What's new
By:

John Stockton’s dirty little secret

Thee jazz fan said:
I took out the guys Stockton is better then.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Okay, this is a more interesting discussion to me.

You think Stockton is better than:
Duncan
Hakeem
Bill Russell
Dr J
Jerry West
Elgin Baylor
Moses Malone
Karl Malone

I disagree but that is interesting how high you have him ranked. A find a few of those pretty crazy, but you are a die hard old school Jazz fan so that makes sense that you are a homer about it. I wonder how many people agree with you that Stockton is better than Karl Malone.
 
infection said:
Moses Plenty.

568add5d0c1c3.image.jpg
Click to expand...
Good and Plenty?
 
Is there a way to determine who was the best "pound for pound" player in the NBA.
Win shares / average career weight?

I've heard this pound for pound argument over the years and it would be nice if it could be solved and put to bed.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Okay, this is a more interesting discussion to me.

You think Stockton is better than:
Duncan
Hakeem
Bill Russell
Dr J
Jerry West
Elgin Baylor
Moses Malone
Karl Malone

I disagree but that is interesting how high you have him ranked. A find a few of those pretty crazy, but you are a die hard old school Jazz fan so that makes sense that you are a homer about it. I wonder how many people agree with you that Stockton is better than Karl Malone.
Click to expand...

The problem with this whole idea, is that it is a circular reference. If you pull Stock out of the equation, it changes Malone's numbers completely. If you pull Malone out of the equation, it changes Stock's numbers completely. You literally cannot determine which was the better, it's all subjective.

They are conjoined twins that cannot be separated.
 
Jazz Spazz said:
Is there a way to determine who was the best "pound for pound" player in the NBA.
Win shares / average career weight?

I've heard this pound for pound argument over the years and it would be nice if it could be solved and put to bed.
Click to expand...
Inch for inch would be more relevant imo. I mean I am sure Stockton is probably standard white guy 5-6", but Malone is probably packing.
 
Jazz Spazz said:
The problem with this whole idea, is that it is a circular reference. If you pull Stock out of the equation, it changes Malone's numbers completely. If you pull Malone out of the equation, it changes Stock's numbers completely. You literally cannot determine which was the better, it's all subjective.

They are conjoined twins that cannot be separated.
Click to expand...
Idk, I think Stock would have fared just about as well without Malone directly. Give him anyone who can score the ball and he will find him. A transcendent passer finds the open man. Of course any decent scorer working with him would have looked better playing with a play-maker like Stockton.

I think Malone would have still scored in bunches, but his game would have to change without a passer like Stockton. He would have probably resorted to more post-ups and 1 on 1 play. Of course, any decent point guard working with him would have looked better playing with a target like Malone.

I think their synergy helped each other out, no doubt, but neither of them would have been a slouch without the other. I still think Stockton would have ended up the assist leader, but maybe with just around 14k instead of 15k in his career. Malone would likely still have ended up 2nd in scoring, but his averages might have dropped some. Who knows? I think great players find a way to be great, regardless of circumstances.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Idk, I think Stock would have fared just about as well without Malone directly. Give him anyone who can score the ball and he will find him. A transcendent passer finds the open man. Of course any decent scorer working with him would have looked better playing with a play-maker like Stockton.

I think Malone would have still scored in bunches, but his game would have to change without a passer like Stockton. He would have probably resorted to more post-ups and 1 on 1 play. Of course, any decent point guard working with him would have looked better playing with a target like Malone.

I think their synergy helped each other out, no doubt, but neither of them would have been a slouch without the other. I still think Stockton would have ended up the assist leader, but maybe with just around 14k instead of 15k in his career. Malone would likely still have ended up 2nd in scoring, but his averages might have dropped some. Who knows? I think great players find a way to be great, regardless of circumstances.
Click to expand...
I still think we should cut Tony Bradley and let Malone go for the scoring record by coming off the bench to launch threes.
 
I think Malone needed Stockton more then Stockton needed Malone, hell I think him playing with Malone prevented Stockton from unlocking his full potential. Stockton, IMO could’ve averaged 25-12 if his entire game wasn’t revolved around Malone. This isn’t a knock on Malone, it’s just how Stockton was put together. He didn’t want to be the star. He was perfectly happy to feed the beast that was Malone. I often wondered how much more dominant Magic’s Lakers or Thomas’s bad boy pistons. ****, he would’ve been perfect on those bad boy teams. I truly believe that away from Utah and Malone he’d be in the mnt. Rushmore discussion, but then Ron would just chalk it up to me being a homer. I watched most of his career and he could do it all. He was elite in just about everything he did. Pass, shoot, defend, IQ, clutch, love for the game, finishing inside. You name it, he could do it. Had he not played with an all time great in Malone, no doubt in my mind, he would’ve reached higher heights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stockton was a great point guard but I don't think he was capable of taking games over from a scoring standpoint with consistency like Malone was. He took the game over in other ways I guess but never demanded the double and triple teams consistently that Malone did.They are a very complimentary combo though. I agree they both benefited from playing together. But Malone added more to winning then Stockton. When we finally made our finals runs Malone was still putting up 27 and 10. Stockton was still good but he has slowed down more than Malone. The second run he was putting up 12 PPG and 8 assists and even less in the playoffs. He was still a big factor, just not as much as Malone who was dominate.


