PDA

View Full Version : Best Player of All-Time At Their Peak (#22)



valade16
03-11-2018, 03:07 PM
So we do a ďtop 25 greatest players of all-time listĒ here on PSD, but I wanted to do a best, not greatest list.

What is the difference?

This is NOT a list that measures a players career or accolades, it is simply a list of, if all the players were in their peak/in their prime/at their best/etc. and all in a draft, who would you take first on your team.

Current List

1. Michael Jordan
2. LeBron James
T3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
T3. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Shaquille OíNeal
6. Magic Johnson
7. Larry Bird
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Tim Duncan
10. Kobe Bryant
11. Steph Curry
12. Moses Malone
13. Tracy McGrady
14. Bill Walton
15. Kevin Durant
16. Jerry West
17. Dwyane Wade
18. Oscar Robertson
19. Kevin Garnett
20. Dirk Nowitzki
21. Charles Barkley

Shammyguy3
03-11-2018, 05:40 PM
CP3 here

KnicksorBust
03-11-2018, 08:08 PM
Change title to 22. I need to think about this. Leaning drob or karl malone. Harden has peaked my interest after bringing him up in last thread.

KnicksorBust
03-11-2018, 08:16 PM
I know I posted like 3 seconds ago but doesn't this have to be david robinson? Peak almost 30ppg/10rpg/5apg/4bpg and a dpoy...

ewing
03-11-2018, 09:03 PM
I know I posted like 3 seconds ago but doesn't this have to be david robinson? Peak almost 30ppg/10rpg/5apg/4bpg and a dpoy...

If you only look at numbers. I always thought Patrick was a better franchise player that did more with less. Same with J Kidd but D Rob was a great player in his own right. I donít have an issue with him here. In an open floor game he was an absolute force


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chronz
03-11-2018, 09:10 PM
I know I posted like 3 seconds ago but doesn't this have to be david robinson? Peak almost 30ppg/10rpg/5apg/4bpg and a dpoy...

Karl Malone destroyed him in their series against each other.

KnicksorBust
03-12-2018, 10:34 AM
If you only look at numbers. I always thought Patrick was a better franchise player that did more with less. Same with J Kidd but D Rob was a great player in his own right. I donít have an issue with him here. In an open floor game he was an absolute force


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I can't believe Ewing didn't win a title with Starks. What a bum.

KnicksorBust
03-12-2018, 10:34 AM
Karl Malone destroyed him in their series against each other.

Good call let's decide who is the better player because of one series. That makes a lot of sense.

Chronz
03-12-2018, 11:39 AM
Good call let's decide who is the better player because of one series. That makes a lot of sense.

One? They played two playoff series iirc and it should be part of the story, didn't you watch those games. Malone just ripped his heart out. It's not an isolated incident either, he consistently underwhelmed vs the best and dominated inferior teams. That's not a peak player, Malone has a far better case and resume on top of whooping him silly twice. Make an argument against Malone

KnicksorBust
03-12-2018, 12:47 PM
One? They played two playoff series iirc and it should be part of the story, didn't you watch those games. Malone just ripped his heart out. It's not an isolated incident either, he consistently underwhelmed vs the best and dominated inferior teams. That's not a peak player, Malone has a far better case and resume on top of whooping him silly twice. Make an argument against Malone

So let's never put Malone in either because of Game 1 in '97 or Game 6 in '98.

They were equal scorers and rebounders, Robinson was the better passer and defender. If things are close then I would rather take the more efficient and better defensive CENTER instead of the power forward. Easier to build around D-Rob.

Chronz
03-12-2018, 02:14 PM
I just looked it up, they had 3 series against each other, I forgot he also lost when he had Duncan on his squad.

Drob usually won the rs affair, tho it all flipped when the real games began. Where one rose to the challenge, David went from the scoring champion to an inefficient 20 and 10 basic big in his 94 sweep. What's worse is that the admiral wasnt even truly "Malowned" that year , Rodman was the primary defender this year but drob spent more time on him in the successive series.

In 96, with the two guarding each other much more, Malone again played to his standard, the admiral again shriveled, this time to the tune of 19 n 9 in a gentleman's sweep.

In those 9 games, Robinson was held to 11, 11, 12, 16 and 17 points. Malone never put up fewer than 22....

I don't remember much of the 98 series other than the elimination game where Malone buried them with a barrage of jumpers. Statistically neither dominated, the twin towers had a way of hurting the efficiency of opposing bigs that way but Malone played some great defense himself. By this point Malone had altered his game abit but I'm good with this just being an honorable mention in the head to head debate. What's that like 2 wins in 3 series vs the mail man with teams being of similar calibre.

Chronz
03-12-2018, 02:17 PM
So let's never put Malone in either because of Game 1 in '97 or Game 6 in '98.

They were equal scorers and rebounders, Robinson was the better passer and defender. If things are close then I would rather take the more efficient and better defensive CENTER instead of the power forward. Easier to build around D-Rob.

Never? That makes no sense, he led his team to the finals against the bulls and the guy we voted number 1. Somehow that's the equivalent of drobs consistently getting outplayed by every big worth a damn. Hell, there's an argument to be made that drob gave the bulls the ammo they needed to combat Malone, if it wasn't for Rodman losing complete respect in his manhood, they never gift him to the bulls

Chronz
03-12-2018, 02:26 PM
So let's never put Malone in either because of Game 1 in '97 or Game 6 in '98.

They were equal scorers and rebounders, Robinson was the better passer and defender. If things are close then I would rather take the more efficient and better defensive CENTER instead of the power forward. Easier to build around D-Rob.

Btw, **** no he wasn't a better passer. As Malone game drifted to the perimeter, it opened up all sorts of passing lanes for him. Way better playmaker and passer than a guy like drob.

It's easier to build around drob if you like huge regular season success, when it counts, gimme the guy with a greater peak run

ewing
03-12-2018, 03:16 PM
Btw, **** no he wasn't a better passer. As Malone game drifted to the perimeter, it opened up all sorts of passing lanes for him. Way better playmaker and passer than a guy like drob.

It's easier to build around drob if you like huge regular season success, when it counts, gimme the guy with a greater peak run

I agree with the passing comment. I was not going to mention it b/c I don't think assist totals or % make for accurate measure here and was pretty sure I would get that response.

FlashBolt
03-12-2018, 04:19 PM
Are we going to ignore that Robinson played with Cheeks, Eliott, and Avery and not Stockton? I mean, I think that helps.

Jamiecballer
03-12-2018, 05:50 PM
Are we going to ignore that Robinson played with Cheeks, Eliott, and Avery and not Stockton? I mean, I think that helps.Seems we are. Garnett part 2

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

KnicksorBust
03-12-2018, 06:07 PM
So let's never put Malone in either because of Game 1 in '97 or Game 6 in '98.

They were equal scorers and rebounders, Robinson was the better passer and defender. If things are close then I would rather take the more efficient and better defensive CENTER instead of the power forward. Easier to build around D-Rob.

Btw, **** no he wasn't a better passer. As Malone game drifted to the perimeter, it opened up all sorts of passing lanes for him. Way better playmaker and passer than a guy like drob.

It's easier to build around drob if you like huge regular season success, when it counts, gimme the guy with a greater peak run

Historic day folks. 1st time in history a basketball fan said "when it counts give me karl malone"

KnicksorBust
03-12-2018, 06:09 PM
Stockton > Malone

If he came in the league now now then he would be shooting 9 threes per game and be better than Chris Paul.

KnicksorBust
03-12-2018, 06:10 PM
Cant believe drob didnt win with sean elliot or ewing didnt win with starks. Karl malone choking repeatedly in the finals with stockton and hornacek is so much better.

ewing
03-12-2018, 07:20 PM
Cant believe drob didnt win with sean elliot or ewing didnt win with starks. Karl malone choking repeatedly in the finals with stockton and hornacek is so much better.

You guys are total trolls. Chronz talked about how the 2 guys played on big situations and how they played against one another on big situations not just results. If you think it doesnít matter bc of sample size just say that donít act like KG or David Robinson upped their game in the playoffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KnicksorBust
03-12-2018, 07:23 PM
null

Of course it is the result. If Jason Terry had a horrible series against the Heat then Dirk Nowitzki's legacy wouldn't be nearly what it is today.

valade16
03-12-2018, 07:33 PM
Of course it is the result. If Jason Terry had a horrible series against the Heat then Dirk Nowitzki's legacy wouldn't be nearly what it is today.

I think the difference is, for the most part it wasn't the Jason Terry's of the team having horrible series in the case of D-Rob, it was D-Rob himself.

ewing
03-12-2018, 07:37 PM
I think the difference is, for the most part it wasn't the Jason Terry's of the team having horrible series in the case of D-Rob, it was D-Rob himself.

Exactly. Reggie Miller never won but heís remembered as a great playoff performer. D-Rob and KG didnít play well when it mattered. It not just that they lost. Dirk was a playoff stud


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
03-12-2018, 07:45 PM
Are we going to ignore that Robinson played with Cheeks, Eliott, and Avery and not Stockton? I mean, I think that helps.

If you ask me did he play well, yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chronz
03-12-2018, 09:23 PM
Seems we are. Garnett part 2

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

When kg had the team, he still underwhelmed.

Chronz
03-12-2018, 09:26 PM
Cant believe drob didnt win with sean elliot or ewing didnt win with starks. Karl malone choking repeatedly in the finals with stockton and hornacek is so much better.
It's not that drob didn't win, it's that he didn't show up, even when he had Duncan and hca.

Chronz
03-12-2018, 09:27 PM
Historic day folks. 1st time in history a basketball fan said "when it counts give me karl malone"

Compared to the true elite, you're right. Compared to drob Lmfao, you must've not had the web back on the 90s

KnicksorBust
03-12-2018, 09:30 PM
Of course it is the result. If Jason Terry had a horrible series against the Heat then Dirk Nowitzki's legacy wouldn't be nearly what it is today.

I think the difference is, for the most part it wasn't the Jason Terry's of the team having horrible series in the case of D-Rob, it was D-Rob himself.

But I don't care. It is not about his legacy. I don't care about his clutchness. He is the best player on the board. How many mvp and dpoy are left?

Chronz
03-12-2018, 09:34 PM
But I don't care. It is not about his legacy. I don't care about his clutchness. He is the best player on the board. How many mvp and dpoy are left?
You mentioned legacy. Drob ain't doing **** even with Stockton

Chronz
03-12-2018, 09:36 PM
Cant believe drob didnt win with sean elliot or ewing didnt win with starks. Karl malone choking repeatedly in the finals with stockton and hornacek is so much better.
Also. Drob himself would be less effective today, why not vote Stockton if you feel he's better than cp3, which he ain't

KnicksorBust
03-12-2018, 10:10 PM
But I don't care. It is not about his legacy. I don't care about his clutchness. He is the best player on the board. How many mvp and dpoy are left?
You mentioned legacy. Drob ain't doing **** even with Stockton

20 years with Stockton and he aint doing ****? I disagree. Stockton would have made him.better and he was an mvp dpoy on his own.

KnicksorBust
03-12-2018, 10:13 PM
Cant believe drob didnt win with sean elliot or ewing didnt win with starks. Karl malone choking repeatedly in the finals with stockton and hornacek is so much better.
Also. Drob himself would be less effective today, why not vote Stockton if you feel he's better than cp3, which he ain't

"Based on what doe?"

