This month John Stockton will be inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame. He enters the shrine as the greatest passer and thief (by the numbers) that the game has ever seen. As is appropriate to his career, his induction will be overshadowed by those of the greatest player to ever play the game, Michael Jordan, and fellow 1992 Dream Teamer, David Robinson.

But how else could we have had it?

Stock's entire career has been one of serving others. The primary beneficiary of his past-first mentality was of course long-time teammate, Karl Malone. Without the bond they formed, you could argue that the Mailman's career would have been much less successful. But this is not the only area where the little fella from Gonzaga has been overshadowed. It all started with his being drafted in the mythical class of 1984 -- one that included such luminaries as Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, Sam Perkins, Alvin Robertson, Kevin Willis and Otis Thorpe. Falling to 16th in that draft, he undoubtedly had a better career than all except three picked ahead of him.

If you asked a casual fan to name the members of the 1992 Dream Team, many would not immediately remember Stockton as part of that illustrious team -- he was not there to shine in the same way as his flashier teammates.

You know all of this of course. If you're reading a site like this, you're likely a student of the game and well versed on the underrated nature of #12's game. But I want to take the discussion one step further. Why was John Stockton never named MVP of the NBA during his career?

You may scoff and say, "well, he was a good facilitator, but he was no MVP!"

Well, I direct you to the MVP seasons of Mr Steve Nash as a point of reference. Nash won the award for his 2004-05 and 2005-06 seasons. Did he win the MVP trophy in those years purely for his sexy brand of run'n'fun play that he brought to Phoenix?

I'm not here to dispute Nash's worthiness -- rather I'm comparing Stockton and saying that perhaps the Utah Jazz point guard of so many years was hardly done by on more than one occasion. Let's take a look at the numbers.

In 2004-05 when Nash was 30 years old, he put up 15.5ppg and 11.5apg. He had a PER of 22.0

In 1992-93 when Stockton was 30 years old, he put up 15.1ppg and 12.0apg. He had a PER of 21.3.

Neither player took their team to a title. They both had successful playoff-bound team that fell short of league domination -- but they were teams that were made that much better by the leadership of their floor general. The mantra behind Nash's MVP victories was that "he makes his teammates better." Surely there is no way that the same could not be argued of Stockton. He just did it in a more bare bones way.

The following season, when Nash won the 2005-06 MVP award, the comparison again is a valid one. When both players were aged 31, Nash averaged 18.8ppg and 10.5apg with a PER of 23.3. Stockton went for 15.1ppg and 12.6apg with a PER of 22.5.

All of this analysis also neglects to mention that Stockton was a much better defender than Nash has ever been; he now stands as the NBA's all-time leader in steals (3,265). Daylight is second, with Michael Jordan third (2,514). His all-time lead in assists is also seemingly unassailable, with 15,806 to second-placed Mark Jackson's 10,334. Jason Kidd will pass Jackson soon, but he won't catch Stock. Nor will Nash, who is the next highest active player, sitting ninth all-time on 7,505.

Of course, this discussion comes much too late. However I thought it a poignant discussion with Stockton's Hall of Fame induction just around the corner. There will be plenty of fanfare for Jordan (courtesy to a large extent by Nike) and the Admiral. Let's not forget to include Stockton in the excitement.

So, why did Stockton miss out on MVP all of those years? He was of course the NBA's assist leader for nine straight seasons. He played every available game in all bar two seasons of his 19 season career. But he played in an era dominated by Jordan, Barkley, Magic and Larry, Patrick Ewing, Isiah Thomas, Olajuwon and Shaquille O'Neal. Was this the only reason, or do we just not value no-nonsense basketball in the NBA?

This video might jog a few memories.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Lousy analysis
written by jf, September 10, 2009

The comparison of Stockton to Nash is apt, but not well-executed -- unless you're trying to make Nash appear to truly be on Stockton's level.

Comparing them by age is rather ridiculous, as Nash was never better than he was in his early thirties -- aided by Stern's rule changes and being plugged into the Suns' run/gun system -- whereas Stockton's best seasons were not only clearly more organic (stemming from his skill rather than circumstance) but earlier, and much greater.

In the late 80s and early 90s, Stockton had a stretch of 5 years where he averaged at least 13 assists per game -- no one else has done this twice, only two other players have done this once, and Steve Nash was not one of them.

Nash's career-best apg of 11.6 was bettered by Stockton 8 times; in fact, Stockton during that stretch never averaged under 12 per game.

Nash's efficiency in passing is also mediocre next to Stockton's amazing ability to cut up a defense. Nash's peak saw him averaging around 11 assists per on 3.5 TOs, whereas Stockton was in the neighborhood of 13-14.5 with the same average on TO rate.

A/TO ratio is a landslide for Stockton.

Despite Nash's reputation on shooting, Stockton also statistically outpaces him in this category.

Stockton's career average is 51.5% -- Nash has bettered that only one season in his career and, of course, this came after he started playing under D'Antoni; before that he never averaged over 50% in a season.

Stockton's best shooting season is one that saw him shoot 57.4, a number that even Shaq hasn't always hit at.

Think about that, a guard shooting nearly 60 percent for an entire season. Imagine the hype for Nash if he did that.

In fact, just hitting at 50% as Nash did for the first time in 05 (first MVP) was hyped as a holy grail by "experts".

The same people that either derided or ignored Stockton, gave Nash two MVPs for seasons that were middling at best for a prime Stockton.

The league was stronger in the 90s, no doubt. But Stockton being placed behind Mark Price (look at All-NBA selections) during his peak bespeaks the amount of disrespect and pure ignorance that the media establishment showed in regards and towards him.

Nash is a media fixation and creation. Change the rules to draw in more viewers, and recreate a mediocre PG into one of the all-time greats.

The backhand and side of that is of course that it's obvious that Nash would not have won in the 90s, no matter the rules.

Over Jordan? Malone? Barkley? Hakeem?

Yeah, right.

Nash is at the vanguard of the mid-00s underlying lacking nature. Not a stand against, but a big sign pointing towards.

As was mentioned off-hand in this article, Stockton was a tough defender that made multiple All-Defensive teams. Such an idea is oxymoronic not only to Nash's career, but the current NBA vis a vis guard play.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

On the contrary
written by mookie, September 11, 2009

On the contrary, I think you've missed my point entirely (which you could argue is my fault for not making it clear in my introduction).

Essentially, we agree.

You've proven my point, albeit from another angle. What I was intending to point out through this article was the fact that Nash's BEST seasons still did not out-shine run-of-the-mill seasons in Stockton's career.

Nash was awarded MVP in the best seasons of his career -- yet Stockton never was considered for such an award -- despite the fact that Stockton's seasons at that same age (purely selected for a random point of comparison) were as good, and arguably much better than Nash's. The fact that Stock had better seasons than those two is without debate.

Thus my point, Stockton has had many a better season that Nash, yet has not been awarded with an MVP during his career (whilst Nash has two). That in turn led to my final question; why did he not win an MVP trophy during his career? And the suggestion of course has to be that he played in an era where Jordan and co were sexier picks for the award.

I was intending to open the channels of communication of other points of view on the topic and I thank you greatly for such a detailed and well-thought response. It's refreshing to see comments from those who take the time to write something meaningful.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment