My runoff vote: Scottie PippenHonestly was thinking of just waiting to the last possible minute on this because Pippen & Stockton are hard for me to have a definitive answer, but since it seems like me missing a vote is the reason why Pippen hasn't already won, I'd say the least I can do is just to commit to the order I've had these two all project.
I think Stockton's longevity here gives him a strong case over Pippen, but I tend to be more prime-level focused.
I think Stockton certainly has a peak & prime argument too, but where I stand right now on the two, I see Pippen as definitely stronger prospect for being a top-2-star on a champion team. At foundation, this can easily be seen as winning bias, and we can have that argument. Maybe Pippen just got luckier than Stockton.
There is a specific thing that comes to mind though I haven't discussed in this thread yet that is pretty important in my opinion:
I really like my 2nd options to show signs they are ready to volume score when the opportunity arises. I say this as a guy who has a ton of respect for facilitators, as well as for other non-scoring parts of the game, and would generally be seen as perhaps "biased" in a non-scorer direction.
If we look at career 30+ point games, here's how Pippen & Stockton - two players who shine in their non-scoring responsibilities look:
Pippen 55
Stockton 13
This is a big, big difference. Now, if you've not done a comparison of these numbers before you might think that this is normal for pass first point guards, but it's not.
If I list out the top 10 assisters in history by career total who are often called "pass first" in my experience, here's what I get:
1. Stockton 13
2. Kidd 42
3. Paul 95
5. Nash 48
6. Jackson 5
7. Magic 105
10. Isiah 118
12. Andre 19
13. Strickland 17
14. Rondo 9
Now, part of what's going on here is what often gets talked about a shoot-pass spectrum. We don't want every player to shoot & pass with the same ratios, so if passing's super-valuable, is there anything strategically wrong with being the most pass-oriented of point guards?
Depends on how good you are a scoring. I don't have a problem with the two guys with the lowest totals on this list - Mark Jackson & Rajon Rondo - being so unlikely to volume score because they just aren't very good at scoring in general. I rate them overall as players lower than I expect I would if they were better scorers, but that doesn't mean they're using a problematic strategy given what their own limitations.
The thing about Stockton is that I just don't think it makes sense how little he shot given his physical abilities and the duration of his career. I think he was leaving food on the table as a matter of course. How much food? Well, that depends on how good he actually was at scoring - the more capable you feel he was at scoring, the less defensible the strategy.
Some will argue that this was the result of coach Jerry Sloan, and we should see whatever said food is left is on the table as the negative impact of Sloan, but I'm not comfortable making that distinction, and I'm focused on "what was" rather than "what might have been" in my personal criteria at this time.
I think it was a problem for the Jazz that Stockton so rigidly held to pass-first as his mantra, whether this was something he did after Sloan got in Stockton's
jock strap and rode him down the court causing trauma that made him feel clockwork-orange nausea if he started scoring too much, or not.
I think it unlikely that the Bulls, or most champions in NBA history, could have won the titles they did without having someone other than their primary scorer being capable of stepping up and taking what the defense gave him.
Does that mean Pippen was a better offensive player than Stockton? Not sure, but then there's the defensive side of the ball where I give Pippen a considerable advantage. So in Pippen I have the better scorer and defender, while also being an excellent facilitator. Putting aside the valid longevity argument, it's hard to make up for these relative deficits.
