Players with the best handles?

[falcolombardi]

from a pure utility point of view (ball security, moving through crowded spots, separation, keeping the dribble alivr, etc) aka not considering the degree of dificculty or aesthetics of a crossover kind of stuff

which players made the most of their ball handling ?

is valid to mention guys from older more restrictive eras who found ways to separate from the pack still

as well as bigger guys with excelent handles for their size

[LukaTheGOAT]

Kyrie

(No Order after Kyrie)
CP3
Rod Strickland
Jamal Crawford
Tim Hardaway
Maybe Steph?

You can include guys from earlier eras, but I feel like it was harder for them to create separation from their peers because of how restrictive ball-handling rules were. Pete Maravich maybe should be here too, but because he was so restricted in what he can do, it is hard to tell.

[70sFan]

I've always thought Paul has better handles than Kyrie.

Among oldschool guards, Walt Frazier had such a good handles.

[70sFan]

About big guys - Magic is the ultimate example for a guy above 6'6. His handles at high speed were insane.

[McBubbles]

LeBron, Kawhi and MJ are sneaky mentions. Their turnovers off of strips are all very low.

[HeartBreakKid]

Chris Paul has the best handles. His T/O ratio kind of speaks for itself.

[Prokorov]

Kyrie

Pistol Pete
Lindsey Hunter
Jason Williams
Nate Robinson
Raefer allston

[PistolPeteJR]

It’s Kyrie, then everyone else. I really don’t think anyone else is in his tier. Other greats are in a tier just below him.

[Outside]

This is so hard to gauge because of the drastic change in how the game has been officiated over the years. In the 1960s, you'd get called for palming if your hand dropped down to the side of the ball at all, and most of the moves that draw oohs and aahs today would've been illegal then. The great ballhandlers of that era don't get credit for doing as much as they did under those restrictions. Even relatively later guys like Rod Strickland won't get as much love in these discussions because he played in a time when the officiating was a hybrid of the old and new. To me, it's sort of ridiculous what they let you get away with now, but I suppose that's "old man saying get off my lawn" territory.

[Clyde Frazier]

Kenny Anderson and Mike Conley always seem to get mentioned late in these discussions. Not the flashiest but true ball on a string handles with good ball protection.

[falcolombardi]

This is so hard to gauge because of the drastic change in how the game has been officiated over the years. In the 1960s, you'd get called for palming if your hand dropped down to the side of the ball at all, and most of the moves that draw oohs and aahs today would've been illegal then. The great ballhandlers of that era don't get credit for doing as much as they did under those restrictions. Even relatively later guys like Rod Strickland won't get as much love in these discussions because he played in a time when the officiating was a hybrid of the old and new. To me, it's sort of ridiculous what they let you get away with now, but I suppose that's "old man saying get off my lawn" territory.

i will always err on the side of "less is more" when it comes to rules in sports and that keeping old rules for tradition sake is wrong approach and that havung a relaxed/simple ruleset is not a sin but a virtue

is important to remember that the "old" rules were once the new rules, basketball is a sport where dribbling wasnt even a thingh at first after all

basketball went from no dribbling to dribbling to loose dribbling, it went from no shot clock to shot clock, from no 3 point line to 3 point line , and so on and so on

to me arguing that the basketball that got played in, lets say, the 70's~ is the "correct" way of playing basketball would be so wrong as saying that the correct way was that of the 40's or the correct way is the 2020's

there is not a "correct" or "original" kind of basketball (unless we go back to peach baskets) as it is a sport that never stopped changing, someone can think a change to the sport is bad, it makes it more boring, etc just like someone can think the opposite. after all everyone got different preferences

[G35]

This is so hard to gauge because of the drastic change in how the game has been officiated over the years. In the 1960s, you'd get called for palming if your hand dropped down to the side of the ball at all, and most of the moves that draw oohs and aahs today would've been illegal then. The great ballhandlers of that era don't get credit for doing as much as they did under those restrictions. Even relatively later guys like Rod Strickland won't get as much love in these discussions because he played in a time when the officiating was a hybrid of the old and new. To me, it's sort of ridiculous what they let you get away with now, but I suppose that's "old man saying get off my lawn" territory.

i will always err on the side of "less is more" when it comes to rules in sports and that keeping old rules for tradition sake is wrong approach and that havung a relaxed/simple ruleset is not a sin but a virtue

is important to remember that the "old" rules were once the new rules, basketball is a sport where dribbling wasnt even a thingh at first after all

basketball went from no dribbling to dribbling to loose dribbling, it went from no shot clock to shot clock, from no 3 point line to 3 point line , and so on and so on

to me arguing that the basketball that got played in, lets say, the 70's~ is the "correct" way of playing basketball would be so wrong as saying that the correct way was that of the 40's or the correct way is the 2020's

there is not a "correct" or "original" kind of basketball (unless we go back to peach baskets) as it is a sport that never stopped changing, someone can think a change to the sport is bad, it makes it more boring, etc just like someone can think the opposite. after all everyone got different preferences

So in 20 years, they decide to relax the rules even more and you can pick up the ball and run 10 steps without dribbling because it is less restrictive on creativity.

