Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

I know people don't like Isiah Thomas, but...

5K views 46 replies 13 participants last post by  e-monk 
#1 ·
#2 ·
I think Nash deserved his first MVP - but I don't think he is in the top 10 PGs of all time.

And yeah - I would also take Isiah over GP, Kidd and Stockton. He dominated the biggest games of the season on a regular basis - the other three never did that. TBH you could even argue Nash did that over GP, Kidd and Stock with his deep runs into the loaded West.
 
#3 ·
I think Nash deserved his first MVP - but I don't think he is in the top 10 PGs of all time.
Hmmm.... I wouldn't go that far...
People may question Nash's MVPs because he wasn't the best player in the league, but thruth is only 4 PGs have ever won the award (and Rose as sure as hell wasn't the best player in the league either), and only two won more than once.
Although Nash was a weak individual defender (to put it mildly) offensive-wise he is light-years ahead of guys like, say, Kidd and Stockton.
You'd be hard-pressed to name 10 PGs better than Steve Nash, all-time. There's Magic, Oscar, Cousy, Isiah... and then there are the others, where Nash belongs...

And yeah - I would also take Isiah over GP, Kidd and Stockton. He dominated the biggest games of the season on a regular basis - the other three never did that. TBH you could even argue Nash did that over GP, Kidd and Stock with his deep runs into the loaded West.
What pisses me off the most is that it ain't the first time i read/hear NBA columnists forgetting about Isiah when naming great point guards.
What more should Isiah have done to merit recongnition?
Won more? Well, no PG (except Cousy and Magic) won more than him. Legendary battles? Isiah led his team over the Bird-led Celtics, the Jordan-led Bulls and the Magic-led Lakers.
Step up when it mattered the most? Isiah was always a good-to-great playoff performer...
It really boggles my mind to see people naming guys like Kidd and Payton over Isiah freaking Thomas...
 
#4 ·
You're right - when it comes to determining the greatest, longevity and career stats really are all that matter
 
#6 · (Edited)
Another NBA point guard to take over Steve Nash is Walt "Clyde" Frazier. And not to turn this into a Nash discussion, but there are more than 10 point guards I would take over him. And yes, I would take Gary Payton and Jason Kidd over Nash.

P.S. Isiah Thomas is arguably my all-time favorite NBA player.
 
#9 · (Edited)
Mark Price and Steve Nash have pretty similar strengths and weaknesses and at their primes have close career arcs, save that Nash's (questionable, IMO) MVP awards overrate him.

Another person who would rate over Nash (depending of your definition of his true position) is Jerry West.
 
#22 ·
Isiah Thomas was not that good.

The fact that he got 20+ points and 10+ assists for a handful of seasons IS admittedly impressive (though the pace of the game was so much higher back then that it is less impressive than it seems). And he wasn't tremendously turnover prone, which is solid.

However, Isiah scored REALLY inefficiently. Look at his TS%. It is 0.516 for his career, and he played in an era with relatively high TS%. That's horrible. The result is that Isiah was not really an efficient offensive player.

Probably because of this, he only topped 20 in PER three seasons, and each time he didn't do it by much. That isn't particularly great. I see Isiah as like Jason Kidd except he tries to throw up more shots despite being bad at it, is worse at rebounding, and not as good of a defender.
 
#24 ·
Isiah Thomas was not that good.
Compared to who?

It's obvious Isiah Thomas isn't close to Top-10 all time NBA players. I started this thread because, when compared to OTHER point guards, i feel Thomas doesn't get enough respect. Just that.

The fact that he got 20+ points and 10+ assists for a handful of seasons IS admittedly impressive (though the pace of the game was so much higher back then that it is less impressive than it seems). And he wasn't tremendously turnover prone, which is solid.

However, Isiah scored REALLY inefficiently. Look at his TS%. It is 0.516 for his career, and he played in an era with relatively high TS%. That's horrible. The result is that Isiah was not really an efficient offensive player.

Probably because of this, he only topped 20 in PER three seasons, and each time he didn't do it by much. That isn't particularly great. I see Isiah as like Jason Kidd except he tries to throw up more shots despite being bad at it, is worse at rebounding, and not as good of a defender.
First, please keep in mind that, not long ago, there was a dude winning MVP with a TS% of .489 ;)
Then i start thinking you're only looking at stats and forgetting what really happened.

