Two of the best playmaking PGs ever, and both great shooters. tough call, imo As for accomplishments...two questionable MVPs vs one earned Finals and another not so much You got to wonder what happens to Dallas had Cuban (before he became the big spender) kept Nash and Nowitzki together all that time. Yet, Nash was still just a cheap shot by Horry away from beating the Spurs with his Phoenix team.
Stockton due to defense. Both could shoot (a little better), but neither could take over a game scoring-wise. Great passers. Hand checking helped Nash a little. I'll take Stockton.
how much does one being a dirty player and the other being the epitome of fair play factor into your decision...
Same with Paul. I'd still think Stockton was better overall. But I never want to root for Stockton or Paul like I root for Nash.
Is Paul easily comparable to Stockton and Nash. I don't see the similarities. Nash and Stockton beg for a poll based on very similar style. I think a Paul poll would be him vs Isiah...scoring PGs. Not to say there is anything wrong with that. Different types. I just think a HOFer PG comparison most apropos to Nash's retirement is Nash vs Stockton. Leave the Paul comparisons to him and Isiah. No?
Well decided to take a look at their bball reference pages and of course John Stocktons middle name is Houston. Surprised I did not know this.
Nash is a great shooter but I've always felt he was terribly overrated because of the offense they ran in Phoenix. Plus, he was nothing defensively. I hate the dirty punk but Stockton was a better player. Stockton's orangutang arms and huge hands were a problem for any point guard going up against him. Stockton was just tougher, meaner, and played the mental game well. Basically you could go right at Steve Nash and he couldn't do anything about it. With Stockton, he probably could stop you but if he couldn't stop you he'd bite you, trip you, and knee you in the nuts.
You were asking whether being a dirty player affect our judgment. I meant to say that both Paul and Stockton were dirty players. But I still think both are better than Nash overall, albeit not much. I agree with you that Nash is more similar to Stockton than to Paul. Nash and Stockton have a kind of beauty in how they set up the offense. They move quickly and make fast decisions. Nash is a better shooter. But Stockton's shot selection was extremely smart. It gave you the impression that he never missed because he seldom took bad shots. Paul take a more deliberate and more crafty approach. Paul seems to be able to bring the ball wherever he wants without hurry. And he is better at finishing at the rim. Thomas was more of a scorer than a play maker, compared to the three aforementioned guys.
so just for the record...right now the two polls show Nash 50 to 24 for Paul Stockton 16 to Nash 4 Normalizing this to Paul being a 1 we have Nash 2 to Paul 1 Stockton 4 to Nash 1 which equals Stockton 8 Nash 2 Paul 1 So, Stockton is an 8:1 over Paul? just saying
That's a stupid calculation... Just saying. The decision wether player A is better than player B can be easy although they are both great, and so can be the decision wether player C is better than both of them. But that doesnt mean that the result of each questions decides how far better they are. Is LeBron better than Durant? I think almost everyone sees Lebron as the best player on this planet right now, so the answer is yes. Let's say 9 out of 10 vote yes. Is Lebron 9 times better than Durant? Now if you ask wether Jordan was better than Lebron, I'd argue that Jordan wins with an equal result (9 to 1). Does that mean Jordan is 81 times better than Durant? No. That's a stupid logic you used there.
I loathe John Stockton, but he is among the most underrated players to ever play the game. He's #3 on my list of best all time PG's. He could shoot like a mother, played defense and ran the show.