To me the greatest attribute of Stockton and Malone was their work ethic. Those guys worked very hard to perfect their craft. That is one reason they are loved in Utah. That's why they had such long careers and sustained success even after their prime years.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
I think Malone needed Stockton more then Stockton needed Malone, hell I think him playing with Malone prevented Stockton from unlocking his full potential. Stockton, IMO could’ve averaged 25-12 if his entire game wasn’t revolved around Malone. This isn’t a knock on Malone, it’s just how Stockton was put together. He didn’t want to be the star. He was perfectly happy to feed the beast that was Malone. I often wondered how much more dominant Magic’s Lakers or Thomas’s bad boy pistons. ****, he would’ve been perfect on those bad boy teams. I truly believe that away from Utah and Malone he’d be in the mnt. Rushmore discussion, but then Ron would just chalk it up to me being a homer. I watched most of his career and he could do it all. He was elite in just about everything he did. Pass, shoot, defend, IQ, clutch, love for the game, finishing inside. You name it, he could do it. Had he not played with an all time great in Malone, no doubt in my mind, he would’ve reached higher heights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Completely agree. That doesn't take anything away from Malone who is definitely a legit HOF player.
 
Thee jazz fan said:
I think Malone needed Stockton more then Stockton needed Malone, hell I think him playing with Malone prevented Stockton from unlocking his full potential. Stockton, IMO could’ve averaged 25-12 if his entire game wasn’t revolved around Malone. This isn’t a knock on Malone, it’s just how Stockton was put together. He didn’t want to be the star. He was perfectly happy to feed the beast that was Malone. I often wondered how much more dominant Magic’s Lakers or Thomas’s bad boy pistons. ****, he would’ve been perfect on those bad boy teams. I truly believe that away from Utah and Malone he’d be in the mnt. Rushmore discussion, but then Ron would just chalk it up to me being a homer. I watched most of his career and he could do it all. He was elite in just about everything he did. Pass, shoot, defend, IQ, clutch, love for the game, finishing inside. You name it, he could do it. Had he not played with an all time great in Malone, no doubt in my mind, he would’ve reached higher heights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I love Stock, but you're just demonstrating how foolish you are. The idea that Malone held Stockton's career back is ridiculous.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Wow, you completely agree with everything including his final sentence?
Click to expand...

Whenever the offense stalled there were times when Stockton would turn it up a notch and become a scoring force. He was always very good at creating his own shot when he needed to, but his playing style revolved around getting Malone his good looks, which is why Stockton would always set up at the elbow instead of up top then he’d give up his dribble and look for Malone or pass to the guy at that position so he could get it into Malone.

Also, when the jazz needed a bucket against the shot/game clock, the jazz put it in Stockton’s hands not Malone or Horny, who were the scorers on the team. If Malone had a bad game it was usually Stockton scoring 20+ because they needed it. He had all the ability in the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thee jazz fan said:
Whenever the offense stalled there were times when Stockton would turn it up a notch and become a scoring force. He was always very good at creating his own shot when he needed to, but his playing style revolved around getting Malone his good looks, which is why Stockton would always set up at the elbow instead of up top then he’d give up his dribble and look for Malone or pass to the guy at that position so he could get it into Malone.

Also, when the jazz needed a bucket against the shot/game clock, the jazz put it in Stockton’s hands not Malone or Horny, who were the scorers on the team. If Malone had a bad game it was usually Stockton scoring 20+ because they needed it. He had all the ability in the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The reason he could do those things was because of the threat that Malone posed. It is lunacy to think he would have been better off without Malone.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Nice try. You said, "Had [Stockton] not played with an all time great in Malone, no doubt in my mind, he would’ve reached higher heights."
Click to expand...

As far as his numbers go, he then would’ve been more recognizable in the eyes of the nation and not just Utah. No one talks about him being the best pg ever, but would had he been on another team, or had Malone not been on the team


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thee jazz fan said:
As far as his numbers go, he then would’ve been more recognizable in the eyes of the nation and not just Utah. No one talks about him being the best pg ever, but would had he been on another team, or had Malone not been on the team


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You've got rocks in your head.
 
I think without a Malone, and playing as the first option, much like CP3 has done his entire career, Stockton would have been able to put up higher numbers overall, primarily in scoring. I could see 24/12/4 boards/3 steals on the regular. I think you would have also seen him take over more games. Maybe not like Malone could, but he definitely had the skills and killer instinct to do it regularly. But with Malone he deferred, which was the right thing to do as a pure PG, and was the best passer the game has ever seen, hands-down. It is not a knock on any of them, it is just speculation on the "what if", if they didn't have each other, how would it affect them both in their careers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top