Where Would John Stockton (at his best) Rank as a PG Today?

[Bush4Ever.]

Taken from a recent RealGM topic and slightly adjusted:

Say he got drafted by an average team in 2017 (like he did with the Jazz in his era), just kerplunked from 1985 via a time-machine (so no growing up in this era) to 2017. If his career followed the same arc, he would get his first major break around 2020.

Where would he rank amongst point guards in this new era at his best? So roughly the 89-93 version of Stockton or so, mapped onto the 2020-2024 era ball?

Top 1?
Top 5?
Top 10?
Top 15?
Top 20?
Something else?

Modern PGs:
Luka
SGA
Brunson
Haliburton
Curry
Maxey
Ja
Dame
Fox
Young
Kyrie
Murray
Cade
LaMelo
Harden
White
Garland
Holiday
VanVleet
Coby White
D'Angelo

I assume no one would vote outside that range. I voted somewhere between the 5th-10th best in their poll (maybe in the middle of that range) because I think Stockton's skills would translate nicely, but I majorly doubt his ability to scale his scoring and open up that part of the game on par with the first and second-tier of scorers in the modern game. IIRC, he only had like five 30+ point games in his career, and nothing I've seen on tape indicates he could be a major big-time scorer.

[Alex_Murphy]

he plays like a white drue holiday

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Taken from a recent RealGM topic and slightly adjusted:

Say he got drafted by an average team in 2017 (like he did with the Jazz in his era), just kerplunked from 1985 via a time-machine (so no growing up in this era) to 2017. If his career followed the same arc, he would get his first major break around 2020.

Where would he rank amongst point guards in this new era at his best? So roughly the 89-93 version of Stockton or so, mapped onto the 2020-2024 era ball?

Top 1?
Top 5?
Top 10?
Top 15?
Top 20?
Something else?

Modern PGs:
Luka
SGA
Brunson
Haliburton
Curry
Maxey
Ja
Dame
Fox
Young
Kyrie
Murray
Cade
LaMelo
Harden
White
Garland
Holiday
VanVleet
Coby White
D'Angelo

I assume no one would vote outside that range. I voted somewhere between the 5th-10th best in their poll (maybe in the middle of that range) because I think Stockton's skills would translate nicely, but I majorly doubt his ability to scale his scoring and open up that part of the game on par with the first and second-tier of scorers in the modern game. IIRC, he only had like five 30+ point games in his career, and nothing I've seen on tape indicates he could be a major big-time scorer.

Your guess seems pretty good. My guess is he'd shoot somewhat more today and his scoring would be up as a result, but dimes would likely be down in a commensurate manner.

[zombiesonics]

Would average like 20/9 instead of 15/13.

Would probably be a 50/40/90 shooter since he was already a good shooter even back in the bum ass ‘90s. He’d take more and would be playing with infinitely better talent.

Basically a more efficient, less scoring Trae Young.

[Bush4Ever.]

Stockton peaked at 23 points per 100 possessions during his career, which was 73rd in the league in 1990.

In 2024, that spot and the closest spots held by PGs were Coby White, Cole Anthony, and D'Angelo Russell.

So basically, guys scoring the upper teens and a guy who would score in the upper or at least mid teens if he played starter minutes for a real NBA franchise.

Assists aren't the best measure of playmaking, but I tend to agree with you guys about where he'd land on that front.

It really is a different game today though. I'd be curious to see what would happen with a shift in his style of play.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Stockton peaked at 23 points per 100 possessions during his career, which was 73rd in the league in 1990.

In 2024, that spot and the closest spots held by PGs were Coby White, Cole Anthony, and D'Angelo Russell.

So basically, guys scoring the upper teens and a guy who would score in the upper or at least mid teens if he played starter minutes for a real NBA franchise.

Assists aren't the best measure of playmaking, but I tend to agree with you guys about where he'd land on that front.

It really is a different game today though. I'd be curious to see what would happen with a shift in his style of play.

The pick and roll offence with Malone maybe inflated the assists somewhat, relative to what would be available today in a more ball movement era. Really not sure. My gut instinct is he would be around 8 -9 assists per game.

[elartman1973]

I dont rank players.
Pointless, childish, nobody is ever right.
Waste of time as this boards proven by how many threads cover the topic and not once has anything been resolved

Jordan is best of all time though. Thats established

[wailuaFC]

Less athletic Kendall Marshall

[Bush4Ever.]

I dont rank players.

