The John Stockton Thread

[nuraman00]

Sloan didn't make Malone, he made Malone better. (Reference to some tech commercial that says they didn't make the abcdef, they made the abcdef better.) Seriously though, I bet the offense was built around Stockton and Malone and the Stockton and Malone were built around the offense. What I mean is, the core principles were there before those two and before those two were Stockton and Malone, but based upon their skill sets, preferences, work ethic, physical makeup, historical context of the NBA, etc., the usage of certain aspects of the offense was implemented more.

Stockton and Malone wanted a half-court offense, as opposed to a transition offense, though they were pretty good on fast breaks. Stockton had quarterback vision and thus he was able to maximize the flex offense to get Adam Keefe and Jeff Foster some contribution. Shandon Anderson, et al, made a living off things that they couldn't find elsewhere - so I see how people say that it was the offense more than the personnel. I know this isn't what you were saying, but I'd disagree with anyone who said the offense made Stockton. The fact that Stockton got a lot of assists is coincidental to the flex offense - how he got some of those assists, of course, is not coincidental.

I think one has to look at rate of offense, too. The Jazz liked to milk the clock from the beginning of the game. Sometimes the pace of the game dictated otherwise, but their preference was shots in the last 4 seconds of the shotclock - unless they got a shot that was too irresistible to not take. Taking your time may lead to more assists, if they don't lead to hurried shots - it does lead to fewer shots in the game assuming that whatever the other team does, the Jazz still milk the clock. My point? With fewer shots, their offense will have fewer points, even if they are more efficient - assuming that they shoot a regular percentage, regardless of the other teams pace. Passing more or looking for easy shots may not create a higher percentage, if the shots are forced. When the Jazz were on target, their offense wasn't 22nd in efficiency, but maybe in points (the opponent should also have fewer shots assuming normal turnover rate by both leads to the same number of possessions).

To go with the whatifs, what if Ostertag were Robinson or (fill-in-the-blank)? What if Stockton played instead of Magic? Ugg, my mind is so distracted right now - I'll forego the similar whatifs I could muster out some other time.

But the observation is that the Jazz offense was good at assists without Stockton too. In the years after Stockton, but before Williams really took over, they were top 7 in assist rate.

So Keith McLeod and Raul Lopez and Carlos Arroyo could do the same thing.

Actually, the Jazz were a top team in ORTG during the Stockton years. They also weren't that slow, still within the top 20.

And if they were a top team in ORTG, then the slower pace can't hurt their team numbers too much if they make their shots when they take them.

Also, from my observations, the slowest to the fast team usually only varies by 5-6 possessions at most. They have stats for how many possessions each team averaged per game per season, so I've observed this. And from those possessions, say 1/2 of them lead to field goal attempts (because the others can be turnovers or FTAs). So out of 3 FGAs, that's still not a lot that could add to other teams assists totals, even for the fastest team. Because they might make only 2 out of 3 FGAs.

I'm not going to paste the ORTG and Pace numbers for the Jazz, but just as I'm scanning through them, the Jazz were in the top 22 in pace every year, and some of those years they were also # 6, # 3, # 2 also. There were also these random years when they played in the high teens or low 20s too. I'm also looking at their ORTG. Top 20 just about every year, and several years of #1, #2, #3, #6, #9, #7. So whatever they were doing, lead to one of the most efficient offenses most of those years.

So the Jazz didn't play as slow as you thought, and even when they did, they were still usually very efficient. And since the pace between the slowest and fastest team doesn't vary by that many possessions, and thus even less FGAs, the other teams that played fast and efficient didn't have much of an advantage in total stats either.

And, the Jazz offense still generated a lot of assists without Stockton. Even the year Deron was traded, they were still 3rd in assist rate, and 14th in ORTG. Last year, the Jazz were 7th in ORTG (better without Deron, haha) but dropped to 13th in assist rate. Which isn't too bad of a drop, considering the personnel.

