Who is the greatest passer in NBA History?

[kcktiny]

There's not so much difference between those two in terms of pure passing skills and court vision.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Why don't you explain to us this statement? How were they similar? How were Stockton and Knight similar in pure passing skills and court vision that differed from other PGs?

Stockton threw for assists on a per minute basis at a higher rate (some much higher) than Knight's highest per minute rate in 11 seasons, and higher than Knight's 2nd highest per minute rate in 18 seasons.

In Brevin Knight's career he averaged passing for 11.9 ast/48min, Stockton 15.9 ast/48min. Not- even- close.

So let's hear your explanation.

The other main difference is the system they played in: Would Stockton get as many assists without a perennial fitting piece

Another nonsensical statement.

No other Jazz PG ever passed for more than 862 assists in a season. Stockon's best season he threw for 35% more assists than that.

Your statement is as nonsensical as saying Michael Jordan only scored 30+ pts/g in a season 8 times because of the system he played in at Chicago.

Oh wait, he did play in Washington, never scored near 30 pts/g. See - must be the system.

What's the problem with Stockton not being the very best? There's some evidence that others were more creative

Not the title of the thread.

with even better court vision

Not even close.

I think that Nash, Magic and Kidd are a bit superior to him, too.

It's ok to think this.

But there are others here who obviously never watched Stockton play that are relying on the analysis of a third person who also did not watch Stockton play much (at least for the first half of his career) but has watched hours and hours of his film, but obviously not enough of the 900+ hours he actually played.

but observation from film study and analysis that is done while also studying and analyzing other players is superior to my memory

Then perhaps you should work on your memory skills.

Obviously our memory of long ago detailed events is much inferior to more recent viewing

Then perhaps you should watch the videos I posted of Stockton, or go to youtube and watch full Jazz games from that era, rather than relying on the opinion of a 3rd party. You know, do you own actual research rather than believing someone else's.

I watched more than enough of Stockon over his playing career to know the player he was. Nothing wrong with my memory, as it pertains to him, or Larry Bird, or Magic Johnson, or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar before he ever played with Magic, or Shaq, or Iverson, or Dr. J., or Larry Smith, or Dennis Johnson, or Walt Frazier, etc.

There's stuff I watched live and I know at that time my basketball analysis was nothing compared to now

Well then this is clearly a you issue.

there's nothing inherently special about me being alive first.

Then why watch any basketball at all? Don't, and then just rely on the opinion of others, and belittle the opinions of those that actually watched in real time.

Or watch, and then change your opinion years later because someone later watched film and tells you no that's not what you really saw. If you are not confident enough in what you actually saw, and have to rely on the opinions of others, then - again - that's a you prpblem.

I don't care if you were alive at a specific time, what I care about is it you have watched with a keen eye.

And let me guess - if your opinion differs from someone that actually watched Stockton in real time - then that person was not watching with a keen eye. If they agree with you, then they had a keen eye.

I get it now.

I don't buy the I'm older so I automatically know better and have a better analysis than others for stuff like this

Especially when the opinion differs from yours.

it's not hidden knowledge that people could only get if they were alive at the time.

It's called a first person experience - seeing something first hand.

Your father ever have to fight in a war? You believe him when it comes to what happened, or a war reporter that saw action at that time that didn't fight but was there watching and reporting? Or do you only believe those that watch film of the war decades after the fact?

I don't know if there necessarily is some trump card though, but it's an interesting way to look at it.

Yes it is. Because as much as we watch we can't watch everything. That's when you go to the numbers.

And if you don't believe the numbers, then again that's a you problem. Highest team 2pt FG% over 16 seasons. If you can't figure out what that implies, go watch all their games.

Starting from when he became a starter, their rank in 2PT%... Looks pretty good, very consistent

Highest 2pt FG% over 16 seasons, same PG all that time, by far league leader in assists all that time

but I'm not certain it's necessarily an argument for passing prowess.

Of course not. Again, a you problem.

I do find Stockton a little unassertive... Stockton plays conservatively... He's not ripping open defenses and unlocking passes the way Magic or Nash did. He doesn't get guys open in the same way.