They decide to change the size of the rim to 36" to help create more offense.

They do some kind of hybrid hockey-basketball where there is now a penalty box and teams can go 5 on 4.

Change for the sake of change is not necessarily progress.....

[falcolombardi]

This is so hard to gauge because of the drastic change in how the game has been officiated over the years. In the 1960s, you'd get called for palming if your hand dropped down to the side of the ball at all, and most of the moves that draw oohs and aahs today would've been illegal then. The great ballhandlers of that era don't get credit for doing as much as they did under those restrictions. Even relatively later guys like Rod Strickland won't get as much love in these discussions because he played in a time when the officiating was a hybrid of the old and new. To me, it's sort of ridiculous what they let you get away with now, but I suppose that's "old man saying get off my lawn" territory.

i will always err on the side of "less is more" when it comes to rules in sports and that keeping old rules for tradition sake is wrong approach and that havung a relaxed/simple ruleset is not a sin but a virtue

is important to remember that the "old" rules were once the new rules, basketball is a sport where dribbling wasnt even a thingh at first after all

basketball went from no dribbling to dribbling to loose dribbling, it went from no shot clock to shot clock, from no 3 point line to 3 point line , and so on and so on

to me arguing that the basketball that got played in, lets say, the 70's~ is the "correct" way of playing basketball would be so wrong as saying that the correct way was that of the 40's or the correct way is the 2020's

there is not a "correct" or "original" kind of basketball (unless we go back to peach baskets) as it is a sport that never stopped changing, someone can think a change to the sport is bad, it makes it more boring, etc just like someone can think the opposite. after all everyone got different preferences

So in 20 years, they decide to relax the rules even more and you can pick up the ball and run 10 steps without dribbling because it is less restrictive on creativity.

They decide to change the size of the rim to 36" to help create more offense.

They do some kind of hybrid hockey-basketball where there is now a penalty box and teams can go 5 on 4.

Change for the sake of change is not necessarily progress.....

or they could ban dribbling, eliminate the 3 point line, and taka away the backboards and goaltending rules

which was how basketball was actually played a hundred years ago, see how the changes that happened were probably for the best?

i am not saying they should do wild changes for changes sake, just like i think changes are not bad by default

think of ilegal defense rules, a rule most people dont Miss, or goaltending rules thst banned playersw from blocking falling jumpshots, a very needed rule

some changes are for the better

and yes, i thinl simplicity of rules is ideal when possible, no i dont want to ban dribbling and make 20 foot rims, that is a strawman of my argument

[Outside]

This is so hard to gauge because of the drastic change in how the game has been officiated over the years. In the 1960s, you'd get called for palming if your hand dropped down to the side of the ball at all, and most of the moves that draw oohs and aahs today would've been illegal then. The great ballhandlers of that era don't get credit for doing as much as they did under those restrictions. Even relatively later guys like Rod Strickland won't get as much love in these discussions because he played in a time when the officiating was a hybrid of the old and new. To me, it's sort of ridiculous what they let you get away with now, but I suppose that's "old man saying get off my lawn" territory.

i will always err on the side of "less is more" when it comes to rules in sports and that keeping old rules for tradition sake is wrong approach and that havung a relaxed/simple ruleset is not a sin but a virtue

is important to remember that the "old" rules were once the new rules, basketball is a sport where dribbling wasnt even a thingh at first after all

basketball went from no dribbling to dribbling to loose dribbling, it went from no shot clock to shot clock, from no 3 point line to 3 point line , and so on and so on

to me arguing that the basketball that got played in, lets say, the 70's~ is the "correct" way of playing basketball would be so wrong as saying that the correct way was that of the 40's or the correct way is the 2020's

there is not a "correct" or "original" kind of basketball (unless we go back to peach baskets) as it is a sport that never stopped changing, someone can think a change to the sport is bad, it makes it more boring, etc just like someone can think the opposite. after all everyone got different preferences

It wasn’t my intent to say that the old officiating of ballhandling was best. My intent was to say it's difficult, if not impossible, to answer the question of this thread due to the drastically different ways that ballhandling has been officiated over the league’s history.