 

[nuraman00]

Yeah, I don't believe Jackson and don't like him. I'll be on that side until Stockton refutes it - non-PR style. In other words, never. I hope it wasn't just a guess by someone, but it was out there by enough people - though they could be reporting what each other is saying. I, too, don't like anonymous sources, besides the guy from ESPN. I have heard that if you can't go off the record on things, no inside information will ever be given. Confidentiality. I would forego the inside information if it meant people would only report what they were willing to put their name on it. If you are not willing to say it publicly, don't say it. But others are thirsty for the inside jabber.

What I'm saying is that how do you know it was even Stockton vs. Jackson, or if a reporter created it to be about Stockton vs. Jackson? (Because that would sound more interesting than what the truth could have been).

For example, there could have been something between two other guards.

Or there could have been nothing.

Here's another example.

After the Kings lost in the 2004 playoffs to Minnesota, there were there these vague reports about division in the locker room between the Europeans and non Europeans.

However, nothing I saw during the offseason lead me to believe that it really happened. Everyone seemed to hang out, and talk about each other, like normal. Even years later, not one slip-up and reference to any sort of conflict.

I look at the situation where the Jazz were in, and they weren't winning like they were used to, and think a reporter could have conveniently taken something and made it look worse than it was. Because stories like this usually pop up when they're losing, regardless of the team or sport.

 

[MHSL82]

What I'm saying is that how do you know it was even Stockton vs. Jackson, or if a reporter created it to be about Stockton vs. Jackson? (Because that would sound more interesting than what the truth could have been).

For example, there could have been something between two other guards.

Or there could have been nothing.

Here's another example.

After the Kings lost in the 2004 playoffs to Minnesota, there were there these vague reports about division in the locker room between the Europeans and non Europeans.

However, nothing I saw during the offseason lead me to believe that it really happened. Everyone seemed to hang out, and talk about each other, like normal. Even years later, not one slip-up and reference to any sort of conflict.

I look at the situation where the Jazz were in, and they weren't winning like they were used to, and think a reporter could have conveniently taken something and made it look worse than it was. Because stories like this usually pop up when they're losing, regardless of the team or sport.

There is a similar rumor about the SF Giants, with laid back Barry Zito group and the minority-phobic other half. If anything it's style of play, not race, but the rumor was about race, saying that it led to belief that one side had a laziness/complacency about them. If they can still win with laziness, complacency, or locker-room divide, they must be really good.

Having said that, I don't like Jackson regardless. I don't give him the benefit of the doubt. So, this is bad for a former law student to say, but I don't care if he's guilty or not. I don't believe him and I just as quickly believe the reporter. Jackson was the only guard that could do it, if done. Stockton, I bet, wasn't that involved, it just was harder to deal with.

There are very few players I don't like - but I know Jackson had basketball talent.

 

[MHSL82]

But the observation is that the Jazz offense was good at assists without Stockton too. In the years after Stockton, but before Williams really took over, they were top 7 in assist rate.

So Keith McLeod and Raul Lopez and Carlos Arroyo could do the same thing.

Actually, the Jazz were a top team in ORTG during the Stockton years. They also weren't that slow, still within the top 20.

And if they were a top team in ORTG, then the slower pace can't hurt their team numbers too much if they make their shots when they take them.

Also, from my observations, the slowest to the fast team usually only varies by 5-6 possessions at most. They have stats for how many possessions each team averaged per game per season, so I've observed this. And from those possessions, say 1/2 of them lead to field goal attempts (because the others can be turnovers or FTAs). So out of 3 FGAs, that's still not a lot that could add to other teams assists totals, even for the fastest team. Because they might make only 2 out of 3 FGAs.

I'm not going to paste the ORTG and Pace numbers for the Jazz, but just as I'm scanning through them, the Jazz were in the top 22 in pace every year, and some of those years they were also # 6, # 3, # 2 also. There were also these random years when they played in the high teens or low 20s too. I'm also looking at their ORTG. Top 20 just about every year, and several years of #1, #2, #3, #6, #9, #7. So whatever they were doing, lead to one of the most efficient offenses most of those years.

