The best of Nash may be better than the best of Stockton. But, Nash has only been great in the latter half of his career. Stockton was great for about 2 decades. Stockton's career: 13.1 ppg, 10.5 apg, 2.17 spg, 182 playoff games Nash's career so far: 14.1 ppg, 7.8 apg, 0.8 spg, 97 playoff games The only thing Nash is better is scoring, and only slightly. Stockton beats Nash in other areas by a wide margin.
If you look at their overall games, the only clear advantage Nash has over Stockton is in free throw percentage. As good as Nash's shooting is, Stockton was just as reliable. Not to mention that Stockton's defense was tenacious while Nash's is mediocre at best. True, Stockton was known as a dirty player, but that fault belongs to the officials...not Stockton. He was just taking advantage of what was given to him.
Has John Stockton ever been the MVP of the entire League...much less done it twice? Has he taken a team that was last place in the West and taken immediately took them to 60 wins and placed them among the elite NBA teams? Stockton career high for scoring is 33 points. Stockton was a great player, but lets not forget that a lot of stats are high because he played with one of the All time great power fowards in Karl Malone. Stockton was great at passing the ball, but he wasn't a scoring threat. Can any of yall point to any playoff games where Stockton had 48 points and then followed that up with 34 points 13 dimes and 12 rebounds and in the next game has 39 points 12 dimes and 9 rebounds? These are Steve Nash stats in games 4, 5 and 6 against the Mavs in the 2005 playoffs. Nash showed his greatness by leading the Suns to the Western Conference Finals when Stoudamire was lost for the whole year. I don't think Stockton would have been able to do that if Karl Malone was lost for the whole season. When he was in Dallas Steve Nash was a badass, but I wouldn't have said he was better than Stockton, now I would. John Stockton has never played at the level that Nash has the past 4 seasons.
I think people get too wrapped up in scoring. thats not a point guards first responsibility, its setting up his teammates. John Stockton was the best at that. Also John Stockton was playing when Jordan was gobbling up all the MVP's. I guarantee you that if Stockton had the years he had in 89-91 right now, he would get serious MVP consideration. Averaging 17 points and 14 assists a game, to go along with 3 steals. . . . . those are some crazy numbers right there. And to all those who bring karl Malone into the conversation, whats easier. Setting up a shot or making an easy shot because you have been set up. They were great because of each other not because of one player. Right now Steve Nash is averaging 12.1 assists per game his highest all time. That would be John Stockton's 8th best season. . . . . 8th best. Also last time I checked you get an assist because someone else scored. Stockton may not have scored as much as Nash. . . by a slim margin, but he set up more of his teammates. Final note, John Stockton has never really had a big three like the Suns do right now, Stockton never was surrounded by talent like Nash has been. I mean other than Malone the next best player he played with is Gaylord Hornaceck. . . . with his stupid face wipe. I am going to go throw up now, for defending Stockton. . . . . .
It's not Stockton's fault that he played in an era with Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Robinson and had arguably the best PF ever as a teammate. Nash doesn't sniff a MVP if he played in that era. No, but IMO he did lead a team with less talent to the Finals twice, and he beat a better team to get there (Rockets with Drexler, Dream and Chuck) than any team that has knocked the Suns out of the playoff's in recent years. Stockton, like Nash, can score when he wants. Like Nash, he doesn't have to score a lot for his team to win but it's clear from his conversion rates that he could put the ball in the hole when needed. Not off the top of my head. I also can't think of any playoff games where Stockton played piss-poor defense on an opposing guard for the entire series. One of the reasons the Suns lost to the Spurs and Mavs in the playoffs is because they have guards that can score, and Nash sucks at defense. Stockton was an excellent defender (although dirty). Probably not. Then again, Malone is considered one of the greatest PF's ever. Amare isn't. Additionally, the Suns still had J.Johnson and Marion. Again, I would argue that Nash has played on teams with more talent and won less. Pick a season from 88-96. The only difference is that the MVP winners from those years were Magic, Jordan, Barkley, Hakeem & Robinson. Nash ain't winning an MVP over any of those guys.
Shareef is awful. He hasn't hit a game winning shot in his career. How do i know this? Because I lived in Vancouver and had to watch him choke game in and game out when it was all on the line. That franchise never had a chance with SAR as the #1 guy. Stu Jackson didn't help much either. This may be not known but Nash was offered after his rookie year for FELIPE LOPEZ and a 2nd rounder. THATS RIGHT - that felipe lopez...
They lost to the Spurs and Mavericks because they couldn't stop Tim Duncan or Dirk Nowitski....period. People are reaching when they try to downplay Nash's greatness because of his defense. Jason Terry, Devin Harris, and Tony Parker are not the reasons their teams beat the Suns. They did not have Joe Johson in the 2005-06 season. In fact they lost Joe Johnson, Amara Stoudamire and Quintin Richardson from a team that went to the Western Conference Finals in 2005. Despite losing these three players Nash led the Suns to 54 wins and a return trip to the Western Conference Finals. The Suns only played 6 or 7 players two years ago......had no centers and really no power fowards once Kurt Thomas was injured. You keep trying to say Nash plays with all this talent or that the Suns are so deep and thats baloney. If Stockton led a team to a 30 game turnaround, or lost three great players and still led his team to the Western Conference Finals he may have had a shot at being named MVP. Do you wanna know why.....because Stockton has never, ever had games where he dominated opponents like Nash has.
