The John Stockton Thread

[nuraman00]

I see you left out Stockton. So DON'T CORRECT ME (!!!), but:

Stockton > Robertson/Kidd > Magic/Payton

Just kidding. I like Stockton best and would pick him because of my loyalties, but I don't argue about it with anyone. Because I don't like people tearing down Stockton to make someone else better, whatever they think, I just say, "ok". (And no, this is not how I would be in a courtroom. "Not guilty." "Ok, we're dropping the charges.")

I didn't leave out Stockton. It's just you brought up Magic. So I was showing where I ranked him.

I didn't rank Magic as one of the best ever. It had nothing to do with Stockton, I didn't even comment on him.

 

[nuraman00]

Stockton is one of the greatest PGs, because he was a two-way player. He was dirty, but I liked that.

During the last Payton-Stockton game, in 2002-2003, Stockton had two memorable plays:

1. He shoved Payton out of bounds, away from the ball. He got called for the foul. He was pissed that he was caught.

2. He elbowed Payton in the Adam's apple. Payton went down and hit the floor. The refs stopped play to "mop the floor". I couldn't believe that A) A foul wasn't called and B) It wasn't even a medical timeout, but a referee's timeout (an allegedly wet floor).

Stockton was a good shooter, he could shoot from anywhere. And unlike some PGs like Hinrich or Bibby, Stockton could also make layups.

In Kidd's prime, I would rank Kidd as better. Especially his defense.

The Nets went from 29th in defense in 2000-2001 to 1st in 2001-2002, when they got Kidd.

But Kidd hasn't been that good of a defender since 2006-2007, IMO. Before joining the Mavs. He can be decent in spurts, but not for full time.

Stockton was still a good defender, until the day he retired.


Then, you have to factor in Stockton's shooting vs. Kidd's rebounding. Which do you prefer? That's subjective. Rebounds create possessions, but Stockton's shooting was good too.

Rondo has a similar profile to Kidd, but is a better shotmaker.

Magic was a skilled offensive player, and good rebounder, but not a good defensive player.

Stockton had a high turnover rate, but his turnovers don't bother me like Nash's.

Mark Price was another good PG, I don't know where to rank him.

Iverson was another good one, just never had a good supporting cast. Definitely less so than most of his peers I mentioned.

Tony Parker is another good one. If he played in another system, he could rack up more assists. But the Spurs ball movement eats into some of his assists, as well as playing with guys like Ginobili, Barry, Diaw, Jackson.

I can't speak for Robertson's defense, but as an offensive player, he appears complete

Terry Porter and Rod Strickland were also good.

Baron Davis, in Charlotte, was also good.


So in terms of two-way players, I'm thinking Stockton, Kidd, Payton, Iverson, I'll add Robertson. I think Strickland and Andre Miller also used their height and length well on defense. Billups, probably one of the best at chasing guys through screens with his defense. Billups didn't have the consistency of others overall, but he could be as good as anyone in his own way. Baron, but only the Charlotte version.

I don't want to put Thomas in that two-way group, I think his size probably hurt.

I'll put Paul as a two-way player, his defense is better than I thought. I think Paul plays too slow sometimes. It helps him have an insane turnover rate, but those other players could play both uptempo and halfcourt better. Paul isn't as good in a really fast offense.

I know Thomas got steals, but I would still rate Iverson and Paul as better positional defenders.

 

[MHSL82]

I didn't leave out Stockton. It's just you brought up Magic. So I was showing where I ranked him.

I didn't rank Magic as one of the best ever. It had nothing to do with Stockton, I didn't even comment on him.

I'm afraid about where you'd rank Stockton, so I must refrain from asking. I don't want our friendship to suffer. I'll just assume you agree that he was good at passing the ball - with no comparisons or qualifiers - and I'll consider that a win, good enough for me. And, yes, I know he was dirty at times.

 

[nuraman00]

I'm afraid about where you'd rank Stockton, so I must refrain from asking. I don't want our friendship to suffer. I'll just assume you agree that he was good at passing the ball - with no comparisons or qualifiers - and I'll consider that a win, good enough for me. And, yes, I know he was dirty at times.

I answered your post anyways (right before you posted this).

 

[nuraman00]

I think usage rate is relevant, but that to me, lends to Malone being a more powerful PF. Coaches use their players a certain number of minutes, give them a certain number of touches, run and design plays through them, based in part by their skill level and value to their team and system. The fact that Malone had a higher usage rate speaks more to me as the best PF. The fact that Duncan was positioned for more rebounds, the player he often guards, etc. makes me think that Duncan is a better center, due to his height and rebounding skills. PFs can and do rebound, but when you are 7 foot and are being heralded for your rebounds and blocks, that to me speaks "center" - at least on the defensive end. Duncan was a PF on offense, but like a center on defense. Not his fault and he did well as such, but after Robinson left, he seemed to shift on defense. Duncan is difficult to defend because along with the close to the basket shots centers get, he also has a jumpshot (though Malone was better IMO), and had the best bankshot.

I don't mind him being rated high and being in the discussion as best; heck, I wouldn't mind someone coming out and just saying that he was better than Malone and state reasons besides "leadership" and team achievements. I just don't like the gushing and what, to me, seems to be somewhat incomplete - to just say he's the best without mentioning Malone or others and reasons.

I guess what got to me is that over the past year, I've heard people on TV and radio, stating it like they state that Jordan is the best ever. I know this isn't you, it's just tiring to me and I don't agree. But disagreement with me is ok if I feel that it's stated in a non-excited, non-matter of fact way.

Duncan's usage rate was higher before Ginobili, in general.

So I think if it was just Parker and Duncan, sort of like Stockton and Malone, then Duncan would have had a few more touches, thus driving up his scoring per game a little more.

 

[nuraman00]

Also, what about my post where I did talk about Stockton? Thoughts? You were thirsty for that one.

 

[MHSL82]

Posts #s 34, 37, 38 - not quoted for sake of brevity.

Why you gotta poke holes in my argument with stupid "facts" and "objectivity", man? Duncan, to me, is a center who can and does shoot from anywhere inside the three point line. I think he plays and is used like a power forward, but it's like a QB who runs like a runningback is still a QB despite his skill and use of his legs.

