FM 12-22-0HWRI-PLR-09VS-6TKT-HW1K-08C3-H62N

Hardwoodist Research Institute · Field Manual

The

FloorGeneral

The Stockton Index, V7

An Index of On-Court Control. Orchestration that leads to points, involves teammates. With appendices.

Read the formula →

Prepared by

Department of Strategic Dynamics

Hardwoodist Research Institute

Volume

VII

Edition

Revised 2026

Approved

The Hardwoodist

Issued

2026-05-07

Chapter I

Classic Floor Generals

Pure floor generalship, drawn from the traditional box score. A composite of assists per game, assist-to-turnover ratio, and the assist-to-shot-attempt ratio. Leaderboard consists of qualifying player-seasons in our database, 1951-52 through 2025-26.

Rank I’90 · UTA

John Stockton

86.52

APG14.5

AST/TO4.17

AST/FGA1.24

Rank II’90 · CHH

Muggsy Bogues

86.23

APG10.7

AST/TO5.94

AST/FGA1.31

Rank III’11 · BOS

Rajon Rondo

86.09

APG11.2

AST/TO3.25

AST/FGA1.13

Figure 1-1.The three highest scores on file. One from Salt Lake City. One from Charlotte. One from Boston.

№	Organizer	Team · Yr	Index	APG	AST/TO	AST/FGA
04	John Stockton	UTA · ’88	86.01	13.8	4.31	1.43
05	John Stockton	UTA · ’91	85.64	14.2	3.91	1.19
06	John Stockton	UTA · ’92	85.21	13.7	3.94	1.20
07	Mark Jackson	IND · ’98	84.86	8.7	4.10	1.19
08	Steve Nash	PHX · ’05	84.60	11.5	3.51	1.00
09	John Stockton	UTA · ’89	84.44	13.6	3.63	1.21
10	Steve Nash	PHX · ’12	84.32	10.7	2.90	1.20
11	Rajon Rondo	BOS · ’12	84.14	11.7	3.21	1.08
12	John Stockton	UTA · ’94	83.79	12.6	3.88	1.19
13	John Stockton	UTA · ’00	83.72	8.6	3.93	0.97
14	John Stockton	UTA · ’95	83.30	12.3	3.79	1.28
15	John Lucas	SAS · ’84	82.92	10.7	4.58	1.13
16	Muggsy Bogues	CHH · ’91	82.70	8.3	5.58	1.28
17	John Stockton	UTA · ’01	81.95	8.7	3.51	1.10
18	John Stockton	UTA · ’93	81.90	12.0	3.71	1.10
19	Steve Nash	PHX · ’11	81.73	11.4	3.23	1.05
20	Magic Johnson	LAL · ’84	81.45	13.1	2.86	1.12
21	Ricky Rubio	MIN · ’14	81.37	8.6	3.19	1.05
22	Johnny Moore	SAS · ’82	81.25	9.6	4.35	1.14
23	John Stockton	UTA · ’96	81.20	11.2	3.72	1.12
24	Muggsy Bogues	CHH · ’92	80.95	9.1	4.76	1.11
25	Magic Johnson	LAL · ’85	80.85	12.6	3.17	1.08
26	Muggsy Bogues	CHH · ’89	80.72	7.8	5.00	1.48
27	Kevin Porter	DET · ’79	80.65	13.4	3.26	0.99
28	Muggsy Bogues	CHH · ’94	80.62	10.1	4.56	1.04
29	Jason Kidd	DAL · ’09	80.55	8.7	3.79	1.14
30	Chris Paul	NOH · ’08	80.07	11.6	4.60	0.72
31	Steve Nash	PHX · ’07	79.99	11.6	3.08	0.91
32	Draymond Green	GSW · ’21	79.86	8.9	2.97	1.47
33	Steve Nash	PHX · ’08	79.81	11.1	3.04	0.93
34	Chris Paul	LAC · ’15	79.72	10.2	4.41	0.72
35	Magic Johnson	LAL · ’86	79.69	12.6	3.32	0.99
36	Magic Johnson	LAL · ’91	79.57	12.5	3.15	1.01
37	Chris Paul	NOH · ’11	79.56	9.8	4.42	0.84
38	Doc Rivers	ATL · ’87	79.25	10.0	3.79	1.09
39	Johnny Moore	SAS · ’84	79.22	9.6	3.96	1.09
40	Isiah Thomas	DET · ’85	79.00	13.9	3.72	0.80
41	John Stockton	UTA · ’87	78.65	8.2	4.09	1.45
42	Andre Miller	CLE · ’02	78.40	10.9	3.60	0.84
43	Ricky Rubio	MIN · ’16	78.31	8.7	3.41	1.12
44	Nate McMillan	SEA · ’88	78.14	8.6	3.71	1.42
45	Mark Jackson	IND · ’99	78.08	7.9	3.90	1.17
46	Muggsy Bogues	CHH · ’95	77.98	8.7	5.11	0.92
47	Nate McMillan	SEA · ’89	77.98	9.3	3.30	1.44
48	Chris Paul	LAC · ’13	77.80	9.7	4.26	0.79
49	Jason Kidd	PHX · ’99	77.79	10.8	3.59	0.77
50	Nate McMillan	SEA · ’87	77.77	8.2	3.76	1.94

Table 1-1.Top 50 floor-general seasons, all eras.