So the Jazz didn't play as slow as you thought, and even when they did, they were still usually very efficient. And since the pace between the slowest and fastest team doesn't vary by that many possessions, and thus even less FGAs, the other teams that played fast and efficient didn't have much of an advantage in total stats either.

And, the Jazz offense still generated a lot of assists without Stockton. Even the year Deron was traded, they were still 3rd in assist rate, and 14th in ORTG. Last year, the Jazz were 7th in ORTG (better without Deron, haha) but dropped to 13th in assist rate. Which isn't too bad of a drop, considering the personnel.

Well, with all due respect, if the observation is that Keith McLeod and Raul Lopez and Carlos Arroyo could do it like Stockton because of the system or because of team assists, then the observation is a bunch of crock. (In a separate matter, we would have brought them back after Stockton left, if that were true.) I understand that the system is conducive to assists, but Stock earned it and was a step above the rest. For example, if Einstein took a class for Kindergarteners with other scientists, just because others his age got 100% doesn't meant he wasn't smarter than they were. As a whole, the subjects would get 100% with or without Einstein, but it says nothing about Einstein. Yes, the questions are questionable, but it doesn't equate the subjects.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that team assists have that much to do with individual assists. Compensating for not having Stockton may help the team, but it doesn't serve as a correlation between individual players. If anyone else on the Jazz were that great, they'd have reproduced Stockton's numbers individually, because I bet Sloan would rather have a reliable floor general than PG by committee, relying upon all those cuts, layups, and offensive rebounding.

Watching every game Stockton played since the early 1990's, I can tell you that Stockton had ball placement skills that other PGs don't have that would not have lead to points and he had great vision. Substituting assists to others doesn't change the skills and effectiveness of Stockton. It is a testament to the system, but Sloan was compensating for a lacking when Stockton left and we weren't as good, regardless of assists. How was the rest of the league? Being 3rd place one year could mean 25 assists and being 3rd another year could mean 22. Being 3rd in the league in assists, doesn't mean they are at the same level of scoring or wins as when Stockton was here.

It's sort of like taking a two-people working family who combined make 100,000 a year. It doesn't matter if it's split 80/20 or 60/40, but you can make a determination on who is making more. I understand that observation's contention is like if the 80,000 person left and the new couple made 100,000 combined, it's all the same, even if it changed to 60/40.

 

[nuraman00]

Well, with all due respect, if the observation is that Keith McLeod and Raul Lopez and Carlos Arroyo could do it like Stockton because of the system or because of team assists, then the observation is a bunch of crock. (In a separate matter, we would have brought them back after Stockton left, if that were true.) I understand that the system is conducive to assists, but Stock earned it and was a step above the rest. For example, if Einstein took a class for Kindergarteners with other scientists, just because others his age got 100% doesn't meant he wasn't smarter than they were. As a whole, the subjects would get 100% with or without Einstein, but it says nothing about Einstein. Yes, the questions are questionable, but it doesn't equate the subjects.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that team assists have that much to do with individual assists. Compensating for not having Stockton may help the team, but it doesn't serve as a correlation between individual players. If anyone else on the Jazz were that great, they'd have reproduced Stockton's numbers individually, because I bet Sloan would rather have a reliable floor general than PG by committee, relying upon all those cuts, layups, and offensive rebounding.

Watching every game Stockton played since the early 1990's, I can tell you that Stockton had ball placement skills that other PGs don't have that would not have lead to points and he had great vision. Substituting assists to others doesn't change the skills and effectiveness of Stockton. It is a testament to the system, but Sloan was compensating for a lacking when Stockton left and we weren't as good, regardless of assists. How was the rest of the league? Being 3rd place one year could mean 25 assists and being 3rd another year could mean 22. Being 3rd in the league in assists, doesn't mean they are at the same level of scoring or wins as when Stockton was here.

It's sort of like taking a two-people working family who combined make 100,000 a year. It doesn't matter if it's split 80/20 or 60/40, but you can make a determination on who is making more. I understand that observation's contention is like if the 80,000 person left and the new couple made 100,000 combined, it's all the same, even if it changed to 60/40.