Well, Stockton was good enough that the Jazz never traded him for Martin Muursepp, Bubba Wells, the draft rights to Pat Garrity and a first-round draft pick. Stockton was also good enough that the Jazz never refused to sign him. I don't know what Stockton would have done had he been traded to, say, the Atlanta Hawks with Nique, Willis, Levingston, and Carr. Or maybe the Knicks with Ewing and all those front court bruisers. But he didn't get traded and he didn't go unsigned. He kept the Jazz a good team for almost two decades. As for your scoring argument... Nash--career .485 FG%.. Highest in one year was .532 in 06-07. Stockton--career .515 FG%... Highest in one year was .574 in 87-88. Stockton has 5 seasons with a higher FG% than Nash's best year. Stockton has 12 seasons over .500 while Nash has 4. Stockton's lowest FG% came in his rookie year at .471. Nash's came in his third season at .363. Nash has 5 seasons with a FG% below Stockton's rookie year mark of .471.
Quentin Richardson is garbage. If you think a player that shoot 38% from the field is a great player them the NBA is 98% made of great players. And is not like they Lost Amare, JJ and Quentin and got in scrubs return. That year he got, Raja, Diaw, James Jones, Kurt Thomas most of the season, Tim Thomas late in the season and key guy for PHX playoff success. Nash is good but he is not Stockton good. sorry
Well......please resond to this....no one else has been able to. Steve Nash didn't become a great player until about his 5th year in the league, so those of you who keep bringing up all time stats to compare the two are reaching. Nash's stats his first four years are nothinng special, but he's been a star in this league since 2001. Again....wake me up when John Stockton ever wins the NBA mvp. A poster above said that Jordan and Magic are the reasons Stockton never won it and thats a bunk excuse. There have always been superstarts in the NBA. Nash has won the MVP over Tim Duncan, Shaq, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitski, Lebron James and Kevin Garnett. All of these guys will be in the hall of fame once their careers are over.
Anyone who thinks Nash is better than Stockton needs to pay attention to both ends of the floor. Hell, for his career, in a system that doesn't inflate numbers, Stockton is better than Nash on offense. Since Nash is one of the bottom 10 defensive players in the league, Stockton wins by a mile.
He shouldn't have. Shaq was the best player in the league in 04-05, and Kobe in 05-06. You can make an argument for his 05-06 MVP, but winning it over Shaq in 04-05 is one of the worst decisions ever in the NBA.
How? The Suns were a better team than the Miami Heat and went from last place in the Western Conference to the best record in the entire NBA. John Stockton career high for scoring is 33 points and he has never had a triple double. There is no way in hell he is anywhere as good of a scorer as Nash is. It is not Steve Nash's job to be Bruce Bowen. The job of the point guard is to run the offense and set up his teamates in position to score. A Nash led team has led the NBA in points per game for 7 consecutive years.
Nash carried the team to WCFs without Amare two years ago. I bet Stockton couldnt do that without Malone.
The Suns were 3 wins better than the Heat, while giving up the most points in the league. Their expected win/loss (more meaningful statistically) was tied with the Heat. Shaq averaged 22.9/10.4/2.7 assists/2.9 blocks while shooting 60.1%. That says nothing about his defense. He was a better (more efficient) scorer than Nash. He never played in a run-and-gun offense, though, so his raw numbers don't look as good. Wrong. In basketball, you don't get to play one end of the floor. A point guard's job is to run the offense, set up his teammates in position to score, and stop his opponent from doing the same. And in 4 of those 7 years, that team was in the top 2 in points given up per game. Not to mention, the team that decided not to re-sign him had their best year in the history of their franchise after he left.
Would you agree that the Western Conference is a tougher conference than the Eastern Conference? The Heat went from 42 wins to 59 wins in a Weaker conference. The Suns went from 29 wins to 62 wins in a tougher conference. Case closed. Furthermore.......For Shaq, averaging 22.9 and 10 rebounds is not that special compared to the rest of his career. Dirk averaged 27 and 10 in 04-05.
Are you saying that an NBA player doesn't need to play defense if he has good offense? How many Nash-led teams have made it to the finals? I think that if you replace Nash with Stockton, the Suns team would be FAR more successful. Simply put, Stockton has a huge edge on defense. Their offense and passing abilities are comparable. Although Nash scores more points, you have to look at their efficiency. Who shoots a better percentage? Who has more turnovers? You have to understand that if Stockton took as many shots as Nash, he would have more points. Also, I think you place too great an emphasis on the triple double. Look at Jason Kidd. How are the Nets doing this year? What does it matter if Nash has them and Stockton doesn't? Is getting 10 defensive rebounds really that significant? Would you rather your point guard have 2 steals or 10 defensive rebounds? Keep in mind that Nash already has Stoudemire, Marion, and Skinner to get rebounds.
For some reason, whenever someone says "case closed" or "period", I interpret that to mean they have no more arguments to back up their contentions. How old are you? You might not recognize Stockton's greatness because you were too young to fully appreciate what he brought to the game.
This is the weakest argument I've ever read. It doesn't what would have happened. All that is relevant is what did happen and that is that Nash scores more.
