First to 50 in the West

[Randy]

Excellent summation Skander, one I must agree with, all except your lumping Shaq in with those uber-elites. Shaq IS NOT in that category by even your own definition he never had that win at all costs attitude, he did not make his teammates better if it didn't suit him, he had NO passion for winning, and he didn't hate losing, he didn't just take games off, he took seasons off.

I actually agree Randy, you never really dissed Duncan, but you did offer backhanded compliments, fair enough, I do the same myself. Where you are so categorically wrong in this thread IMO is not the Duncan issue, you readily acknowledge his greatness, rather it is your stubborn refusal to acknowledge Stockton's place in NBA history. I agree that Magic was the better PG, would that he would have played defense, but his short career of necessity relegates him to second place from a numbers point of view but first place from a rings point of view. That said, Stockton had a 20 year run of winning seasons that simply cannot be discounted and MUST put him in the elite first tier upper echelon. You simply baffle me in that something so glaringly obvious escapes your otherwise fairly sound analysis.

I never meant to give Duncan any backhanded compliments -- I have mentioned that I believe that TD is definately in the elite first tier upper echelon.  My disagreement in this area wasn't meant to diss TD in any way -- I simply don't want to diss some other players by stating that winning 50+ games a season for 10 years puts him in the elite first tier upper echelon that several players who DIDN'T accomplish this achievement.  I appreciate skanders mention of Pistol Pete -- who I would agree with although my thoughts were focused on Oscar Robertson -- IMO, one of the best players to ever play the game -- both of those players belong in your elite first teir upper echelon.

I really don't care if you disagree with me -- I'm not saying that Stockton isn't a HOF player.  I'm just saying that I believe there is an elite second tier upper echelon and that's where Stockton belongs.  I think those other players are still a bit better than Stockton was.  Stockton accomplished tremendous things in his long career and he was a great player but I believe that there are other players who are as good currently in our league today -- Kidd, Nash and Chris Paul.  I believe some of these other players are once in a lifetime type of players -- LeBron is the Big "O" of today, Kobe is the MJ of today, -- these are the types of players that stand heads and shoulders above the other players in the league.  I don't believe that Kidd, Nash and/or Paul will accomplish that task.  That's why I make the difference between Stockton and Magic.  I don't think you see a Magic in the league today -- you see a couple of Stocktons.  That's my perspective anyway.

[Randy]

Great discussion guys.  Threads like this is what makes this such a great board.

Hopefully we will have some more in the playoffs...

And threads like THIS (sorry, I wanted everyone to know who was posting) are the reason I like this board. 

I sure hope that we can have a somewhat healthy WC playoffs -- I would love to see a healthy Lakers squad go up against the Spurs in the playoffs.  I also hope the Mavs can get Dirk back for the playoffs same with getting the Hornets healthy.  It's going to be some great NBA basketball if that can happen!!!

[JoMal]

Where does John Stockton rank as a point guard? Top five all time.

Any player who is top five all time should be considered 'elite' - first tier, not second tier. Plenty of other point guards make the HOF by being second tier, and there are alot more of them. But to be at the very top of the game - top five - you have to know where to place them.

1. Magic Johnson
2. Oscar Robertson
3. Isiah Thomas
4. John Stockton
5. Bob Cousy

The next tier would start with guys like Tiny Archibald, Steve Nash, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, and maybe Walt Frazier.

Larry Bird is easily the best small forward of all time. There really is no second guessing on that one. Baylor and Irving are next, then maybe Rick Barry and James Worthy. Wilkens and Pippen would top the second tier guys.

We already did the power forwards recently, and I think everyone agrees with Duncan topping that list, followed by Malone, Barkley, McHale, and Pettit. Dirk would be a second tier guy, along with Garnett, Hayes, Debusschere,. and Buck Williams.

Centers are a bit harder to judge by era, because they are asked to do different things now then back in the day. However, the best of the centers would be Abdul-Jabber. Chamberlain would be next, then Russell, Shaq, I suppose, and Olajuwon. Top tier guys all.

The next tier would have Moses Malone, George Mikan, Patrick Ewing, Dave Robinson and Bill Walton.

Finally, shooting guards. MJ is sort of a notch above first tier by himself. Kobe and Jerry West are about equal after him. George Gervin, Iverson (please do not call him a point guard -he never truly has been), and about a million or so guys who scored twenty plus a game who would be filling up the HOF if we let them.

[Ted]

I think Randy, like many of us, has simply been underexposed to John Stockton. He just wasn't on TV that much, and many people didn't get a chance to see all of the things he did on the court. As a basketball player, Stockton's only weakness was his height, and he minimized the impact of that by the way he played.