Laughable.

Stockton repeatedly saw players open before anyone else did, got the ball right where it needed to be before anyone realized the player was even there.

I'm sorry but nobody even in his time playing thought he was better than Magic or Bird.

Dumb.

Commentators back then were always debating who the best passer was, and Stockton's name was always mentioned. If it wasn't Magic it was Stockton. If it wasn't Stockton it was Magic. Had you been alive back then watching the NBA you would know this.

But you weren't were you? Now you have to depend on the opinions of a 3rd party, who also wasn't there watching when the game was actually played, but has to re-watch video over and over to be sure what he saw.

Man learn how to quote.

Man learn how to read.

I can't read

Oh, sorry.

we'll conclude that you don't remember stockton's passing

We'll conclude you never saw Stockton play, and only depend on the opinion's of others.

as nobody's memory of real time games is great

Again - a you issue.

[CharityStripe34]

Cousy, Oscar and Stockton should've been options in this poll.

[RHODEY]

Stockton is not normally considered the best passer. It's weird so many people seem upset over leaving him off.

Its weird that you dont see it. Since he literally IS the best passer in NBA history.

Based on what? I'm sorry but nobody even in his time playing thought he was better than Magic or Bird. The film studies don't show it.

I guess it depends on how we would define "best".

Magic, Bird,along with Pistol, and Cousy all did it with incredible style.But stockton just put the ball in the perfect place every time, whatever it took. He was a machine. Stylistically sure Magic Bird trump him no doubt. Magic Might just trump him overall . And Brid, glad you mentioned him he was amazing, somehow forgot about him.

[dhsilv2]

Its weird that you dont see it. Since he literally IS the best passer in NBA history.

Based on what? I'm sorry but nobody even in his time playing thought he was better than Magic or Bird. The film studies don't show it.

I guess it depends on how we would define "best".

Magic, Bird,along with Pistol, and Cousy all did it with incredible style.But stockton just put the ball in the perfect place every time, whatever it took. He was a machine. Stylistically sure Magic Bird trump him no doubt. Magic Might just trump him overall . And Brid, glad you mentioned him he was amazing, somehow forgot about him.

As others have said, Stockton was a precision passer. But he much like CP3 was conservative. He didn't take risks and as we've seen with better stats, more data, and more film study...those higher risk passes tend to push offense's forward assuming you're doing so doesn't increase turnovers too much. Magic being a good example. Similarly, Stockton just did miss a lot of great passes. Others already posted Ben Taylor's videos breaking down some tendencies he saw with Stockton.

I'll end with this, it's always hard to judge passing. Do we include ball handling or being able to pressure a defense with your own scoring? It's hard to say. But when you isolate on just passing, things like height start to matter. Guys like Magic and especially Jokic can just hit more angles, can see over people and so on. Nash is really the one exceptions where his crazy ball handling allowed him to maintain his dribble as he went through the paint hunting for those passes. You can pick where you see the most value here. But I've yet to see a breakdown that has me thinking Stockton was at the Magic, Bird, Nash, Jokic...add anyone I might be forgetting tier. I personally would love to see a really in depth breakdown of Manu as a passer vs these other guys. To my eyes, he was as good as anyone, but the Spurs had to have the ball in Park's hands due to his inability to shoot. But that might just be my bias coming through.

Stockton to me is a better version of Harden as a passer. Elite accuracy (only stockton was accurate on my passing types) but only very good court vision, often missing the hardest of passing opportunities and perhaps a bit lacking in creativity. Rarely would either make a pass I couldn't have even imagined being there like Magic and Jokic seemingly did/do almost 3-5 times a game.

