RealGM

Magic, Bird, Kidd, Stockton, Nash, Rondo, Oscar, Cousy, Maravich... Where does Jokic rank among the best passers of all time??

I think he's in the top tier with Magic, Nash and Bird (maybe I am missing someone else?).

Passing itself is difficult to evaluate back then vs now because reads are more streamlined now vs more exploitative/reactionary back then imo, not saying one is better than the other.

Jokic can weight a pass to cutters better than anyone ever I think though, and hit passes that no one else can hit more, I’d say magic is the best at finding gaps. Nash might be the best passer ever though in terms of pure ability to pass

Lebron would be up there too and is pretty close (and maybe he is) but I think his lob passing could be better sometimes, although to be honest maybe I’m just forgetting because when I watched through some playoff Cleveland highlights it looked pretty similar level of absurdity

MyUniBroDavis wrote:Passing itself is difficult to evaluate back then vs now because reads are more streamlined now vs more exploitative/reactionary back then imo, not saying one is better than the other.

Jokic can weight a pass to cutters better than anyone ever I think though, and hit passes that no one else can hit more, I’d say magic is the best at finding gaps. Nash might be the best passer ever though in terms of pure ability to pass

Lebron would be up there too and is pretty close (and maybe he is) but I think his lob passing could be better sometimes, although to be honest maybe I’m just forgetting because when I watched through some playoff Cleveland highlights it looked pretty similar level of absurdity

I think some of that can be attributed to James being more of the GOAT level interior scoring force and not needing to tap into lob passes as much. When with a cast that had lob forces like our 2020 squad, I think he reinforced the skill pretty well

rk2023 wrote:

MyUniBroDavis wrote:Passing itself is difficult to evaluate back then vs now because reads are more streamlined now vs more exploitative/reactionary back then imo, not saying one is better than the other.

Jokic can weight a pass to cutters better than anyone ever I think though, and hit passes that no one else can hit more, I’d say magic is the best at finding gaps. Nash might be the best passer ever though in terms of pure ability to pass

Lebron would be up there too and is pretty close (and maybe he is) but I think his lob passing could be better sometimes, although to be honest maybe I’m just forgetting because when I watched through some playoff Cleveland highlights it looked pretty similar level of absurdity

I think some of that can be attributed to James being more of the GOAT level interior scoring force and not needing to tap into lob passes as much. When with a cast that had lob forces like our 2020 squad, I think he reinforced the skill pretty well

That’s fair to be honest, felt maybe he could have thrown more in that rockets series but maybe I’m remembering wrong

It's hard to say, but for me he is up there with Magic as top 2. Nash is easily an ATG but I'm not a big fan of running an offense in that style with him zig zag dribbling the ball in circles around in the half court so much, in the sense that it restricts the type of team you can put around him more, even if it's extremely effective. Jokic to me is much more versatile and Magic, while also ball dominant, I feel can make more great passes that don't rely on him driving all the time.

SilentA wrote:It's hard to say, but for me he is up there with Magic as top 2. Nash is easily an ATG but I'm not a big fan of running an offense in that style with him zig zag dribbling the ball in circles around in the half court so much, in the sense that it restricts the type of team you can put around him more, even if it's extremely effective. Jokic to me is much more versatile and Magic, while also ball dominant, I feel can make more great passes that don't rely on him driving all the time.

How does it restrict Nash's team? He's played with many different teammates with different styles.

I don't know how to assess it. I've read repeatedly how it was Stockton making passes that were too simple, even though that's exactly the purpose of this game - to pass the ball so that the receiver of that ball can score. Ergo, why is someone doing volumetrically the best job of this type in the league's history is not more efficient (and therefore better) than - let's say - Jokic, is beyond me.

No disrespect to Jokic, who plays beautifully and passes beautifully.

Do you need to add a beauty quotient to this? How do you quantify it? Or is it a question of whether the volume of passes made was difficult but generated some positive numbers (ergo, risked a loss, but the risk was worth some of it) ?

I feel that this terribly detracts from the players whose main purpose was to distribute the ball through the system. Typical system players.

krii wrote:I don't know how to assess it. I've read repeatedly how it was Stockton making passes that were too simple, even though that's exactly the purpose of this game - to pass the ball so that the receiver of that ball can score. Ergo, why is someone doing volumetrically the best job of this type in the league's history is not more efficient (and therefore better) than - let's say - Jokic, is beyond me.

No disrespect to Jokic, who plays beautifully and passes beautifully.

Do you need to add a beauty quotient to this? How do you quantify it? Or is it a question of whether the volume of passes made was difficult but generated some positive numbers (ergo, risked a loss, but the risk was worth some of it) ?

I feel that this terribly detracts from the players whose main purpose was to distribute the ball through the system. Typical system players.

There's "pass the ball so that the receiver of that ball can score" and there's "pass the ball, making the receiver of that ball score". Not saying Stockton is the former, but a bunch of guys were better at the latter.