If you ever saw John Stockton set an off-the-ball screen, you would know how he played the game--full out, for the entire game. Yet somehow, he stayed healthy and did not miss one game in 17 of 19 seasons. He missed 4 games one year due to injury, and 18 another, that was it. He was able to score from anywhere on the court, and was one of the most deadly three-point shooters in the league. He chose, however, to score less, and pass more, averaging more than 12 assists per game for 8 straight seasons. He average more than 10 for 10 straight. Playing reduced minutes (27.7) at the age of 41, he still averaged over 15.5 points, 11 assists, and 2.4 steals per 40 minutes.

He's one of the few players in NBA history who have spawned the creation of a rule to address his game; i.e., guards setting picks in the paint.

He was a great defender. Few point guards could make him look bad (Isiah Thomas being one notable exception). But if you tried to, you ended up flat on your back unconscious needing 40+ stitches compliments of Mr. Karl Malone.

When Magic Johnson broke the all-time record for assists, he said he was merely holding it for Stockton for a while. Mark Jackson, the No. 2 all-time in assists is 5,483 behind. That's six seasons for two-time MVP Steve Nash at his best.

There is no way in hell Steve Nash will ever be as good as Stockton. Neither will Kidd. I won't say that for Paul or Williams, but they have an unbelievably LONG way to go. Nash's two MVP seasons are pretty much on par with a streak of TEN (10) straight seasons put down by Stockton. Don't even try to compare them until you go look at career stats head to head. When Nash plays at a high-per-minute level until he's 41, then let's talk.

Kidd? Not worth discussion.

Isiah? Great player. Great winner. I put him a very close fourth to Magic, Stockton, and Oscar (I don't know the order of these three). Cousy . . . don't waste my time. The guy could barely dribble with his left hand. They had barely stopped using peach baskets when he was good.

[msc]

Nice post, Ted, and very true.  I have to agree with Ted, Laker Fan, JoMal and everyone except Randy regarding Stockton's status as one of the top 5 all time PG's.  IMO, he's in the top 2 along side Magic.  As much as I hated that little bugger at the time, I look back with nothing but respect and admiration.  I actually feel lucky to have been able to watch him play. 

[Randy]

I would also agree with JoMal -- I was talking about being in the top 10 nba players to ever play the game -- I don't think that Stockton fits in that top tier.  I do think that there's room between 2 and 3 on JoMal's list -- I believe that there isn't a lot of difference between 3 and 4. 

I disagree with Ted about Kidd.  I think that Stockton's ability to play with Malone and in Sloan's system give him the edge over Kidd because Kidd had every bit of skill that Stockton had.  If you look at the stats, Stockton is a better shooter but Kidd is also a far better rebounder.  Their stats outside of that are almost even.  Stockton was NBA 1st Team 2x and Kidd has held that honor 4x.  I don't think there is much difference between these guys.

[Ted]

I would also agree with JoMal -- I was talking about being in the top 10 nba players to ever play the game -- I don't think that Stockton fits in that top tier.  I do think that there's room between 2 and 3 on JoMal's list -- I believe that there isn't a lot of difference between 3 and 4. 

I disagree with Ted about Kidd.  I think that Stockton's ability to play with Malone and in Sloan's system give him the edge over Kidd because Kidd had every bit of skill that Stockton had.  If you look at the stats, Stockton is a better shooter but Kidd is also a far better rebounder.  Their stats outside of that are almost even.  Stockton was NBA 1st Team 2x and Kidd has held that honor 4x.  I don't think there is much difference between these guys.

Still, IMHO, not worth discussion.

[Randy]

I would also agree with JoMal -- I was talking about being in the top 10 nba players to ever play the game -- I don't think that Stockton fits in that top tier.  I do think that there's room between 2 and 3 on JoMal's list -- I believe that there isn't a lot of difference between 3 and 4. 

I disagree with Ted about Kidd.  I think that Stockton's ability to play with Malone and in Sloan's system give him the edge over Kidd because Kidd had every bit of skill that Stockton had.  If you look at the stats, Stockton is a better shooter but Kidd is also a far better rebounder.  Their stats outside of that are almost even.  Stockton was NBA 1st Team 2x and Kidd has held that honor 4x.  I don't think there is much difference between these guys.

Still, IMHO, not worth discussion.

Nice homer response.  I don't think that many present players are looked at by where they will stack up against HOF.  I think the glove is a great example -- he did it for several years but he didn't do it his whole career.  Stockton did -- but so has Kidd.  Kidd is a better defensive player than Stockton was, IMO, and while Stockton is better in areas, Kidd is also better in areas.  I don't think there is a lot of space between them when it's all said and done.