Shammyguy3
03-12-2018, 10:28 PM
Hey KoB, do you really think Stockton would be better than CP3 in today's league?

ewing
03-12-2018, 11:10 PM
But I don't care. It is not about his legacy. I don't care about his clutchness. He is the best player on the board. How many mvp and dpoy are left?

I really donít care about his awards. Thatís trivia. I care about who is the best player. When Iím in a close game my best player has to make plays. He also has to play better when his team needs him more. D Rob certainly didnít do those things. He should get downgraded accordingly

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FlashBolt
03-13-2018, 03:46 AM
Did you guys see what happened in 96 when D-Rob was injured compared to the year before when he was healthy?

ewing
03-13-2018, 07:21 AM
I really donít care about his awards. Thatís trivia. I care about who is the best player. When Iím in a close game my best player has to make plays. He also has to play better when his team needs him more. D Rob certainly didnít do those things. Losing is ok shrinking is not. He should get downgraded accordingly

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WhosisKid
03-13-2018, 09:56 AM
Not gonna vote. This is a joke. The most valuable player of all time, with no possible question, is't even on the list. Bill Russell. The two greatest "fire in the belly" players I've ever seen were Michael Jordan and Bill Russell. They were the two players I've seen who simply weren't going to allow their team to win. Russell was without question the greatest defensive player in the history of the game as well as the greatest rebounder in the history of the game. If you saw Dennis Rodman at his absolute peak, if you could imagine him on super steroids, that was Russell. He controlled nearly every game he was in through his defense. The best outlet passer I've ever seen. A freakishly great shot blocker. No one that I know of who saw him play much would even dream of putting either Bill Walton at his peak or Kareem at his peak above Russell. To this day, if I had to build a winning NBA team, Bill Russell would be THE FIRST PLAYER I would choose for my team, over Chamberlain, over Jordan, over Lebron. And to make it really, really clear, I hated the effing Celtics. They were unbeatable, and Russell was the reason that they were so dominant. He played thirteen seasons and won eleven rings. There was no MVP award during his career, but if their had been, he would have been the MVP around 9 or 10 times. He absolutely dominated Chamberlain in their match ups. Any list without Russell in at least the top 2 or 3 spots has any validity.

And no Elgin Baylor? If we are talking "at their peak" - and for Baylor that was about a five year period, before a devastating knee injury - Baylor was unquestionably one of the 3 or 4 players who be part of that discussion. I get it. It is an age thing. If you haven't been watching basketball for more than a couple of decades you might not fully grasp who Baylor was. Put it this way: at the end of his life Red Auerbach still believed Elgin Baylor was the best forward he had ever seen. Not Larry Bird. Elgin Baylor. I think you can make a very strong case for Baylor being a better offensive player prior to his knee injury than Michael Jordan. And he had the numbers to prove it. Just before his knee injury - and what happened was that he suffered significant torn cartilage as well he knee injury breaking into three separate pieces -

I know one of the standard excuses for rejecting players from the sixties. Basketball allegedly wasn't as competitive. That is hogwash. It was far more competitive then than now. The talent gap does not exist. Most of my playing was in the seventies and eighties, and I've seen nothing in players today to make me think that there is a talent gap. I tried to base my jump shot (I was a very good shooter and I really regret that there wasn't a three point shot line) on Dave Bing, who played most of his career with Detroit. Despite major eye problems, he was a deadly outside shooter. Maybe the best baseline jump shot I've ever seen. Two reasons that it was harder to score then: first, hand checking. Defensive players could really slam offensive players then. Charging was called far more frequently. If Baylor had played with the kind of limitations on what you could do with your hands, he'd probably have average over 40 a game. Second, the talent pool today is incredibly watered down because of a combo of the merger of the NBA and the ABA and extensive expansion. You have at least three times as many players in the league today than in the sixties. So the talent level was actually higher than it is today. There are a lot of starters today who probably couldn't have made any NBA team in the sixties.

If you didn't see Baylor, go check out some highlight reels. He was, along with Jordan, the most freakishly athletic player in the history of the game. They fudged his size and weight for much of his career, but he was probably around 6'5, 230 for most of his career. What made him impossible to guard was a combo of extreme athleticism, incredibly quickness, amazing physical strength, and surreal leaping ability. If you think about "hang time," Baylor had it as much as Jordan, and perhaps more. One of his patented moves was to drive the baseline, jump up while outside the lane, and try to lay the ball in. If anyone challenged the ball, he would use the rim to screen their hands away, and he would curl his hand back and dunk in on the side opposite of where he started off. I saw him do that at least a dozen times. He is the only player in the history of the NBA that I believe could do that routinely. Dr. J did the same play, only spinning the ball off the backboard, and people consider it the greatest play in his career. Baylor did the same play, only dunking it instead. Red Auerbach always spoke of Baylor in superlatives: the greatest forward in the history of the NBA, the strongest forward he ever saw, the quickest player he ever saw, the greatest jumper he ever saw, the most unstoppable offensive player he ever saw. He had elevated his game to the point where he was averaging 38 points a game and 19 rebounds a game. After the knee injury, he dropped to someone who would average 26 points a game and 12 rebounds a game. Still a very, very good player, but not the GOAT like he was prior to the injury.

Another thing about Baylor was the sheer variety of ways that he could score. His bread and butter was driving to the basket, trying to create a three point play by getting fouled on a lay up. Despite his hang time, he rarely dunked, except when using the rim to keep players from blocking his shot. He had a spectacular finger roll, a surprisingly effective jump hook, which he shot with either hand, an excellent jump shot, and he was the only player I've ever seen who would consistently drive to the basket, then turn his back to the rim as he jumped, flipping the ball backwards over his head, a no look shot that went into the hole far more often than you could imagine it should. He was one of the greatest offensive rebounders ever, in the Moses Malone class, so frequently if he missed, he could just put back up his own shot.

But here is the main thing: if you take NBA star players who are old enough to have seen Baylor and who have seen all the players who came afterwards, they nonetheless still consider Baylor to be the best forward ever. I'd bet you money that if you polled the NBA HOF players, Baylor would get their vote for best small forward of all time (though technically he was a power forward - size wise you'd think he was a SF, but he was stronger than the big power forwards, so that with his strength and quickness, no one could come close to handling him.) Think of it this way. Imagine a player about the size of Charles Barkley who was significantly stronger, had 10 inches more on his vertical, and had the quickness and body control of Michael Jordan, and you have Elgin Baylor. But like I said, if you doubt this, hit Youtube and just randomly watch a few highlight reels.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjNS_oYE92E

Now for a confession: I keep saying that he had as much body control as Michael Jordan, but that is a lie. I actually think he had better body control. One reason I feel free to say this is because I just found a particularly good highlight reel, one that really does encapsulate the player I remember. In the sixties you couldn't watch endless amounts of basketball, but I watched every game I could. Then living in Chicago from 1981 until 2013, I watched as much Michael Jordan as I could. But I never really thought that Jordan was quite as athletic as Baylor. I do think he had that "fire in the belly" that I mentioned above. But they are clearly the two most athletic players I ever watched.

I could go on. Take Rick Barry. He is better than several players on that list. And where is Julius Erving? Are you kidding me? You have Tracy McGrady, who isn't even a good player, on the list, but no Erving? Or going back to the fifties, Bob Pettit. Pettit was better than Barkley, far better than Wade, better than Durant. I mean, look at his stats. He was a phenomenal rebounder. Bob Pettit is definitely the greatest player in the history of the game that people today have never heard of. But he went up against Russell, Chamberlain, Baylor, West, Robertson, and so on, and would often have games where he would score 38 points and pull down 26 rebounds.

And why no John Havlicek on the list? Why no Nate Archibald? What I am really complaining about is the lack of perspective that fan have today. That doesn't happen with serious baseball fans. Baseball fans all know about Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle and Walter Johnson, but today's basketball fans don't grasp how good Oscar Robertson and Baylor and Jerry West were. Or if today's fans could watch Earl Monroe play. Just an amazing one on one player. Or the tragedy that was Connie Hawkins, who might have been as good as anyone, but was banned from the NBA for years for a point shaving controversy in which he almost definitely played no role. Fans today might know a lot about Pete Maravich, but might not grasp that he wasn't really a great basketball player, despite his freakishly great skills (he wasn't a good defensive player, his passes were so creative that his teammates couldn't always catch them, and his style was disruptive to team flow - the mark of truly great players like Bill Russell and Michael Jordan is that they make their teammates better players). Or how much do people know now about Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes? Unseld was a dominant center despite being only around 6'6 and not having any scoring ability. But he was significantly wider than Charles Barkley, was incredibly strong, a great rebounder despite not being a great leaper, and a really great passer. No one knows if Hayes was a good or bad passer because he never attempted one (this is a joke - he did pass, he just didn't pass much). But he was a great offensive player, with one of the best fade aways in NBA history, was a tremendous rebounder, and a good defensive player. How many people today remember Dave Bing? Or Satch Sanders, who was Dennis Rodman without the antics (maybe a better defensive forward than Rodman, not as good of a rebounder, but a slightly better scorer - still, they are all in all very, very good forwards whose value to a team never showed up in the points scored column). Basketball didn't begin with Dr. J or Larry Bird or Michael Jordan. It didn't even begin with Kareem or Wilt Chamberlain. I think Bob Pettit and Bob Cousy were the first players to come along who could also be great players today. Cousy was John Stockton before John Stockton. He was the first player to really open up the game in the open court. He invented the behind the back dribble and pass. There is a huge difference between basketball as it was played in 1965 and the way it was played in 1955, but there isn't that much of a difference between the 1965 game and the 2015 game, except for changes to make it easier for people to score. The game used to be far more physical. The other major difference, of course, is the 3 point shot, which we got from the merger with the ABA. A lot of the players from the sixties would have been excellent three point shooters. Baylor certainly would have been. Jerry West. Definitely Dave Bing. Gail Goodrich and Bill Sharman, two players most today have never heard of (Sharman is one of the elite free throw shooters of all time)

Shammyguy3
03-13-2018, 10:08 AM
Holy text

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 11:21 AM
Hey KoB, do you really think Stockton would be better than CP3 in today's league?

Why not? He had a season where he averaged 17ppg / 15 apg / 3 spg all-nba defensive team and he didn't even shoot 1 three point shot per game. He is a career 38.4% shooter from 3pt. He and Mark Price just played in the wrong era. He is the ultimate table setter. Would love to have him on my team. Plus he's way more clutch than Chris Paul. :rolleyes:

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 11:23 AM
I really donít care about his awards. Thatís trivia. I care about who is the best player. When Iím in a close game my best player has to make plays. He also has to play better when his team needs him more. D Rob certainly didnít do those things. He should get downgraded accordingly

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah they usually don't give MVPs and DPOYs to the best players. huh.

Your viewpoint is so old school. WHO CARES ABOUT CLOSE GAMES? Was it you who I brought up Curry? His 1st MVP season was one of the greatest seasons of all-time and he didn't have to step-up his game in the 4th quarter because he was sitting on the bench watching his teammates close out a blowout win.

