Stock > Zeke

[OneManGang]

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.

John Stockton - The Ultimate Point Guard - YouTube

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.

Ya i thought that was incredibly disingenuous to say there were a gang of other PGs to do what Stockton did. NO credible NBA historian or player in that era would agree with that.

 

[Street Knowledge]

Any other elite PG can do what Stockton Did In that offense(take WIDE open shots, run pick n roll with a top 5 PF of all time, and pass to shooters)Especially in the last 90's when they took the ball out of his hands and were better then they ever were before.

 

[Street Knowledge]

And isiah had to take more difficult shots because he wasnt getting the same defensive attention that Stockton was. Stockton was able to pick his spots better.

So again, you have to put efficiency into context

 

[Jram]

And isiah had to take more difficult shots because he wasnt getting the same defensive attention that Stockton was. Stockton was able to pick his spots better.

So again, you have to put efficiency into context

I agree efficiency must be put in context, but we said it seemed like you were exaggerating the point. You said a lot of guys could do what Stock did, and your kind of painting him out to be someone defenses didn't try to account for. Isiah played on a balanced team that spread the scoring around. He chose to keep his scoring pace on the volume that he did at moderate efficiency.

Stock may have been different. Stock may have seen it more fitting to create more shots for Dantley, Dumars, Lambeer, Agguire, or whoever else he was around, and the offense wouldn't have necessarily been worse.

 

[manyfaces]

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.

The thing is, Stockton never got his team over the top though.

I think solely basing players value and impact on game strictly on efficiency is a flawed way of analyzing basketball. It works in baseball because for the most part the stats your looking at are pitcher vs hitter, one on one type matchups. Those 2 basically operate in a vacuum where the stats can pretty much tell the whole story. Not so in basketball, where there are a lot more moving parts that impact a player. Results on the court matter, and being able to freelance and create on your own when things don't go according to plan is a bonus, not a detriment.

I think the major issue is that people are confusing efficiency with effectiveness. With all his quality PER, Stockton and his teams weren't getting it done more often than not. And it can be argued that if he could be more effective creating or attempt to carry the team on his back at times, he might have been able to get his team over the top. How many times has a championship been won where one of the premier players hasn't gone off? Again, I'm not shytting on Stockton at all, but I think PER is a flawed way of evaluating effectiveness, when people are using it as their sole argument. You can't completely ignore what you see on the court. It's why I think Morey is a shyt gm.

 

[Jram]

The thing is, Stockton never got his team over the top though.

I think solely basing players value and impact on game strictly on efficiency is a flawed way of analyzing basketball. It works in baseball because for the most part the stats your looking at are pitcher vs hitter, one on one type matchups. Those 2 basically operate in a vacuum where the stats can pretty much tell the whole story. Not so in basketball, where there are a lot more moving parts that impact a player. Results on the court matter, and being able to freelance and create on your own when things don't go according to plan is a bonus, not a detriment.

I think the major issue is that people are confusing efficiency with effectiveness. With all his quality PER, Stockton and his teams weren't getting it done more often than not. And it can be argued that if he could be more effective creating or attempt to carry the team on his back at times, he might have been able to get his team over the top. How many times has a championship been won where one of the premier players hasn't gone off? Again, I'm not shytting on Stockton at all, but I think PER is a flawed way of evaluating effectiveness, when people are using it as their sole argument. You can't completely ignore what you see on the court. It's why I think Morey is a shyt gm.

I didn't see anyone use PER alone to say someone is better than someone else. Me, in particular, took the overall production of both and Stock was more efficient across the board.

But I feel you, that's why I said it's up to what you value. If you want what Isiah brings and thats how your team is built, go for it

 

[Nintendough]

When did dissing Zeke become the cool thing to do? This must be an internet thing.