Isiah Thomas was the best player on a two-time championship squad. How many point guards in NBA history have had that accomplishment?
And that happened on a time with a prime Bird-led Celtics and Magic-led Lakers. When the Bulls were reaching their apex. The Eastern Conference WAS tough, back in the day.

Isiah Thomas didn't play alongside the types of Karl Malone. The second best player in the Pistons, Joe Dumars, was a one-time All-Nba third team, IIRC, and none of the others were close to that level. Still, he won.

He was also the absolute leader of the team, for better or for worse. And intangibles should matter. He played with knuckleheads like Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn and controled them. Even Aguirre, who was an offensive juggernault joined the team spirit when Isiah (that is the legend) demanded the Pistons sign him.

And, obviously, Isiah was the Pistons player teams payed the most defensive attention to. that didn't happen with guys like Stockton, Price and others.

In context, there's no way to deny Isiah's greatness.
 
#23 ·
Meanwhile, a lot of the discussion on this thread has been about Steve Nash not being that good. I find that ridiculous. Steve Nash was an absolutely transcendent offensive talent.

Let me add some food for thought to this thread:

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2011/04/12/statscube-the-end-of-the-nash-streak/

Nash's teams lead the league in points per possession for NINE STRAIGHT seasons. That is with two different teams, multiple coaches, and very different personnel over the years. No one has come close to that achievement. Magic Johnson's Lakers had the most efficient offense 7 years total, but only 3 years in a row at best (1985-87). Jordan's Bulls only were the best offense 4 years total, with only 2 years in a row at most. Pre-Suns, Shaq only had a team 1st in efficiency once. Lebron has never played for the best offense. Stockton/Malone only did it once. Barkley only did it twice. Bird did it once. Nash just knew how to run an efficient offense, which is exactly what a PG is supposed to do. And yes, Nash played with some other gifted offensive players (i.e. Amare, Dirk, etc.), but those other superstars I listed played with similar or better talent (for instance, Magic played with Kareem and Worthy) and could not match Nash's achievement.

_______________

Not only were Nash's teams consistently the best in the league, they were also historically good.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205

In this link, basketball-reference measured how many standard deviations above the league's mean in offensive efficiency (i.e. points per possession) each team in history was. Basically, that means it measures how offensively dominant a team was compared to the rest of the league. This is a better measure of an offense's dominance than just looking at overall offensive efficiency because rules have changed and as a result, certain periods see higher efficiency than others. Standard deviation rankings account for that and tell us which offenses were notably dominant relative to their era.

This ranking shows that Nash's teams have posted 6 of the top 11 most dominant offensive years in NBA history (1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th, and 11th). No other team appears in the top 11 more than once (though Kareem did appear twice; once as a Buck and once as a Laker), while Nash's teams from 2004-2010 were ALL in the top 11 except for one year.

____________________

And when Nash is on the floor, his teams play LUDICROUSLY efficiently. The best teams in history have scored about 115 points per 100 possessions. Obviously teams might do better than their average when their star is on the court, but, for instance, LeBron's Heat and Paul's Clippers have scored, at BEST, 116 or 117 points per possession when they are on the court. I am unable to find a player who has done better than that since +/- stats began. That is, I am unable to find anyone EXCEPT Steve Nash. His teams have scored this many points per 100 possessions with him on the court each year:

2005: 120.3
2006: 114.2
2007: 118.6
2008: 118.2
2009: 116.7
2010: 117.7

_____________________

Personally, I think the aforementioned stats indicate that Steve Nash might be the greatest offensive player in the history of the NBA. And while he may not have been a good defensive player, the offensive prowess is enough to easily get him above virtually every PG.

As for the defense, I think people should bear in mind that individual defense probably matters the least for PGs, especially these days, because a good/quick PG can get by even the best defenders. And Nash was not actually a bad help defender. He did not get many steals, but he DID draw a lot of charges. So while I think Nash was a below average defender, I'm not sure that it is that big of a deal.
 
#27 ·
Compared to who?