Chapter II

Tracking-Era Floor Generals

Modern era. Computed on fuller, more nuanced tracking data unavailable in previous eras. Includes potential assists, hockey assists, points created, but still looking for classic orchestration. Available 2014–present.

Rank I’14 · MIN

Ricky Rubio

95.74

Pot_A/g18.6

Trt_A/g1.05

PG-Share53%

Rank II’15 · LAC

Chris Paul

95.47

Pot_A/g20.1

Trt_A/g1.55

PG-Share51%

Rank III’25 · ATL

Trae Young

94.26

Pot_A/g20.7

Trt_A/g1.21

PG-Share54%

Figure 2-1.The three highest scores on the expanded instrument set.

№	Organizer	Team · Yr	Index	Pot_A/g	Trt_A/g	PG-Share
04	Chris Paul	LAC · ’16	93.86	19.2	0.92	55%
05	Chris Paul	LAC · ’14	92.67	20.2	1.35	52%
06	Chris Paul	PHX · ’22	92.51	19.3	1.03	60%
07	Chris Paul	LAC · ’17	91.39	17.3	0.97	47%
08	Tyrese Haliburton	IND · ’23	91.18	19.8	1.02	51%
09	Trae Young	ATL · ’24	91.17	18.2	1.07	52%
10	Trae Young	ATL · ’23	90.81	17.2	0.74	50%
11	Ricky Rubio	PHX · ’20	90.58	15.6	0.69	46%
12	Tyrese Haliburton	IND · ’24	90.50	17.8	1.12	49%
13	Trae Young	ATL · ’21	89.75	17.6	1.14	61%
14	Chris Paul	PHX · ’21	89.09	17.3	0.96	52%
15	Chris Paul	OKC · ’20	89.05	12.5	0.80	51%
16	Trae Young	ATL · ’22	88.53	17.2	1.03	55%
17	Jarrett Jack	NYK · ’18	88.08	10.0	0.61	52%
18	Ty Lawson	DEN · ’15	88.03	20.1	0.72	44%
19	Ricky Rubio	MIN · ’16	87.89	16.2	0.70	45%
20	Elfrid Payton	ORL · ’15	87.82	13.2	0.55	46%
21	Chris Paul	PHX · ’23	87.64	16.5	1.02	60%
22	D.J. Augustin	ORL · ’19	87.14	9.9	0.98	50%
23	Jeff Teague	IND · ’17	86.99	15.7	0.79	44%
24	Matthew Dellavedova	CLE · ’16	86.67	8.4	0.76	53%
25	Trae Young	ATL · ’20	86.67	17.3	0.98	61%
26	John Wall	WAS · ’15	86.58	19.8	1.04	43%
27	Tyrese Haliburton	SAC/IND · ’22	86.47	15.4	0.69	49%
28	Joe Ingles	UTA · ’20	86.43	9.1	0.47	49%
29	J.J. Barea	DAL · ’18	86.12	11.1	0.77	58%
30	T.J. McConnell	PHI · ’16	86.02	10.0	0.36	53%
31	Tyrese Haliburton	IND · ’25	85.51	15.8	1.29	46%
32	T.J. McConnell	PHI · ’17	85.44	14.2	0.65	54%
33	Ja Morant	MEM · ’21	85.39	12.4	1.27	54%
34	Elfrid Payton	ORL/PHX · ’18	85.12	12.9	0.56	52%
35	Kendall Marshall	LAL · ’14	84.99	15.7	0.83	45%
36	T.J. McConnell	IND · ’23	84.98	10.2	0.45	55%
37	James Harden	HOU · ’17	84.96	22.3	0.81	43%
38	Ty Lawson	DEN · ’14	84.81	19.2	0.76	42%
39	Rajon Rondo	DAL/BOS · ’15	84.28	15.3	0.54	48%
40	Trae Young	ATL · ’19	84.13	15.3	0.78	54%
41	John Wall	WAS · ’17	83.89	20.4	1.00	41%
42	Rajon Rondo	SAC · ’16	83.73	22.4	0.71	42%
43	Chris Paul	SAS · ’25	83.70	12.6	0.66	43%
44	Joe Ingles	UTA · ’21	83.67	9.8	0.69	51%
45	Rajon Rondo	NOP · ’18	83.40	13.6	0.57	41%
46	Tyus Jones	WAS · ’24	83.37	12.5	0.88	44%
47	Ricky Rubio	MIN · ’17	83.33	15.9	0.65	42%
48	Cade Cunningham	DET · ’26	83.18	16.4	1.33	44%
49	Dejounte Murray	SAS · ’22	82.92	17.2	0.63	51%
50	Tim Frazier	NOP · ’17	82.92	9.8	0.58	46%

