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 2024-25.

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’88 · UTA

John Stockton

86.01

APG13.8

AST/TO4.31

AST/FGA1.43

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

№	Organizer	Team · Yr	Index	APG	AST/TO	AST/FGA
04	John Stockton	UTA · ’91	85.64	14.2	3.91	1.19
05	John Stockton	UTA · ’92	85.21	13.7	3.94	1.20
06	Rajon Rondo	BOS · ’11	85.17	11.2	3.25	1.13
07	Mark Jackson	DEN · ’97	84.65	12.3	3.73	1.42
08	John Stockton	UTA · ’89	84.44	13.6	3.63	1.21
09	Steve Nash	PHX · ’05	84.31	11.5	3.51	1.00
10	John Stockton	UTA · ’94	83.79	12.6	3.88	1.19
11	John Stockton	UTA · ’95	83.30	12.3	3.79	1.28
12	Steve Nash	PHX · ’12	82.98	10.7	2.90	1.20
13	John Lucas	SAS · ’84	82.92	10.7	4.58	1.13
14	Muggsy Bogues	CHH · ’91	82.70	8.3	5.58	1.28
15	Steve Nash	PHX · ’11	82.23	11.4	3.23	1.05
16	Mark Jackson	TOR · ’01	82.07	9.2	4.26	1.24
17	John Stockton	UTA · ’93	81.90	12.0	3.71	1.10
18	Magic Johnson	LAL · ’84	81.45	13.1	2.86	1.12
19	Johnny Moore	SAS · ’82	81.25	9.6	4.35	1.14
20	John Stockton	UTA · ’96	81.20	11.2	3.72	1.12
21	Mark Jackson	IND · ’98	81.07	8.7	4.10	1.19
22	Ricky Rubio	MIN · ’14	81.03	8.6	3.19	1.05
23	John Stockton	UTA · ’97	81.00	10.5	3.47	1.13
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	Mark Jackson	IND · ’99	80.61	7.9	3.90	1.17
30	Chris Paul	NOH · ’08	80.40	11.6	4.60	0.72
31	Draymond Green	GSW · ’21	80.36	8.9	2.97	1.47
32	Kendall Marshall	LAL · ’14	80.26	8.8	3.18	1.14
33	Steve Nash	PHX · ’07	79.78	11.6	3.08	0.91
34	Magic Johnson	LAL · ’86	79.69	12.6	3.32	0.99
35	Magic Johnson	LAL · ’91	79.57	12.5	3.15	1.01
36	John Stockton	UTA · ’00	79.48	8.6	3.93	0.97
37	Steve Nash	PHX · ’08	79.25	11.1	3.04	0.93
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	Jose Calderon	TOR · ’12	79.12	8.8	4.50	0.98
41	Rajon Rondo	BOS · ’12	79.00	11.7	3.21	1.08
42	Isiah Thomas	DET · ’85	79.00	13.9	3.72	0.80
43	John Stockton	UTA · ’87	78.65	8.2	4.09	1.45
44	Chris Paul	LAC · ’13	78.36	9.7	4.26	0.79
45	Jose Calderon	TOR · ’08	78.30	8.3	5.38	0.96
46	Jason Kidd	DAL · ’09	78.27	8.7	3.79	1.14
47	Jason Kidd	PHX · ’99	78.18	10.8	3.59	0.77
48	Chris Paul	NOH · ’11	78.16	9.8	4.42	0.84
49	John Stockton	UTA · ’01	78.15	8.7	3.51	1.10
50	Nate McMillan	SEA · ’88	78.14	8.6	3.71	1.42