As to minutes, I am probably alone here, I think that's like usage rate, where part of the minutes played is due to the player's durability, role in the offense, reliability when others would be tired, the quality of backup, hack a Shaq, etc. Bear with me, because I feel this will be hard to explain what I mean. I hate the 36 minutes stat because I think you make your money in the minutes after 36, too. I understand that it's a rate - it doesn't literally mean the first 36 minutes, but I'll explain why I don't like it, despite it being a legitimate method. Again, bear with me.

Presumably, players are less effective the more tired they could be, as in the minutes before being subbed out and in the waning minutes of a game (as accumulated time takes a toll). Taking a player out at 2 minutes left of the quarter is different than taking them out at the 4 minute mark. If one player's substitution pattern removes him at the 4 minute mark because he's less durable physically or less effective or more foul prone, his rate of when he is in would be artificially higher than if he had played those last two minutes tired. The difference between Malone and Duncan's minutes is so small that I don't think it changes anything, because no coach is going to take a player out a quarter of 2 minutes (30 seconds) earlier because of concerns for efficiency and Duncan's in great shape, too; so this is a moot point, but since you cite the 1.9 minutes as a factor, I'll address it here.

I think physical and mental stamina are important in an all-encompassing comparison. Duncan and Malone are very similar in this regard, but when comparing everybody, this stands out for Malone. I think it's part of what made him great. Malone's physique allowed him to be more efficient in the minutes before substitution or took him longer to get spent than others. But compared to the fresh minutes, it took a toll I bet. I'm not comparing him to Duncan here, just in general. Rates are great, but while these rates suffer as the legs lose their freshness, those who are in great physical shape are effected less in the last minutes than others - but still affected.

The fact is, the coaches didn't use the two players equally and acting like they did would be like me inflating Alex Smith's numbers by saying "if he threw as much as Tom Brady..." Some nuttier Smith fans have done that, ignoring the fact that defenses would defend differently if Smith were to throw that much. I recognize this doesn't make any sense because minutes played is different than style of play, but applying a rate, to me, is incomplete. Every year, I see someone very efficient in few minutes, where I could not extrapolate to get accurate what-ifs. Similarly, pro-rating minutes doesn't work for me because most likely the player with longer minutes had their rate suffer due to those extra minutes (but total increased).

I know coaches also limit minutes due to other factors like long term health, how strong your backup is, rotation factors, blowout wins or losses, etc. If Malone played more per game, that's a credit to him. Same to Duncan, if he had done so. Because say, had he stopped at however number of minutes Duncan averages, his total points would be lower, but his per minute wouldn't be the same. I don't know if he was better or worse than Duncan in the waning minutes after long stretches, but the point is, not knowing, applying a rate doesn't make sense.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ginobli made it easier on Duncan, just like Stockton made it easier on Malone. Not to the same extent obviously. Maybe without Ginobli, the whole winning aspect of Duncan's candidacy lessens because they lose more? Maybe his stats go down because teams wouldn't have to back off to defend the three? Again, don't want to exaggerate the extent, but we're only talking about 1-2 shots per game, so a little help from a good Ginobli can go relatively a long way. It's like how a great runningback can make a quarterback be able to pass more, despite appearing to be taking yards away from the passing game by rushing instead.

So, in regard to supporting cast's roles, there are too many moving parts for me - like how would Malone be if he had Robinson? Yes, his points would go down, but would the rings make up for it in consideration for being the best PF ever? Malone would be much less of a player without Stockton. Duncan won without Robinson, but I feel overall his supporting cast was better and more diverse. His stats and winning were affected positively and negatively in different aspects by having Ginobli and the like there. Jeff Hornacek was as great of outside shooter as Ginobli, but he didn't take usage rate points from Malone? Bryon Russell shot enough for local papers to be talking about him being a future cornerstone to when Stock and Malone retired, how did he affect usage rate? How did Robinson?

I know I feel I'm talking in circles - because I can't really discredit Duncan and I know there were some areas where Malone could have been better. I'm a traditional stat guy (since you wouldn't buy my passive lay man claim) and I value those stats more than some. I know that leaves me empty sometimes when there are other stats that disprove what's on the surface level. I just feel that Duncan has done less and achieved more - whether that's due to supporting cast, coaching, eras, etc., that's how I feel. I know I can be wrong, but this whole thing started from people shoving it down my throat how Duncan was all-time. He's the winningest qualified PF, to me - but that doesn't say as much to me as most. I'm not going to make the fake mention of Luke Longley to discredit championships as being the criteria for all-time, but I will say it's not everything to me.

 

[MHSL82]

Also, what about my post where I did talk about Stockton? Thoughts? You were thirsty for that one.

Nope, not going to argue about that one much. I'll state my feelings and leave it be. You and everyone else can disagree and I'll pass on the back and forth. To me, he's the best because I look for assists and steals from my point guard - run the offense and be good at defense and do it night in night out for a long time.

"Player" and "point guard" are two entirely different things to me. Magic can be a better overall player, but Stockton's better at the point, again, for me. I don't mean to leave Magic homeless, because he couldn't be a different position (though SG is closest besides PG) but I'm just talking about preferences. Had Magic played more games, his assists per game would suffer. I know that's a bit hypocritical of me, as I just said a QB who can run like a runningback is still a QB. By the same token, I should say a PG who can score the team's most points and rebound is still a PG and therefore better than Stockton, but nah.

So this is why I'll pass with most anyone. Stockton's too close to me for me to get in a debate over it with even my best of friends. People can take their Magic, Kidd, Robertson, Thomas, Payton, Nash, whatever. I'll take my favorite because he was a great passer and defender. (Yes, I know that steals aren't the only measurement of defense.) Stockton was consistent for a long time and he contributed a lot. I'd pick him over Malone. Malone wasn't much of a PG.