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 11:29 AM
Not gonna vote. This is a joke. The most valuable player of all time, with no possible question, is't even on the list. Bill Russell. The two greatest "fire in the belly" players I've ever seen were Michael Jordan and Bill Russell. They were the two players I've seen who simply weren't going to allow their team to win. Russell was without question the greatest defensive player in the history of the game as well as the greatest rebounder in the history of the game. If you saw Dennis Rodman at his absolute peak, if you could imagine him on super steroids, that was Russell. He controlled nearly every game he was in through his defense. The best outlet passer I've ever seen. A freakishly great shot blocker. No one that I know of who saw him play much would even dream of putting either Bill Walton at his peak or Kareem at his peak above Russell. To this day, if I had to build a winning NBA team, Bill Russell would be THE FIRST PLAYER I would choose for my team, over Chamberlain, over Jordan, over Lebron. And to make it really, really clear, I hated the effing Celtics. They were unbeatable, and Russell was the reason that they were so dominant. He played thirteen seasons and won eleven rings. There was no MVP award during his career, but if their had been, he would have been the MVP around 9 or 10 times. He absolutely dominated Chamberlain in their match ups. Any list without Russell in at least the top 2 or 3 spots has any validity.

And no Elgin Baylor? If we are talking "at their peak" - and for Baylor that was about a five year period, before a devastating knee injury - Baylor was unquestionably one of the 3 or 4 players who be part of that discussion. I get it. It is an age thing. If you haven't been watching basketball for more than a couple of decades you might not fully grasp who Baylor was. Put it this way: at the end of his life Red Auerbach still believed Elgin Baylor was the best forward he had ever seen. Not Larry Bird. Elgin Baylor. I think you can make a very strong case for Baylor being a better offensive player prior to his knee injury than Michael Jordan. And he had the numbers to prove it. Just before his knee injury - and what happened was that he suffered significant torn cartilage as well he knee injury breaking into three separate pieces -

I know one of the standard excuses for rejecting players from the sixties. Basketball allegedly wasn't as competitive. That is hogwash. It was far more competitive then than now. The talent gap does not exist. Most of my playing was in the seventies and eighties, and I've seen nothing in players today to make me think that there is a talent gap. I tried to base my jump shot (I was a very good shooter and I really regret that there wasn't a three point shot line) on Dave Bing, who played most of his career with Detroit. Despite major eye problems, he was a deadly outside shooter. Maybe the best baseline jump shot I've ever seen. Two reasons that it was harder to score then: first, hand checking. Defensive players could really slam offensive players then. Charging was called far more frequently. If Baylor had played with the kind of limitations on what you could do with your hands, he'd probably have average over 40 a game. Second, the talent pool today is incredibly watered down because of a combo of the merger of the NBA and the ABA and extensive expansion. You have at least three times as many players in the league today than in the sixties. So the talent level was actually higher than it is today. There are a lot of starters today who probably couldn't have made any NBA team in the sixties.

If you didn't see Baylor, go check out some highlight reels. He was, along with Jordan, the most freakishly athletic player in the history of the game. They fudged his size and weight for much of his career, but he was probably around 6'5, 230 for most of his career. What made him impossible to guard was a combo of extreme athleticism, incredibly quickness, amazing physical strength, and surreal leaping ability. If you think about "hang time," Baylor had it as much as Jordan, and perhaps more. One of his patented moves was to drive the baseline, jump up while outside the lane, and try to lay the ball in. If anyone challenged the ball, he would use the rim to screen their hands away, and he would curl his hand back and dunk in on the side opposite of where he started off. I saw him do that at least a dozen times. He is the only player in the history of the NBA that I believe could do that routinely. Dr. J did the same play, only spinning the ball off the backboard, and people consider it the greatest play in his career. Baylor did the same play, only dunking it instead. Red Auerbach always spoke of Baylor in superlatives: the greatest forward in the history of the NBA, the strongest forward he ever saw, the quickest player he ever saw, the greatest jumper he ever saw, the most unstoppable offensive player he ever saw. He had elevated his game to the point where he was averaging 38 points a game and 19 rebounds a game. After the knee injury, he dropped to someone who would average 26 points a game and 12 rebounds a game. Still a very, very good player, but not the GOAT like he was prior to the injury.

Another thing about Baylor was the sheer variety of ways that he could score. His bread and butter was driving to the basket, trying to create a three point play by getting fouled on a lay up. Despite his hang time, he rarely dunked, except when using the rim to keep players from blocking his shot. He had a spectacular finger roll, a surprisingly effective jump hook, which he shot with either hand, an excellent jump shot, and he was the only player I've ever seen who would consistently drive to the basket, then turn his back to the rim as he jumped, flipping the ball backwards over his head, a no look shot that went into the hole far more often than you could imagine it should. He was one of the greatest offensive rebounders ever, in the Moses Malone class, so frequently if he missed, he could just put back up his own shot.

But here is the main thing: if you take NBA star players who are old enough to have seen Baylor and who have seen all the players who came afterwards, they nonetheless still consider Baylor to be the best forward ever. I'd bet you money that if you polled the NBA HOF players, Baylor would get their vote for best small forward of all time (though technically he was a power forward - size wise you'd think he was a SF, but he was stronger than the big power forwards, so that with his strength and quickness, no one could come close to handling him.) Think of it this way. Imagine a player about the size of Charles Barkley who was significantly stronger, had 10 inches more on his vertical, and had the quickness and body control of Michael Jordan, and you have Elgin Baylor. But like I said, if you doubt this, hit Youtube and just randomly watch a few highlight reels.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjNS_oYE92E

Now for a confession: I keep saying that he had as much body control as Michael Jordan, but that is a lie. I actually think he had better body control. One reason I feel free to say this is because I just found a particularly good highlight reel, one that really does encapsulate the player I remember. In the sixties you couldn't watch endless amounts of basketball, but I watched every game I could. Then living in Chicago from 1981 until 2013, I watched as much Michael Jordan as I could. But I never really thought that Jordan was quite as athletic as Baylor. I do think he had that "fire in the belly" that I mentioned above. But they are clearly the two most athletic players I ever watched.

I could go on. Take Rick Barry. He is better than several players on that list. And where is Julius Erving? Are you kidding me? You have Tracy McGrady, who isn't even a good player, on the list, but no Erving? Or going back to the fifties, Bob Pettit. Pettit was better than Barkley, far better than Wade, better than Durant. I mean, look at his stats. He was a phenomenal rebounder. Bob Pettit is definitely the greatest player in the history of the game that people today have never heard of. But he went up against Russell, Chamberlain, Baylor, West, Robertson, and so on, and would often have games where he would score 38 points and pull down 26 rebounds.

And why no John Havlicek on the list? Why no Nate Archibald? What I am really complaining about is the lack of perspective that fan have today. That doesn't happen with serious baseball fans. Baseball fans all know about Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle and Walter Johnson, but today's basketball fans don't grasp how good Oscar Robertson and Baylor and Jerry West were. Or if today's fans could watch Earl Monroe play. Just an amazing one on one player. Or the tragedy that was Connie Hawkins, who might have been as good as anyone, but was banned from the NBA for years for a point shaving controversy in which he almost definitely played no role. Fans today might know a lot about Pete Maravich, but might not grasp that he wasn't really a great basketball player, despite his freakishly great skills (he wasn't a good defensive player, his passes were so creative that his teammates couldn't always catch them, and his style was disruptive to team flow - the mark of truly great players like Bill Russell and Michael Jordan is that they make their teammates better players). Or how much do people know now about Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes? Unseld was a dominant center despite being only around 6'6 and not having any scoring ability. But he was significantly wider than Charles Barkley, was incredibly strong, a great rebounder despite not being a great leaper, and a really great passer. No one knows if Hayes was a good or bad passer because he never attempted one (this is a joke - he did pass, he just didn't pass much). But he was a great offensive player, with one of the best fade aways in NBA history, was a tremendous rebounder, and a good defensive player. How many people today remember Dave Bing? Or Satch Sanders, who was Dennis Rodman without the antics (maybe a better defensive forward than Rodman, not as good of a rebounder, but a slightly better scorer - still, they are all in all very, very good forwards whose value to a team never showed up in the points scored column). Basketball didn't begin with Dr. J or Larry Bird or Michael Jordan. It didn't even begin with Kareem or Wilt Chamberlain. I think Bob Pettit and Bob Cousy were the first players to come along who could also be great players today. Cousy was John Stockton before John Stockton. He was the first player to really open up the game in the open court. He invented the behind the back dribble and pass. There is a huge difference between basketball as it was played in 1965 and the way it was played in 1955, but there isn't that much of a difference between the 1965 game and the 2015 game, except for changes to make it easier for people to score. The game used to be far more physical. The other major difference, of course, is the 3 point shot, which we got from the merger with the ABA. A lot of the players from the sixties would have been excellent three point shooters. Baylor certainly would have been. Jerry West. Definitely Dave Bing. Gail Goodrich and Bill Sharman, two players most today have never heard of (Sharman is one of the elite free throw shooters of all time)

I read this post twice because clearly you are like 60-70 years old and it was entertaining to read to hear you talk about players I've never seen live... but it's also so condescending, obnoxious, and misplaced. It started with two sentences that almost made me not want to continue. "Not gonna vote. This is a joke." What a hero! Thank you for taking a stand! You really proved a point that because an internet forum vote isn't going the way you like you will not participate!! That will solve the problem. Man if only you got involved in politics the world would be a better place. That's what we need. More people sitting on the sidelines complaining. Give me a break. You want Russell. Advocate for him. Don't write a book report waxing poetic on Earl Monroe and Connie Hawkins.

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 11:31 AM
Holy text

:laugh: My favorite post in a while if he didn't start with the "I'm not gonna vote" stuff. I read it in a different tone because of that. You know? Like "you fools, how dare you" instead of "let me tell you about some lost greats" which I would have enjoyed.

FlashBolt
03-13-2018, 11:32 AM
Why not? He had a season where he averaged 17ppg / 15 apg / 3 spg all-nba defensive team and he didn't even shoot 1 three point shot per game. He is a career 38.4% shooter from 3pt. He and Mark Price just played in the wrong era. He is the ultimate table setter. Would love to have him on my team. Plus he's way more clutch than Chris Paul. :rolleyes:

CP3 is a better player than Stockton by any metric you want to use. Passing is overrated in terms of APG for Stockton. He held onto the ball for every possession. The team ran through him and Malone. Was Stockton a better passer? They're both great passers. How is APG going to convince me otherwise when one guy pounded the ball every possession?

All-NBA defensive team = which CP3 has consistently been a part of.
All-NBA teams = CP3 always a part of.
6x Steals leader = NBA record for CP3.

I don't see how Stockton would be a better player. Stockton was one of the dirtiest players in the game as well.

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 11:48 AM
CP3 is a better player than Stockton by any metric you want to use. Passing is overrated in terms of APG for Stockton. He held onto the ball for every possession. The team ran through him and Malone. Was Stockton a better passer? They're both great passers. How is APG going to convince me otherwise when one guy pounded the ball every possession?

All-NBA defensive team = which CP3 has consistently been a part of.
All-NBA teams = CP3 always a part of.
6x Steals leader = NBA record for CP3.

I don't see how Stockton would be a better player. Stockton was one of the dirtiest players in the game as well.

:laugh: Then how come John Stockton's career season HIGH in usage percentage is still lower than Chris Paul's career season LOW in usage percentage?

ewing
03-13-2018, 12:04 PM
Yeah they usually don't give MVPs and DPOYs to the best players. huh.

Your viewpoint is so old school. WHO CARES ABOUT CLOSE GAMES? Was it you who I brought up Curry? His 1st MVP season was one of the greatest seasons of all-time and he didn't have to step-up his game in the 4th quarter because he was sitting on the bench watching his teammates close out a blowout win.