Seems to me that passing in a half-court offense is different than passing in transition when you (the passer) is dribbling at near top speed and your wingmen are sprinting down the sides. Jokic seems as good or possibly even better than Magic passing in the half-court offense but Magic is clearly a better passer when leading the break in transition. Putting both aspects together, I'd still have Magic ahead as an overall passer.

Jaivl wrote:

krii wrote:I don't know how to assess it. I've read repeatedly how it was Stockton making passes that were too simple, even though that's exactly the purpose of this game - to pass the ball so that the receiver of that ball can score. Ergo, why is someone doing volumetrically the best job of this type in the league's history is not more efficient (and therefore better) than - let's say - Jokic, is beyond me.

No disrespect to Jokic, who plays beautifully and passes beautifully.

Do you need to add a beauty quotient to this? How do you quantify it? Or is it a question of whether the volume of passes made was difficult but generated some positive numbers (ergo, risked a loss, but the risk was worth some of it) ?

I feel that this terribly detracts from the players whose main purpose was to distribute the ball through the system. Typical system players.

There's "pass the ball so that the receiver of that ball can score" and there's "pass the ball, making the receiver of that ball score". Not saying Stockton is the former, but a bunch of guys were better at the latter.

But that's highly dependent on the system, isn't it? If it wasn't the Sloan system, would it require him to pass the ball in more imaginative ways, wouldn't he be able to do that? My point is, that Stockton was having by far the highest volume of efficient passes that were definitely making receivers score. The question is framed as who was the flashiest or the most fun passer of all time but is among the best passers (or the best himself). Would it be an assist-to-turnover ratio that helps assess the best passer? (I believe CP3 had the highest rank last ever, when I checked last year, with Stockton second)? All I say is that a pass doesn’t have to be difficult to be efficient.

Again, I am not saying Stockton is the best passer of all time. I think I might go between him and Steve Nash, but I'm curious how others are building their opinion.

krii wrote:

Jaivl wrote:

krii wrote:I don't know how to assess it. I've read repeatedly how it was Stockton making passes that were too simple, even though that's exactly the purpose of this game - to pass the ball so that the receiver of that ball can score. Ergo, why is someone doing volumetrically the best job of this type in the league's history is not more efficient (and therefore better) than - let's say - Jokic, is beyond me.

No disrespect to Jokic, who plays beautifully and passes beautifully.

Do you need to add a beauty quotient to this? How do you quantify it? Or is it a question of whether the volume of passes made was difficult but generated some positive numbers (ergo, risked a loss, but the risk was worth some of it) ?

I feel that this terribly detracts from the players whose main purpose was to distribute the ball through the system. Typical system players.

There's "pass the ball so that the receiver of that ball can score" and there's "pass the ball, making the receiver of that ball score". Not saying Stockton is the former, but a bunch of guys were better at the latter.

But that's highly dependent on the system, isn't it? If it wasn't the Sloan system, would it require him to pass the ball in more imaginative ways, wouldn't he be able to do that? My point is, that Stockton was having by far the highest volume of efficient passes that were definitely making receivers score. The question is framed as who was the flashiest or the most fun passer of all time but is among the best passers (or the best himself). Would it be an assist-to-turnover ratio that helps assess the best passer? (I believe CP3 had the highest rank last ever, when I checked last year, with Stockton second)? All I say is that a pass doesn’t have to be difficult to be efficient.

Again, I am not saying Stockton is the best passer of all time. I think I might go between him and Steve Nash, but I'm curious how others are building their opinion.

Ben Taylor did a lot of tracking work with passing across years and he specified things like "missed open windows per game" that should also be considered. I am not sure if you can find anywhere the ultimate conclusive of his tracking work, but he has been posting something about it in his top 40 project and he talked about it in his podcast on many occasions.

70sFan wrote:

krii wrote:

Jaivl wrote:There's "pass the ball so that the receiver of that ball can score" and there's "pass the ball, making the receiver of that ball score". Not saying Stockton is the former, but a bunch of guys were better at the latter.

But that's highly dependent on the system, isn't it? If it wasn't the Sloan system, would it require him to pass the ball in more imaginative ways, wouldn't he be able to do that? My point is, that Stockton was having by far the highest volume of efficient passes that were definitely making receivers score. The question is framed as who was the flashiest or the most fun passer of all time but is among the best passers (or the best himself). Would it be an assist-to-turnover ratio that helps assess the best passer? (I believe CP3 had the highest rank last ever, when I checked last year, with Stockton second)? All I say is that a pass doesn’t have to be difficult to be efficient.

Again, I am not saying Stockton is the best passer of all time. I think I might go between him and Steve Nash, but I'm curious how others are building their opinion.