I wish that the league when Stockton peaked were a bit like the league when Nash got his MVPs. 17.2 points and 14.5 assists and 2.7 steals. That's accountable for 46.2 points. Jordan was worth so much and better, but in his 37.1 points per game year, he was accountable for 46.2 points, too. Jordan had a better year than his 37.1 ppg year when he averaged 8 assists per game, despite scoring "only" 32.5 ppg. I am not trying to make a case for Stockton for MVP that year or any other year, just saying how assists can be overlooked. Winning was also a big factor that didn't happen as much in Stockton's big year. Nash was responsible for 38.5 and 39.8 respectively in his two MVP years. Magic Johnson was more accountable for more than Stockton did that year a few years. I guess my point was that it was better than Nash's years.

 

[nuraman00]

Why you gotta poke holes in my argument with stupid "facts" and "objectivity", man? Duncan, to me, is a center who can and does shoot from anywhere inside the three point line. I think he plays and is used like a power forward, but it's like a QB who runs like a runningback is still a QB despite his skill and use of his legs.

As to minutes, I am probably alone here, I think that's like usage rate, where part of the minutes played is due to the player's durability, role in the offense, reliability when others would be tired, the quality of backup, hack a Shaq, etc. Bear with me, because I feel this will be hard to explain what I mean. I hate the 36 minutes stat because I think you make your money in the minutes after 36, too. I understand that it's a rate - it doesn't literally mean the first 36 minutes, but I'll explain why I don't like it, despite it being a legitimate method. Again, bear with me.

Presumably, players are less effective the more tired they could be, as in the minutes before being subbed out and in the waning minutes of a game (as accumulated time takes a toll). Taking a player out at 2 minutes left of the quarter is different than taking them out at the 4 minute mark. If one player's substitution pattern removes him at the 4 minute mark because he's less durable physically or less effective or more foul prone, his rate of when he is in would be artificially higher than if he had played those last two minutes tired. The difference between Malone and Duncan's minutes is so small that I don't think it changes anything, because no coach is going to take a player out a quarter of 2 minutes (30 seconds) earlier because of concerns for efficiency and Duncan's in great shape, too; so this is a moot point, but since you cite the 1.9 minutes as a factor, I'll address it here.

I think physical and mental stamina are important in an all-encompassing comparison. Duncan and Malone are very similar in this regard, but when comparing everybody, this stands out for Malone. I think it's part of what made him great. Malone's physique allowed him to be more efficient in the minutes before substitution or took him longer to get spent than others. But compared to the fresh minutes, it took a toll I bet. I'm not comparing him to Duncan here, just in general. Rates are great, but while these rates suffer as the legs lose their freshness, those who are in great physical shape are effected less in the last minutes than others - but still affected.

The fact is, the coaches didn't use the two players equally and acting like they did would be like me inflating Alex Smith's numbers by saying "if he threw as much as Tom Brady..." Some nuttier Smith fans have done that, ignoring the fact that defenses would defend differently if Smith were to throw that much. I recognize this doesn't make any sense because minutes played is different than style of play, but applying a rate, to me, is incomplete. Every year, I see someone very efficient in few minutes, where I could not extrapolate to get accurate what-ifs. Similarly, pro-rating minutes doesn't work for me because most likely the player with longer minutes had their rate suffer due to those extra minutes (but total increased).

I know coaches also limit minutes due to other factors like long term health, how strong your backup is, rotation factors, blowout wins or losses, etc. If Malone played more per game, that's a credit to him. Same to Duncan, if he had done so. Because say, had he stopped at however number of minutes Duncan averages, his total points would be lower, but his per minute wouldn't be the same. I don't know if he was better or worse than Duncan in the waning minutes after long stretches, but the point is, not knowing, applying a rate doesn't make sense.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ginobli made it easier on Duncan, just like Stockton made it easier on Malone. Not to the same extent obviously. Maybe without Ginobli, the whole winning aspect of Duncan's candidacy lessens because they lose more? Maybe his stats go down because teams wouldn't have to back off to defend the three? Again, don't want to exaggerate the extent, but we're only talking about 1-2 shots per game, so a little help from a good Ginobli can go relatively a long way. It's like how a great runningback can make a quarterback be able to pass more, despite appearing to be taking yards away from the passing game by rushing instead.

So, in regard to supporting cast's roles, there are too many moving parts for me - like how would Malone be if he had Robinson? Yes, his points would go down, but would the rings make up for it in consideration for being the best PF ever? Malone would be much less of a player without Stockton. Duncan won without Robinson, but I feel overall his supporting cast was better and more diverse. His stats and winning were affected positively and negatively in different aspects by having Ginobli and the like there. Jeff Hornacek was as great of outside shooter as Ginobli, but he didn't take usage rate points from Malone? Bryon Russell shot enough for local papers to be talking about him being a future cornerstone to when Stock and Malone retired, how did he affect usage rate? How did Robinson?

I know I feel I'm talking in circles - because I can't really discredit Duncan and I know there were some areas where Malone could have been better. I'm a traditional stat guy (since you wouldn't buy my passive lay man claim) and I value those stats more than some. I know that leaves me empty sometimes when there are other stats that disprove what's on the surface level. I just feel that Duncan has done less and achieved more - whether that's due to supporting cast, coaching, eras, etc., that's how I feel. I know I can be wrong, but this whole thing started from people shoving it down my throat how Duncan was all-time. He's the winningest qualified PF, to me - but that doesn't say as much to me as most. I'm not going to make the fake mention of Luke Longley to discredit championships as being the criteria for all-time, but I will say it's not everything to me.

Thanks.

I don't focus on winning too much. If I did, I wouldn't say Bird > Magic, for example. Or I wouldn't think that Olajuwon or Duncan could be considered the greatest, over Jordan.

I think that even if Malone is better than Duncan on offense, that Duncan was better by more on defense. However, I wish some of these advanced stats were available in the mid 90s. And, I don't think the national TV coverage was the same in the 90s. I don't remember watching many regular season games, only the playoffs, for the Jazz. The broadcast coverage wasn't the same back then, as I think TBS and NBC were the only networks that aired regular season games, and I think once a week each.