[JoMal]

..... Cousy . . . don't waste my time. The guy could barely dribble with his left hand. They had barely stopped using peach baskets when he was good.

He was the dominant point guard of his era. And shots into peach baskets still counted. From memory, the experiment using hoola hoops soon after peach baskets was much worse.

[Skandery]

From memory, the experiment using hoola hoops soon after peach baskets was much worse.

Bit of advice JoMal.  You don't need to make this easy for westkoast.

[JoMal]

From memory, the experiment using hoola hoops soon after peach baskets was much worse.

Bit of advice JoMal.  You don't need to make this easy for westkoast.

What do you mean, Skandery? You are starting to sound like a younger kid I used to know back in Springfield named Jimmy Naismith, who used to power jam his opinions on all around him too. 

[Skandery]

Shaq IS NOT in that category by even your own definition he never had that win at all costs attitude, he did not make his teammates better if it didn't suit him, he had NO passion for winning, and he didn't hate losing, he didn't just take games off, he took seasons off.

LF, I'll admit to you that as I was typing the names after the colon, there was a long pause and reconsider after I typed in Shaquille O'Neal-who I've never been a huge fan of.  You're absolutely right in that his off-season conditioning has been for the most part atrocious; his seeming need to belittle pryor organizations and teammates is off-putting and childish, the contributions of his running mates are considerable (Kobe and D Wade); and what I personally find most disagreeable with his inclusion, he probably never reached his maximum potential.  Yet that must be weighed against the fact that he was indeed nigh unstoppable when focused and determined to win and for a significant amount of time he was the centerpiece of a quasi-dynasty.  Those facts along with winning 4 rings in 6 years, I found it quite difficult not to include him.

Though in including Shaq, I should probably assume that one standard will do just fine and revise my list to include Kareem Abdul Jabbar, also.  

[Ted]

Nice homer response.

Okay, I'll give you an objective response. Let's compare Stockton and Kidd fairly, by what both did up to this point in their careers. Here are the numbers for the first fifteen years of their careers. Brace yourself . . .

Minutes per game
Stockton: 32.4
Kidd: 37.7
Kidd plays more minutes--good for him, but remember this number in the context of the following stats and you may not think of this as an advantage for Kidd.

Points per game
Stockton: 13.4
Kidd: 14.3
Kidd shot over 2000 more FG attempts to acheive this 1-point per game advantage.

Assists per game
Stockton: 11.1
Kidd: 9.3
Stockton averaged more than 10 assists 10 straight years in the 15-year span. Kidd accomplished the feat three times. Stockton averaged more than 14 twice, 13 three times, 12 three times, 11 once. Kidd never surpassed 10.8.

Steals per game
Stockton: 2.3
Kidd: 2.0
Pretty close here, but a little context. Stockton got over 230 steals four times, 200 five times, 199 twice. Kidd never surpassed 175.

Turnovers per game
Stockton: 3.0
Kidd: 3.2
Pretty close here. But overall assist-to-turnover ratio is more revealing.

Assist-to-turnover ratio
Stockton: 3.8
Kidd: 2.9

Rebounds per game
Stockton: 2.7
Kidd: 6.7
Kidd is clearly better here, no question. Of course, it's easier to rebound when you miss so much. 

Field goal percentage
Stockton: 51.9
Kidd: 40.1
Kidd is atrocious here; 40.1 percent is just plain awful.

3-point percentage
Stockton: 38.4
Kidd: 33.6
Stockton became known as a feared long-range shooter. Kidd has become known as a below average at best.

Free throw percentage
Stockton: 82.3
Kidd: 78.0
Not a huge difference here, but another advantage to Stockton.

Stockton's team came out of a tough Western Conference and went to the finals twice and pushed the best team of the era harder than anyone else ever did. Kidd's team came out of a pathetically weak Eastern Conference once, and got absolutely murdered.

All of Stockton's percentages were superior to Kidd's. He also notched superior accumulation statistics in all but one category, while playing 5 minutes per game less than Kidd. Measured against each other or against the other great players, Kidd does not stack up with John Stockton. Don't come back at me with weak shite like "Kidd is a better defensive player than Stockton was, IMO."

One last stat:

Games missed over first 15 years
Stockton: 22
Kidd: 170

DFWMB

[Skandery]

OW--err--bought on margin.









<whine>It just doesn't have the same effect, Ted.<whine>

[Ted]

I'm pretty sure the week is up. OWN at your liesure.