 

[Art Barr]

personally,..

the way i know stockton was not on zeke's level was.

zeke played under bobby knight, in college.

whom, is as close to a disciplanarian hardnose type coach.

as you can get to compare to sloan as a coach on the pro level.

zeke accomplished as much as you could in that college environment.

which is why imo,..if you placed zeke on the jazz.

with malone, hornacek and a well staffed jazz team in his prime.

i could see zeke eliminating a top tier west team.

like say the rockets or sonics did to the lakers in the eighties, a few times.

taking them further in the off's than stockton did.

before the jazz were in the finals versus the bulls.

i just feel zeke could have easily done more in stockton shoes if we could switch it around.

whereas if i put stockton on the hoosiers and pistons.

i don't see stockton holding up titles.

or helping the pistons beat the celt's.

or owning the eastern conference the way the badboys did.

to impose their will and force the changing of the guard, the way the badboys did with zeke.

i just know stockton was not that good. that is why i know zeke was light years better than stockton.

now,..was stockton ric flair with dark hair as the dirtiest player in the game on d, for a whitecat.

yeah,..yet he used that catholic school defensive pedigree prowess and ability.

more than zeke who was just as equally dirty a catholic school league dirty pedigree player, too.

plus zeke was a streetball dirty player who knew antagonistism better because of his brother as well.

yet zeke was infinitiely better on d and as a scorer and passer than stockton ever was.

zeke was just a higher level skill player than stockton.

which is why i never respected zeke's dirty play.

as zeke had skills that were better than that.

whereas stockton needed to use his slick to play up to his comp.

that was typically better than him as a skillplayer.

shame, zeke was an awful personality and slimeball.

he always had that way of fooling you he was a better person.

yet he was hof pond scum of the earth.

a great hof player but his personality flaws are to much to bear.

which is why he does not probably have the same legendary status and enfamy as others from his gen.

yet real talk zeke was as fine a leader and ballplayer, all time.

as you could get for the style of game he had.

art barr

 

[Street Knowledge]

Because defenses rarely if ever game planned for Stockton, even when he was putting up those Gaudy APG statistics. He was never a superstar like that, dude during his peak/prime was a fringe top ten player and other years he wasn't close.(isiah wasn't THAT much better To be honest) Plus his game as easier to defend, he couldn't take you off the drible And dominant offensively.

I give him credit for running great offensive teams during his prime but the fact that they got better when he declined says something.

There's no doubt the pistons would get great regalur season records with Stock but offensively they'd fall apart in the postseason every year

 

[nieman]

It really depends on what you want from a PG on your team. Zeke was more explosive, but Stockton controlled the game more.

Stockton wasn't all day 1-on-1, but let's not act like he didn't get to whatever spots he wanted on the floor. Also, Stockton-Malone was run as Malone-to-Stockton.

I would rank Stockton ahead of Zeke, but I understand those that rank Zeke ahead. My question is how come no one ever thinks to rank Zeke up there with Magic? lol Magic couldn't even shoot

 

[Carlos Huerta]

They're both overrated, but Zeke was way better. Stockton was never a superstar like that, and hes the reason the Jazz lost in the playoffs in the second half of the 90's he could never step up And provide the 2nd scorer Malone needed. All those big APG years Never added up to any type of playoff success. I find it interesting when they took the ball out of his hands more in the late 90's is when the Jazz had their biggest years success wise

As for Zeke he Gets WAAAAY to much credit for those Last 2 titles, and he was nowhere as regarded during the late 80's as people say in retrospect. Not in any All NBA teams of MVP voting

this whole rant about Zeke shows that you weren't around back then. Fukk are you talking about?

 

[Street Knowledge]

this whole rant about Zeke shows that you weren't around back then. Fukk are you talking about?

I love how you can't disprove anything I said.

GTFO my face

 

[ManBearPig]

Stockton is a regular season hero.

dude gets owned by Payton, Terry, Magic, KJ BADLY in the post season

 

[eastside313]

Y'all are cute. Stockton played in a slower tempo. I musta missed those high scoring run and gun chuck daly coached piston teams. Stockton had inflated assist numbers cause he played with the faq Karl Malone. Isiah had the total package. Zeke was a suPerstar that routinely took over games in the 4th and did whatever he wanted to. Zeke coulda easily scored another 10ppg if he wanted to. Lol at Stockton being a good defensive player, maybe against other white boys.

Stockton was pretty good for a white boy but he ain't on isiah level.

 

[eastside313]

Because defenses rarely if ever game planned for Stockton, even when he was putting up those Gaudy APG statistics. He was never a superstar like that, dude during his peak/prime was a fringe top ten player and other years he wasn't close.(isiah wasn't THAT much better To be honest) Plus his game as easier to defend, he couldn't take you off the drible And dominant offensively.

I give him credit for running great offensive teams during his prime but the fact that they got better when he declined says something.

There's no doubt the pistons would get great regalur season records with Stock but offensively they'd fall apart in the postseason every year