I was just focusing on assists. Stockton was more than assists, he could also shoot from anywhere (both close and far) and he could defend. McLeod, Arroyo, and Lopez couldn't shoot nor defend at an average level, so that explains some of the overall dropoff in guard play, as well as the team record.

Stockton could still defend at a starting level until the day he retired.

Kidd, on the other hand, dropped off a lot defensively even before he got to Dallas, IMO. Kidd is still a capable defender in spurts, but you can't put him on the other team's best guard like you could when he was with the Nets.

Billups, I think could still defend at a starting level last year, but I don't know if he can when he returns from injury, just because he's getting older and coming back from injury.

But I understand your overall response too.

Would you say the same logic applies to the PF spot too? That just because Matt Harpring averaged 17ppg and 16ppg in his first two seasons with Utah, whereas he was an 11ppg guy in his other seasons, whether with Utah or before Utah, that it still wasn't like Malone or Boozer? That, similarly, just because Harpring could boost his scoring a few seasons, it still doesn't mean he could score like Malone or Boozer?

Back to your Einstein example, would it be like if those other Kindergarteners got 100%, but Einstein would still do it 6X faster and throw in an answer in a foreign language?

Another tangent - The reason why keeping McLeod/Lopez/Arroyo at PG and Harpring at PF doesn't work longterm is because these guys can't sustain it longterm, it's just a short-term fix while the Jazz transitioned into better talent (Deron at PG, Boozer at PF). Also, in each case, whether looking at the PG or PF, I was just focusing on one statistic each. Assists from the PG, and scoring from the PF. As previously mentioned, Stockton and Malone did a lot more, and the guys that filled in during those years couldn't fill in the gap on those other things.

 

[nuraman00]

The systems and teams could be similar, and in fact were, but that was the system's compensatory abilities.

My whole analogy is messy, but my belief is clear - team stats can compare teams, not individuals, IMO. It can shed light on some things, but when comparing individuals in the same system, a lesser statistical output is informative.

I've been talking about team stats though, not individuals.

I'm not saying Stockton or Malone were a product of the system.

I'm saying the system seems to take below average players, such as what you coined McLopOyo, and enhance their skills in a certain area (assists).

Or, scoring from a PF (Harpring).

And they can still maintain rank high on a team levels in those areas (assist %, points in the paint, frontcourt scoring).


I'm focusing on the lesser players, not the HOFs.

A system can't make a HOF (but it could turn an above average player into an All-Star).


Other side notes:

* No, there are teams where nobody has to score. Jefferson scored because he could get shots. You have to be skilled to be able to average that many points and have that kind of usage rate. It takes skill to be able to generate a certain amount of shots.

There are plenty of teams in NBA history where the team can't score, and nobody has a high usage rate on the team.

The Bobcats, for example, don't have a player that had a usage rate like what Jefferson did in Minnesota. Because they don't have a player that can get shots like Jefferson could. The Bobcats only have one player above 15ppg. Walker leads the team with 18ppg.

The Nuggets in 2002-2003 were similar. Only one player above 14.2 points a game, Juwan Howard, and he only averaged 18ppg. And again, Howard's usage rate is a few % lower than what Jefferson did in Minnesota.

So even those players on other teams that played a lot of minutes couldn't do what Jefferson could. It takes a certain skill to be able to get off shots.

I know you were just making an analogy, using what Locke said. But I'm saying that sometimes a player on a bad team playing well is still a sign of some skill.

And similarly, sometimes a player playing well on a good team is not as impressive. For example, Trevor Ariza had some decent numbers on a good Lakers team, but I knew his numbers would get worse on a bad team. And they did, when the Lakers didn't want him back (they wanted Artest instead) and he signed with Houston. Ariza had little responsibility on the Lakers, while on the Rockets, even if he had to do just a little more, it showed he couldn't handle it. When he had to make any decisions with the ball in Houston, he made the wrong one. Sometimes, a player's responsibility is limited so much that it makes them look better than they are on a good team. But that if there's an injury, they would struggle to raise their game vs. another player who is more adaptable to step up.