It's obvious Isiah Thomas isn't close to Top-10 all time NBA players. I started this thread because, when compared to OTHER point guards, i feel Thomas doesn't get enough respect. Just that.
I mean, I suppose saying he wasn't good was meant to be slightly inflammatory, rather than actually completely true. Obviously, Isiah was a very good player, and probably one of the top 10 PGs ever. I think he's near the bottom of that top 10, though. And, the idea that he is way better than Steve Nash is absurd to me. (I say that in response to the people on this thread comparing the two, not necessarily to you specifically).

First, please keep in mind that, not long ago, there was a dude winning MVP with a TS% of .489
Admittedly I don't think Iverson should've gotten the MVP either. He might have scored a lot, but you aren't exactly helping your team with your scoring if you do it with such terrible efficiency.

Then i start thinking you're only looking at stats and forgetting what really happened.

Isiah Thomas was the best player on a two-time championship squad. How many point guards in NBA history have had that accomplishment?
And that happened on a time with a prime Bird-led Celtics and Magic-led Lakers. When the Bulls were reaching their apex. The Eastern Conference WAS tough, back in the day.

Isiah Thomas didn't play alongside the types of Karl Malone. The second best player in the Pistons, Joe Dumars, was a one-time All-Nba third team, IIRC, and none of the others were close to that level. Still, he won.

He was also the absolute leader of the team, for better or for worse. And intangibles should matter. He played with knuckleheads like Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn and controled them. Even Aguirre, who was an offensive juggernault joined the team spirit when Isiah (that is the legend) demanded the Pistons sign him.

And, obviously, Isiah was the Pistons player teams payed the most defensive attention to. that didn't happen with guys like Stockton, Price and others.

In context, there's no way to deny Isiah's greatness.
Someone already said this, but as I understood it, Laimbeer was the leader of the team. I'm not certain of that though.

Either way, your main point is that Isiah was the best player on a two-time championship team that had to get through some real great teams in order to win their championships. That is true. And usually the best player on a championship squad is a truly great player, because typically you need a transcendent superstar to win an NBA championship.

There ARE exceptions to that though, and those Pistons were one of those exceptions in my opinion. They won by having a bunch of very very good players but no truly great one. Thus, I think of Isiah as very similar to Chauncey Billups, who was also the best player on a championship winning team (and was a game 7 away from being the best player on two championship winning teams). Both guys were not transcendent players but merely were the best players on a team full of very good players that won largely due to amazing team defense. As the best player on those teams, both guys led their team and came up big in clutch moments. I'd be curious to know whether/why you think Isiah should be regarded much more highly than Billups.
 
#29 · (Edited)
Obviously, Isiah was a very good player, and probably one of the top 10 PGs ever. I think he's near the bottom of that top 10, though.
OK, I'll bite ...

1.) Magic Johnson
2.) Oscar Robertson
3.) Jerry West (if you're counting him as a point guard)

...

maybe Clyde Frazier? Bob Cousy?

Other than that, I (and quite a few others) would put Isiah Thomas among the top five all time.


And, the idea that he is way better than Steve Nash is absurd to me. (I say that in response to the people on this thread comparing the two, not necessarily to you specifically).
OK, now I get it. Apparently, you've never seen Isiah Thomas play IRL. Other than the fact that Isiah is a much better scorer and defender than Steve Nash, is at worst an equal distributor and a dominant enough player that he would be the cornerstone of a team's offense. There was no doubt who is the better team leader and rallying point for a team. Nash has better shooting percentages, but that is it.

Nash is simply a better version of Mark Price -- except when he was out of Phoenix's system that inflated his assists stats, he basically WAS Mark Price. But if you want a point guard whose defense is so bad his coach once substituted him out on defensive possessions in the playoffs in the fourth quarter, go right ahead.


Admittedly I don't think Iverson should've gotten the MVP either. He might have scored a lot, but you aren't exactly helping your team with your scoring if you do it with such terrible efficiency.
Of course, the advanced metrics of today don't necessarily translate from previous eras, when there was comparatively more incomplete data kept. It also does not take into account fundamental changes in offensive approaches (for instance, the 3-point shot was nowhere near the commonplace weapon it is today, the games were more full-court oriented and players concentrated scoring closer to the basket, etc.).

