99
4-21 (19.0%) in '92
4-20 (20.0%) in '01
6-29 (20.7%) in '96
5-21 (23.8%) in '03
8-32 (25.0%) in '92
4-15 (26.7%) in '98, '00, '01
6-22 (27.3%) in '93
6-21 (28.6%) in '00
8-27 (29.6%) in '00
7-22 (31.8%) in '94
9-25 (36.0%) in '02

As you can tell, Stockton never had an extended streak of bad shooting games, as his worst over 30 is 25% and the worst over 25 is 20.7%. All of the ones we have in the previous threads are 40+ shots. So if I add the game after the worst extended streak, that leads to 16-46, which is 34.8%. Or the game before the worst extended streak, it would be 14-42 (33.3%). In the 6-29 streak, he shot 11-12 right before the streak, which would make it 17-41 (41.5%) and 5-11 after the streak, which would make that 11-40 (27.5%).

Stockton shot 50% or greater in 60.4% of his games. Granted he didn't shoot a lot and a lot of the games were right at 50%. That's impressive to me. Not sure where to rank this as I haven't done this for anyone else. I imagine Shaq is higher and other centers, but for a PG, this has to be high. His best season for 50% or over games was his fourth season with 61 games meeting that criteria. His low was the lockout year at 26/50 games.

 

[MHSL82]

Here are Stockton's worst streaks (most of them lasted only 2-3 games:

0-8 (0%) in '87 and '90.
1-12 (8.3%) in a '99 playoff win (14 assists and 12 points)
2-15 (13.3%) in '01.
2-14 (14.3%) in '99
3-18 (16.7%) in '97
4-22 (18.2%) in '96
3-16 (18.8%) in '99
4-21 (19.0%) in '92
4-20 (20.0%) in '01
6-29 (20.7%) in '96
5-21 (23.8%) in '03
8-32 (25.0%) in '92
4-15 (26.7%) in '98, '00, '01
6-22 (27.3%) in '93
6-21 (28.6%) in '00
8-27 (29.6%) in '00
7-22 (31.8%) in '94
9-25 (36.0%) in '02

As you can tell, Stockton never had an extended streak of bad shooting games, as his worst over 30 is 25% and the worst over 25 is 20.7%. All of the ones we have in the previous threads are 40+ shots. So if I add the game after the worst extended streak, that leads to 16-46, which is 34.8%. Or the game before the worst extended streak, it would be 14-42 (33.3%). In the 6-29 streak, he shot 11-12 right before the streak, which would make it 17-41 (41.5%) and 5-11 after the streak, which would make that 11-40 (27.5%).

Stockton shot 50% or greater in 60.4% of his games. Granted he didn't shoot a lot and a lot of the games were right at 50%. That's impressive to me. Not sure where to rank this as I haven't done this for anyone else. I imagine Shaq is higher and other centers, but for a PG, this has to be high. His best season for 50% or over games was his fourth season with 61 games meeting that criteria. His low was the lockout year at 26/50 games.

 

[MHSL82]

Not that I'm advocating Twitter, but isn't posting on Facebook posting in outer space too?

You could essentially have a similar network on Twitter as on FB, but add a few more people who you know on an online-basis only.

I'm maxed out between here and the Niners board and Facebook. I mean, I prefer talking to people I know, I've made an exception for this and the Niners message board because I feel it's a set number of regulars. People come and go, but a certain few will stay for a long time. That's true for twitter, but I don't like the format - as you can tell, I post loooong sometimes.

I get to know people here without having to "know" them. I've only really known you outside of it, because I typically want anonymity. But I have posted before the same things here as Facebook, so if someone cared they could figure it out if I post on a team page. For example, if I posted Hayward's streak on the Utah Jazz's Facebook and here, all you'd have to do is be subscribed to both and remember what you've read (and read things regularly, I suppose). I know Clintonite's name based upon the John Stockton Day article, for example. But I haven't looked him up because that's a bit stockerish, unless we talked all the time anyway.

If you're going to Twitter and you're asking me to join, sure, I'll do it, but I can't promise you that I will post there as often or more than here. 140 characters?

 

[nuraman00]

I'm maxed out between here and the Niners board and Facebook. I mean, I prefer talking to people I know, I've made an exception for this and the Niners message board because I feel it's a set number of regulars. People come and go, but a certain few will stay for a long time. That's true for twitter, but I don't like the format - as you can tell, I post loooong sometimes.

I get to know people here without having to "know" them. I've only really known you outside of it, because I typically want anonymity. But I have posted before the same things here as Facebook, so if someone cared they could figure it out if I post on a team page. For example, if I posted Hayward's streak on the Utah Jazz's Facebook and here, all you'd have to do is be subscribed to both and remember what you've read (and read things regularly, I suppose). I know Clintonite's name based upon the John Stockton Day article, for example. But I haven't looked him up because that's a bit stockerish, unless we talked all the time anyway.

If you're going to Twitter and you're asking me to join, sure, I'll do it, but I can't promise you that I will post there as often or more than here. 140 characters?

No, I'm not asking you to join. Nor am I joining. I agree that I don't have time to check it, between message boards, and other forms of communication. And I don't like the format, as you're limited to 140 characters per post/tweet.

I just thought that posting on FB with some frequency was similar to posting on Twitter, in that both were broadcast to a murky set of viewers in "outer space". Also your phrase "outer space" just brought up some good/funny imagery. Just like your "man of steel" reference a few weeks ago.

So phrases like that deserve a "good post", or a thread bump.

Whenever Clintoninte33 and BlueMoon_76 meet up, they scheme of ways to get me on Twitter. They say they spend 1/2 their time talking about that.

 

[MHSL82]

There is the supposition or legend that no one goes on to have any success after they leave the Jazz organization. For the most part, I think there is some credence to this idea. However, there are a few former Jazzmen out there right now doing okay. I was trying to decide if anyone is actually playing better in their career now. Korver seems to be doing really well. I think his 3 percentage is actually lower as a Hawk, but he seems to be having success. Boozers stats are down, but he hasn't been nearly as fragile as a Bull. Going back through history, wondering who the contenders are.

I would amend the legend that those who excelled here, did so because of Stockton and Malone taking the attention away from them, the role modelling of the work ethic, etc. Sloan had more control, he had more flexibility on who to choose, and didn't have a youth movement going on/rebuilding. Only those with higher expectations left and not having what they had here, they didn't do as well. Or they weren't good here and we removed them.

Yes, and the system here made average or below average players better. That'd still go with current and recent players, but we've changed due to what I said above.