[Lalouie]

I'm talking more as a pure passer in terms of court vision, not necessarily playmaking where a player draws the defense and makes a simple read. For example, LeBron is a superior playmaker than Bird, but Bird overall had better court vision and made more creative passes (Although LeBron wasn't too far behind). Stockton for the most part was making effective simple passes and was not turning heads with his court vision.

totally agree about knowing where everyone is at all times. to me the metric for "great" becomes a matter of art

it's that extra measure that puts someone in the stratosphere above all others. everyone else is back in the pack

if the exemplar of that "greatness" is magic. then i would place bird at #2
being a "playmaker" essentially was lebron's job description. bird wasn't the celts' playmaker...he was just simply GREAT

great and art is also creative...the ability to make something from seemingly nothing. when a player sees something that no one else saw he's just steps ahead of everyone else.....that's ART

everyone makes much too much of lebron - there have been many like him or better, and it becomes splitting hairs. i have to say take away lebron's frame, 6'8/255, and would you still be as impressed?

if one is going to stick lebron in that group, then i want to add luka. he is superior.

only in lebron's dreams could lebron ever see this pass

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Luka flashes some passes that are so so ridiculous, that you have to think about him amongst the greatest passers ever. I will say that Luka is still a score-first player. He's step back happy, he's a driver that wants to kill you in the short mid-range. Sometimes there are whole games where Luka doesn't seemed plugged into his playmaking mode, except for a few exceptional plays. There are other games, especially in the playoffs when there's a specific game plan, where Luka can simply carve a defense up all game with his passing. There have been times where the Mavs have gone heavy pick & roll, and Luka effortlessly generated lob after lob, after corner 3, after lob, after corner 3... it's terrifying.

I think when you let Luka freelance, he's a bucket getter first and foremost. Put him in an offensive role where the game plan needs him to deliver passes, he can do that as well as anyone ever. The main thing that puts him below Jokic, Magic, Nash etc. is that I think those 3 can go out and be that game plan on their own, all the time. All they require is the ball in their hands. Luka needs a little nudge.

Lebron to me has always had a more simple passing game. It's all about vision, memory, and insane arm strength. Lebron is arguably the best skip passer ever. Two hands above his head, and he can probably throw the ball accurately over a mountain. He has the 360 vision, so he can throw the right long range pass from anywhere on the court to anywhere else on the court, and his memory is so genius that he got better and better at passing every year, as the computer got more data to work with. Like Luka, Lebron is score-first. He's trying to pressure the rim, and he more looks to pass after the defense has over helped. He's rarely creates something from nothing like the best of the best do, and his bag of passes is not as deep.

every "artist", read: goat, must be consistent and steady. that is a requirement - they all have it. the elites have a magnum opus,,,or several. so brilliant that they turn heads and show you things you've never seen before. art music author entrepreneur athlete,,,whomever. they all have done something on someone's list of "great things they've done"

i do not think lebron has a magnum opus in his bag as a passer

[Quattro]

I'm talking more as a pure passer in terms of court vision, not necessarily playmaking where a player draws the defense and makes a simple read. For example, LeBron is a superior playmaker than Bird, but Bird overall had better court vision and made more creative passes (Although LeBron wasn't too far behind). Stockton for the most part was making effective simple passes and was not turning heads with his court vision.

Write in vote - John Stockton

[eminence]

My pick is Nash narrowly over Magic.

Sleeper pick for top tier is Manu.

[RHODEY]

Based on what? I'm sorry but nobody even in his time playing thought he was better than Magic or Bird. The film studies don't show it.

I guess it depends on how we would define "best".

Magic, Bird,along with Pistol, and Cousy all did it with incredible style.But stockton just put the ball in the perfect place every time, whatever it took. He was a machine. Stylistically sure Magic Bird trump him no doubt. Magic Might just trump him overall . And Brid, glad you mentioned him he was amazing, somehow forgot about him.

As others have said, Stockton was a precision passer. But he much like CP3 was conservative. He didn't take risks and as we've seen with better stats, more data, and more film study...those higher risk passes tend to push offense's forward assuming you doing increase turnovers too much. Magic being a good example. Similarly, Stockton just did miss a lot of great passes. Others already posted Ben Taylor's videos breaking down some tendencies he saw with Stockton.