Did Curry close? I thought he lost in the finals. Anywho, I care and so should you. All these guys are great players. If you are comparing an MVP to guy who is the 7th or 8th man you can just look at numbers and awards. The numbers tell me D Rob was better then a lot of players. If Iím comparing him to another great player I have go deeper though. So should you. All you are doing is spouting trivia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FlashBolt
03-13-2018, 12:05 PM
:laugh: Then how come John Stockton's career season HIGH in usage percentage is still lower than Chris Paul's career season LOW in usage percentage?

What's so funny? Of course John will have a lower USG% - he wasn't scoring the ball as much as CP3. Pass-first PG's are always going to have a low USG%. Check Rondo/Kidd's USG% if you want evidence for it. Why? Because the formula for it doesn't account for ball domination but simply, ball usage in terms of being the direct beneficiary of using the ball. I think the confusion comes from you using the advanced statistic incorrectly.

valade16
03-13-2018, 12:10 PM
Why not? He had a season where he averaged 17ppg / 15 apg / 3 spg all-nba defensive team and he didn't even shoot 1 three point shot per game. He is a career 38.4% shooter from 3pt. He and Mark Price just played in the wrong era. He is the ultimate table setter. Would love to have him on my team. Plus he's way more clutch than Chris Paul. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure Stockton would be better than CP3 but I agree, he and particularly Mark Price were from the wrong era and would be way better playing today. I imagine Mark Price could have had a Steve Nash level of impact in today's era (and even Steve Nash wasn't playing in the era when it was acceptable to hoist 8 3's a game or else he'd likely be even more efficient).

ewing
03-13-2018, 01:23 PM
I'm not sure Stockton would be better than CP3 but I agree, he and particularly Mark Price were from the wrong era and would be way better playing today. I imagine Mark Price could have had a Steve Nash level of impact in today's era (and even Steve Nash wasn't playing in the era when it was acceptable to hoist 8 3's a game or else he'd likely be even more efficient).

I feel Stockton is a bit more of the Billups mold then todayís fast break/break people down off the dribble point guards. Price on the other hand was the best in pick and roll during his era and was a heck of shooter off the dribble. I definitely get the Nash comparison there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 02:13 PM
Did Curry close? I thought he lost in the finals. Anywho, I care and so should you. All these guys are great players. If you are comparing an MVP to guy who is the 7th or 8th man you can just look at numbers and awards. The numbers tell me D Rob was better then a lot of players. If Iím comparing him to another great player I have go deeper though. So should you. All you are doing is spouting trivia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spout trivia? Be serious. I'm the only one actually trying to bring up their games. I'm trying to compare their actual skills and how it would be easier to build around D-Rob because he is an equally talented player who plays center and is a better defender than Malone. I think he would be the perfect athletic fast center for the modern game. You guys are the ones who wants to use playoff games from 1994 where Sean Elliot and Nugele Knight shot a combined 35% and were D-Rob's leading secondary scorers at 10ppg and 9ppg.

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 02:14 PM
What's so funny? Of course John will have a lower USG% - he wasn't scoring the ball as much as CP3. Pass-first PG's are always going to have a low USG%. Check Rondo/Kidd's USG% if you want evidence for it. Why? Because the formula for it doesn't account for ball domination but simply, ball usage in terms of being the direct beneficiary of using the ball. I think the confusion comes from you using the advanced statistic incorrectly.

The confusion is coming from you saying Chris Paul isn't ball dominant when he's almost Melo like in his desire to slow the game down to a crawl and orchestra in the half-court where he can dribble and do everything.

Chronz
03-13-2018, 02:24 PM
Gonna take my time reading that brick. Be back tomorrow

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 02:26 PM
I'm not sure Stockton would be better than CP3 but I agree, he and particularly Mark Price were from the wrong era and would be way better playing today. I imagine Mark Price could have had a Steve Nash level of impact in today's era (and even Steve Nash wasn't playing in the era when it was acceptable to hoist 8 3's a game or else he'd likely be even more efficient).

I'm not sure why Stockton is being so doubted. He would play every game. Lead the league in assists every year. Shoot over 50% from the field. Shoot over 40% from 3pt. Shoot low 80's from FT. Lead the league in steals. Make all-defensive team. Like what else did you want him to do? Is 17ppg on 12 shots that much worse than 22ppg on 16 shots?

ewing
03-13-2018, 02:35 PM
Spout trivia? Be serious. I'm the only one actually trying to bring up their games. I'm trying to compare their actual skills and how it would be easier to build around D-Rob because he is an equally talented player who plays center and is a better defender than Malone. I think he would be the perfect athletic fast center for the modern game. You guys are the ones who wants to use playoff games from 1994 where Sean Elliot and Nugele Knight shot a combined 35% and were D-Rob's leading secondary scorers at 10ppg and 9ppg.

Who fits the modern game better wasnít the question though. Nor was who do you think was easier to build around. Here we have 2 players that played in the same era. Both were MVP level at there peak. One out performed the other when they played head to head in big games. One largely maintained his production in the post season while the other did not. Malone was built like a linebacker bc of when he played. D Rob would have been better if he could have put on some mass back then. Iím comparing real things you are comparing imaginary ones


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shammyguy3
03-13-2018, 02:36 PM
I'm not sure why Stockton is being so doubted. He would play every game. Lead the league in assists every year. Shoot over 50% from the field. Shoot over 40% from 3pt. Shoot low 80's from FT. Lead the league in steals. Make all-defensive team. Like what else did you want him to do? Is 17ppg on 12 shots that much worse than 22ppg on 16 shots?

I think Stockton is amazing, but CP3 put up numbers that surpass Magic in a handful of ways and in a tougher defensive era arguably. So would you buy Stockton having arguably better seasons than thw GOAT PG?

ewing
03-13-2018, 02:53 PM
I feel like that is the purpose of the thread?



I would take David Robinson first. I'm assuming we would be drafting them for now and I think it's easier to build around D-Rob for the reasons I have mentioned.

I get ya. It a flawed question imo then. I mean something that was a minus for D Rob when he played IMO is actually a plus for him now. That makes no sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 02:54 PM
Who fits the modern game better wasnít the question though. Nor was who do you think was easier to build around. Here we have 2 players that played in the same era. Both were MVP level at there peak. One out performed the other when they played head to head in big games. One largely maintained his production in the post season while the other did not. Malone was built like a linebacker bc of when he played. D Rob would have been better if he could have put on some mass back then. Iím comparing real things you are comparing imaginary ones

I feel like that is the purpose of the thread?


This is NOT a list that measures a players career or accolades, it is simply a list of, if all the players were in their peak/in their prime/at their best/etc. and all in a draft, who would you take first on your team.

I would take David Robinson first. I'm assuming we would be drafting them for now and I think it's easier to build around D-Rob for the reasons I have mentioned.

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 02:57 PM
So we do a ďtop 25 greatest players of all-time listĒ here on PSD, but I wanted to do a best, not greatest list.

What is the difference?

This is NOT a list that measures a players career or accolades, it is simply a list of, if all the players were in their peak/in their prime/at their best/etc. and all in a draft, who would you take first on your team.

Current List

1. Michael Jordan
2. LeBron James
T3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
T3. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Shaquille OíNeal
6. Magic Johnson
7. Larry Bird
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Tim Duncan
10. Kobe Bryant
11. Steph Curry
12. Moses Malone
13. Tracy McGrady
14. Bill Walton
15. Kevin Durant
16. Jerry West
17. Dwyane Wade
18. Oscar Robertson
19. Kevin Garnett
20. Dirk Nowitzki
21. Charles Barkley


I think Stockton is amazing, but CP3 put up numbers that surpass Magic in a handful of ways and in a tougher defensive era arguably. So would you buy Stockton having arguably better seasons than thw GOAT PG?

Magic was a better passer, scorer, and more efficient. Plus he just dominated games offensively. Stockton hit some clutch shots but he was never a dominant scorer.

FlashBolt
03-13-2018, 03:20 PM
The confusion is coming from you saying Chris Paul isn't ball dominant when he's almost Melo like in his desire to slow the game down to a crawl and orchestra in the half-court where he can dribble and do everything.

Confusion comes from you using USG% rate to explain ball dominance when that is clearly not what USG% is measuring. I never said CP3 wasn't ball-dominant. I said Stockton had his hand on the ball on every possession and when you're feeding it to guys like Karl Malone, it's not impossible to inflate APG numbers. That never indicates who the better passer is. Rondo is a prime example of that. He's a very good passer but not elite. Dude just racks up assists because the ball runs through him on every play. Comparing CP3 to Melo in any aspect is hilarious. CP3 is also a very capable scorer and was often relied on to be the best scorer on his team. Stockton wasn't. So you're confusing CP3 being an elite level scorer efficiency wise as "Melo-like." CP3 is trying to break down a defense while Melo plays ISO. Not sure why you think they are worthy of comparison.

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 05:45 PM
The confusion is coming from you saying Chris Paul isn't ball dominant when he's almost Melo like in his desire to slow the game down to a crawl and orchestra in the half-court where he can dribble and do everything.

Confusion comes from you using USG% rate to explain ball dominance when that is clearly not what USG% is measuring. I never said CP3 wasn't ball-dominant. I said Stockton had his hand on the ball on every possession and when you're feeding it to guys like Karl Malone, it's not impossible to inflate APG numbers. That never indicates who the better passer is. Rondo is a prime example of that. He's a very good passer but not elite. Dude just racks up assists because the ball runs through him on every play. Comparing CP3 to Melo in any aspect is hilarious. CP3 is also a very capable scorer and was often relied on to be the best scorer on his team. Stockton wasn't. So you're confusing CP3 being an elite level scorer efficiency wise as "Melo-like." CP3 is trying to break down a defense while Melo plays ISO. Not sure why you think they are worthy of comparison.

So John Stockton is an overrated passer with inflated stats? I have heard it all now.

The Melo comment makes sense to anyone who knows CP3s history in New Orleans. At his peak his teams were slooow. It was partially a joke calling him "Melo-like" bc you would think a dynamic point guard talent like Paul would play a faster tempo ala Nash instead of favoring the half-court game. Similar to how my former favorite player Carmelo Anthony should have preferred playing a faster pace like the Olympics but he preferred pounding the ball in the half court. No comparison of actual talent. Cp3 >>>>> Melo

FlashBolt
03-13-2018, 07:44 PM
So John Stockton is an overrated passer with inflated stats? I have heard it all now.

The Melo comment makes sense to anyone who knows CP3s history in New Orleans. At his peak his teams were slooow. It was partially a joke calling him "Melo-like" bc you would think a dynamic point guard talent like Paul would play a faster tempo ala Nash instead of favoring the half-court game. Similar to how my former favorite player Carmelo Anthony should have preferred playing a faster pace like the Olympics but he preferred pounding the ball in the half court. No comparison of actual talent. Cp3 >>>>> Melo

You're just using strawman arguments now. You used USG% incorrectly. End of story.

KnicksorBust
03-13-2018, 08:03 PM
So John Stockton is an overrated passer with inflated stats? I have heard it all now.

The Melo comment makes sense to anyone who knows CP3s history in New Orleans. At his peak his teams were slooow. It was partially a joke calling him "Melo-like" bc you would think a dynamic point guard talent like Paul would play a faster tempo ala Nash instead of favoring the half-court game. Similar to how my former favorite player Carmelo Anthony should have preferred playing a faster pace like the Olympics but he preferred pounding the ball in the half court. No comparison of actual talent. Cp3 >>>>> Melo

You're just using strawman arguments now. You used USG% incorrectly. End of story.

