Quick note - gotta
at posters repeatedly mentioning "But Steve Kerr played in 2003!!!" as if he wasn't totally irrelevant past 1998. He was a veteran presence averaging 3-4 points a game at the end of the bench, he wasn't shyt.
We've had 21 seasons now since the last time Steve Kerr was a relevant player. And HE himself says there's been a big change in 21 years. Y'all really want to claim there's no difference between 1998 and 1977 either? Or between 1977 and 1956?
I named several all star level point guards around stockton's size who's game doesn't rely on athleticism. The fact that all you can say to counter that is to talk about skin color, who their daddy was or what they did in some work out means you lost. You cant explain what guys like Lowry, Conley, and Paul do on the court athletically that Stockton wouldn't be able to do.
So it's just a magic coincidence that every guy you named is incredibly athletic. It's just a coincidence that all of them are Black.
Mike Conley's dad was an Olympic Gold Medalist in track and field AND Conley has a 40" vertical AND Conley benched his own weight 13 times AND Conley checked out as the quickest guy in his entire combine. It was dumb of you to claim that he was unathletic and that Stockton was equally athletic to him. It showed complete ignorance of Conley and you won't admit that.
You claim I can't explain what they do on the court athletically that Stockton wouldn't be able to do? I can do that easily.
* All three players are very good finishers at the rim despite their height, making about 60% of their shots at the rim. Conley, the most athletic of the three, gets there the most often (it's 28% of his shots), while for CP3 it's only 17% of his shots, though at 61% he has the highest success there. It's not easy for a six-footer to get inside, if the spin you hear from the casuals was true than a star like CP3 would be getting a lot more shots there. But it is only their athleticism that enable them to score at that clip at all. John Stockton wasn't even a good finisher in his own day, he'd be much worse now. Look at someone like Trae Young, who is a couple inches taller and slightly more athletic than Stockton, but who only makes about 55% of his shots at the rim. Stockton wouldn't be able to take many shots there at all and the ones he did take would be even lower percentage.
* All three guys you mentioned are elite, hard-nosed defenders.
Especially outside of the hand-check era, you have to be elite athletically to stay with extremely athletic point guards. CP3, Conley, and Lowry were three of the top defensive point guards in the league of their size, especially if you look at the stars. If they had Stockton-level athleticism, they would have sucked on defense. Stockton kept up with more athletic players by using his hands a ton (often in a dirty way) and often literally running into them as they entered the lane. He wouldn't get away with that today.
* All three guys you mentioned have higher and more precise lift on their jump shots than Stockton. Stockton didn't get much lift on his shot and his feet tended to splay a little. CP3, Lowry, and Conley all get higher on their shot and do a better job of going straight up even when they're shooting on the move, allowing them to get clearance over closing defenders that Stockton couldn't get. Even in his own day he rarely shot when a defender was close enough to challenge (which is why his point totals stayed low), but in his day threes were challenged much less often. Nowadays he would struggle to get that shot off even more.
* All three guys you mention can turn the corner on a defender and get into the lane. They do different things once they get there, but they can do it. Stockton wouldn't be able to turn that corner on most NBA defenders, even after the pick.
There's a reason that you and that other clown don't have real arguments. There's a reason that you ducked my post about steve Nash. Nash was back to back MVP in '05 and '06. Do you actually think that the league is advanced past the style of play that allowed a guy like Nash to dominate? I say that a guy like Nash would be just as good now as he was 15 years ago. Guys like Stockton and Nash would still eat in this era. Y'all don't have an argument outside of silly ass trolling.
Steve Nash would be just as good now as he was in the mid-2000s so long as he played in the same gimmick offense. He still wouldn't be MVP because it took some massive flukes for him to get those votes, and no one in their right mind thought he was even a top-5 player, possibly not even top-10. But he would still succeed in the same offense, be a 17 and 10 guy on good shooting numbers. In any other offense he'd be a step back from that.
But why are we talking about Nash anyway? Nash is taller (6'3"), was a better ballhandler, had a better first step and was more agile than any of the white 90s pgs we are talking about. Not to mention having a legit case for being one of the greatest shooters in NBA history. And he STILL was too unathletic to give you anything on defense at all. And he STILL never averaged more than 18ppg in any season despite playing in a super-fast gimmick offense and having a much better offensive repertoire than anyone you mentioned.
Nash is not the hill you want to die on.