Now, you can watch ESPN games almost every Wednesday and Friday, as well as TNT games on Thursdays. And ABC games on Sundays. So that's usually 4 days a week that nationally televised games are available, thus increasing exposure. And it increases the chances of watching other teams, such as the Jazz. (I have League Pass Broadband, but if I didn't, I'm saying I could have watched a lot more Jazz games during the regular season if they were aired back then on national TV like they are now).

I also didn't know that TBS aired the NBA during the 90s, so if they were ever on there, I never saw it.

So what I'm saying that is if I had the same access to the 90s Jazz then as I do to any team now, I might think differently in regards to Duncan's defense vs. Malone's.

But, I could only watch during the playoffs.


Also, according to Hollinger's analysis, back when he advocated the use of per 36 stats, players rate of production usually holds steady if you increase their minutes.

(That also usually leads to the joke about a bedroom activity, about how whether a 2 minute performance can be extended to 10).



You bring up a good point about stamina.

I will say one thing about Popovich that I mentioned before. He pulls his starters early during regular season games if they're down big. He'll pull them late in the 3rd or early in the 4th.

The 1.9 minutes a game can probably be largely accounted from in this manner, IMO.

When the Spurs came back from down 24 against the Clippers in game 3 of the playoffs last year, there is no doubt in my mind that the Spurs wouldn't have won that game if it was during the regular season. Duncan played 8:40 in the 2nd, when the comeback began, and all 12 minutes in the 3rd. That would not have happened in the regular season. Yes the Spurs eventually won by 10, but perhaps 2 less minutes from Duncan then would have changed things. Perhaps Duncan would have played 4-5 less minutes, because it would have been near the end of a long road trip, or during a back-to-back, etc.



What do you think about how many games MLB pitchers used to pitch during a season, vs. now? Or how many innings per start they pitch now, vs. how they used to? Let's pretend we're talking about the AL only, so we don't have to worry about a pitcher being removed for offense, as is done in the NL. I'm fine with the way things are managed now, if the research has shown that pitchers careers are lasting longer because of that. But I also respect what was done before too. And I think sometimes having specialist pitchers is helpful too, because it gives the other team a different delivery and it changes how they have been used to seeing the ball, during the game.

 

[nuraman00]

Nope, not going to argue about that one much.

I'm not sure what we would be arguing about.

I didn't rank Stockton in #25. I just gave a description of what I thought of his game, as well as what I thought of other PGs in general, and what I liked to see from a PG. And then I concluded with who various two-way PGs were.

But I didn't rank PGs in my post, so you don't know where I would put Stockton with respect to others, such as Magic.

So how can you not argue against a position when you don't know what my position is/was?

The closest I came to ranking anyone was with " In Kidd's prime, I would rank Kidd as better. Especially his defense.". But what I left unanswered, was whether I valued someone's prime, or whatever I valued longevity (Stockton's). I left that unanswered, because it didn't need to be answered if I wasn't going to rank players.

Ok, here's a ranking. I think Stockton is better than Magic because Stockton was a two-way player.

I wish that the league when Stockton peaked were a bit like the league when Nash got his MVPs. 17.2 points and 14.5 assists and 2.7 steals. That's accountable for 46.2 points. Jordan was worth so much and better, but in his 37.1 points per game year, he was accountable for 46.2 points, too. Jordan had a better year than his 37.1 ppg year when he averaged 8 assists per game, despite scoring "only" 32.5 ppg. I am not trying to make a case for Stockton for MVP that year or any other year, just saying how assists can be overlooked. Winning was also a big factor that didn't happen as much in Stockton's big year. Nash was responsible for 38.5 and 39.8 respectively in his two MVP years. Magic Johnson was more accountable for more than Stockton did that year a few years. I guess my point was that it was better than Nash's years.

When Nash won his MVPs, it was his winning moreso than his assists that helped him get those. Phoenix had the # 1 seed one year, and the # 2 seed and 3rd best record in 2005-2006.

But, Hollinger argued against Nash both years.

I believe he had Wade as MVP in 2004-2005, with his 24.3 PER vs. Nash's 22.0. He might have had a few others above Nash too.

In 2005-2006, Hollinger had a lot more candidates over Nash.

Bill Walton, who did have a vote as a member of the media, went with Billups (winning).

Assists aren't overlooked if you use a stat like PER or Wins Produced.

Also, you have to factor in expectations. During 2004-2005, Phoenix was coming off a 28 win year. They weren't expected to be that good. During 2005-2006, Phoenix wasn't expected to be as good because Stoudemire was hurt for the year.

While the Jazz, they were expected to be good, but never had a top two seed in the 90s.

Ok, they did in 1991-1992, but that was when the Jazz won 55 games, vs. the Bulls 67.

They did again in 1996-1997, and Malone got the MVP. (Which I'm fine with. He lead the NBA in PER, for example, and had a 1.1 higher PER than Jordan.)

The Jazz had the # 1 seed in 1997-1998, and Malone had a 2.7 higher PER than Jordan, but it went back to Jordan.

(PER doesn't account for defense. PER wasn't around then, but voters might have taken defense into account, who knows.)

The problem I see with Stockton is too many 4th, 5th, and 6th seeds when he had some of his best years. And those were usually from teams that had high expectations.

The media might have viewed Stockton's assists during some of those years as no different than Jose Calderon's, for example. Jose Calderon is a good PG, but his team sucks.


Or, Stockton's assists might be viewed like Andre Miller's, the year he lead the league in assists with 10.9. Yes Miller averaged 10.9 assists a game, but the Cavs won 29 games. IMO, it's not his fault, but in the end, if he lead the league in assists for a team that couldn't score anyways, does it make a difference?

To show you the affects those assists had on Miller's PER, Miller's PER was 21.8 that year. The previous year, when he had 8.0 assists, his 3rd most in his career, he had a 20.1 PER. Every other year, his PER has been 18.8 or worse, and his assists per game have been 7.8 or worse. So it shows you that averaging 1 more assist per game can have a 1.5-2 increase in PER, if the other numbers are the same too.

So, PER does account for assists.

I'm not saying that Stockton's situation was exactly like Jose Calderon or Andre Miller. I just picked two other PGs who are good at assists but mostly on medium winning to light winning teams. But I'm saying that when Stockton had his best years with assists, he also needed to win a lot too.