No you are arguing semantics by not letting this go when you said Stockton held on to the ball on every possession. That implies he is more like Iverson and less like... well John Stockton. That would mean he had a high usage. I pointed out that isn't true. He is a distributor and a creator. He is the all-time leader in assists for a reason. You can end the story however you want but you keep slipping in words like inflated and overrated to describe the all-time leader in assists and I am going to call you on it everytime.

FlashBolt
03-13-2018, 08:35 PM
No you are arguing semantics by not letting this go when you said Stockton held on to the ball on every possession. That implies he is more like Iverson and less like... well John Stockton. That would mean he had a high usage. I pointed out that isn't true. He is a distributor and a creator. He is the all-time leader in assists for a reason. You can end the story however you want but you keep slipping in words like inflated and overrated to describe the all-time leader in assists and I am going to call you on it everytime.

1) Inflated as I've already said, he had the possession on every play and Karl Malone to feed it to. If you're going to determine that the best passer is the one with the highest APG, go for it. But I simply made the case that it's not true.

2) Possession of the ball = when your team has possession. yes, Stockton held the ball by far more than any other player on the team. I'm clearly referencing ball dominance here. You brought up USG% for no reason other than to justify that Stockton had a lesser USG%>CP3. DUH? So I'm not sure why you brought that up unless you misinterpreted the meaning of USG%. Now, I can care less whether you knew or didn't know. Fact is, USG% is not used to measure ball dominance.

3) Is it a surprise that Karl Malone is #2 in points and Stockton is #1 in assists? These both supported each other and had they won rings, would be up much higher in All-Time lists. So if you're going to ignore the obvious in that Karl Malone was just as important to Stockton being #1 in assists and vice-versa, what's the point of discussing anything in context? This also has nothing to do with peak player... All-Time stats are a measure of longevity when we talk about all-time greats.

4) When did I say Stockton was overrated? That's why I said you're using strawman arguments. You're not reading anything and just start a sentence with, "So, you think Stockton sucks? or, So, you think Stockton's breath stinks?" None of that came from me.

Holding the ball every possession... Yes, he did do that. You don't average 15 assists per game unless you hog the ball.

valade16
03-13-2018, 10:50 PM
Does anyone get penalized as much as Karl Malone and John Stockton amongst top players for playing with each other?

Anytime you bring up Karl Malone's scoring it's "well yeah he had Stockton passing to him" and when you bring up Stockton it's "well yeah he was passing to Karl Malone".

Apparently Malone would be a 20 PPG not a 30 PPG scorer if not for Stockton but Stockton would be an 8 APG PG instead of a 13 APG passer.

ewing
03-13-2018, 11:35 PM
No you are arguing semantics by not letting this go when you said Stockton held on to the ball on every possession. That implies he is more like Iverson and less like... well John Stockton. That would mean he had a high usage. I pointed out that isn't true. He is a distributor and a creator. He is the all-time leader in assists for a reason. You can end the story however you want but you keep slipping in words like inflated and overrated to describe the all-time leader in assists and I am going to call you on it everytime.

Is it more likely that the all time leaders #s are inflated or deflated? Also when do the #s pass through the space time continuum?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shammyguy3
03-14-2018, 12:11 AM
Does anyone get penalized as much as Karl Malone and John Stockton amongst top players for playing with each other?

Anytime you bring up Karl Malone's scoring it's "well yeah he had Stockton passing to him" and when you bring up Stockton it's "well yeah he was passing to Karl Malone".

Apparently Malone would be a 20 PPG not a 30 PPG scorer if not for Stockton but Stockton would be an 8 APG PG instead of a 13 APG passer.

Yeah it's very weird

KnicksorBust
03-14-2018, 08:14 AM
1) Inflated as I've already said, he had the possession on every play and Karl Malone to feed it to. If you're going to determine that the best passer is the one with the highest APG, go for it. But I simply made the case that it's not true.

No you went further than that. Since you'll cry strawman I'll quote you:


it's not impossible to inflate APG numbers. That never indicates who the better passer is.

APG never indicate who the better passer is. There is a difference between saying there are exceptions and what you said.


2) Possession of the ball = when your team has possession. yes, Stockton held the ball by far more than any other player on the team. I'm clearly referencing ball dominance here. You brought up USG% for no reason other than to justify that Stockton had a lesser USG%>CP3. DUH? So I'm not sure why you brought that up unless you misinterpreted the meaning of USG%. Now, I can care less whether you knew or didn't know. Fact is, USG% is not used to measure ball dominance.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. First of all you conceded this:


I never said CP3 wasn't ball-dominant.

So if they both are ball dominant and both are leading their team to elite offenses... what is the problem? Why is this such a detriment to John Stockton's case?


3) Is it a surprise that Karl Malone is #2 in points and Stockton is #1 in assists? These both supported each other and had they won rings, would be up much higher in All-Time lists. So if you're going to ignore the obvious in that Karl Malone was just as important to Stockton being #1 in assists and vice-versa, what's the point of discussing anything in context? This also has nothing to do with peak player... All-Time stats are a measure of longevity when we talk about all-time greats.

These arguments hold very little credibility with me. Because John Stockton played with Karl Malone his assist numbers aren't as impressive? That's the implication of this post. I can't use John Stockton's ridiculous lead in all-time assists to promote his passing ability because he played with another hall of famer. Do I need to add a disclaimer to remind people that he played with Karl Malone? I think they know... What this really does is it forces me to push back and ask you a very simple question:

What amount of assist would have been impressive? He's got 5 of the top six seasons:
1. John Stockton* 14.54 1989-90
2. John Stockton* 14.20 1990-91
3. Isiah Thomas* 13.86 1984-85
4. John Stockton* 13.76 1987-88
5. John Stockton* 13.73 1991-92
6. John Stockton* 13.63 1988-89

But he's not the best pure passer of all-time? If he had averaged 16apg would that have been enough? If you wanna bring up Magic or Nash who ran uptempo offenses and created tons of easy baskets for teammates season after season that discussion we can.


4) When did I say Stockton was overrated? That's why I said you're using strawman arguments. You're not reading anything and just start a sentence with, "So, you think Stockton sucks? or, So, you think Stockton's breath stinks?" None of that came from me.

You said this :

it's not impossible to inflate APG numbers. That never indicates who the better passer is.

and this:


Passing is overrated in terms of APG for Stockton.

There is no other way to interpret that. If his stats are overrated than he is overrated. You even did it again in your last sentence!


Holding the ball every possession... Yes, he did do that. You don't average 15 assists per game unless you hog the ball.

"A ball hog is a derisive term for a player who handles the ball exclusively to the point of impairing the team." Thanks Wikipedia. Didn't want to have to bring you into this. For the entire 90s the Jazz were a top 10 offense and took 2 trips to the finals. How can you possibly accuse him of being a ball hog when he had Karl Malone almost doubling his scoring output and Jeff Hornacek outscoring him? Especially while he was leading a WINNING TEAM to 50 win seasons and two finals trips. I grew up in the 90s. Stockton was considered the ultimate pure point guard. Ran the offense to perfection. 82 games every year. Set his teammates up more often than any player in the history of the nba.

You say he has overrated assist numbers and is hogging the ball? Come on. That's not John Stockton.

KnicksorBust
03-14-2018, 08:18 AM
Does anyone get penalized as much as Karl Malone and John Stockton amongst top players for playing with each other?

Anytime you bring up Karl Malone's scoring it's "well yeah he had Stockton passing to him" and when you bring up Stockton it's "well yeah he was passing to Karl Malone".

Apparently Malone would be a 20 PPG not a 30 PPG scorer if not for Stockton but Stockton would be an 8 APG PG instead of a 13 APG passer.

Brutal man. It makes me think of Phil Jackson. "So overrated he had MJ/Pip...then Kobe/Shaq...then Kobe/Gasol" It's like yes that is true but it makes me question the absurd standard at which some people are compared before their success actually counts. At what point is it considered impressive? Did Phil need to win 15 titles? Did John Stockton need to average 16apg? Then would people believe they actually earned that success. Stockton having 5 of the top 6 assist per game seasons ever and being the all-time leader by a mile isn't enough to prove his ability as a passer because he had Karl Malone as a teammate.

FlashBolt
03-14-2018, 10:38 AM
No you went further than that. Since you'll cry strawman I'll quote you:



APG never indicate who the better passer is. There is a difference between saying there are exceptions and what you said.



I'm not sure what the problem is here. First of all you conceded this:



So if they both are ball dominant and both are leading their team to elite offenses... what is the problem? Why is this such a detriment to John Stockton's case?



These arguments hold very little credibility with me. Because John Stockton played with Karl Malone his assist numbers aren't as impressive? That's the implication of this post. I can't use John Stockton's ridiculous lead in all-time assists to promote his passing ability because he played with another hall of famer. Do I need to add a disclaimer to remind people that he played with Karl Malone? I think they know... What this really does is it forces me to push back and ask you a very simple question:

What amount of assist would have been impressive? He's got 5 of the top six seasons:
1. John Stockton* 14.54 1989-90
2. John Stockton* 14.20 1990-91
3. Isiah Thomas* 13.86 1984-85
4. John Stockton* 13.76 1987-88
5. John Stockton* 13.73 1991-92
6. John Stockton* 13.63 1988-89

But he's not the best pure passer of all-time? If he had averaged 16apg would that have been enough? If you wanna bring up Magic or Nash who ran uptempo offenses and created tons of easy baskets for teammates season after season that discussion we can.



You said this :


and this:



There is no other way to interpret that. If his stats are overrated than he is overrated. You even did it again in your last sentence!



"A ball hog is a derisive term for a player who handles the ball exclusively to the point of impairing the team." Thanks Wikipedia. Didn't want to have to bring you into this. For the entire 90s the Jazz were a top 10 offense and took 2 trips to the finals. How can you possibly accuse him of being a ball hog when he had Karl Malone almost doubling his scoring output and Jeff Hornacek outscoring him? Especially while he was leading a WINNING TEAM to 50 win seasons and two finals trips. I grew up in the 90s. Stockton was considered the ultimate pure point guard. Ran the offense to perfection. 82 games every year. Set his teammates up more often than any player in the history of the nba.

You say he has overrated assist numbers and is hogging the ball? Come on. That's not John Stockton.

1) Maybe you opt to read before you make lengthy posts that are really, arguing strawman takes. My first post in regards to this was that CP3 is a better player than Stockton. I said his APG is overrated if you are going to say he's a better passer than CP3 because of that because Stockton pounded more possessions and had a guy like Karl Malone to feed it to every season of his career.

2) Again, you quote APG numbers when it's clearly skewed. That doesn't make Stockton a better passer. You're asking me who the better player was but all you do is quote APG numbers? Chris Paul's APG numbers are obviously lower because he never played with a guy like Karl Malone, he's also capable of scoring the ball and was depended upon to do so for many years, and because CP3 isn't pounding the ball the way Stockton did because the makeup of the teams are completely different.

3) It's funny you had to Google the definition of ball-hog to reaffirm your case. It was a bad choice of word for me there but it was more-so to point out Stockton's ball pounding than anything else. You just kept using strawman arguments to make it seem as if I'm making Stockton out to be a negative-impact player when my first post would clarify my points that I have been making.