Table 2-1.Top 50 floor-general seasons in the tracking era.

Plate III

The Partnership

Twenty-eight Jazz seasons in one frame. The five before Stockton arrives, the eighteen with both, the four after. Stockton's scoring is the steady floor; Malone's the dominant engine; the rest of the roster fills the remainder. Stockton's assist line rides above as one hairline; team win pct rides above as another.

Plate III.Twenty-eight Utah Jazz seasons. Stacked PPG: Stockton (bottom moss) · Malone (middle moss) · rest of roster (top cream). Black hairline: Stockton APG. Sepia hairline: team win pct. The .500 reference line spans the chart.

Plate IV

Title Campaigns

Two postseason runs traced as cartes figuratives, after Charles Joseph Minard, 1869. The outer band oscillates with margin of victory — wins thinning the road to the title, losses bumping it back outward. Three stacked sub-bands inside the band credit the run’s top-three contributors by box-value, accumulating game by game. Beneath each carte, the title-probability subline plays the role Minard’s temperature-line played: the prevailing condition of the run, updated every game from a logistic SRS model folded forward through every remaining series.

’97

Malone
Stockton
Hornacek

’98

Malone
Stockton
Russell

Plate IV.Utah 1st Division — title campaigns of 1997 and 1998. Chicago, June.

Chapter Appendix A

Computation

The Stockton Index, v7. Four signals composed into one. Each component is annotated for the reader who wants to audit a score.

Pass Quality (z)

pq_z = 0.25 · apg_z + 0.25 · ast/to_z + 0.50 · ast/fga_z

· apg_z = (apg − 5.0) / 2.0 — assists per game.
· ast/to_z = (ast/tov − 3.0) / 1.0 — purity of distribution. Zero if turnover data missing.
· ast/fga_z = ((apg / max(0.5, fga/g)) − 0.40) / 0.30, clipped at +2.5. The passer-vs-creator-who-passes line. Cap blocks ultra-low-volume gaming.

ii.

Team Lift (z)

ortg_z = clip(ortg_delta / 8.0, [−1.0, +1.5])

· ortg_delta = team offensive rating with the player on, minus off. Estimated from PBP lineup stints.
· Cap at +1.5 prevents score-first guards (Curry, Westbrook) from dominating purely because the offense leans on their scoring.
· Available 1997-present, where shufinskiy play-by-play is on file.

iii.

Composite (z → 0–100)

stk_z = pq_z · w_pq + ortg_z · w_ortg ;   raw = 100 / (1 + e^(−0.8 · stk_z))

· Modern (1997+): w_pq = 0.65, w_ortg = 0.35.
· Pre-PBP era: w_pq = 0.85, w_ortg = 0. (ortg_delta unavailable; the 35% redistributes onto pq rather than zeroing).
· Sigmoid k = 0.8 so an elite pq_z ≈ 2 lands near 80, not at the asymptote.

iv.

Partnership Bonus

bonus = lift + breadth   (max +8)

· lift = clip(off_overall, [0, 10]) / 10 · 5. Average off-rating bump across the player's archetype-classified partners.
· breadth = (count of positive entries in off_profile) / 6 · 3. Rewards lifting more than one kind of teammate.
· Gated on n_partners ≥ 6 and mp_weight ≥ 0.6. Available 1997-present; otherwise zero.

Final Index

stockton_index = clip(raw + bonus, [0, 100])

· Reported to two decimals (Stockton ’90 = 86.52).
· The clip is rarely binding — top-of-leaderboard scores live in the mid-eighties.

A-1.Composite formula, in order of evaluation.

· Minimum minutes per game: 18.0.
· Minimum assists per game: 3.5.
· Below either floor the player is not a primary ball- handler by the canonical definition. Centers and off-ball wings receive the default of 25.00 rather than a misleadingly-precise low score.

A-2.Eligibility floor. Below it, the score is reported as 25.00 by default.

Sign up to receive information on experiments, features, releases, and other news from the Institute. No spam. Cancel any time.