I do think that Stockton's assists weren't overlooked though. Because every year, it was ingrained that Stockton had lead the league in assists for X years. It was huge news when Mark Jackson broke that streak.


So, I don't think Stockton's assists were overlooked, but that his lack of winning, especially relative to expectations, held him back from getting an MVP or something. But his assists (and steals) streaks were constantly mentioned IMO.

 

[nuraman00]

There is one other topic with respect to Malone's offense. Sloan's system. The flex offensive is conducive to dunks and layups.

You don't even need Stockton or Deron for those assists. The Jazz were still top 7 in assist % during 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. And they were top 1 or 2 for most of Deron's Jazz career.

So what I'm getting at, is that I've heard the argument that because the Flex offense is so good at assists, it can make marginal teams have high assist rates. (As shown from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006). In a sense, assist stats from the Jazz can be viewed as overvalued, because anyone can do it.

So, would Malone have gotten some of those points if he played in a different system?

Then again, why would you want a system that doesn't take advantage of a player's skill set? You wouldn't want Malone or Duncan as a floor spacer, right? You would want them to do the things they're good at.

But I'm just posting another interesting point that I heard a few years ago, about how the Jazz always rank high in assist rate, even with marginal players.

But then isn't that a good thing? But then just because the Jazz had a high assist rate, it doesn't mean they had a good offense. 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 might have ranked high in assist rate, but they were only 22nd in offense each year. So maybe it means that assist rate doesn't tell the whole picture, whether individually or at a team level. Just like the Andre Miller and Jose Calderon examples. Especially with the Andre Miller Cavs teams, lol.

But what if Malone played for a coach that had a different idea of what his game was? Or how to use him?

For example, I think both Malone and Blake Griffin have great physiques. But that Griffin does the pick and pop more often then he should, rather than the pick and roll. And Griffin's jumper is better but he's only now becoming a good jump shooter. He's not at Malone or Duncan or Nowitzki or Webber level yet. So I think Del ***** encourages Griffin to take that jumper, at the expense of not having him roll more.

What if Malone, for example, was used to different proportions in his career? What if he was encouraged to shoot more jumpers, rather than use his awesome post game? What if he had been in a different system?

(Yeah, that's probably too many what-ifs, and not worth much deep though.)

 

[MHSL82]

I'm not sure what we would be arguing about.

I didn't rank Stockton in #25. I just gave a description of what I thought of his game, as well as what I thought of other PGs in general, and what I liked to see from a PG. And then I concluded with who various two-way PGs were.

But I didn't rank PGs in my post, so you don't know where I would put Stockton with respect to others, such as Magic.

So how can you not argue against a position when you don't know what my position is/was?

The closest I came to ranking anyone was with " In Kidd's prime, I would rank Kidd as better. Especially his defense.". But what I left unanswered, was whether I valued someone's prime, or whatever I valued longevity (Stockton's). I left that unanswered, because it didn't need to be answered if I wasn't going to rank players.

Ok, here's a ranking. I think Stockton is better than Magic because Stockton was a two-way player.

When I post to you, I'm posting to everybody here, some don't post and some don't even register, so that's why I added that I wasn't going to argue over it. And I meant for future posts, not past posts when I said I wasn't going to argue. I guess what I should have said instead of "argue" was "try to convince you." I trust and respect your posting styles and I respect your opinions. I know that you back up what you say and you aren't knee-jerk in your responses as some are. So, in truth, if you had said Stockton was the 8th best point guard, I'd disagree but leave it at that, knowing that you know how I feel.

People split things up differently than others. For example, some people split the assists and the scoring and say that John Stockton was one-dimensional in assists (and made by Malone and Sloan's pick'n'roll), but Magic was two dimensional, plus he rebounds (just like Stockton's steals are a plus). You, on the other hand, say that Stockton was a two way player, and if I read this right, means that he is two-dimensional - offense and defense, with the offense being primarily running the point (assists). I could see it both ways and I favor Stockton, so I'd go with your explanation.

I realize I sounded way too sensitive to Stockton in my previous post. I didn't mean I'd really be offended and would take my ball and leave. I just meant that it wasn't worth debating, hypothetically, with anyone here. People aren't going to change their minds and all it could do is diminish or attack one player or another. Magic and Stockton were two great players, no matter how anyone ranks them. They were both successful in the NBA (I'll concede Magic was more successful) and they played different styles. I don't know how much of Magic's game was due to playing with three or four HOFers and how much their HOF careers were because of Magic. I don't know how much Malone helped versus how much Stockton helped. I'd guess the latter, but who knows.

 

[MHSL82]

When Nash won his MVPs, it was his winning moreso than his assists that helped him get those. Phoenix had the # 1 seed one year, and the # 2 seed and 3rd best record in 2005-2006.

But, Hollinger argued against Nash both years.

I believe he had Wade as MVP in 2004-2005, with his 24.3 PER vs. Nash's 22.0. He might have had a few others above Nash too.

In 2005-2006, Hollinger had a lot more candidates over Nash.

Bill Walton, who did have a vote as a member of the media, went with Billups (winning).

Assists aren't overlooked if you use a stat like PER or Wins Produced.

Also, you have to factor in expectations. During 2004-2005, Phoenix was coming off a 28 win year. They weren't expected to be that good. During 2005-2006, Phoenix wasn't expected to be as good because Stoudemire was hurt for the year.

While the Jazz, they were expected to be good, but never had a top two seed in the 90s.

Ok, they did in 1991-1992, but that was when the Jazz won 55 games, vs. the Bulls 67.

They did again in 1996-1997, and Malone got the MVP. (Which I'm fine with. He lead the NBA in PER, for example, and had a 1.1 higher PER than Jordan.)

The Jazz had the # 1 seed in 1997-1998, and Malone had a 2.7 higher PER than Jordan, but it went back to Jordan.

(PER doesn't account for defense. PER wasn't around then, but voters might have taken defense into account, who knows.)

The problem I see with Stockton is too many 4th, 5th, and 6th seeds when he had some of his best years. And those were usually from teams that had high expectations.