4) Yes, I said his stats are overrated. Are you judging Stockton by his stats? If so, then yes, you are overrating him. If not, then no, my arguments haven't been to say Stockton is overrated but to say that as a player, he is not better than CP3. Seriously, if we're going to judge Stockton by his APG, the guy should be MUCH higher on all-time lists. But he's not. He's placed right where he should be. I've made my points. CP3 is a better player by any metric you want to use. Literally, the only arguments you have made are APG - which would put Stockton above Magic. Is that a take you really want to stick by?

FlashBolt
03-14-2018, 10:48 AM
Btw, you opt to look at some serious playoff blunders from Stockton. Average 15/10 on below efficiency is not going to win his team games. It's why despite having two of the greatest players in the game A) One being 2nd in All-time scoring and probably the GOAT PF during his time, and B) One being the leading APG and assists in NBA history, they achieved so little. The problem with Stockton is he wasn't a two-way threat. You look at all the PG's in the league and it's very rare that a pass-first PG who is limited in scoring will win a championship. It's why I believe most would take Isiah over Stockton as well. Did Kidd win a championship as head honcho being a pass-first? I mean, even Steve Nash to a lesser extent. You have to be able to score the ball if you pound the ball that much. Why? Because the rest of the opposing team knew how to put the clamps on the rest of your team. Even Payton put the work on Stockton. Vs Bulls, what did Stockton honestly really do? He couldn't score. You can recite his efficiency but that's because he took highly selective shots. When the heat turns up, you're not going to get the shots you always want. We've seen CP3 put the ball in the hoop when needed and also play facilitator as well. Stockton was not a two-way threat like that.

WaDe03
03-14-2018, 11:29 AM
Peak Steve Nash is better than Stockton.

KnicksorBust
03-14-2018, 11:50 AM
1) Maybe you opt to read before you make lengthy posts that are really, arguing strawman takes. My first post in regards to this was that CP3 is a better player than Stockton. I said his APG is overrated if you are going to say he's a better passer than CP3 because of that because Stockton pounded more possessions and had a guy like Karl Malone to feed it to every season of his career.

I quoted the exact posts where you said inflated and overrated and I'm still using strawman. Be serious.


2) Again, you quote APG numbers when it's clearly skewed. That doesn't make Stockton a better passer. You're asking me who the better player was but all you do is quote APG numbers? Chris Paul's APG numbers are obviously lower because he never played with a guy like Karl Malone, he's also capable of scoring the ball and was depended upon to do so for many years, and because CP3 isn't pounding the ball the way Stockton did because the makeup of the teams are completely different.

You are creating an impossible standard. In your mind Stockton's 14.5apg does not make his passing skills superior to Paul's 11.6apg because of teammates and "pounding the ball." I'm just curious how many assists would Stockton have needed to average for you to call him a better passer? 16? 18? I already know your reply is going to be that the assist numbers don't matter but I grew up in the 90s. I'm 34. I watched a ton of Stockton. The numbers support what my eyes told me. What are you using to base your opinion that Stockton is not the better passer?



3) It's funny you had to Google the definition of ball-hog to reaffirm your case. It was a bad choice of word for me there but it was more-so to point out Stockton's ball pounding than anything else. You just kept using strawman arguments to make it seem as if I'm making Stockton out to be a negative-impact player when my first post would clarify my points that I have been making.

Now who is using strawman? I'm only accusing you of saying Stockton's assists are inflated and overrated. And that accusation is based in the fact that... you know... you said it and I quoted it 3 times. :) And you're about to say it again.


4) Yes, I said his stats are overrated. Are you judging Stockton by his stats? If so, then yes, you are overrating him. If not, then no, my arguments haven't been to say Stockton is overrated but to say that as a player, he is not better than CP3. Seriously, if we're going to judge Stockton by his APG, the guy should be MUCH higher on all-time lists. But he's not. He's placed right where he should be. I've made my points. CP3 is a better player by any metric you want to use. Literally, the only arguments you have made are APG - which would put Stockton above Magic. Is that a take you really want to stick by?

The strawman crown is all yours now buddy. In this exact thread I already said this:

Magic was a better passer, scorer, and more efficient. Plus he just dominated games offensively. Stockton hit some clutch shots but he was never a dominant scorer.

So no I don't rank Stockton ahead of Magic. You also said the only argument I have made are APG?

Then what are these posts in this very thread:

He (Stockton) had a season where he averaged 17ppg / 15 apg / 3 spg all-nba defensive team and he didn't even shoot 1 three point shot per game. He is a career 38.4% shooter from 3pt. He and Mark Price just played in the wrong era. He is the ultimate table setter. Would love to have him on my team. Plus he's way more clutch than Chris Paul. :rolleyes:


I'm not sure why Stockton is being so doubted. He would play every game. Lead the league in assists every year. Shoot over 50% from the field. Shoot over 40% from 3pt. Shoot low 80's from FT. Lead the league in steals. Make all-defensive team. Like what else did you want him to do?

I talked about his scoring, his passing, his steals, his all-defensive teams, his efficiency from the field/perimeter/ft, his reliability in production, and his endurance to play every game. You need to retire this strawman nonsense because you called me out and I quoted your posts and now you are trying to do it again and I'm quoting my own posts to prove you wrong again. I could easily throw your first sentence back at you but I'm not into baiting.

FlashBolt
03-14-2018, 12:04 PM
I quoted the exact posts where you said inflated and overrated and I'm still using strawman. Be serious.



You are creating an impossible standard. In your mind Stockton's 14.5apg does not make his passing skills superior to Paul's 11.6apg because of teammates and "pounding the ball." I'm just curious how many assists would Stockton have needed to average for you to call him a better passer? 16? 18? I already know your reply is going to be that the assist numbers don't matter but I grew up in the 90s. I'm 34. I watched a ton of Stockton. The numbers support what my eyes told me. What are you using to base your opinion that Stockton is not the better passer?




Now who is using strawman? I'm only accusing you of saying Stockton's assists are inflated and overrated. And that accusation is based in the fact that... you know... you said it and I quoted it 3 times. :) And you're about to say it again.



The strawman crown is all yours now buddy. In this exact thread I already said this:


So no I don't rank Stockton ahead of Magic. You also said the only argument I have made are APG?

Then what are these posts in this very thread:




I talked about his scoring, his passing, his steals, his all-defensive teams, his efficiency from the field/perimeter/ft, his reliability in production, and his endurance to play every game. You need to retire this strawman nonsense because you called me out and I quoted your posts and now you are trying to do it again and I'm quoting my own posts to prove you wrong again. I could easily throw your first sentence back at you but I'm not into baiting.

Let me make it simple for you.

You provided a case for Stockton. The only valid case you have is that he had a higher APG. There is NOTHING Stockton did better than CP3 at other than have a higher APG. My reasoning for Stockton having a higher APG was based off him having more possessions of the ball due to the nature of his team so I stated that APG doesn't help his case in terms of being the better passer because they were both equally great passers. I have NEVER underrated Stockton - you are simply OVERRATING him to the likes that I originally didn't realize.

Oh, so Magic was a better passer than Stockton? How do you figure? Stockton has had more seasons with higher APG's and leads the NBA in total assists. The answer is because Stockton did not have that next level that these other guys have due to their scoring capabilities.

You talk about his scoring - which is laughable. Stop. CP3 beats him here easily.
Passing = CP3 - which I advocated based on two elite all-time PG's who have the best AST/TO ratios in NBA history. CP3 is #1, Stockton #2. I don't look at APG to determine who the better passer was. Rondo was never the best passer in the league but simply the system required him to facilitate every possession.
All-defensive teams, Stockton takes a hit because of GP but CP3 is one of the greatest perimeter defenders playing in an era where the explosion of guards is at a level Stockton has never played against. Ask yourself, where would Stockton rank as a PG today? His defense was tough but also very dirty. That same type of defense would not be possible in today's league and he sure as hell would have a more difficult time fighting through screens and dealing with elite level guard play game after game.
Efficiency, again, when you are that selective with your shots, efficiency doesn't always outweigh volume. Stockton was an opportunist scorer. You can't give him the ball and he takes over.

I'm not throwing anything out. The entire time, you have misinterpreted my post. It wasn't about Stockton's career I was questioning. It's the fact that he isn't better than CP3 and you haven't made a case that he he beats CP3 in any category. The lone argument that we have gone back-and-forth has been APG and Stockton's total assist numbers. Great. But how was he a better passer? Have you detailed that?

We can all agree, Magic was the GOAT passer because of his height and he was able to see the play before it happens. How was Stockton a better passer than CP3? Because CP3 is better on every other category. And we don't have to mention the many times Stockton has underachieved against guards that he is above in terms of all-time lists. I'd take Isiah and GP over Stockton any day.

valade16
03-14-2018, 12:12 PM
Btw, you opt to look at some serious playoff blunders from Stockton. Average 15/10 on below efficiency is not going to win his team games. It's why despite having two of the greatest players in the game A) One being 2nd in All-time scoring and probably the GOAT PF during his time, and B) One being the leading APG and assists in NBA history, they achieved so little. The problem with Stockton is he wasn't a two-way threat. You look at all the PG's in the league and it's very rare that a pass-first PG who is limited in scoring will win a championship. It's why I believe most would take Isiah over Stockton as well. Did Kidd win a championship as head honcho being a pass-first? I mean, even Steve Nash to a lesser extent. You have to be able to score the ball if you pound the ball that much. Why? Because the rest of the opposing team knew how to put the clamps on the rest of your team. Even Payton put the work on Stockton. Vs Bulls, what did Stockton honestly really do? He couldn't score. You can recite his efficiency but that's because he took highly selective shots. When the heat turns up, you're not going to get the shots you always want. We've seen CP3 put the ball in the hoop when needed and also play facilitator as well. Stockton was not a two-way threat like that.

While you do have a point in that historically pass first PG's who are the star player of a team don't win the title, I do disagree with the idea that they "accomplished very little"

They went to the Finals twice and went to the WCF another 3 times. They went to the WCF 5/7 years in the 90's. That's a WCF trip about every 1/3 of the time they were together as starters.

They had the most consistent success of any team outside MJ/Hakeem's teams in the 90's.

FlashBolt
03-14-2018, 12:19 PM
While you do have a point in that historically pass first PG's who are the star player of a team don't win the title, I do disagree with the idea that they "accomplished very little"

They went to the Finals twice and went to the WCF another 3 times. They went to the WCF 5/7 years in the 90's. That's a WCF trip about every 1/3 of the time they were together as starters.

They had the most consistent success of any team outside MJ/Hakeem's teams in the 90's.

For Stockton/Karl Malone to be as healthy as they were for nearly a two-decade span (granted, Stockton took a few years to get his body ultimately adjusted and then, his career actually declined later on really quick, tbh), what was achieved? I get the MJ argument but they lost to some teams they should have quite frankly, beat. They should have beaten the Blazers at least once, lost to the Rockets twice when they were the favorites (a series where Stockton averaged 14/8 and got outplayed by Kenny Smith). I mean, we're talking about two All-Time GOAT's who had always been healthy but two NBA Finals appearances was all they have to their list of team success? WCF trip meant nothing. As soon as the Showtime Lakers were out of the league, the rest of the WC were food for the Bulls. It wasn't exactly the most competitive of WC.