I'll end with this, it's always hard to judge passing. Do we include ball handling or being able to pressure a defense with your own scoring? It's hard to say. But when you isolate on just passing, things like height start to matter. Guys like Magic and especially Jokic can just hit more angles, can see over people and so on. Nash is really the one exceptions where his crazy ball handling allowed him to maintain his dribble as he went through the paint hunting for those passes. You can pick where you see the most value here. But I've yet to see a breakdown that has me thinking Stockton was at the Magic, Bird, Nash, Jokic...add anyone I might be forgetting tier. I personally would love to see a really in depth breakdown of Manu as a passer vs these other guys. To my eyes, he was as good as anyone, but the Spurs had to have the ball in Park's hands due to his inability to shoot. But that might just be my bias coming through.

Stockton to me is a better version of Harden as a passer. Elite accuracy (only stockton was accurate on my passing types) but only very good court vision, often missing the hardest of passing opportunities and perhaps a bit lacking in creativity. Rarely would either make a pass I couldn't have even imagined being there like Magic and Jokic seemingly did/do almost 3-5 times a game.

Fair points...now that I think of it.

[TheGeneral99]

All phenomenal passers, but I'm gonna go with Nash.

Jokic, Bird and Magic are unbelievable, but Nash didn't have the height to see the entire floor like they could and led the #1 offense in the league in 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2010 and the #2 offense in the league in 2008.

[Masigond]

There's not so much difference between those two in terms of pure passing skills and court vision.

Why don't you explain to us this statement? How were they similar? How were Stockton and Knight similar in pure passing skills and court vision that differed from other PGs?

Stockton threw for assists on a per minute basis at a higher rate (some much higher) than Knight's highest per minute rate in 11 seasons, and higher than Knight's 2nd highest per minute rate in 18 seasons.

In Brevin Knight's career he averaged passing for 11.9 ast/48min, Stockton 15.9 ast/48min. Not- even- close.

So let's hear your explanation.

Just look at the quality of passes itself. As shown in Ben Taylor's video, Stockton sometimes missed some elite opportunities that guys like Magic and Nash used. Stockton's sheer amount of assists doesn't mean that the was the best ever, just that he played the most assists per game for many seasons, and that can be due to different systems those guards play in.

Brevin Knight had very similar court vision (great but not the top echelon) like Stockton and about the same quality in rarely turning the ball over with (relatively) few bad passes. I already explained that there's more to pure passing quality: A player that is a scoring threat himself will be defended differently than a player who is not dangerous. Brevin Knight could not shoot at all. This led to him being easier to defend than Stockton, and this took opportunities to pass away from him that Stockton had (who in turn is still a scoring threat way inferior to guys like Nash or Magic, who preferred to pass but could carry the scoring load if needed. Stockton rarely took over in the same way). This amounts to the different output in assists made (playing in different systems is another factor), but it has nothing to do with the passing itself, just with overall playmaking. You don't seem to see the difference between those two.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Try to understand what others say before.

And please learn how to post more readable first. Your posts are - structually - some of the worst that I ever have seen here, especially as one needs to look in the board's history who you did just quote.

I guess it depends on how we would define "best".

Magic, Bird,along with Pistol, and Cousy all did it with incredible style.But stockton just put the ball in the perfect place every time, whatever it took. He was a machine. Stylistically sure Magic Bird trump him no doubt. Magic Might just trump him overall . And Brid, glad you mentioned him he was amazing, somehow forgot about him.

No, and that's the point. Stockton often played the more basic passes and sometimes missed open cutting teammates who would have had even easier opportunities to score. When you compare Nash to him you'll see him find his teammates when you even didn't expect them to really be open. But they then were. There are many passes of Nash that we've rarely seen from Stockton, and I don't mean those flashy Jason Williams-style passes that are more show than substance, but passes that were so precise despite teammates seemingly not being open but then having an opportunity to score at ease.

Stockton was a great passer who could run a great team offense. But in terms of finding the best opportunities I think that there were some players superior to him who made the best decision possible more often than him.

[Biff]

the person he's citing has combed through hours upon hours of tape

Wow. Hours upon hours of tape watching John Stockton, and this is what he comes up with?:

his creation rates appear significantly lower - a player functionally closer to Brevin Knight - Overall, he was a very good, but not great passer

Just out of curiosity was this person even alive when John Stockton played?