The media might have viewed Stockton's assists during some of those years as no different than Jose Calderon's, for example. Jose Calderon is a good PG, but his team sucks.

Or, Stockton's assists might be viewed like Andre Miller's, the year he lead the league in assists with 10.9. Yes Miller averaged 10.9 assists a game, but the Cavs won 29 games. IMO, it's not his fault, but in the end, if he lead the league in assists for a team that couldn't score anyways, does it make a difference?

To show you the affects those assists had on Miller's PER, Miller's PER was 21.8 that year. The previous year, when he had 8.0 assists, his 3rd most in his career, he had a 20.1 PER. Every other year, his PER has been 18.8 or worse, and his assists per game have been 7.8 or worse. So it shows you that averaging 1 more assist per game can have a 1.5-2 increase in PER, if the other numbers are the same too.

So, PER does account for assists.

I'm not saying that Stockton's situation was exactly like Jose Calderon or Andre Miller. I just picked two other PGs who are good at assists but mostly on medium winning to light winning teams. But I'm saying that when Stockton had his best years with assists, he also needed to win a lot too.

I do think that Stockton's assists weren't overlooked though. Because every year, it was ingrained that Stockton had lead the league in assists for X years. It was huge news when Mark Jackson broke that streak.

So, I don't think Stockton's assists were overlooked, but that his lack of winning, especially relative to expectations, held him back from getting an MVP or something. But his assists (and steals) streaks were constantly mentioned IMO.

Damn, Mark Jackson. He tried to break the Jazz's locker-room when he was here and it was one reason Stockton retired (not the only reason). He broke that streak and he got to second place when Stockton was there (I thought it was cool at the time, but I wish he had never been there). I don't hate any player, but if I did, it would be him. I don't remember who the source was that released that he was causing trouble, but it was someone I found reputable at the time of releasing the information.

And I'm absolutely fine with Stockton not getting an MVP and Nash getting one, at least the first one. I just thought that, again, his numbers weren't that great. Winning is paramount, so I was ok with it - and face it, a PG getting MVP is like a runningback or defensive player getting it in the NFL over the QB. Or like a comedian getting Best Actor - which is why I rooted for Bill Murray in Lost in Translation, despite not caring for the movie that much (I saw in very non-theatrical settings, so that might have removed me from the movie - plus, I was watching for acting).

PER's a great stat - I love it when it helps my argument and hate it when it hurts it.

 

[MHSL82]

Sloan defended the paint too much, and allowed 3's. Larry Brown and Dunleavy Sr. also did the same thing.

Sloan didn't run plays for 3-pointers, like Popovich would. It wasn't usually a planned play, but a secondary/tertiary option. Getting all of those dunks and layup probably offset some of the concern.

Sloan's team also fouled too much - maybe some by design. And I could find something to quibble about any coach. Jackson and Sloan- didn't call quick timeouts. Popovich - Having an "appropriate fear" of the opponent wasn't productive.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rasheed Wallace was one of the best defensive PFs I've seen, especially on-the-ball. Duncan's defensive greatness was his help defensive and team defense. But Malone and Wallace were better on-the-ball defenders.

In his prime, Wallace was a better defender than Malone, but Malone would win longevity. Malone was great at steals, but steals only account for 1-2% of possessions. What Wallace was able to do on an average possession, on-the-ball, was probably better than Malone's, in Wallace's prime.

I don't think either offense nor defense is more important, it just matters to what extent he could do each one, when comparing him to others. And of course, in this case, comparing Malone to Duncan, you're comparing the greatest. So the margins are thin.

Sorry to cut your post down in the quote (I didn't cut down the post) - it's just easier to respond to in crib notes - please continue to post all your thoughts in whatever length, I read all thoroughly and don't tire easily - after all I had to get through thousands of law pages.

Sloan's three point philosophy killed us at times and helped us at times. I think it came down to game-planning and adjustments for the hot hands. For example, I have seen lazy to bad team chuck up threes that I swear they wouldn't elsewhere because it appeared more open, they didn't have a post game, and it was too physical to go in the paint. Often, the Jazz would get up by a considerable margin and threes were necessary to catch up. But then, I saw, like you, games where everyone was hitting them and we didn't really adjust - it was like we trusted our philosophy and the law of averages.

I don't know enough about Larry Brown or Dunleavy's game - it was just Allen Iverson, to me. (Not saying Larry was only AI, just saying my memory is just Iverson).

Interesting observation on Sloan's lack of three point play calling. I never noticed the lack thereof, just the strengths of others and our inability to prevent them at times. We played to our strengths, as we drafted for inside shooters. Ironic that the most famous three pointer in Jazz history was a called three when tied and thus, not necessary (but also not risky since we had OT still if missed).

One of my memories of Mo Williams was in his first stint with the Jazz - they were playing the Suns and with <10 seconds left he was supposed to call a timeout at half court, but instead ran up and shot a three pointer - made to win the game. I'm sure there were mixed messages there after the game. I think it was Mo - it might have been someone else. I don't think it was Jacque Vaughn or Howard Eisley. And I think it was after Stockton was retired, because otherwise Stock would have had the ball. Stockton did go to the bench as if to call a timeout once and he either faked going back in or did - I forgot, but I remember thinking I'd be mad if I were the other team, despite that being legal.

We got called for fouls because the refs hated us. All bogus. But we were a physical team and we got away with a lot and got called on a lot, some because we lost the benefit of the doubt. Not sure whether calling timeouts or letting the players play through is best. Regular season, play through - but I saw some playoff games where Jackson let them play through it - both to success and failure. I never noticed whether it was when they had a series lead or not. I definitely see the cons of losing without adjustments or breaks, but I can also see the mental toughness pros and maybe the other team feels like a timeout is coming, that they are doing so well, and are lulled into complacency - where as a timeout is a break to both teams, reminding them not to pull their foot off the pedal?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder how much Wallace's defense was helped by not needing to be the offensive force on offense and how much Malone's offensive responsibilities took away from the energy and focus to play defense. Thinking you can get yours on offense and pulling off is a bad defensive trait, but it might have been there at spurts, just like Rasheed may have taken some offensive possessions off. Not sure of this, as you've watched him more, but just a thought.