Consistent, yes. Stockton and Karl Malone are right up there with the Duncan+TP+Manu in consistency but they didn't win anything and for two-all time players to seriously achieve that little, it's damaging to both their legacies. I mean, if Karl Malone had one a ring or two, he'd have a fighting argument over Duncan and a top ten spot. Literally, the only reason Stockton is #2 in PG is because of his longevity but if you count peak for peak years, CP3 has had more and was the better player.

valade16
03-14-2018, 12:52 PM
For Stockton/Karl Malone to be as healthy as they were for nearly a two-decade span (granted, Stockton took a few years to get his body ultimately adjusted and then, his career actually declined later on really quick, tbh), what was achieved? I get the MJ argument but they lost to some teams they should have quite frankly, beat. They should have beaten the Blazers at least once, lost to the Rockets twice when they were the favorites (a series where Stockton averaged 14/8 and got outplayed by Kenny Smith). I mean, we're talking about two All-Time GOAT's who had always been healthy but two NBA Finals appearances was all they have to their list of team success? WCF trip meant nothing. As soon as the Showtime Lakers were out of the league, the rest of the WC were food for the Bulls. It wasn't exactly the most competitive of WC.

Consistent, yes. Stockton and Karl Malone are right up there with the Duncan+TP+Manu in consistency but they didn't win anything and for two-all time players to seriously achieve that little, it's damaging to both their legacies. I mean, if Karl Malone had one a ring or two, he'd have a fighting argument over Duncan and a top ten spot. Literally, the only reason Stockton is #2 in PG is because of his longevity but if you count peak for peak years, CP3 has had more and was the better player.

I'm not sure if this is a joke or what? But the Western Conference was very competitive during that time. Hakeem's Rockets, GP/Kemp Sonics, Barkley Suns, Clyde Blazers, D-Rob's Spurs.

In 94 6 teams won 50+ games (and the Blazers won 47) and 5 teams had an SRS above 4.00.
In 95 4 teams won 57+ games and 3 had an SRS above 5.90.
96 had 4 teams above 4 SRS
97 had 5 teams above 3 SRS
In 98 3 teams won 60+ games (and 2 more won 56) and 4 teams were above 4.40 SRS.

(For reference the entire NBA today has 3 teams above 4.00 SRS and 5 above 3.00 SRS, let alone just the West).

When you look at who they faced and what they did, they were very close a number of times:

98: Lost to MJ's Bulls in the Finals
97: Lost to MJ's Bulls in the Finals
96: Lost to Sonics in the WCF 3-4
95: Lost to the Rockets in the 1st Rd 2-3
94: Lost to the Rockets in the WCF 1-4
93: Lost to the Sonics in the 1st Rd 2-3
92: Lost to the Blazers in the WCF 2-4


So in 7 years they were either West Champs or lost to the team that went to the Finals in 6/7 years. 3/5 times they lost it was in the Game 5/7 (last game) of the series.

I agree that CP3 was the better player, but what the Jazz did was impressive and they achieved a lot (even if they fell short of a title) in an incredibly tough conference. Not to mention that with no GOAT in their way, Malone/Stockton likely have a title or 2.

FlashBolt
03-14-2018, 01:08 PM
I'm not sure if this is a joke or what? But the Western Conference was very competitive during that time. Hakeem's Rockets, GP/Kemp Sonics, Barkley Suns, Clyde Blazers, D-Rob's Spurs.

In 94 6 teams won 50+ games (and the Blazers won 47) and 5 teams had an SRS above 4.00.
In 95 4 teams won 57+ games and 3 had an SRS above 5.90.
96 had 4 teams above 4 SRS
97 had 5 teams above 3 SRS
In 98 3 teams won 60+ games (and 2 more won 56) and 4 teams were above 4.40 SRS.

(For reference the entire NBA today has 3 teams above 4.00 SRS and 5 above 3.00 SRS, let alone just the West).

When you look at who they faced and what they did, they were very close a number of times:

98: Lost to MJ's Bulls in the Finals
97: Lost to MJ's Bulls in the Finals
96: Lost to Sonics in the WCF 3-4
95: Lost to the Rockets in the 1st Rd 2-3
94: Lost to the Rockets in the WCF 1-4
93: Lost to the Sonics in the 1st Rd 2-3
92: Lost to the Blazers in the WCF 2-4


So in 7 years they were either West Champs or lost to the team that went to the Finals in 6/7 years. 3/5 times they lost it was in the Game 5/7 (last game) of the series.

I agree that CP3 was the better player, but what the Jazz did was impressive and they achieved a lot (even if they fell short of a title) in an incredibly tough conference. Not to mention that with no GOAT in their way, Malone/Stockton likely have a title or 2.

You overrate those WC teams. Where do they compare vs today?

valade16
03-14-2018, 01:22 PM
You overrate those WC teams. Where do they compare vs today?

The Clyde Blazers, Malone Jazz, Barkley Suns, Hakeem Rockets and Payton Sonics would all be ahead of any team in the Western Conference besides the Warriors and Rockets. The D-Rob Spurs would probably be the 3rd seed but they could be lower as well.

Based on virtually any metric, they were very good teams.

FlashBolt
03-14-2018, 01:23 PM
The Clyde Blazers, Malone Jazz, Barkley Suns, Hakeem Rockets and Payton Sonics would all be ahead of any team in the Western Conference besides the Warriors and Rockets. The D-Rob Spurs would probably be the 3rd seed but they could be lower as well.

Based on virtually any metric, they were very good teams.

Well obviously we would have to include rules but those teams aren't as talented as some of the teams in the West right now. The league expansion certainly had a lot to do with some poor teams back then and also a lack of talent. And when international players came into play, we've been seeing much better players overall. "Likely 1 or 2." Well, it's not like Stockton was playing lights out in those series. And that's what this is all about. I don't see a scenario where Stockton is better than CP3. CP3 is better by nearly every metric we want to use. And he's doing it against higher quality guards. We can look at how many times Stockton has been on the MVP voting and compare that to CP3. I am willing to bet it's not even close. Stockton's longevity is the greatest part of his game but as I've said, there is no case where peak for peak wise, Stockton has been better. Heck, the peak longevity has already been CP3's side for a few years now.

valade16
03-14-2018, 01:35 PM
Well obviously we would have to include rules but those teams aren't as talented as some of the teams in the West right now. The league expansion certainly had a lot to do with some poor teams back then and also a lack of talent. And when international players came into play, we've been seeing much better players overall. "Likely 1 or 2." Well, it's not like Stockton was playing lights out in those series. And that's what this is all about. I don't see a scenario where Stockton is better than CP3. CP3 is better by nearly every metric we want to use. And he's doing it against higher quality guards. We can look at how many times Stockton has been on the MVP voting and compare that to CP3. I am willing to bet it's not even close. Stockton's longevity is the greatest part of his game but as I've said, there is no case where peak for peak wise, Stockton has been better. Heck, the peak longevity has already been CP3's side for a few years now.

I agree with this. While I think Stockton would be better in today's NBA taking more 3's and running the Pick and Roll, I still think CP3 would be better.

KnicksorBust
03-14-2018, 02:20 PM
Let me make it simple for you.

You provided a case for Stockton. The only valid case you have is that he had a higher APG. There is NOTHING Stockton did better than CP3 at other than have a higher APG. My reasoning for Stockton having a higher APG was based off him having more possessions of the ball due to the nature of his team so I stated that APG doesn't help his case in terms of being the better passer because they were both equally great passers. I have NEVER underrated Stockton - you are simply OVERRATING him to the likes that I originally didn't realize.

Oh, so Magic was a better passer than Stockton? How do you figure? Stockton has had more seasons with higher APG's and leads the NBA in total assists. The answer is because Stockton did not have that next level that these other guys have due to their scoring capabilities.

You talk about his scoring - which is laughable. Stop. CP3 beats him here easily.
Passing = CP3 - which I advocated based on two elite all-time PG's who have the best AST/TO ratios in NBA history. CP3 is #1, Stockton #2. I don't look at APG to determine who the better passer was. Rondo was never the best passer in the league but simply the system required him to facilitate every possession.
All-defensive teams, Stockton takes a hit because of GP but CP3 is one of the greatest perimeter defenders playing in an era where the explosion of guards is at a level Stockton has never played against. Ask yourself, where would Stockton rank as a PG today? His defense was tough but also very dirty. That same type of defense would not be possible in today's league and he sure as hell would have a more difficult time fighting through screens and dealing with elite level guard play game after game.
Efficiency, again, when you are that selective with your shots, efficiency doesn't always outweigh volume. Stockton was an opportunist scorer. You can't give him the ball and he takes over.

I'm not throwing anything out. The entire time, you have misinterpreted my post. It wasn't about Stockton's career I was questioning. It's the fact that he isn't better than CP3 and you haven't made a case that he he beats CP3 in any category. The lone argument that we have gone back-and-forth has been APG and Stockton's total assist numbers. Great. But how was he a better passer? Have you detailed that?

We can all agree, Magic was the GOAT passer because of his height and he was able to see the play before it happens. How was Stockton a better passer than CP3? Because CP3 is better on every other category. And we don't have to mention the many times Stockton has underachieved against guards that he is above in terms of all-time lists. I'd take Isiah and GP over Stockton any day.

There is a lot of irony in this post. For example, you say Chris Paul's scoring is better because of volume but Chris Paul's passing is better because of efficiency. You pick and choose which metric fits the situation. I think Stockton's volume of assists and efficiency of scoring is better because his teammates are getting more shots and that leads to a more balanced attack. You also say Stockton is an opportunist scorer and doesn't take over but I'd challenge you to name all the big playoff games CP3 led his team to victory. We can game for game comparing who carried their team to more playoff wins and I'm pretty sure the Stockton list would be longer there as well.

KnicksorBust
03-14-2018, 02:23 PM
Just curious which other people would prefer based on raw assist numbers:

14.5 assists per game with 3.5 turnovers per game
11.6 assists per game with 2.6 turnovers per game

The second has the better ast/to but anytime you can get an extra 3 assists per 1 turnover I think you take that everyday.

FlashBolt
03-14-2018, 02:42 PM
There is a lot of irony in this post. For example, you say Chris Paul's scoring is better because of volume but Chris Paul's passing is better because of efficiency. You pick and choose which metric fits the situation. I think Stockton's volume of assists and efficiency of scoring is better because his teammates are getting more shots and that leads to a more balanced attack. You also say Stockton is an opportunist scorer and doesn't take over but I'd challenge you to name all the big playoff games CP3 led his team to victory. We can game for game comparing who carried their team to more playoff wins and I'm pretty sure the Stockton list would be longer there as well.

I meant to put = as in they're even. I don't really care about the AST/TO ratio in terms of their #1/#2 spots but it's in CP3's favor for what it is worth. Balanced attack? Stockton couldn't score, period. Look across his playoff history. When you need the guy to score, he isn't going to be that guy. It wasn't until they got Hornacek that they actually had a scorer behind Malone because Stockton wasn't that guy. Instead of looking at sheer empty numbers such as APG and total assists, why aren't you looking at AST %? That's a more accurate measure of how much they are actually contributing relative to the pace, team comp, etc., Simply throwing out his superior APG won't convince anyone.