Again, over 16 seasons as the starting PG for Utah when the Jazz lead the league in highest 2pt FG% Stockton alone accounted for 42% of their assists, throwing for far more assists than any other player in the league over all that time. What does that tell you about his passing ability?

Stockton played 54162 career minutes in the NBA. That's 903 hours. Maybe the person he is citing should watch a few more of those hours before comparing the league's all-time assists leader and HOF PG to a PG that played 12 years in the league but as many as 2000 minutes in a season just twice.

You're just making yourself look like an absolute fool. Ben Taylor walks all over you when it comes to basketball analysis. He's one of the best out there.

[kcktiny]

Stockton was a precision passer

Yes he was.

But he much like CP3 was conservative.

Wrong, by a long shot.

He didn't take risks and as we've seen with better stats, more data, and more film study...those higher risk passes tend to push offense's forward

Really? Well then show us these better stats, more data, and film study. And not just one guy who says what you want to hear. Show us these stats and data, or is this just in your imagination?

Utah from 1987-88 to 2002-03 was 3rd best in the league in offensive efficiency (107.7 pts/100poss scored). 27 teams were worse. They were 1st in highest 2pt FG% at 49.9%, 29 teams shot worse on 2s - over 16 years.

Boy Stockton sure pushed that offense forward didn't he? Or what excuse do you now have for this?

assuming you're doing so doesn't increase turnovers too much. Magic being a good example

You are clueless.

Magic threw for 800+ assists in a season 9 times, no more than 989, and committed 300+ turnovers 6 times.

Stockton threw for 800+ assists in a season 10 times, 7 times for 1000+ assists, committed 300+ turnovers just once.

What's your excuse now?

Nash is really the one exception

Oh, so now Nash is the exception for short PGs, huh?

Tell us - was Nash a better passer in Phoenix or Dallas? What's your reasoning?

Nash never threw for more than 687 assists in Dallas, highest in Phoenix was 898, a difference of 211 assists.

Stockton has 5 seasons with than 220-266 assists more then Nash's best season of 898.

But I've yet to see a breakdown that has me thinking Stockton was at the Magic, Bird, Nash, Jokic

That's why you should take it upon yourself to actually watch him play rather than relying on the opinions of others.

but only very good court vision

Yeh, right. Every excuse.

Just look at the quality of passes itself.

So now you are an expert on pass quality? So explain to us all what makes a pass a quality pass? How do you know which players throw "quality" passes and which do not?

Stockton's sheer amount of assists doesn't mean that he was the best ever

Oh no?

The 10 years Stockton threw for his most assists (1987-88 to 1996-97, 860 to 1164 ast/season) Utah shot the highest 2pt FG% among all teams at 50.7%.

So not only is he throwing for far more assists than anyone else in the league, his Jazz shot better on 2s than all other teams over that entire decade.

Magic did this also, 1981-82 to 1990-91, threw for far more assists than any other player, and the Lakers lead the league in 2pt FG% (55.8%).

You know of any other player that lead the league in assists over an entire decade while his team also lead the league in 2pt FG%?

Again, what's your excuse now?

Brevin Knight had very similar court vision

Nonsense.

Show how this is even true. Explain how Knight had not just similar, but very similar court vision to Stockon, but not Nash, or Kidd, or Magic, or any number of other great PGs.

Just making it up as you go along, without one shred of evidence.

Brevin Knight could not shoot at all. This led to him being easier to defend than Stockton, and this took opportunities to pass away from him that Stockton had.

What absolute nonsense is this?

The closer a player guards you on defense the worse your vision is, with 1 or 2 hands in your face and an opposing body right in front of you. But your excuse here is Knight wasn't guarded closely, had complete free reign of vision, but threw for less assists?

Are you serious? What a scouting assessment.

This amounts to the different output in assists made, but it has nothing to do with the passing itself, just with overall playmaking

You make absolutely no sense. None. This is complete gibberish. So the player being guarded closer and harder can throw for more assists than the player who is not guarded closely and has free reign of vision.

