Jokic vs KG: Simply as a passer and playmaker

[AdagioPace]

KG was a great passer but to be a great playmaker (by definition) you have to constantly operate as a hub. The difference in the amount and quality of plays made by Jokic, compared to KG, is big.
Jokic looks for his treammates's movements, he looks for space like a soccer player, he also draws more attention by being a better scoring threat than KG. it all amounts on him having more gravity. Jokic is simply way more ambitious as a passer, and has a larger passing range.
They only look superficially similar because they aren't dribble penetration playmakers.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

The responses in the thread only further my point that ppl severely underrate KG as a playmaker. I'd like for someone to respond to my previous comment for all saying "this is ridiculous" or "Jokic is closer to Magic ". Again according to Ben Taylor KG was passing was near the level of JOHN STOCKTON'S from 03 to 08. His rate of good passes was over 4 per 100 comparable to Jason Kidd. This means KG is on the level of Stockton and Kidd as a passer. I may agree that Jokic is better but you guys are completely underselling KG. I highly suggest you guys read Ben Taylor's Backpicks Top 40 on KG



Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

We know ElGee's work and KG is not underrated here.
Just Jokic is as elite as it gets in this fundamental. He's in Bird's or Magic's category, while Garnett is a tier below, at least.

Anyway, as a passer I am taking Jokic over Stockton.

___
Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

[skones]

That's a fair point also but that just means we agree Jokic is better. I still feel KG is in Jokic's class. We're talking about a big man that is capable of passing like Kidd and Stockton there is not many bigs thats even in that class he's in there based on rarity alone. Again possibly pre Jokic Ben Taylor said KG is "the most prolific creator of any big man in history".

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

But he didn't.

Because he was more of a scoring threat than either and more of a dynamic passer than Stockton.

This is a league where consistency matters. Unless you're hitting the PnR time and time again regardless of how "dynamic" it is, I'm not going to compare your skill level as a passer to the all time assist leader. It's just not going to happen.

[tsherkin]

This is a league where consistency matters. Unless you're hitting the PnR time and time again regardless of how "dynamic" it is, I'm not going to compare your skill level as a passer to the all time assist leader. It's just not going to happen.

That's up to you. And certainly something like Passer Rating from Backpicks actually ranks Stockton rather highly at 9.2, something like 9th all-time. Of course, he was notably less effective as a scorer, so he wasn't able to leverage that threat as a playmaker and he struggled under playoff conditions. And the right answer here may well not be Garnett in that context... but it's not out of the realm of debate. In an absolute sense, you are correct; he didn't spam the PnR for volume assists. But he was a very good passer from a number of different locations who put up similar offensive impact stats to Stockton without being a stunning scorer, primarily by leveraging his playmaking and acting as a floor spacer. He was a dynamic passer, but didn't create the saw raw assist totals as Stockton, which isn't necessary to be viewed in the same breadth as a playmaker, particularly since his ratio of scoring to passing was different by role and skillset, etc. Again, it's a discussion, not an instantly-obvious thing, so long as you don't just look at raw assists.

[skones]

This is a league where consistency matters. Unless you're hitting the PnR time and time again regardless of how "dynamic" it is, I'm not going to compare your skill level as a passer to the all time assist leader. It's just not going to happen.

That's up to you. And certainly something like Passer Rating from Backpicks actually ranks Stockton rather highly at 9.2, something like 9th all-time. Of course, he was notably less effective as a scorer, so he wasn't able to leverage that threat as a playmaker and he struggled under playoff conditions. And the right answer here may well not be Garnett in that context... but it's not out of the realm of debate. In an absolute sense, you are correct; he didn't spam the PnR for volume assists. But he was a very good passer from a number of different locations who put up similar offensive impact stats to Stockton without being a stunning scorer, primarily by leveraging his playmaking and acting as a floor spacer. He was a dynamic passer, but didn't create the saw raw assist totals as Stockton, which isn't necessary to be viewed in the same breadth as a playmaker, particularly since his ratio of scoring to passing was different by role and skillset, etc. Again, it's a discussion, not an instantly-obvious thing, so long as you don't just look at raw assists.

There's just an IQ and awareness level to spamming the simple play that works. I don't think that's something that should be presented as a knock to Stockton because he made more of them. I'm not saying KG wasn't a good passer or even great for his position. I think raw assist volume absolutely comes into play here. By no means is it an end all be all thing, but it's the context of the volume and how far it puts him in front of the field that is an enormous feather in Stockton's cap.

I can display dynamism in spurts all day, or I can make the simple play over and over and over and over again. Team's know it's coming and can't stop it anyway. Why do I need to be more dynamic?

[tsherkin]

There's just an IQ and awareness level to spamming the simple play that works. I don't think that's something that should be presented as a knock to Stockton because he made more of them.

I'm not knocking Stockton for maximizing his value. He couldn't score more, which changed the complexion and ceiling of his utility to a team. And watching Utah's sets, you see a lot of him pounding the ball until a cutter gets free, which isn't really absurd stuff, but pads volume. The Rondo assist, if you like. He was, of course, a very good passer outside of that framework, but there is a limitation to how much I'll generally weight the assist volume of a guy who doesn't have the tools to score more and is waiting in static sets. He was a master of the actual pick and roll/pop with Malone, no question. Good transition passing, good all over. But direct comparisons of APG or AST, at least for me, don't work. Loads of respect for his longevity and all that but that doesn't play here either. Again, YMMV, I can see where you're looking at Stockton and seeing what he could do for Utah and all that but there are pieces to my eyes that make this an interesting discussion instead of a foregone conclusion.

Also, as far as "why do I need to be more dynamic," it's mostly "so I don't crumble in the playoffs."

[dygaction]

Is there any reason to think KG is for sure a better playmaker than Giannis? We know Giannis is not in Joker's league.