What's new
By:

John Stockton on the Dan Patrick Show

I read the autobiography of John a couple years ago. It was actually very very good. Surprisingly, he is very funny and a really interesting guy. He even mentioned that he has a different personality around those close to him, but doesn't like to express himself publicly. His work ethic and mindset were incredible.
 
carolinajazz said:
....yeah, like what? How many leaks he's taken before half-time?
Click to expand...
Literally every rookie record in comparison.

Rookie Mitchell > rookie Malone

Mitchell is also 2 years times as a rookie than Malone.

Malone and Stockton were great. Most of what made them great was how long they played at a high level.

Mitchell will be unlikely to have the longevity of Stockton but I think his peak will be higher.
 
Last edited:
Ron Mexico said:
Most of what made him great was how long he played at a high level.

Mitchell will be unlikely to have the longevity of Stockton but I think his peak will be higher.
Click to expand...

What made Stockton great was his boat load of Basketball IQ and brains! Mitchell's "peak" will be higher than Stocktons? In what way? More points scored career? Very doubtful! Most Assists career? IMPOSSIBLE! More career steals? Have you lost your mind?
 
carolinajazz said:
What made Stockton great was his boat load of Basketball IQ and brains! Mitchell's "peak" will be higher than Stocktons? In what way? More points scored career? Very doubtful! Most Assists career? IMPOSSIBLE! More career steals? Have you lost your mind?
Click to expand...
More chips, more success, more leadership.

So far at the same point in careers Mitchell is miles ahead.

It took Stockton a long time until he became effective. He also had years of terrible playoffs. Until they finally reached the finals those jazz teams got upset in the playoffs by lesser teams quite frequently. They were regular season wonders and playoff chockers.
 
Archie Moses said:
This popped up on my YouTube feed last night and I listened to it before I went to sleep. I wish Stockton would coach. I love how he sees things and breaks them down. Apologies if this has already been posted. I looked and saw nothing.

Click to expand...



I think he more like The Dream. He runs big man camps and knows the game very good but for whatever reason he doesn't want to be on a bench. I see Stockton as the same. He has been known to work with young players and he could become the PG version of what Hakeem is doing.imo
 
Ron Mexico said:
More chips, more success, more leadership.

So far at the same point in careers Mitchell is miles ahead.

It took Stockton a long time until he became effective. He also had years of terrible playoffs. Until they finally reached the finals those jazz teams got upset in the playoffs by lesser teams quite frequently. They were regular season wonders and playoff chockers.
Click to expand...


Mitchell never win a ring with Utah. Odds of that happening are less then 1 percent. Stockton is a ha 'll of gamer and other cat is a rookie. You do know there is a thing called a sophomore slump?
 
Knowledgeofmine said:
Mitchell never win a ring with Utah. Odds of that happening are less then 1 percent. Stockton is a ha 'll of gamer and other cat is a rookie. You do know there is a thing called a sophomore slump?
Click to expand...
Lol, didn't think someone could come up with a worse argument than Carolinajazz, well done.

Those odds are pulled out of your *** so there is no reason to talk about those.

If you are banking on him having a sophomore slump you will be disappointed. But even if he does he is miles ahead of where Stockton was at this age along with most NBA players.
 
We're really comparing apples to oranges if looking at Mitchell vs. Stockton. Mitchell will likely never be Utah's starting PG. Even if that were to happen, the offense Quin runs is much different. Just look at Rubio...his assists were way down vs. his career averages. Did he suddenly become a poor passer? No, the Utah offense runs through 1-3, not just the PG.

It took Stockton 3 years before he became Utah's starting PG. And that was after 4 years of college. His first three years in the league he averaged 5.6, 7.7 and 7.9 pts/per. Based on those averages, I wonder how many were thinking he was a great pick.