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’15 · LAC

Chris Paul

93.50

Pot_A/g20.1

Trt_A/g1.55

PG-Share51%

Rank II’16 · LAC

Chris Paul

92.88

Pot_A/g19.2

Trt_A/g0.92

PG-Share55%

Rank III’23 · IND

Tyrese Haliburton

92.50

Pot_A/g19.8

Trt_A/g1.02

PG-Share51%

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	Trae Young	ATL · ’23	91.51	17.2	0.74	50%
05	Chris Paul	LAC · ’17	91.22	17.3	0.97	47%
06	Ty Lawson	DEN · ’14	90.75	19.2	0.76	46%
07	Elfrid Payton	ORL · ’15	90.68	13.2	0.55	46%
08	Trae Young	ATL · ’25	90.46	20.7	1.21	54%
09	Tyrese Haliburton	IND · ’24	89.97	17.8	1.12	49%
10	Ty Lawson	DEN · ’15	89.42	20.1	0.72	44%
11	Trae Young	ATL · ’22	88.48	17.2	1.03	55%
12	Trae Young	ATL · ’21	88.18	17.6	1.14	54%
13	Tyrese Haliburton	IND · ’25	87.91	15.8	1.29	46%
14	Matthew Dellavedova	CLE · ’16	87.57	8.4	0.76	53%
15	Ricky Rubio	PHX · ’20	87.43	15.6	0.69	46%
16	T.J. McConnell	PHI · ’16	87.12	10.0	0.36	53%
17	Chris Paul	PHX · ’22	86.80	19.3	1.03	60%
18	Jeff Teague	IND · ’17	86.50	15.7	0.79	44%
19	Chris Paul	GSW · ’24	86.09	12.7	0.84	46%
20	Joe Ingles	UTA · ’20	86.00	9.1	0.47	49%
21	Tim Frazier	NOP · ’17	85.86	9.8	0.58	46%
22	Ricky Rubio	MIN · ’16	85.80	16.2	0.70	45%
23	James Harden	HOU · ’17	85.65	22.3	0.81	43%
24	Chris Paul	PHX · ’23	85.64	16.5	1.02	60%
25	Chris Paul	LAC · ’14	85.07	20.2	1.35	46%
26	Kendall Marshall	LAL · ’14	84.96	15.7	0.83	41%
27	T.J. McConnell	PHI · ’17	84.81	14.2	0.65	54%
28	Tyus Jones	MIN · ’19	84.68	9.0	0.66	47%
29	Ty Lawson	SAC · ’17	84.63	10.6	0.57	48%
30	John Wall	WAS · ’17	84.55	20.4	1.00	41%
31	John Wall	WAS · ’15	84.48	19.8	1.04	43%
32	Tyus Jones	WAS · ’24	83.96	12.5	0.88	44%
33	Jameer Nelson	ORL · ’14	83.89	14.8	0.62	47%
34	Ricky Rubio	MIN · ’14	83.83	18.6	1.05	37%
35	T.J. McConnell	IND · ’21	83.72	12.1	0.62	42%
36	D.J. Augustin	ORL · ’19	83.28	9.9	0.98	50%
37	Ja Morant	MEM · ’21	83.23	12.4	1.27	47%
38	Tyrese Haliburton	SAC · ’21	82.98	9.8	0.55	49%
39	Markelle Fultz	ORL · ’20	82.86	10.5	0.76	51%
40	Rajon Rondo	SAC · ’16	82.86	22.4	0.71	42%
41	Monte Morris	WAS · ’23	82.85	8.8	0.66	41%
42	T.J. McConnell	IND · ’23	82.54	10.2	0.45	55%
43	Trae Young	ATL · ’20	82.42	17.3	0.98	61%
44	Jameer Nelson	DEN · ’17	82.34	9.2	0.52	47%
45	Ish Smith	DET · ’17	81.93	10.2	0.38	50%
46	Goran Dragic	MIA · ’20	81.05	9.9	0.92	52%
47	Raymond Felton	NYK · ’14	80.96	11.3	0.58	47%
48	Rajon Rondo	CHI · ’17	80.96	12.9	0.62	43%
49	Russell Westbrook	OKC · ’16	80.88	19.5	0.72	38%
50	Ricky Rubio	MIN · ’17	80.66	15.9	0.65	42%

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 nineteen 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^(−stk_z / 0.8))

· 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 90, 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.