Malone went for steals more than challenging a shot and they are a very limited number of plays - but the fact that he could do this not only prevented a few shots, but also forced some PFs to change their approach. Maybe they don't face the basket as much - this may throw players off like Jeremy Lin is off going to his left? Ironically, Malone's worst turnover was when he wasn't looking for the strip from Jordan. Of course, that was followed by the push-off that was a foul not called. I know, I know - no one wants the game to end on a foul or be decided like that - but I wish Jordan had not pushed off or it was called. But, Malone did hold Drexler/Barkley a bit on Stockton's three at the buzzer - so while the Finals Game Six is bigger than the Conference Finals Game Six, I can't complain about one without mentioning the other.

I'm glad you acknowledged longevity as well as them in their prime. Regardless of the reasons, if Wallace did better, he was more effective.

 

[nuraman00]

When I post to you, I'm posting to everybody here, some don't post and some don't even register, so that's why I added that I wasn't going to argue over it. And I meant for future posts, not past posts when I said I wasn't going to argue. I guess what I should have said instead of "argue" was "try to convince you." I trust and respect your posting styles and I respect your opinions. I know that you back up what you say and you aren't knee-jerk in your responses as some are. So, in truth, if you had said Stockton was the 8th best point guard, I'd disagree but leave it at that, knowing that you know how I feel.

People split things up differently than others. For example, some people split the assists and the scoring and say that John Stockton was one-dimensional in assists (and made by Malone and Sloan's pick'n'roll), but Magic was two dimensional, plus he rebounds (just like Stockton's steals are a plus). You, on the other hand, say that Stockton was a two way player, and if I read this right, means that he is two-dimensional - offense and defense, with the offense being primarily running the point (assists). I could see it both ways and I favor Stockton, so I'd go with your explanation.

I realize I sounded way too sensitive to Stockton in my previous post. I didn't mean I'd really be offended and would take my ball and leave. I just meant that it wasn't worth debating, hypothetically, with anyone here. People aren't going to change their minds and all it could do is diminish or attack one player or another. Magic and Stockton were two great players, no matter how anyone ranks them. They were both successful in the NBA (I'll concede Magic was more successful) and they played different styles. I don't know how much of Magic's game was due to playing with three or four HOFers and how much their HOF careers were because of Magic. I don't know how much Malone helped versus how much Stockton helped. I'd guess the latter, but who knows.

Thanks.

Yes, when I said Stockton was a two-way player, I mean offense and defense.

Stockton was also more than assists on offense. He could shoot from anywhere, and was good at making layups.

I can't count how many times I've seen guards like Bibby or Hinrich or Blake or Isaiah Thomas (yes I spelled that correctly) miss layups.

Stockton knew how to use the glass to make layups. Others didn't have the same touch in the paint.

 

[nuraman00]

Damn, Mark Jackson. He tried to break the Jazz's locker-room when he was here and it was one reason Stockton retired (not the only reason).

I've brought up the Mark Jackson situation before on the Jazz board, and some see it your way, and others didn't see it your way.

This might be one of those topics where there isn't a consensus and people will each see it different ways.

I did remember some stories of Jackson allegedly causing problems, but I never heard specifics, nor quotes by these sources as to what was happening. It was all very vague.

I usually dismiss these things, especially if these anonymous sources are from small market teams. IMO, the media can get more readers for their articles if they print something negative in a small market. Negative articles draw a bigger reaction.

I've also heard radio hosts say, on-air, that they get more callers after a loss, or during a losing season, then when things are good. When there's losses, there's a lot of angry callers. When there's wins, callers are more predictable and less exciting.

Portland's local media is notorious for printing these kinds of articles, or always finding some rumor of discontent.

That doesn't mean I completely ignore it. I do file it away and recall that there was something there. But I also look at that player's history, for example. Jackson hadn't had problems anywhere else.

So I weigh that more heavily, and figure it doesn't fit his past character profile.

It would be easy for a reporter to take a comment that was supposed to be motivating or intense, and take it the wrong way. For example, I'm sure some of the stuff Jordan or Garnett say could easily be taken the wrong way, if they weren't media darlings.

I also think it's easier for journalists to blame losing on locker room issues, than to analyze the team and the game and blame it on the players, or coach, or GM, etc.

 

[nuraman00]

OT but grimm010 is the only Jazz fan poster I've seen say he likes Malone more than Stockton. Everytime the topic comes up, everyone else says Stockton.

 

[MHSL82]

There is one other topic with respect to Malone's offense. Sloan's system. The flex offensive is conducive to dunks and layups.

You don't even need Stockton or Deron for those assists. The Jazz were still top 7 in assist % during 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. And they were top 1 or 2 for most of Deron's Jazz career.

So what I'm getting at, is that I've heard the argument that because the Flex offense is so good at assists, it can make marginal teams have high assist rates. (As shown from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006). In a sense, assist stats from the Jazz can be viewed as overvalued, because anyone can do it.

So, would Malone have gotten some of those points if he played in a different system?

Then again, why would you want a system that doesn't take advantage of a player's skill set? You wouldn't want Malone or Duncan as a floor spacer, right? You would want them to do the things they're good at.

But I'm just posting another interesting point that I heard a few years ago, about how the Jazz always rank high in assist rate, even with marginal players.

But then isn't that a good thing? But then just because the Jazz had a high assist rate, it doesn't mean they had a good offense. 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 might have ranked high in assist rate, but they were only 22nd in offense each year. So maybe it means that assist rate doesn't tell the whole picture, whether individually or at a team level. Just like the Andre Miller and Jose Calderon examples. Especially with the Andre Miller Cavs teams, lol.

But what if Malone played for a coach that had a different idea of what his game was? Or how to use him?

For example, I think both Malone and Blake Griffin have great physiques. But that Griffin does the pick and pop more often then he should, rather than the pick and roll. And Griffin's jumper is better but he's only now becoming a good jump shooter. He's not at Malone or Duncan or Nowitzki or Webber level yet. So I think Del ***** encourages Griffin to take that jumper, at the expense of not having him roll more.