* On offense, the PG is supposed to run the team however he and the coach see fit.

But on defense, the PG is the first line of defense. The longer he can keep the ball from getting in the paint, the greater the chance of the defensive team in getting a stop.

It's an equally important responsibility.

And Stockton helped the Jazz defense even more than Malone IMO.

Also, the Jazz were a great defensive team. Top 10 many of those years. From 1986-1989, they were # 1 three straight years (but lost to the Warriors in the 1st round two of the three years).

Stockton was a 5-time defensive team player, and was probably just as good some of those other years too. His defensive ability put him in the 99.7th percentile of PGs in that area, so he was that much better.


His shooting was similar. He didn't have to shoot a lot, but being a 50% shooter probably put him in the 97% percentile for PGs for shooting. It was a huge advantage, and all what contributed to his greatness. As I mentioned, I can recall countless other PGs either missing layups or long jumpers.


So while shooting wasn't his main role, the fact that he could is what also set him apart, from say a Brevin Knight type player (who could also get assists and steals but not shoot even 40%). And because he could shoot, it changed the way you could play him.

You can lay off of Brevin Knight or Andre Miller or Raymond Felton completely at times, but you wouldn't do that to Stockton or Nash or Price because they could also shoot. The defending team would then pick someone else to leave open rather than the PG, changing the schemes.

 

[MHSL82]

I've been talking about team stats though, not individuals.

I'm not saying Stockton or Malone were a product of the system.

I'm saying the system seems to take below average players, such as what you coined McLopOyo, and enhance their skills in a certain area (assists)...

* No, there are teams where nobody has to score. Jefferson scored because he could get shots. You have to be skilled to be able to average that many points and have that kind of usage rate. It takes skill to be able to generate a certain amount of shots...

I know you were just making an analogy, using what Locke said. But I'm saying that sometimes a player on a bad team playing well is still a sign of some skill...

And Stockton helped the Jazz defense even more than Malone IMO.

Also, the Jazz were a great defensive team. Top 10 many of those years. From 1986-1989, they were # 1 three straight years (but lost to the Warriors in the 1st round two of the three years)...

So while shooting wasn't his main role, the fact that he could is what also set him apart, from say a Brevin Knight type player (who could also get assists and steals but not shoot even 40%). And because he could shoot, it changed the way you could play him.

You can lay off of Brevin Knight or Andre Miller or Raymond Felton completely at times, but you wouldn't do that to Stockton or Nash or Price because they could also shoot. The defending team would then pick someone else to leave open rather than the PG, changing the schemes.

I agree with everything you said, not just the exerpts I left here.

I guess Locke didn't know what he was talking about when he said that and I took him for his word - it sounded like he was giving statistical information on the Bobcats and T'Wolves. I agree with what you said, that wasn't a good comment to cite. If I did that in court, I'd lose badly. Mulligan!

Stockton was a better defender and I enjoyed having a good defense in Stockton's years. And I do think his ability to shoot is overlooked by most.

Despite being a Utah fan, I never really clinged onto Andre Miller's career, though I did like Keith Van Horn. I loved his use in the Kidd trade. I wish I could be paid 4 million to act like I wanted to come back to play and sit on an NBA bench. I'd do it for less. Heck, I'd do it for travel expenses, so that my family could come with me - considerably less than 4 million. Hear that Jazz? Whatever team has me, you have my rights, use me in a trade with the Jazz!

 

[MHSL82]

Mo with a pull-up 3. It's good.

82-80. Somehow I don't think that would have happened under Sloan.

This was reminiscent of that game winner I talked about earlier where he was supposed to call the timeout. Stockton did that a bit but it definitely wasn't often and he had the green light. Williams? Not unless your first name was Deron.

 

[MHSL82]

Many other teams feel the same way about some of the foul calls in Utah, against them.

Do you think I care what they think? These calls were at the end of the game so only they mattered. (You don't need to refute this, I'm only kidding.)