If I were to chime in on which way is best, I'd say the old way was too restrictive, the current way is too loose, and the best would be a balance between the two extremes.

[G35]

i will always err on the side of "less is more" when it comes to rules in sports and that keeping old rules for tradition sake is wrong approach and that havung a relaxed/simple ruleset is not a sin but a virtue

is important to remember that the "old" rules were once the new rules, basketball is a sport where dribbling wasnt even a thingh at first after all

basketball went from no dribbling to dribbling to loose dribbling, it went from no shot clock to shot clock, from no 3 point line to 3 point line , and so on and so on

to me arguing that the basketball that got played in, lets say, the 70's~ is the "correct" way of playing basketball would be so wrong as saying that the correct way was that of the 40's or the correct way is the 2020's

there is not a "correct" or "original" kind of basketball (unless we go back to peach baskets) as it is a sport that never stopped changing, someone can think a change to the sport is bad, it makes it more boring, etc just like someone can think the opposite. after all everyone got different preferences

So in 20 years, they decide to relax the rules even more and you can pick up the ball and run 10 steps without dribbling because it is less restrictive on creativity.

They decide to change the size of the rim to 36" to help create more offense.

They do some kind of hybrid hockey-basketball where there is now a penalty box and teams can go 5 on 4.

Change for the sake of change is not necessarily progress.....

or they could ban dribbling, eliminate the 3 point line, and taka away the backboards and goaltending rules

which was how basketball was actually played a hundred years ago, see how the changes that happened were probably for the best?

i am not saying they should do wild changes for changes sake, just like i think changes are not bad by default

think of ilegal defense rules, a rule most people dont Miss, or goaltending rules thst banned playersw from blocking falling jumpshots, a very needed rule

some changes are for the better

and yes, i thinl simplicity of rules is ideal when possible, no i dont want to ban dribbling and make 20 foot rims, that is a strawman of my argument

Was that the NBA or was that a Canadian PE teacher that was trying to give his students an exercise that was confined indoors.

There are variations to rules, but the interpretation is up to different tastes.

FIBA and the NBA are officiated very differently...so no, your strawman reply is one of those arguments that are used to deflect a weak point.

It is clear that the NBA has loosened the rules up to emphasize offense and players are officiated much differently throughout the history. Change is not necessarily good or bad...it is just change. It is individual opinions that decide if something is "good or bad". Everything being done is built off of what came before it.....

[falcolombardi]

So in 20 years, they decide to relax the rules even more and you can pick up the ball and run 10 steps without dribbling because it is less restrictive on creativity.

They decide to change the size of the rim to 36" to help create more offense.

They do some kind of hybrid hockey-basketball where there is now a penalty box and teams can go 5 on 4.

Change for the sake of change is not necessarily progress.....

or they could ban dribbling, eliminate the 3 point line, and taka away the backboards and goaltending rules

which was how basketball was actually played a hundred years ago, see how the changes that happened were probably for the best?

i am not saying they should do wild changes for changes sake, just like i think changes are not bad by default

think of ilegal defense rules, a rule most people dont Miss, or goaltending rules thst banned playersw from blocking falling jumpshots, a very needed rule

some changes are for the better

and yes, i thinl simplicity of rules is ideal when possible, no i dont want to ban dribbling and make 20 foot rims, that is a strawman of my argument

Was that the NBA or was that a Canadian PE teacher that was trying to give his students an exercise that was confined indoors.

There are variations to rules, but the interpretation is up to different tastes.

FIBA and the NBA are officiated very differently...so no, your strawman reply is one of those arguments that are used to deflect a weak point.

It is clear that the NBA has loosened the rules up to emphasize offense and players are officiated much differently throughout the history. Change is not necessarily good or bad...it is just change. It is individual opinions that decide if something is "good or bad". Everything being done is built off of what came before it.....

that is pretty much the point i made

i never said that i like change for change sake, i said that i like simpler/less restrictives rules when possible

i want defensive seconds in the paint eliminated, i want fiba goaltending rules in the nba i dont want to allow 10 steps or whatever hypothetical you brought up earlier

[yoyoboy]

Anyone who says anybody other than Kyrie for best is being a contrarian. I get that Paul has extremely low turnovers for how much he handles the ball so people like to say he's more "effective." His 0.62 lost ball turnovers per 36 are better than Kyrie's 0.85 per 36 for their careers. But handles aren't just about protecting the ball, it's about using them to get to wherever you want on the floor and being creative. Paul doesn't take the risks Kyrie does, and as far as raw dribbling ability, nobody is as masterful with the ball as Irving. The number of moves and counters Kyrie is able to employ to get past and freeze defenders and snake through crowds with ease is just absurd, whereas CP3 despite obviously being an amazing ballhandler, plays it much safer.