Stockton was an opportunist scorer. How many times has the guy scored over 30 in his career? Hint: It's less than 10 times. I never said CP3 has led his team to victory so that's again, another argument that has no value. CP3 has had his share of playoff blunders but the guy wasn't playing with Karl Malone. When he finally got a team to play with in Clippers, Blake was a massive choke and injuries really screwed them both in numerous playoff series. CP3 is a better scorer, period. I'm not sure what there is to debate.


Just curious which other people would prefer based on raw assist numbers:

14.5 assists per game with 3.5 turnovers per game
11.6 assists per game with 2.6 turnovers per game

The second has the better ast/to but anytime you can get an extra 3 assists per 1 turnover I think you take that everyday.


So let me ask you, what does this honestly prove? Stockton beats Magic in this same example. Seriously, you're trying to win this silly APG argument. APG/TO ratio does matter, btw. And CP3's advanced stats peg him as the GOAT PG. So for what it's worth, we can applaud LeBron and all his advanced stats but it has to mean something when CP3 is leading nearly every advanced category for any PG in NBA history. To question his efficiency in any case is sadly, a losing argument you will lose.

ewing
03-14-2018, 02:44 PM
Just curious which other people would prefer based on raw assist numbers:

14.5 assists per game with 3.5 turnovers per game
11.6 assists per game with 2.6 turnovers per game

The second has the better ast/to but anytime you can get an extra 3 assists per 1 turnover I think you take that everyday.

I actually agree with Flashbolt that you canít decide based on that at all. On the other hand, the notion that Stockton wasnít a great passer is a troll at best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KnicksorBust
03-14-2018, 03:51 PM
I actually agree with Flashbolt that you canít decide based on that at all. On the other hand, the notion that Stockton wasnít a great passer is a troll at best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not saying the list of best passers of all-time is a copy and paste of the list of assist per game leaders. I do think it's the right place to start though. A great example would be the current apg leaders compared to the current ast/to ratio leaders:

APG = Westbrook / LeBron / Harden / Paul
Ast/to = Dinwiddie / Collison / Tyrus Jones / Jerian Grant

Which group you want for passing?

KnicksorBust
03-14-2018, 04:03 PM
So let me ask you, what does this honestly prove? Stockton beats Magic in this same example. Seriously, you're trying to win this silly APG argument. APG/TO ratio does matter, btw. And CP3's advanced stats peg him as the GOAT PG. So for what it's worth, we can applaud LeBron and all his advanced stats but it has to mean something when CP3 is leading nearly every advanced category for any PG in NBA history. To question his efficiency in any case is sadly, a losing argument you will lose.

I will tell you what I want it to prove in the post. I think it's more impressive that he averaged 14.5apg even those his ast/to ratio was less than Chris Paul's best season. I believe that is a staggering assist total and that the difference in their ast/to as a ratio is minimal statistically and as raw totals the only difference is 1 more turnover for 3 more assists. I think that's a trade off you take all day. Since our viewpoints are clearly biased I wanted to hear from someone else on that comparison. It was that simple.

If you want to go a few more rounds we can but I think we've talked this one through.

FlashBolt
03-14-2018, 04:39 PM
I'm not saying the list of best passers of all-time is a copy and paste of the list of assist per game leaders. I do think it's the right place to start though. A great example would be the current apg leaders compared to the current ast/to ratio leaders:

APG = Westbrook / LeBron / Harden / Paul
Ast/to = Dinwiddie / Collison / Tyrus Jones / Jerian Grant

Which group you want for passing?

What a horrible response. We are clearly comparing the top PG's and not players who are coming off the bench who are making hockey passes - which are some of the players you are mentioning in the bottom tier.

Chris Paul has led or was close to leading the league in APG and also, AST/TO for anyone average over five assists for many years. How are my viewpoints biased? Even if I concede the APG (which has been put to sham), there is not a single post of mine that is biased. It's all factually based and proven. You don't need to hear from anyone else: CP3 is a better player. It's amazing that you think otherwise and I'm not sure where it is coming from. CP3 has been in top five in MVP voting for more than a handful amount of years. He was #2 the year Kobe won it. CP3 has been in numerous defensive All NBA teams in an era where guards and perimeter players run the show. CP3 has been consistently ranked as a top five NBA player in numerous years. CP3 is a better scorer. CP3's advanced numbers not only put him as the GOAT PG but a top ten NBA player (not that I am advocating it but there is a strong correlation with higher advanced numbers = all-time ranking in many cases). I told you to look at assist % instead of APG but you still ignore it. CP3 has had more peak seasons and his peak seasons were better than Stockton. Where Stockton has CP3 beat is longevity and one can argue that Stockton and Malone will beat anyone not named LeBron or Kareem at it. When was Stockton ever held that high in MVP voting? He was never close. Give CP3 a guy like KG his entire career or Karl Malone.. CP3's best running mate in New Orleans was David West. He goes to the Clippers and it's Blake Griffin - great player but he needed the ball to be effective because he sucked playing off ball. Do you think Stockton averages 15 assists with David West?

KnicksorBust
03-15-2018, 12:02 PM
What a horrible response. We are clearly comparing the top PG's and not players who are coming off the bench who are making hockey passes - which are some of the players you are mentioning in the bottom tier.

Chris Paul has led or was close to leading the league in APG and also, AST/TO for anyone average over five assists for many years. How are my viewpoints biased? Even if I concede the APG (which has been put to sham), there is not a single post of mine that is biased. It's all factually based and proven. You don't need to hear from anyone else: CP3 is a better player. It's amazing that you think otherwise and I'm not sure where it is coming from. CP3 has been in top five in MVP voting for more than a handful amount of years. He was #2 the year Kobe won it. CP3 has been in numerous defensive All NBA teams in an era where guards and perimeter players run the show. CP3 has been consistently ranked as a top five NBA player in numerous years. CP3 is a better scorer. CP3's advanced numbers not only put him as the GOAT PG but a top ten NBA player (not that I am advocating it but there is a strong correlation with higher advanced numbers = all-time ranking in many cases). I told you to look at assist % instead of APG but you still ignore it. CP3 has had more peak seasons and his peak seasons were better than Stockton. Where Stockton has CP3 beat is longevity and one can argue that Stockton and Malone will beat anyone not named LeBron or Kareem at it. When was Stockton ever held that high in MVP voting? He was never close. Give CP3 a guy like KG his entire career or Karl Malone.. CP3's best running mate in New Orleans was David West. He goes to the Clippers and it's Blake Griffin - great player but he needed the ball to be effective because he sucked playing off ball. Do you think Stockton averages 15 assists with David West?

You ignore a very important reason why he was able to put up the greatest assist numbers in NBA History. His chemistry with his teammates. How do you develop chemistry? You play 410 consecutive regular season games to start your career. You play all 82 games a record SEVENTEEN TIMES. His consistency is incredible and he was a great teammate. That counts. Yes I think he could have averaged 15 assists per game and would have been a better fit with Blake Griffin. He also probably would have gotten along with Blake Griffin and could have played the rest of their careers together.

FlashBolt
03-15-2018, 12:07 PM
You ignore a very important reason why he was able to put up the greatest assist numbers in NBA History. His chemistry with his teammates. How do you develop chemistry? You play 410 consecutive regular season games to start your career. You play all 82 games a record SEVENTEEN TIMES. His consistency is incredible and he was a great teammate. That counts. Yes I think he could have averaged 15 assists per game and would have been a better fit with Blake Griffin. He also probably would have gotten along with Blake Griffin and could have played the rest of their careers together.

1) Lol. Don't talk about developing chemistry as if CP3 is a poor man at it. It sounds like you're REALLY reaching for an argument there.

2) And through it all, Karl Malone and John Stockton were the healthiest SOB's of their era and NBA history but managed to win how many? Managed to contend in how many NBA Finals? We are talking about two GOAT's at their positions on the same team at their prime but you're telling me they could only muster up two NBA Finals? And Stockton was absolutely horrid in them so what case does he honestly have?

3) Yes. He would average 15 assists with David West. Even more assists than he had with Karl Malone. Are you even reading your comments or has the idea that responding back would make you somehow more credible? He would have been a better fit with Blake based on what? Cause Stockton did nothing better than CP3 so I'm not sure what you're advocating here.

You have no argument. KoB, out of respect for you, I will leave this discussion. I don't think you have a legitimate argument as you certainly haven't made one. Seems like you're trying to make an invalid case seem authentic.

valade16
03-15-2018, 12:41 PM
1) Lol. Don't talk about developing chemistry as if CP3 is a poor man at it. It sounds like you're REALLY reaching for an argument there.

2) And through it all, Karl Malone and John Stockton were the healthiest SOB's of their era and NBA history but managed to win how many? Managed to contend in how many NBA Finals? We are talking about two GOAT's at their positions on the same team at their prime but you're telling me they could only muster up two NBA Finals? And Stockton was absolutely horrid in them so what case does he honestly have?

3) Yes. He would average 15 assists with David West. Even more assists than he had with Karl Malone. Are you even reading your comments or has the idea that responding back would make you somehow more credible? He would have been a better fit with Blake based on what? Cause Stockton did nothing better than CP3 so I'm not sure what you're advocating here.

You have no argument. KoB, out of respect for you, I will leave this discussion. I don't think you have a legitimate argument as you certainly haven't made one. Seems like you're trying to make an invalid case seem authentic.

While I agree with your overarching point, it's not exactly a good idea to bring up the lack of playoff success (or championships) in any argument about CP3.

Yeah the Jazz only went to 2 Finals and 5 WCFs with Stockton, but that's light years better than a CP3 team has ever done in the playoffs. And CP3 has been in the NBA long enough where he should have gone to the Conference Finals at least once by now.

FlashBolt
03-15-2018, 01:31 PM
While I agree with your overarching point, it's not exactly a good idea to bring up the lack of playoff success (or championships) in any argument about CP3.

Yeah the Jazz only went to 2 Finals and 5 WCFs with Stockton, but that's light years better than a CP3 team has ever done in the playoffs. And CP3 has been in the NBA long enough where he should have gone to the Conference Finals at least once by now.

Yeah, probably not the best point but CP3's troubles come from one player in particular and that's Blake Griffin. New Orleans Hornets was a good team but that wasn't a championship contender. David West+young Tyson Chandler were not Karl Malone. And then when CP3 gets to the Clippers, Blake is an even bigger choke artist who has had playoff troubles as well. Injuries also happened to them - which really killed any chances they had in the stacked West. I believe they lost to your Blazers because Blake got injured. For sure, as great as CP3 is, his playoffs history has been terrible for his reputation. But has he ever played with a player like Karl? We're seeing CP3 finally play with a 1st option player in Harden and time will tell but if he underperforms this season (not saying he has to beat the Warriors but he has zero excuses not to perform well), there will be legitimate questions about his career when it's all said-and-done.

KnicksorBust
03-15-2018, 02:29 PM
I'm just curious if you can just brush away 14.5apg because he played with Karl Malone then what amount of assists per game would actually have impressed you? Did he need to average 16 per game? 18 per game?

KnicksorBust
03-15-2018, 02:32 PM
While I agree with your overarching point, it's not exactly a good idea to bring up the lack of playoff success (or championships) in any argument about CP3.

Yeah the Jazz only went to 2 Finals and 5 WCFs with Stockton, but that's light years better than a CP3 team has ever done in the playoffs. And CP3 has been in the NBA long enough where he should have gone to the Conference Finals at least once by now.

Stockton getting abuse for playoff runs where he actually hit game-winning shots with conference final and nba championship implications compared to CP3's choke job against the Thunder is a little ridiculous.