OT: Jordan pushed off, Eisley also made the three they took away, and Harper clearly made a shot after the buzzer. But even Jordan's foul was not called and explained as "he's MJ" or "refs don't want to decide a game." The Jazz would have lost in seven, no way Jordan loses, but news to them: the refs did decide the game. Not calling the push-off was deciding the game. (I know, I know, it just decided that the result of Jordan's shot would stand, miss or make - but that did determine it.) The Jazz got another shot, but that could have been free throws or more.

My point isn't to say the Jazz would have beaten Jordan, but if people don't care about three blatant calls, why would I care about their calls? Apparently, the end plays don't matter if they re wrongly called, so why would the others? Bah, both matter and no they did not even out in Game 6. But, as I said, it only is a bad thing if it's against the Jazz. What is with all this objectivity and reason, Nuraman?

I do feel a little ok because on Stockton's three against the Rockets, Malone held Drexler. Plus, as said, Jordan would have won in 7. I would have taken pride in pushing him that far if the refs weren't blowing it.

 

[MHSL82]

I don't like the Griffin commercials as much because he's not wearing Clippers gear, just some generic warmups. Which has his own logo, I believe.

They're still funny, but it is a peeve of mine.

I like the Cliff Paul State Farm one, because it shows him in Clippers gear.

I similarly liked the Grant Hill Sprite commercials, or the Hardaway Nike commercials, because they wore officially licensed NBA gear.

The new Adidas commercials that feature Rubio and Howard, they did it 1/2 way. Rubio/Love are wearing gear from their respective teams, but the players they are practicing against are wearing generic warmups, and they aren't even real NBA players.

Who cares if Rubio passes to someone who dunks on a D-League reject?

I think I would be ok if the players he passed to wore officially licensed gear. I can understand them not using real NBA players, because real NBA players would probably not want to be on the receiving end of a highlight in a commercial.

You're so NBA. You want real licensed gear. I guess, I'm different. I don't notice those things, but I may notice other obscure things. They don't want to pay more licensing fees or more superstars, and they assume that those who are taken aback by this are the minority. You factor these situations into real life to feel if the commercial seems real or should impress you.

I miss the Hill and Hardaway commercials, for different reasons (not jerseys).

Aside: Oh, and dunking, once you've done it, doesn't impress me - though I agree it's less impressive to dunk over a scrub (I say that affectionately because I'm worse than a scrub basketball wise). Wow, a tall guy can throw a ball really hard into a basket! How you got to the dunk is impressive to me, whether that be full-court hustle for a perfectly thrown full court pass by Stockton, or running through someone not set, or being so quick that you get around moving objects - not how hard you dunk it. Distance of the jump, angles, and height can impress, but honestly, it's so watered down for me because I see dunks on Sports Center that are solo, alone dunks that are just force. I don't care! I know others do, so I understand.

 

[nuraman00]

Do you think I care what they think? These calls were at the end of the game so only they mattered. (You don't need to refute this, I'm only kidding.)

OT: Jordan pushed off, Eisley also made the three they took away, and Harper clearly made a shot after the buzzer. But even Jordan's foul was not called and explained as "he's MJ" or "refs don't want to decide a game." The Jazz would have lost in seven, no way Jordan loses, but news to them: the refs did decide the game. Not calling the push-off was deciding the game. (I know, I know, it just decided that the result of Jordan's shot would stand, miss or make - but that did determine it.) The Jazz got another shot, but that could have been free throws or more.

My point isn't to say the Jazz would have beaten Jordan, but if people don't care about three blatant calls, why would I care about their calls? Apparently, the end plays don't matter if they re wrongly called, so why would the others? Bah, both matter and no they did not even out in Game 6. But, as I said, it only is a bad thing if it's against the Jazz. What is with all this objectivity and reason, Nuraman?

I do feel a little ok because on Stockton's three against the Rockets, Malone held Drexler. Plus, as said, Jordan would have won in 7. I would have taken pride in pushing him that far if the refs weren't blowing it.

I'm still not sure if Jordan pushed off, despite seeing the clip several times. I know it's widely accepted that he did, but that doesn't mean I agree with the consensus. I also wish I had access to other angles to help me make a decision, like they do with replays nowadays.