[HeartBreakKid]

Anyone who says anybody other than Kyrie for best is being a contrarian. I get that Paul has extremely low turnovers for how much he handles the ball so people like to say he's more "effective." His 0.62 lost ball turnovers per 36 are better than Kyrie's 0.85 per 36 for their careers. But handles aren't just about protecting the ball, it's about using them to get to wherever you want on the floor and being creative. Paul doesn't take the risks Kyrie does, and as far as raw dribbling ability, nobody is as masterful with the ball as Irving. The number of moves and counters Kyrie is able to employ to get past and freeze defenders and snake through crowds with ease is just absurd, whereas CP3 despite obviously being an amazing ballhandler, plays it much safer.

that just means kyrie is more aggressive and better at beating his man.

chris paul takes more dribbles than kyrie probably does on a possession by possession basis...also like half of Paul's shots are from 3-10 feet, which is the painted area, and he gets there without just exploding off a first step.

The fact Paul beats someone like Irving on turnovers with their play styles is amazing, given how low Kyrie turns the ball over. You realize that Kyrie Irving plays more off ball and overall his play style is more like an SG than Chris Paul's is? Chris Paul is almost always the focal point of attack, Kyrie Irving is not even the best PG on the Nets...nor was he the best PG on the Cavs...he was never really a dominant ball handler on any of his playoff caliber clubs - and despite having godly handles, he still turns the ball over more than Paul. It's not even close really when taken into account their roles and styles, Chris Paul beats Kyrie Irving very easily in turnovers.

there is nothing "contrarian" about it. Kyrie is rated that highly in handling the same reason why he is overrated as a scorer and as a player, he's just really flashy.

And Kyrie does all those things because he's incredibly agile, much more so than Chris Paul not because his handles are better. Chris Paul does everything he does despite playing very slow - which would infer that it's his handles that make it difficult to take away from him.

Chris Paul looks like he's playing safe because he doesn't need to explode to beat his opponents, Kyrie Irving does. The fact is that Chris Paul makes it look easy, and that's why people make up criticisms about he doesn't take risks - which statistically speaking is nonsense. Kyrie Irving does anything BUT make things look easy.

Paul can take 20 dribbles and still end the possession with a point blank shot to a teammate or him taking a mid range pul


I always find it interesting how a player who's primary form of offense is the mid range shot is called a "safe" player. yet, there is constant complaining about how the mid range shot is dead. That's taking into account that Paul isn't even much of a natural shooter, and someone like Irving is more gifted than him in that department.


If you want the ball to get to a place with dribbles without a turnover then Chris Paul is your guy...that means he has better handles. You're just overly fixated about isolation.

[falcolombardi]

Anyone who says anybody other than Kyrie for best is being a contrarian. I get that Paul has extremely low turnovers for how much he handles the ball so people like to say he's more "effective." His 0.62 lost ball turnovers per 36 are better than Kyrie's 0.85 per 36 for their careers. But handles aren't just about protecting the ball, it's about using them to get to wherever you want on the floor and being creative. Paul doesn't take the risks Kyrie does, and as far as raw dribbling ability, nobody is as masterful with the ball as Irving. The number of moves and counters Kyrie is able to employ to get past and freeze defenders and snake through crowds with ease is just absurd, whereas CP3 despite obviously being an amazing ballhandler, plays it much safer.

that just means kyrie is more aggressive and better at beating his man.

chris paul takes more dribbles than kyrie probably does on a possession by possession basis...also like half of Paul's shots are from 3-10 feet, which is the painted area, and he gets there without just exploding off a first step.

The fact Paul beats someone like Irving on turnovers with their play styles is amazing, given how low Kyrie turns the ball over. You realize that Kyrie Irving plays more off ball and overall his play style is more like an SG than Chris Paul's is? Chris Paul is almost always the focal point of attack, Kyrie Irving is not even the best PG on the Nets...nor was he the best PG on the Cavs...he was never really a dominant ball handler on any of his playoff caliber clubs - and despite having godly handles, he still turns the ball over more than Paul. It's not even close really when taken into account their roles and styles, Chris Paul beats Kyrie Irving very easily in turnovers.

there is nothing "contrarian" about it. Kyrie is rated that highly in handling the same reason why he is overrated as a scorer and as a player, he's just really flashy.