Jordan is best of all time though.

lol

[wailuaFC]

I think he’d be a fringe starter in today’s game, both he and Malone have just about the least portable games for all time greats. As bush showed, he’s not a prolific scorer and his best trait is his pnr passing, but without being a volume shooter from 3, everyone is just going under the screen and clogging his passing lanes. He’d be hunted every trip down because he weighed like 160 pounds. Hate to do the white to white comparison but he’d be tj McConnell esque, minus tjs ability to touch the paint whenever he wants. That may seem like a slight to Stockton, but Tj is a very valuable player

[thedangerouskitchen]

He'd be Top 5-10 Offensively and the best Defensive PG. Combined he'd be Top 3 in the game today. But of course we don't talk about Defense in the Modern Era so...

[zombiesonics]

I think he’d be a fringe starter in today’s game, both he and Malone have just about the least portable games for all time greats. As bush showed, he’s not a prolific scorer and his best trait is his pnr passing, but without being a volume shooter from 3, everyone is just going under the screen and clogging his passing lanes. He’d be hunted every trip down because he weighed like 160 pounds. Hate to do the white to white comparison but he’d be tj McConnell esque, minus tjs ability to touch the paint whenever he wants. That may seem like a slight to Stockton, but Tj is a very valuable player

TJ McConnell isn’t a horrible comparison. If you look at his per 36 stats, that’s about what Stockton would be. Maybe a little more scoring.

[ElJorge]

Why wouldn’t he be similar to Steve Nash, but with better defense? Or are we saying Nash wouldn’t do well in today’s game too? The most 3-pt shots per game Nash took in a season was 4.7 at a .470 clip. The most Stockton took was 2.8 at a .449 clip. I know it’s not as simple as “have Johnny boy take two more 3’s per game and he’d be Nash” but the groundwork is there. If he “magically” transported here and started playing we’d have to assume that he’d eventually adjust his game, no? Or are we assuming he’d just keep playing like it’s the 1990s? Or is this based on a one game hypothetical sample? I see no reason why his shooting splits would suddenly plummet because he’s an older player in a modern setting. Let’s say .449 becomes .400 due to the minor increase in volume and even that’s very good 3-pt shooting. Shit… even .385 would be pretty damn solid.

Yea his assists might take a hit without the P&R game with Malone, but he’d also benefit from wider lanes and way more 3-pt shooters to kick out to. I’m in the “his stats would basically stay pat” camp. We have players today damn near averaging triple doubles, so I don’t think a guy averaging 16-18ppg 12-14apg would be unrealistic.

[Bush4Ever.]

Why wouldn’t he be similar to Steve Nash, but with better defense? Or are we saying Nash wouldn’t do well in today’s game too?

Nash and Stockton are not particularly equivalent as *creators* as opposed to "people who register an assist". In terms of style, effect, magnitude, etc...

Go ahead and laugh, but the backpicks profile speaks excellently to this point (and why):

https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/01/ ... -stockton/




In terms of shooting/scoring, Nash and Stockton had equivalent career TS+, but Nash had multiple seasons of 27-28 pts/100 possessions. Stockton peaked at 23. In the *playoffs*, Nash actually increased volume to an average of 27.1 pts/100 possessions in Phoenix (vs. 23.3 in the regular season). Stockton dipped from 21 to 20.4.

Nash had a TS of 58.3 in the playoffs, 60 in Phoenix. Stockton 56.8. Whatever that works out to in terms of TS+ (TS normed to era), it seems unlikely Stockton held an advantage. Most likely they were equivalent, but with Nash providing more volume (in Phoenix more than 30 percent more volume over Stockton).

Stockton was better defensively (although no, not a lockdown PG), but the offensive gap between them is meaningful. There is not equivalence. For a frame of reference of how wide the gap is, in the backpicks project, Nash's peak offense rated a 20.3 CORP and Stockton an 8.1. Lebron's peak offense was 20.2.

Nash winning two MVPs and nearly winning a third vs. Stockton averaging a 10th place vote during the 1989-1993 period says something as well. Nash made Phoenix go. The Jazz by and large...went as Malone went, not Stockton.

In many circles, Stockton has the reputation of an offensive maestro, but as discussed above, his orchestration was conservative, his attacks tame. Utah’s offense correlated more with Malone’s fluctuations than Stockton’s,

https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/01/ ... -stockton/

[Bush4Ever.]

Nash's teams offensive rating in and around his prime:

2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 1
2005: 1
2006: 2
2007: 1
2008: 2
2009: 2
2010: 1

That is basically exactly what Magic did with the Lakers during the 1980s and 1990 (minus his partial season in 1981).

Stockton?

