I don't think so, that's part of Jordan's meta game, to know he can do something but chose not to do it unless it's in the clutch to seal the game. The opponent gets comfortable and keeps doing what he has been doing all game long.
Stockton was a bit passive at times as far as I remember and definitely could've been a more assertive as a scorer considering he had the ability to do so.
arthroscopic surgery on his knee. He had to get cartilage scraped out. Interesting take. I always thought Stockton should have shot more. It's true. It's not like he was being guarded by Gary Payton. Stockton would have never stayed in in a blowout in the fourth quarter to get a few more assists or something and coach Sloan wouldn't have allowed even it if he had been so inclined.
No….in the last time out Phil told MJ where the ball was going and it could be a good opportunity to get a steal back door…..it was a planned play based on Utah’s offense, there was nothing wrong w/ his pass…that’s completely inaccurate……Stockton hit the 3 pointer to put the jazz up w/ 41 seconds left to play, hardly costing them anything……
1997 & 1998: See, Stockton could score anywhere from 20-25 a game had he chosen to but he was more into his assists stats than winning. See, Stockton in the 1997 playoffs averaged 16 points per game and 9-10 assists per game. In the '98 playoffs Stockton averaged 11 points per game 7.7 rounded up to 8 assists per game. So he declined but the Jazz were a better team reaching the Finals having a deeper team.
Stats: Now if Stockton was 16 points 10 assists a game that's 36 points he contributed to his team in '97. In '98 it's 11 points and 8 assists so that's 27 a game both in the post season. Now let's look at personnel.
Utah had just 2 guys who could post up: Malone and Antoine Carr and Sloan didn't use Carr a lot. Chicago had Jordan, Longley, Pippen, Kukoc, and Ron Harper would post up having mismatches. The Bulls' triangle offense was based upon a guy in the post. Why is that important? Because it forces movement off-the-ball, screening, so how Utah ran their offense was more of a problem than Stockton individually.
How It Works: Utah's bread-and-butter play was Stockton/Malone pick-and-roll… See, when your offense is based upon your point guard creating shots through points/assists, even if you have (at the time) the 2nd or 3rd all-time leading scorer or the top assist guy, you are just using ONE SIDE of the court, not the entire half-court, so the GREAT DEFENSIVE TEAMS do not have to worry about half of the court, so you are making it easy for them. Now in '98, Utah used basically 10 guys but in the Finals they didn't rely much on that 10 man rotation, so guys like Russell, Hornacek, Isley, Chris Morris weren't really used along with Carr as much — they were there and did contribute but they didn't BREAK DOWN Chicago's defense without Stockton/Malone.
Remember, the game Utah played great in game 5 in '98, Antoine Carr played minutes and did well. Sloan didn't use Carr much in '98…didn't go to him a lot and instead of using both Carr/Malone they'd have one of those guys on the bench. So Sloan messed that up more than Stockton.
Stockton's Weaknesses: He was a mismatch vs. Harper, late on rotations too many times, we saw that when guys were left open too many times; he didn't attack the rim enough nor did he know how to dictate the pace of the game itself recognizing how his team would have a consistent mismatch. When did you see Stockton exploit a Carr/Wennington match-up or a situation where Russell vs. Kukoc or Ostertag vs. Longley or Carr vs. Kukoc? Now when Kerr was in the game, why didn't Stockton constantly TAKE HIM off the dribble to score consistently? Instead he was setting screens off-the-ball on Chicago's big men which takes energy out of him over long periods of time…against Harper, why didn't Stockton just take him consistently? I'm not talking about a possession here-and-there, just consistently run plays to put Chicago in a losing situation — Utah just ran their basic offense hoping Chicago would have mental lapses — NO! Just another bad offensive strategy team like Seattle but Seattle had more offensive weapons.
Point Guard: Point guards like Isiah Thomas, even more than Magic, knew how to break down great defensive teams. I say Thomas more because Magic played against Jordan one time and got exposed. This is another reason why the Lakers lost in '91 vs. Chicago, Magic played like Stockton as opposed to Magic Johnson — he never TOOK IT, he just went through the motions and lost. So why? This is how you lose. Which is why I tell you Thomas just taking 9 shots in each of the first two games in the 1991 ECF and watch the first 5-6 minutes in game 3, Thomas never ran the offense — see? This is how you choose to lose as a point guard — passive, not running the offense, a great way to show how you can lose vs. a solid/great defensive team, even though Magic/Isiah did it on purpose while Stockton was literally trying to win.
Stockton was a real traditional point guard, he always focused on setting up his teammates. But I do agree that if he hunted for his shots more, with his shooting skill and efficiency, it would’ve been more beneficial but the bulls would still win the finals regardless.
Well, Malone did not protect the ball at all when he caught it in the post. He actually exposed it towards the baseline. You're right though, John should have read the play better.
11 Comments
TO DONATE TO 2RAW USE THESE LINKS BELOW:
https://www.paypal.me/2RAW4TV
https://cash.app/$2RAW01
https://cash.app/$2RAW4SPORTS
ALL DONATIONS ARE GREATLY APPRECIATED!!