There's no way Mitchell will ever match assists or steals; those may be two of the most unattainable marks in the NBA. There's a decent chance Mitchell passes him in points. Stockton scored 19,711, just an average of 13.2/season. Mitchell would need to average ~25/per for the next 9 seasons. And you'd expect Donovan to play a little longer than that.

As for personality, Stockton was a quiet, lead-by-example guy. I don't think the team really played off him. Donovan is just the opposite. I think he lifts everyone by his presence and intensity. Stockton really hated being in the spotlight; he was an introvert. Donovan loves the attention.
 
Last edited:
Knowledgeofmine said:
You do know there is a thing called a sophomore slump?
Click to expand...
Can anyone enlighten me on this sophomore slump myth? I'm looking at the careers of guys like Lebron, Durant, Curry, Harden, Wade, Malone, Stockton, Hayward. All of them improved from their 1st to 2nd years. Of course, not many players in NBA history have ever averaged >20 pts/per their rookie seasons, so maybe Mitchell's second year is just slightly better. i'm guessing better efficiency.
 
Ron Mexico said:
More chips, more success, more leadership.

So far at the same point in careers Mitchell is miles ahead.

It took Stockton a long time until he became effective. He also had years of terrible playoffs. Until they finally reached the finals those jazz teams got upset in the playoffs by lesser teams quite frequently. They were regular season wonders and playoff chockers.
Click to expand...

How old are you? Or did you just look at stats? More success and chips is purely speculation. Do u realize Stockton put up better numbers over 6-7 years then Nash over his two MVP years, and Stockton was never in the top ten for MVP voting. He's the greatest pure pg in the history of the game. No one ever played the position better then Stockton, and one of the great clutch performers of all time you sound like an idiot with this commentary, but I hope to God your right
 
Thee jazz fan said:
How old are you? Or did you just look at stats? More success and chips is purely speculation. Do u realize Stockton put up better numbers over 6-7 years then Nash over his two MVP years, and Stockton was never in the top ten for MVP voting. He's the greatest pure pg in the history of the game. No one ever played the position better then Stockton, and one of the great clutch performers of all time you sound like an idiot with this commentary, but I hope to God your right
Click to expand...
I disagree with that. How many jazz teams got bumped in the first round by underdogs? Jazz chocked in the playoffs for years until making the finals. Then they choked in the finals. Stockton had a couple big shots but those are all you remember, not the misses and the disappearing in the playoffs at the end of games.

Also, all we can compare is these guys at this point in their career. Stockton was no where near Mitchell his first couple years in the NBA and Stockton was older as a rookie.

Stockton was great but be was not the greatest point guard of all time. Saying pure PG is just an arbitrary category. Also again Stockton had a very long career where he played at a high level but his peak was not as elite as others. There was a reason Stockton wasn't top 10 in MVP voting, because he wasn't top 10 player in the league each year.

I'm old enough to have watched plenty of Stockton. But I know that this is a jazz board and some of our older people here idolize Stockton and Malone and put them higher up then they are.
 
Ron Mexico said:
I disagree with that. How many jazz teams got bumped in the first round by underdogs? Jazz chocked in the playoffs for years until making the finals. Then they choked in the finals. Stockton had a couple big shots but those are all you remember, not the misses and the disappearing in the playoffs at the end of games.

Also, all we can compare is these guys at this point in their career. Stockton was no where near Mitchell his first couple years in the NBA and Stockton was older as a rookie.

Stockton was great but be was not the greatest point guard of all time. Saying pure PG is just an arbitrary category. Also again Stockton had a very long career where he played at a high level but his peak was not as elite as others. There was a reason Stockton wasn't top 10 in MVP voting, because he wasn't top 10 player in the league each year.

I'm old enough to have watched plenty of Stockton. But I know that this is a jazz board and some of our older people here idolize Stockton and Malone and put them higher up then they are.
Click to expand...

Im with ya. I love Stockton to, but the perception of him around here escapes reality.

