Stock > Zeke

[Guess Who]

Stockton couldn't be a franchise player.

 

[Jram]

It's not so much that Isiah leading his team to championships is the end all and be all of the argument, but folks are really trying to downplay him leading the Pistons to wins and completely gloss over Stocktons and Malone not leading their team out of the second rd as a 2 seed. I mean come the fukk on. They weren't a power until all of their peers from the 80's were on a serious decline or out of the league. Those squads were losing to the "declining" teams that the Pistons were beating.

You don't have to overrate Zeke's accomplishments, but don't use them as a negative when Stockton, with a top 2 scorer and arguably top 3 player all time at his position, was doing pretty much nothing during that time.

That's fair to say, I just feel like there is more weight on individual production when comparing individuals.

 

[Buckeye Fever]

Damn, Stock. Even wit the lil bitty shorts, u still aint have a donk

 

[Street Knowledge]

Isiah was a more explosive scorer. If that's what you want out your PG, go for it. It worked in Detroits circumstances.

But to act like it's crazy to say Stock was better, given the gap in efficiency and the longevity, is unfair to Stockton. Stockton, and a player like Jason kidd for instance, play the position more traditionally.

You can pick who you'd rather have, but saying one Thomas is definitely better still isn't supported with facts.

It's easy to be more efficient when in your prime your barely taking 11 to 12 shots a game(9 for his career) and not the main focus of any defense and what does longevity have to do with being a better player? We know Stockton played forever, that's one of the reasons he's so overrated

Isiah was better because he can facilitate but he could also take over games. Something Stockton could never do on a consistent basis. Especially in the playoffs.

Utah lost most of their series because of bad offense(which most of the blame goes to Stockton) because off his inability to put his team on his back and score when his teammates were struggling offensively

 

[iceberg_is_on_fire]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhMbebeA2qg"]Isiah Thomas tip dunk over Robert Parish - YouTube[/ame]

Isish should have taken these n1ggas off the dribble and yammed on fools.

 

[Art Barr]

zeke was superior to stockton.

stockton was not in zeke's league.



art barr

 

[Gravity]

you thought your Kobe thread was people actually cosigning you instead of cosigning their Kobe hate.

Nope, you an idiot and got found out.


edit: this loser really using PER and other advanced stats. Get outta this forum, chump.

You're the guy that runs around accusing others of being angry? You need a break son, spend some time offline.

 

[MustafaSTL]

 

[THE K-MAN]

Stock was a great player

he wasnt fukkin with LORD period!

 

[holidayinn21]

stockton was nice, but he played in the most PG-friendly offense pre-d'antoni.

dumb thread. get this clown outta here.

 

[Numpsay]

I have to believe anyone arguing for Stockton didn't pay attention to the NBA until the mid 90s.

 

[superunknown23]

I have to believe anyone arguing for Stockton didn't pay attention to the NBA until the mid 90s.

15-20 year-olds... and Knicks fans

 

[Jram]

It's easy to be more efficient when in your prime your barely taking 11 to 12 shots a game(9 for his career) and not the main focus of any defense and what does longevity have to do with being a better player? We know Stockton played forever, that's one of the reasons he's so overrated

Isiah was better because he can facilitate but he could also take over games. Something Stockton could never do on a consistent basis. Especially in the playoffs.

Utah lost most of their series because of bad offense(which most of the blame goes to Stockton) because off his inability to put his team on his back and score when his teammates were struggling offensively

And that's the argument.

Don't knock Stock because he only took good shots and was unbeleivably efficient with them. And taking more shots doesn't always mean efficiency has to dip, I understand how volume can lower efficiency, but we can't prove Stock's efficiency would have been worse if he chose to look for his shot more than being primarily a set up player for his team.

Stockton also played on teams with really slow paces most of his career, and Isiah's Pistons didn't slow down until late in his career, so that dipped a bit into his attempts.

It depends on how you build a team. The 'ability to put a team on his back and score' is a quality that Zeke had and Stock wasn't as explosive, but in a different way to look at it, Stock gets your team good looks all game, and he plays his game in a way in which an invididual player having to isolate and go on a scoring binge isn't the msot efficient and reliable way to get your team over the top.

 

[Street Knowledge]

Stockton wasn't able to isolate and take nikkaz off the dribble and create his own shot at an elite level that's why he stuck to those easy shots. They rarely isolated Stockton, especially in the late 90's.

Thats why i said You have to put efficiency into context, if I'm taking 11 shots a game(and wen I do take them I'm wide open or coming off a screen) of course I'm going to be more efficient then a guy who's take 17-19 and has to take more difficult shots because the defense isn't giving him the same looks.

The problem with Stockton is, dozens of other PG's could play like he did but also take over games and put teams on their backs when theyre Teammates are struggling offensively. Which Stockton NEVER could

 

[Jram]

Stockton wasn't able to isolate and take nikkaz off the dribble and create his own shot at an elite level that's why he stuck to those easy shots. They rarely isolated Stockton, especially in the late 90's.

Thats why i said You have to put efficiency into context, if I'm taking 11 shots a game(and wen I do take them I'm wide open or coming off a screen) of course I'm going to be more efficient then a guy who's take 17-19 and has to take more difficult shots because the defense isn't giving him the same looks.

The problem with Stockton is, dozens of other PG's could play like he did but also take over games and put teams on their backs when theyre Teammates are struggling offensively. Which Stockton NEVER could

I'm saying though, your rewarding a guy for taking more shots that aren't efficient, then. Isiah average 16 shots a game for the career. Your saying you would rather have him give you the volume scoring he is capable of at moderate efficiency, or create more high % looks for his teammates as the PG?

And I think's it's criminally unfair to say any PG could have played like Stockton.



Let's not say anybody can thread the needle like he did, because to me, only two or three guys ever had that innate passing ability.

I think this comes down to what your preference is out of your PG.