And Kyrie does all those things because he's incredibly agile, much more so than Chris Paul not because his handles are better. Chris Paul does everything he does despite playing very slow - which would infer that it's his handles that make it difficult to take away from him.

Chris Paul looks like he's playing safe because he doesn't need to explode to beat his opponents, Kyrie Irving does. The fact is that Chris Paul makes it look easy, and that's why people make up criticisms about he doesn't take risks - which statistically speaking is nonsense. Kyrie Irving does anything BUT make things look easy.

Paul can take 20 dribbles and still end the possession with a point blank shot to a teammate or him taking a mid range pul


I always find it interesting how a player who's primary form of offense is the mid range shot is called a "safe" player. yet, there is constant complaining about how the mid range shot is dead. That's taking into account that Paul isn't even much of a natural shooter, and someone like Irving is more gifted than him in that department.


If you want the ball to get to a place with dribbles without a turnover then Chris Paul is your guy...that means he has better handles. You're just overly fixated about isolation.

Chris Paul is a player who is pretty underated in general, even in here imo

and it sometimes seems part of it is his -low- turnovers, i have seen backwards going arguments thst his low tov% is proof he is "too safe", almost like he gets punished for not losing the ball more

[HeartBreakKid]

Anyone who says anybody other than Kyrie for best is being a contrarian. I get that Paul has extremely low turnovers for how much he handles the ball so people like to say he's more "effective." His 0.62 lost ball turnovers per 36 are better than Kyrie's 0.85 per 36 for their careers. But handles aren't just about protecting the ball, it's about using them to get to wherever you want on the floor and being creative. Paul doesn't take the risks Kyrie does, and as far as raw dribbling ability, nobody is as masterful with the ball as Irving. The number of moves and counters Kyrie is able to employ to get past and freeze defenders and snake through crowds with ease is just absurd, whereas CP3 despite obviously being an amazing ballhandler, plays it much safer.

that just means kyrie is more aggressive and better at beating his man.

chris paul takes more dribbles than kyrie probably does on a possession by possession basis...also like half of Paul's shots are from 3-10 feet, which is the painted area, and he gets there without just exploding off a first step.

The fact Paul beats someone like Irving on turnovers with their play styles is amazing, given how low Kyrie turns the ball over. You realize that Kyrie Irving plays more off ball and overall his play style is more like an SG than Chris Paul's is? Chris Paul is almost always the focal point of attack, Kyrie Irving is not even the best PG on the Nets...nor was he the best PG on the Cavs...he was never really a dominant ball handler on any of his playoff caliber clubs - and despite having godly handles, he still turns the ball over more than Paul. It's not even close really when taken into account their roles and styles, Chris Paul beats Kyrie Irving very easily in turnovers.

there is nothing "contrarian" about it. Kyrie is rated that highly in handling the same reason why he is overrated as a scorer and as a player, he's just really flashy.

And Kyrie does all those things because he's incredibly agile, much more so than Chris Paul not because his handles are better. Chris Paul does everything he does despite playing very slow - which would infer that it's his handles that make it difficult to take away from him.

Chris Paul looks like he's playing safe because he doesn't need to explode to beat his opponents, Kyrie Irving does. The fact is that Chris Paul makes it look easy, and that's why people make up criticisms about he doesn't take risks - which statistically speaking is nonsense. Kyrie Irving does anything BUT make things look easy.

Paul can take 20 dribbles and still end the possession with a point blank shot to a teammate or him taking a mid range pul


I always find it interesting how a player who's primary form of offense is the mid range shot is called a "safe" player. yet, there is constant complaining about how the mid range shot is dead. That's taking into account that Paul isn't even much of a natural shooter, and someone like Irving is more gifted than him in that department.


If you want the ball to get to a place with dribbles without a turnover then Chris Paul is your guy...that means he has better handles. You're just overly fixated about isolation.

Chris Paul is a player who is pretty underated in general, even in here imo

and it sometimes seems part of it is his -low- turnovers, i have seen backwards going arguments thst his low tov% is proof he is "too safe", almost like he gets punished for not losing the ball more

he makes it look too easy. he should do some behind the back dribbles like curry or something (segue, but curry has the most overrated handles).