And it's also one of those things that's talked about so much, and everyone has an opinion on it, that I don't think I can watch it without letting someone influence me.

As for the Eisley and Harper calls, I don't remember them anymore. I probably haven't seen them since they occurred in real time. That might have been one of those things where it was a bad call that they could have looked at in modern times with replay, but that was not an option then. Tough break. There's been others like that too (specifically during the 2002 playoffs.)

basketball-reference doesn't have the play-by-play for that game, so I can't scan for those plays either.

I do agree that the phrase "the refs don't want to decide the game" is overused in cases where there's a missed no-call. And that the refs did decide the game by not calling a foul.

But I also remember in the 2003 playoffs, there was a lot of contact, yet Jason Kidd still made the final shot.

New Jersey Nets at Detroit Pistons Play-By-Play, May 18, 2003 | Basketball-Reference.com

And in the 2005 playoffs, Carlisle, who was now coaching Indiana, said "the refs did not decide the game. Lindsey Hunter is a great defender, but he decided the game by fouling Reggie Miller."

Detroit Pistons at Indiana Pacers Play-By-Play, May 13, 2005 | Basketball-Reference.com

That was an instance in which a coach supported a foul call at the end of a game. Yes it was for his player, but he flipped the cliche of "refs don't want to decide a game" back. Miller didn't get the call, and Indiana won without it, but I remember Carlisle saying that he should have gotten a call. If I had the sound bites, it would be even more interesting.


And here's a clip where Miller shoved Jordan, didn't get called for a foul, and made the shot anyways.


I don't have any real point, I'm just bringing up past questionable instances at the end of the game, where the call went either way.

(Ok, I just realized I didn't bring up any where someone DID get the foul call, but you know I could pull those up if I wanted to. I don't want to look those up right now.)

 

[MHSL82]

Why would you be more angry if the Jazz won game 6 and forced a game 7, as opposed to losing game 6?

Is it because you'd feel the NBA is rigged and trying to keep the Jazz down, and the Jazz had to overcome that?

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather win Game 6 than lose Game 6. I was just saying that the claim we would have lost anyway makes me feel that even if we had won Game 6, we'd still be ringless. So, missed pushoff = one loss, not = missed one ring. I already consider us to have won Game 6, so accepting the push-off does not kill my rationalization of Game 6's outcome. It just doesn't reward Utah with a ring they did not earn.

P.S. I don't go around telling everyone this. Just here on this public board. I have already accepted that Jordan is one of if not the best. I wish we had won, which still wouldn't have changed that, but given Stockton and Malone something. But, it's sports. You can't have wins without losses. The Jazz are winning it all in 2032 in memory of 32 Malone. Should have been this year for Stockton.

 

[nuraman00]

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather win Game 6 than lose Game 6. I was just saying that the claim we would have lost anyway makes me feel that even if we had won Game 6, we'd still be ringless. So, missed pushoff = one loss, not = missed one ring. I already consider us to have won Game 6, so accepting the push-off does not kill my rationalization of Game 6's outcome. It just doesn't reward Utah with a ring they did not earn.

P.S. I don't go around telling everyone this. Just here on this public board. I have already accepted that Jordan is one of if not the best. I wish we had won, which still wouldn't have changed that, but given Stockton and Malone something. But, it's sports. You can't have wins without losses. The Jazz are winning it all in 2032 in memory of 32 Malone. Should have been this year for Stockton.

Great post.

P.S. I look at it as "you don't know what can happen in game 7's", which is why I get excited for them.

Of course, they disappoint me sometimes. The back-to-back game 7s during the 2005 playoffs were some of the worst I've seen. It was a Saturday evening. First Indiana beats Boston on the road by 27 points, then Houston loses to Dallas by 40 points. I think there was another year where they had 2 game 7's on the same day, or two on consecutive days, and both were duds also. But the disappointment of the 2005 1st round pair is the one that hurts the most.

 

[nuraman00]

Jolly John Stockton Day | Hardwood Paroxysm

 

[nuraman00]

That article was full of a lie. Stockton was not a flopper.