I don't think so.

You don't seem to see the difference between those two.

Not the convoluted way you do. No. Not at all.

Your posts are - structually - some of the worst that I ever have seen here

Worse than your scouting assessments? I don't think so.

Stockton often played the more basic passes and sometimes missed open cutting teammates who would have had easier opportunities to score.

This statement is completely inane.

Over a entire decade of their highest assist seasons, Stockton averaged 220-266 more assists than did Nash. That's like another 22-27 games of 10+ assists, in just one 82 game season.

But somehow it is Nash that is the better passer? You are sooo blinded.

[Masigond]

But somehow it is Nash that is the better passer? You are sooo blinded.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I'm done with you. Your posts are too awful to read, not worth my effort, and no, my scouting is not equally bad.

Actually it isn't even my own scouting.
https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/01/25/backpicks-goat-25-john-stockton/

[Clav]

'

Please, reduce the combative tone in your posts. You may disagree with the opinion of others, but attacking users is not allowed. Thank you!

-Clav

[MavsDirk41]

Wow. Hours upon hours of tape watching John Stockton, and this is what he comes up with?:



Again, over 16 seasons as the starting PG for Utah when the Jazz lead the league in highest 2pt FG% Stockton alone accounted for 42% of their assists, throwing for far more assists than any other player in the league over all that time. What does that tell you about his passing ability?

Stockton played 54162 career minutes in the NBA. That's 903 hours. Maybe the person he is citing should watch a few more of those hours before comparing the league's all-time assists leader and HOF PG to a PG that played 12 years in the league but as many as 2000 minutes in a season just twice.

Yea but you know why he is taking digs at Stockton? He is a lebron james fan.

Then why didn't I include LeBron in the poll?

If you watched more of Stocktons career you wouldn’t think he always made the simple pass. Flash doesn’t necessarily mean more effective. Stockton orchestrated the offense. He was a traditional point guard. Pass first.

[The High Cyde]

I chose Jokic but maybe it should’ve been Magic…hmm

[Saberestar]

It's Magic Johnson and I would say that Steve Nash is the 2nd.

Jokic is there but not over these two FOR NOW.

[hauntedcomputer]

Pistol Pete had no reference for his creativity in passing and dribbling, he had to invent them on his own. One of the few old heads I truly respect. Magic Johnson also said he was inspired by Pistol Pete and he copied a lot of his moves.

Yet he was barely a net positive player, so what was the point? Sold some tickets, I guess.

Cousy was an actual evolutionary leap who won some games.

[The Servant]

Magic going off reputation because I KNOW FOR A FACT 60% OF THIS BOARD HAS NOT WATCHED AN ENTIRE GAME OF HIS!

[cupcakesnake]

Pistol Pete had no reference for his creativity in passing and dribbling, he had to invent them on his own. One of the few old heads I truly respect. Magic Johnson also said he was inspired by Pistol Pete and he copied a lot of his moves.

Yet he was barely a net positive player, so what was the point? Sold some tickets, I guess.

Cousy was an actual evolutionary leap who won some games.

To a lesser extent I feel this way about J.Will. Him and Pistol were both incredibly talented, creative, and dextrous. Both liked to put a lot on SAUCE on their passes, and it wasn't always functional. They're amongst the best razzle-dazzle passers of all-time, but there are guys who have no shortage of razzle or dazzle, but everything they do is functional. I watch White Chocolate sometimes, and always love watching his highlights, but there are so many times when it's like... why did he add a double fake on a two-on-nothing layup pass, or why did he no-look that when it was just an open guy under the basket? Why did he hold the ball an extra second for a dramatic pause when the pass was there during the first second? Did he invent the "no look after the fact" pass that so many guys add for flair now?

Like I've seen him throw basically any pass Nash can throw (and then some) but there was ultimately an unseriousness about a lot of what he did. I just re-watched his

Watch on YouTube

NBA.com passing highlights. and I have to get 4-5 passes in before there's one without some silly flair on it. I love to watch it as a neutral fan, but I don't think of him as one of the "greatest passers" in a lot of ways.