A lot of people in Jazzdom were upset at former guard Mark Jackson’s comments on John Stockton, this week.
“Hornacek — great shooter. John Stockton — good to very good shooter. Not a great shooter,” Jackson said. “Don’t get me wrong. He was an all-time great player. But John Stockton would not be considered a great shooter.”
Though the numbers don’t bear that out – Stockton’s all-time field goal percentage was 51.5 percent (34.8 from 3-point range) – I have to say that I didn’t think Jackson was an ingrate for saying it.
I have heard from Jazz sources over the years that said Jackson and Stockton had some issues. So the coach’s comments might not be so objective. Still, I didn’t think it was terribly mean to rate Jeff Hornacek over Stockton.
Maybe it was Stockton’s off-the-shoulder delivery, or the fact that he missed the final shot of the 1998 NBA Finals. But I’ve always felt a bit like Jackson – that Stockton was a phenomenal player, but not necessarily a shooter’s shooter.
No disrespect on my part, either.
Hornacek was a shooter’s shooter.
If the clock was running down and the ball in Stockton’s hands, I knew something good would usually happen. But if time were expiring and putting up a perimeter shot the only option, I maybe would have wanted Hornacek to take the shot.
Yes, I was there when Stockton sent the Jazz to the NBA Finals. The man was a big play guy. Both guards were fine shooters. I just don’t think Jackson is the Vlad the Impaler for suggesting that he’d take Horacek’s shooting over Stockton’s.
People are taking a lot of offense over a simple observation.
[poll id="338"][poll id="339"]