He was a cheap hitter.

 

[nuraman00]

Do you know who Clintonite's favorite player is?

I think he was joking. It was Stockton. But I'll check to make sure.

(In addition to email and FB, I also have his cell #. I text more with him than with anyone. About random sports stuff. It it waxes and wanes.

One time, I accidentally mislead him and said I was going to "tweet" and watch the game with him. He thought I had finally joined Twitter.

No, I just meant text. The way I had thought about it, was that texting while watching was like tweeting.)

 

[beardown07]

Stockton was a badass. I don't think he was cheap. I think he was a brick shit-house, not afraid to set a tough pick. A rarity among guards.

 

[nuraman00]

I suppose all records are meant to be broken, but there is no one even close to it playing currently, so it will be a long time before it is.

Just to play that long and be such a true iron man...the longevity alone, makes it a tough one to reach.

Yeah. You have a few players that have been very healthy, such as Andre Miller and Russell Westbrook. Miller has only missed 4 games in his career, 3 due to injury (all separate years), 1 due to suspension.

Westbrook has never missed a game.

You just need one of them to have a game closer to Stockton.

Rondo took a few years to develop, so he won't do the assists.

I think he's a little closer to steals, but would come in 2nd place at best. Chris Paul has been injured too much in his career.

I think if they ever are broken, it's very unlikely that both assists and steals will be done by the same person.

 

[beardown07]

Yeah. You have a few players that have been very healthy, such as Andre Miller and Russell Westbrook. Miller has only missed 4 games in his career, 3 due to injury (all separate years), 1 due to suspension.

Westbrook has never missed a game.

You just need one of them to have a game closer to Stockton.

Rondo took a few years to develop, so he won't do the assists.

I think he's a little closer to steals, but would come in 2nd place at best. Chris Paul has been injured too much in his career.

I think if they ever are broken, it's very unlikely that both assists and steals will be done by the same person.

puts it into perspective, how impressive it is.

 

[MHSL82]

talk about records that will never be broken..

I could see someone doing the assists, eventually.

But the steals is even harder.

I suppose all records are meant to be broken, but there is no one even close to it playing currently, so it will be a long time before it is.

Just to play that long and be such a true iron man...the longevity alone, makes it a tough one to reach.

Yeah. You have a few players that have been very healthy, such as Andre Miller and Russell Westbrook. Miller has only missed 4 games in his career, 3 due to injury (all separate years), 1 due to suspension.

Westbrook has never missed a game.

You just need one of them to have a game closer to Stockton.

Rondo took a few years to develop, so he won't do the assists.

I think he's a little closer to steals, but would come in 2nd place at best. Chris Paul has been injured too much in his career.

I think if they ever are broken, it's very unlikely that both assists and steals will be done by the same person.

Nope. The assists will never be broken. The NBA will go out of business before that happens. There simply isn't anyone out there so dedicated and consistent to break it who is also durable in a great system and ages well. I think it was a perfect storm to get where Stockton is. The big scorers in the game these days are shooting guards, guys with the ball already. There's no point guard to set up a LeBron shot, as there was to get Malone baskets. Point guards are asked to score more these days. I know some don't, but if you are to get a lot of assists, you are slacking in points. I'm still very impressed with Stocktons 17.2 ppg, 14.5 apg, and 2.7 spg in 1989-90. Stockton was averaging around 8 in the twilight of his career, too. I don't see older guys doing that currently. I know the system helped but where do we find that in this league anymore?

I think the most impressive stat that is vulnerable is scoring. Scoring is easier these days and now it is acceptable to just score, regardless of winning. I know, LeBron and Kobe win, too, but I wouldn't be surprised if some guy comes and tops Kareem without much winning (some, obviously). These aren't mutually exclusive, just saying that sometimes to win you must pass and rebound well, too. Plus, people are starting at 19, so that gives them three years before retirement age, assuming they aren't burned out three years earlier, too. Some other stats are passable but aren't as impressive to me.

Steals could be, but I don't know who's going to play long enough. Steals are hard to come by consistently and for 20 seasons.