Ive had these arguments with Thee before. Last time I was saying Curry is a better player. It shouldnt even be an argument really.

The most impressive thing about Stockton was his durability and longevity. When comparing that to other players that really is something to marvel at. Obviously he was a really good player and one of the best. But he is no where near the level people put him at around here. His assist and steals record are so crazy mainly because of two things. He threw the ball into another durable and longevity freak over and over and that guy put the ball in the basket over and over, and he had alot more years than most anyone else to rack up steals and assists. So they added up. But in a single game he isnt good as his numbers denote. You have to be really biased or dumb to not recognize that truth. There have been a lot of better players that have played in the league who I would trust more to get me the win over Stockton. People want to weigh all the years Stockton played and make that the standard to how good a player is. In that case you might as well make him the best player ever because he put two of the stat columns completely out of reach. Nobody else can say that about even one. But nobody in their right mind is going to say he is the best ever because intelligent people know better. You got to actually win championships and be the last man standing at some point to be considered the best.
 
Stockton averaged almost 15 assists a game at his peak. No one has ever made better decisions with the ball. If you take away the longevity, he would have much higher averages. Nash got two MVPs with lesser stats, especially on defense. Only Magic and arguably, Zeke, were better. John was unselfish to a fault; probably could have scored more.

Also, it's pretty hard to compare players from different eras.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Tak
fairweather said:
Stockton averaged almost 15 assists a game at his peak. No one has ever made better decisions with the ball. If you take away the longevity, he would have much higher averages. Nash got two MVPs with lesser stats, especially on defense. Only Magic and arguably, Zeke, were better. John was unselfish to a fault; probably could have scored more.
Click to expand...

Its not a hard decision to keep giving the ball to the big man on the block who just keeps scoring. A lot of those assists he didnt have to do much. Just make an entry pass on the post and just watch malone go to work. You know, sit there for a minute, jab step a few times, pump fake for a few times. Then shoot it.

Im not saying he wasnt great. Just that his actual value to a team in a given game has been inflated.
 
Gas said:
Im not saying he wasnt great. Just that his actual value to a team in a given game has been inflated.
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying, but I disagree. Stockton and Malone needed each other, but I have always felt John would have done just as well with a player like Drexler, for example. If you replace Terry Porter with Stockton on that '92 Finals Blazer team, they might've won the championship.
 
89-90 was Stocktons best regular season he put up 17.2 ppg and 14.5 assists per game. The Jazz lost to the 5th Seed suns in the first round and Stockton shot 42% from the field and 7% from three on 2.6 shots per game.

By the time the Jazz made the finals Stockton he was a shell of himself and others were a big factor. Malone really carried those teams and was elite those finals years. In the playoffs in 97-98 he averaged 11 points and 7 assists.

S&M Jazz lost in the first round 9 times. Including losing as a 2 seed twice and a 3rd seed once in the first round. They lost 9 times in playoff series as the favorites. They lost both finals 4-2 and had the same record as the bulls the second finals.

Stockton and Malone are also 1 and 2 for most turnovers in their careers.

Stockton never averaged more than 17.2 ppg. He did not become productive in the NBA until 25 and he came into the league as a 22 year old rookie a year older than Mitchell was this year. His stats are great but also inflated due to the System and Malone. His highest PER was 23.9(75th all time best PER for a PG in a season). His highest Win Shares was 15.6(which was great but Curry, CP3 and Harden all had better seasons) and he never had a positive Defensive BPM.

This isnt to bag on Stockton, he was great over a really long period of time.

Mitchell was an elite rookie and took this team further than anyone expected and was even better in the playoffs when it mattered. He took over the finale game against OKC. Mitchell scored more than all the other starters put together for the Jazz to beat a team with 2 elite players in their prime. As a rookie he has done elite things and is in the conversation with some of the greatest players ever regardless of position. Who knows where his career will go but based on what we have seen so far in his NBA career he is on track to be one of the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top