What if Malone, for example, was used to different proportions in his career? What if he was encouraged to shoot more jumpers, rather than use his awesome post game? What if he had been in a different system?

(Yeah, that's probably too many what-ifs, and not worth much deep though.)

Sloan didn't make Malone, he made Malone better. (Reference to some tech commercial that says they didn't make the abcdef, they made the abcdef better.) Seriously though, I bet the offense was built around Stockton and Malone and the Stockton and Malone were built around the offense. What I mean is, the core principles were there before those two and before those two were Stockton and Malone, but based upon their skill sets, preferences, work ethic, physical makeup, historical context of the NBA, etc., the usage of certain aspects of the offense was implemented more.

Stockton and Malone wanted a half-court offense, as opposed to a transition offense, though they were pretty good on fast breaks. Stockton had quarterback vision and thus he was able to maximize the flex offense to get Adam Keefe and Jeff Foster some contribution. Shandon Anderson, et al, made a living off things that they couldn't find elsewhere - so I see how people say that it was the offense more than the personnel. I know this isn't what you were saying, but I'd disagree with anyone who said the offense made Stockton. The fact that Stockton got a lot of assists is coincidental to the flex offense - how he got some of those assists, of course, is not coincidental.

I think one has to look at rate of offense, too. The Jazz liked to milk the clock from the beginning of the game. Sometimes the pace of the game dictated otherwise, but their preference was shots in the last 4 seconds of the shotclock - unless they got a shot that was too irresistible to not take. Taking your time may lead to more assists, if they don't lead to hurried shots - it does lead to fewer shots in the game assuming that whatever the other team does, the Jazz still milk the clock. My point? With fewer shots, their offense will have fewer points, even if they are more efficient - assuming that they shoot a regular percentage, regardless of the other teams pace. Passing more or looking for easy shots may not create a higher percentage, if the shots are forced. When the Jazz were on target, their offense wasn't 22nd in efficiency, but maybe in points (the opponent should also have fewer shots assuming normal turnover rate by both leads to the same number of possessions).

To go with the whatifs, what if Ostertag were Robinson or (fill-in-the-blank)? What if Stockton played instead of Magic? Ugg, my mind is so distracted right now - I'll forego the similar whatifs I could muster out some other time.

 

[MHSL82]

I've brought up the Mark Jackson situation before on the Jazz board, and some see it your way, and others didn't see it your way.

This might be one of those topics where there isn't a consensus and people will each see it different ways.

I did remember some stories of Jackson allegedly causing problems, but I never heard specifics, nor quotes by these sources as to what was happening. It was all very vague.

I usually dismiss these things, especially if these anonymous sources are from small market teams. IMO, the media can get more readers for their articles if they print something negative in a small market. Negative articles draw a bigger reaction.

I've also heard radio hosts say, on-air, that they get more callers after a loss, or during a losing season, then when things are good. When there's losses, there's a lot of angry callers. When there's wins, callers are more predictable and less exciting.

Portland's local media is notorious for printing these kinds of articles, or always finding some rumor of discontent.

That doesn't mean I completely ignore it. I do file it away and recall that there was something there. But I also look at that player's history, for example. Jackson hadn't had problems anywhere else.

So I weigh that more heavily, and figure it doesn't fit his past character profile.

It would be easy for a reporter to take a comment that was supposed to be motivating or intense, and take it the wrong way. For example, I'm sure some of the stuff Jordan or Garnett say could easily be taken the wrong way, if they weren't media darlings.

I also think it's easier for journalists to blame losing on locker room issues, than to analyze the team and the game and blame it on the players, or coach, or GM, etc.

Yeah, I don't believe Jackson and don't like him. I'll be on that side until Stockton refutes it - non-PR style. In other words, never. I hope it wasn't just a guess by someone, but it was out there by enough people - though they could be reporting what each other is saying. I, too, don't like anonymous sources, besides the guy from ESPN. I have heard that if you can't go off the record on things, no inside information will ever be given. Confidentiality. I would forego the inside information if it meant people would only report what they were willing to put their name on it. If you are not willing to say it publicly, don't say it. But others are thirsty for the inside jabber.

 

[MHSL82]

There is one other topic with respect to Malone's offense. Sloan's system. The flex offensive is conducive to dunks and layups.

You don't even need Stockton or Deron for those assists. The Jazz were still top 7 in assist % during 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. And they were top 1 or 2 for most of Deron's Jazz career.

So what I'm getting at, is that I've heard the argument that because the Flex offense is so good at assists, it can make marginal teams have high assist rates. (As shown from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006). In a sense, assist stats from the Jazz can be viewed as overvalued, because anyone can do it.

So, would Malone have gotten some of those points if he played in a different system?

Then again, why would you want a system that doesn't take advantage of a player's skill set? You wouldn't want Malone or Duncan as a floor spacer, right? You would want them to do the things they're good at.

But I'm just posting another interesting point that I heard a few years ago, about how the Jazz always rank high in assist rate, even with marginal players.

But then isn't that a good thing? But then just because the Jazz had a high assist rate, it doesn't mean they had a good offense. 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 might have ranked high in assist rate, but they were only 22nd in offense each year. So maybe it means that assist rate doesn't tell the whole picture, whether individually or at a team level. Just like the Andre Miller and Jose Calderon examples. Especially with the Andre Miller Cavs teams, lol.

But what if Malone played for a coach that had a different idea of what his game was? Or how to use him?

For example, I think both Malone and Blake Griffin have great physiques. But that Griffin does the pick and pop more often then he should, rather than the pick and roll. And Griffin's jumper is better but he's only now becoming a good jump shooter. He's not at Malone or Duncan or Nowitzki or Webber level yet. So I think Del ***** encourages Griffin to take that jumper, at the expense of not having him roll more.

What if Malone, for example, was used to different proportions in his career? What if he was encouraged to shoot more jumpers, rather than use his awesome post game? What if he had been in a different system?

(Yeah, that's probably too many what-ifs, and not worth much deep though.)

I've posted this twice and probably will once more, but just cause it is related:

Misfiring Deron Williams Takes Shot at Nets' Offensive System