I don't think so, that's part of Jordan's meta game, to know he can do something but chose not to do it unless it's in the clutch to seal the game. The opponent gets comfortable and keeps doing what he has been doing all game long.
Stockton was a bit passive at times as far as I remember and definitely could've been a more assertive as a scorer considering he had the ability to do so.
arthroscopic surgery on his knee. He had to get cartilage scraped out. Interesting take. I always thought Stockton should have shot more. It's true. It's not like he was being guarded by Gary Payton. Stockton would have never stayed in in a blowout in the fourth quarter to get a few more assists or something and coach Sloan wouldn't have allowed even it if he had been so inclined.
Stockton was the anti-LeStatPadKING.
No….in the last time out Phil told MJ where the ball was going and it could be a good opportunity to get a steal back door…..it was a planned play based on Utah’s offense, there was nothing wrong w/ his pass…that’s completely inaccurate……Stockton hit the 3 pointer to put the jazz up w/ 41 seconds left to play, hardly costing them anything……
1997 & 1998: See, Stockton could score anywhere from 20-25 a game had he chosen to but he was more into his assists stats than winning. See, Stockton in the 1997 playoffs averaged 16 points per game and 9-10 assists per game. In the '98 playoffs Stockton averaged 11 points per game 7.7 rounded up to 8 assists per game. So he declined but the Jazz were a better team reaching the Finals having a deeper team.
Stats: Now if Stockton was 16 points 10 assists a game that's 36 points he contributed to his team in '97. In '98 it's 11 points and 8 assists so that's 27 a game both in the post season. Now let's look at personnel.
Utah had just 2 guys who could post up: Malone and Antoine Carr and Sloan didn't use Carr a lot. Chicago had Jordan, Longley, Pippen, Kukoc, and Ron Harper would post up having mismatches. The Bulls' triangle offense was based upon a guy in the post. Why is that important? Because it forces movement off-the-ball, screening, so how Utah ran their offense was more of a problem than Stockton individually.
How It Works: Utah's bread-and-butter play was Stockton/Malone pick-and-roll… See, when your offense is based upon your point guard creating shots through points/assists, even if you have (at the time) the 2nd or 3rd all-time leading scorer or the top assist guy, you are just using ONE SIDE of the court, not the entire half-court, so the GREAT DEFENSIVE TEAMS do not have to worry about half of the court, so you are making it easy for them. Now in '98, Utah used basically 10 guys but in the Finals they didn't rely much on that 10 man rotation, so guys like Russell, Hornacek, Isley, Chris Morris weren't really used along with Carr as much — they were there and did contribute but they didn't BREAK DOWN Chicago's defense without Stockton/Malone.
Remember, the game Utah played great in game 5 in '98, Antoine Carr played minutes and did well. Sloan didn't use Carr much in '98…didn't go to him a lot and instead of using both Carr/Malone they'd have one of those guys on the bench. So Sloan messed that up more than Stockton.
Stockton's Weaknesses: He was a mismatch vs. Harper, late on rotations too many times, we saw that when guys were left open too many times; he didn't attack the rim enough nor did he know how to dictate the pace of the game itself recognizing how his team would have a consistent mismatch. When did you see Stockton exploit a Carr/Wennington match-up or a situation where Russell vs. Kukoc or Ostertag vs. Longley or Carr vs. Kukoc? Now when Kerr was in the game, why didn't Stockton constantly TAKE HIM off the dribble to score consistently? Instead he was setting screens off-the-ball on Chicago's big men which takes energy out of him over long periods of time…against Harper, why didn't Stockton just take him consistently? I'm not talking about a possession here-and-there, just consistently run plays to put Chicago in a losing situation — Utah just ran their basic offense hoping Chicago would have mental lapses — NO! Just another bad offensive strategy team like Seattle but Seattle had more offensive weapons.
Point Guard: Point guards like Isiah Thomas, even more than Magic, knew how to break down great defensive teams. I say Thomas more because Magic played against Jordan one time and got exposed. This is another reason why the Lakers lost in '91 vs. Chicago, Magic played like Stockton as opposed to Magic Johnson — he never TOOK IT, he just went through the motions and lost. So why? This is how you lose. Which is why I tell you Thomas just taking 9 shots in each of the first two games in the 1991 ECF and watch the first 5-6 minutes in game 3, Thomas never ran the offense — see? This is how you choose to lose as a point guard — passive, not running the offense, a great way to show how you can lose vs. a solid/great defensive team, even though Magic/Isiah did it on purpose while Stockton was literally trying to win.
Michael Jordan cost him a championship
Stockton was a real traditional point guard, he always focused on setting up his teammates. But I do agree that if he hunted for his shots more, with his shooting skill and efficiency, it would’ve been more beneficial but the bulls would still win the finals regardless.
Well, Malone did not protect the ball at all when he caught it in the post. He actually exposed it towards the baseline. You're right though, John should have read the play better.
I've heard Isiah & Cotton Fitzsimmons say that Stockton was too passive at times and should have looked to score more, especially in the clutch.