1989: 17
1990: 10
1991: 11
1992: 4
1993: 7

Interestingly, the Jazz had top 4ish type offenses in the last third of the 1990s, when Stockton was exiting his prime, and starting to dip (although to be fair, not by tons except maybe 1998 when he played 29 minutes a game):



The thread question revolved around dropping peak/prime Stockton directly into the modern game, but the Stockton/Nash debate is a good one on a few fronts. I think Nash was clearly better peak/prime to peak/prime, but Stockton's outrageous quality longevity is intriguing. His per-minute production on PER components was basically unchanged from 1988 through 2003 (moving from 21 to 24). If I were picking a PG for a franchise, that would be very tempting to choose for that long a period of time, even though you would definitely need a higher level star to win a title.

[ElJorge]

Thanks Bush… that scouting report on Backpicks was really interesting. Rondo was mentioned several times as a better comparison to Stockton, and I guess that makes sense. Maybe “Rondo with a better jumper” would be a fair description of Stockton in today’s game.

[Alex_Murphy]

rondo with a better jump shot is a weak comparison because jump shooting is a huge difference maker in comparing talent. i watched a lot of stockton growing up and i thought he was extremely surgical with his pick and roll and his jump shooting was mark price elite. he reminds me of nash in a lot of ways given his traditional approach to the point guard position obviously not as flashy and voluminous as a shooter. but comparing him to rondo when rondo jump shot was literally broke all his career is a terrible comp. also rondo was very crafty around the rim whereas stockton was pretty vanilla in that regard

[Y2K]

Nash's teams offensive rating in and around his prime:

2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 1
2005: 1
2006: 2
2007: 1
2008: 2
2009: 2
2010: 1

That is basically exactly what Magic did with the Lakers during the 1980s and 1990 (minus his partial season in 1981).

Stockton?

1989: 17
1990: 10
1991: 11
1992: 4
1993: 7

Interestingly, the Jazz had top 4ish type offenses in the last third of the 1990s, when Stockton was exiting his prime, and starting to dip (although to be fair, not by tons except maybe 1998 when he played 29 minutes a game):



The thread question revolved around dropping peak/prime Stockton directly into the modern game, but the Stockton/Nash debate is a good one on a few fronts. I think Nash was clearly better peak/prime to peak/prime, but Stockton's outrageous quality longevity is intriguing. His per-minute production on PER components was basically unchanged from 1988 through 2003 (moving from 21 to 24). If I were picking a PG for a franchise, that would be very tempting to choose for that long a period of time, even though you would definitely need a higher level star to win a title.

For anyone that actually witnessed those Stockton years listed, one must come to the realization that outside of Stockton and Malone, they had no other legitimate offensive weapons that threatened a defense. The Jazz ran a well-structured half-court offense but the team was built around a defensive identity.

When the Jazz acquired Hornacek, that gave them a legitimate floor spreader that could be their second leading scorer without having to dominate the ball.

[Bush4Ever.]

For anyone that actually witnessed those Stockton years listed, one must come to the realization that outside of Stockton and Malone, they had no other legitimate offensive weapons that threatened a defense. The Jazz ran a well-structured half-court offense but the team was built around a defensive identity.

When the Jazz acquired Hornacek, that gave them a legitimate floor spreader that could be their second leading scorer without having to dominate the ball.

They had a few other guys at various points averaging 20ish a night (Thurl Bailey and Jeff Malone in the 80s/early 90s) even if they weren't floor-spreaders, and the Jazz had a great offense in 1998 with Stockton averaging only 29 minutes a night.

I'm not down on Stockton at all. Actually, he was a guy I watched a lot of tape on growing up, because I was (mostly) a PG growing up with basketball coach father and he'd make me watch Stockton as an example of how a PG is supposed to play. Basic boomer ball wisdom and all that.

But I do think there is a clear and straightforward advantage to Nash in terms of overall offensive creation and passing in that particular comparison.

2005:
The Suns do 17.6 points/100 possessions better on offense with Nash vs. without.
http://www.82games.com/04PHO2D.HTM

2006:
The Suns do 8.3 points/100 possessions better on offense with Nash vs. without.
http://www.82games.com/0506/05PHO1D.HTM

2007:
The Suns do 12.5 points/100 possessions better on offense with Nash vs. without.
http://www.82games.com/0607/06PHO1D.HTM

2008:
The Suns do 15.5 points/100 possessions better on offense with Nash vs. without.
http://www.82games.com/0708/07PHO1D.HTM

For a frame of reference, Curry in 2016 was at 13.5, Joker in 2023 was 18.4, and Lebron in 2009 was 12.7. +/- isn't precisely a measure of overall performance, but it's not a bad measure of relative importance to a specific team/lineup, etc...

This is a classic RealGM thread on Stockton vs. Nash. I basically fall where the poster "tsherkin" does:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewto ... 4&t=957960