Ben Taylor did a lot of tracking work with passing across years and he specified things like "missed open windows per game" that should also be considered. I am not sure if you can find anywhere the ultimate conclusive of his tracking work, but he has been posting something about it in his top 40 project and he talked about it in his podcast on many occasions.

Interesting. I will try to google it tomorrow (it's 11 pm in Europe ...), but if you find some links, I'm more than happy to check it out! Thanks!

krii wrote:

70sFan wrote:

krii wrote:
But that's highly dependent on the system, isn't it? If it wasn't the Sloan system, would it require him to pass the ball in more imaginative ways, wouldn't he be able to do that? My point is, that Stockton was having by far the highest volume of efficient passes that were definitely making receivers score. The question is framed as who was the flashiest or the most fun passer of all time but is among the best passers (or the best himself). Would it be an assist-to-turnover ratio that helps assess the best passer? (I believe CP3 had the highest rank last ever, when I checked last year, with Stockton second)? All I say is that a pass doesn’t have to be difficult to be efficient.

Again, I am not saying Stockton is the best passer of all time. I think I might go between him and Steve Nash, but I'm curious how others are building their opinion.

Ben Taylor did a lot of tracking work with passing across years and he specified things like "missed open windows per game" that should also be considered. I am not sure if you can find anywhere the ultimate conclusive of his tracking work, but he has been posting something about it in his top 40 project and he talked about it in his podcast on many occasions.

Interesting. I will try to google it tomorrow (it's 11 pm in Europe ...), but if you find some links, I'm more than happy to check it out! Thanks!

Yeah, I will try to give you some links tomorrow but I am also from Europe, so it's time to go sleep

70sFan wrote:

krii wrote:

70sFan wrote:Ben Taylor did a lot of tracking work with passing across years and he specified things like "missed open windows per game" that should also be considered. I am not sure if you can find anywhere the ultimate conclusive of his tracking work, but he has been posting something about it in his top 40 project and he talked about it in his podcast on many occasions.

Interesting. I will try to google it tomorrow (it's 11 pm in Europe ...), but if you find some links, I'm more than happy to check it out! Thanks!

Yeah, I will try to give you some links tomorrow but I am also from Europe, so it's time to go sleep

Hah, fair play! I was always under the impression that you're an American. Now, seeing your interest in digging through stats and knowing that you're in fact from Europe, it all makes sense

No disrespect, fellow readers. I just agree with 70sFan quite often, so ... that's it.

SilentA wrote:It's hard to say, but for me he is up there with Magic as top 2. Nash is easily an ATG but I'm not a big fan of running an offense in that style with him zig zag dribbling the ball in circles around in the half court so much, in the sense that it restricts the type of team you can put around him more, even if it's extremely effective. Jokic to me is much more versatile and Magic, while also ball dominant, I feel can make more great passes that don't rely on him driving all the time.

This doesn't make sense to me. Nash didn't just "zig zag dribble the ball in circles," he exploited transition opportunities, created dribble penetration chances, adroitly captained the pick-and-roll.. he was highly effective in a wide variety of situations. And he was just as capable as anyone at pounding the rock waiting for an off-ball set to unfold, or dumping the ball into an iso player like Finley or Dirk or Stoudemire or Shaq.

70sFan wrote:I think he's in the top tier with Magic, Nash and Bird (maybe I am missing someone else?).

Stockton? Lol. How and why this man is always so under appreciated confounds me. There was not a lane he could not find and/or create. There is no "best passing" list without including him imo.

Watching the Jazz at the time I was always fairly certain Stockton was the most integral piece to their success, and the advanced metrics have backed that up.

BoatsNZones wrote:

70sFan wrote:I think he's in the top tier with Magic, Nash and Bird (maybe I am missing someone else?).

Stockton? Lol. How and why this man is always so under appreciated confounds me. There was not a lane he could not find and/or create. There is no "best passing" list without including him imo.

Watching the Jazz at the time I was always fairly certain Stockton was the most integral piece to their success, and the advanced metrics have backed that up.

I have Stockton in the next tier, he's easily among the best passers ever but you have to make cut off at some point.

70sFan wrote:

BoatsNZones wrote:

70sFan wrote:I think he's in the top tier with Magic, Nash and Bird (maybe I am missing someone else?).

Stockton? Lol. How and why this man is always so under appreciated confounds me. There was not a lane he could not find and/or create. There is no "best passing" list without including him imo.

Watching the Jazz at the time I was always fairly certain Stockton was the most integral piece to their success, and the advanced metrics have backed that up.

I have Stockton in the next tier, he's easily among the best passers ever but you have to make cut off at some point.

I hear you on the cut-off, but I struggle to find any reason why Stockton would fall out of any tier 1 list. As a former PG who has been watching the game for the past 35+ years, I can't say I've seen a clearly better passer than Stockton, and I'm not sure we can make any statistical argument to bump him either?

Saying Stockton is 'one of the best passers of all-time' is like saying Karl Malone is one of the greatest scorers of all-time.