Comparing Isiah to Allen Iverson is a joke, by the way. Isiah was basically Chris Paul with more of a take-over mentality. Iverson was a small shooting guard who domineered the ball to the point he hindered the effectiveness of offensive-minded teammates.


Someone already said this, but as I understood it, Laimbeer was the leader of the team. I'm not certain of that though.
This pretty much ends the conversation here. You evidently were not alive (much less following the NBA) when Isiah played. He clearly was the leader of the Bad Boys, similar to how Michael Jordan was the dominant force on the 1990s Bulls.The Pistons were built around Thomas' talents, his offensive game was the focal point, he was the rallying point for the team. He was the one to whom management conferred on personnel decisions.

Bill Laimbeer was pretty much the on-the-floor bully on the team. He was the one who instigated fights, whined to the referees and got the opposing team's fans to become irritated by his antics. I have no idea on which this sad attempt of revisionism is based where The Bad Boys was "Laimbeer's team."


There ARE exceptions to that though, and those Pistons were one of those exceptions in my opinion. They won by having a bunch of very very good players but no truly great one.
The Pistons had one truly great player (Thomas) and several other players who became hall of famers (Joe Dumars, Adrian Dantley before he was traded for Mark Aguirre and Dennis Rodman). In addition, the Pistons had several other solid players, such as Laimbeer and Vinnie Johnson.

Thus, I think of Isiah as very similar to Chauncey Billups, who was also the best player on a championship winning team (and was a game 7 away from being the best player on two championship winning teams). Both guys were not transcendent players but merely were the best players on a team full of very good players that won largely due to amazing team defense. As the best player on those teams, both guys led their team and came up big in clutch moments. I'd be curious to know whether/why you think Isiah should be regarded much more highly than Billups.
You evidently have no idea what a "transcendent" player is.

Isiah was a perennial all-NBA caliber player who was an All-Star in 12 of his 13 NBA seasons. Chauncey Billups was a player who struggled in the NBA initially, became a sold contributor to a championship team and had his best individual seasons after Detroit's title championship run (similar to a poor man's Gary Payton).

Like I said, take Chris Paul, add more of a take-charge personality and you have Isiah Thomas. A 20-point-per-game scorer who also can set the table for teammates, contribute on the defensive end and serve as a rallying point for the team. Like Paul in Game 1 vs. Oklahoma City in the 2014 Western Conference semifinals, if Thomas decided go into a scoring mode he would explode and score in bunches (see Game 6, 1988 NBA Finals when he scored 25 points in the fourth quarter). Not to mention Thomas was an intense and feisty competitor, along the lines of a Michael Jordan.

Sometimes, it's best to let people assume you don't know what you're talking about rather than post something and confirm what people suspect.
 
#28 · (Edited)
Did you not watch the Bad Boys documentary? Stick to the facts. Laimbeer was the primary leader of the team. Isiah was his sidekick in that regard.
As someone who lived through the Bad Boys Pistons era, there was no doubt that Isiah Thomas was the leader of the group. The team was built around Isiah's talents, he was the central vocal point of the group, he was the face of the franchise.

Bill Laimbeer was the bully on the team, but the team followed Isiah's lead. When the Pistons left the floor after losing in the 1991 East finals to Chicago, the team followed Isiah's lead of walking off the floor without congratulating the Bulls.


Also, Isiah only courted Aguirre when he clashed with Adrian Dantley and couldn't work out their personality differences.
That should tell you something, that Isiah had the ear of the front office so much that he could tell them to pull the trigger to trade the team's second-leading scorer.
 
#30 · (Edited)
OK, I'll bite ...

1.) Magic Johnson
2.) Oscar Robertson
3.) Jerry West (if you're counting him as a point guard)

...

maybe Clyde Frazier? Bob Cousy?

Other than that, I (and quite a few others) would put Isiah Thomas among the top five all time.
I think you could definitely put any of the following ahead of Isiah:

Magic Johnson
Oscar Roberston
Jerry West
John Stockton
Bob Cousy
Clyde Frazier
Gary Payton
Steve Nash
Chris Paul
Jason Kidd

I think it wouldn't even be that crazy to put Kevin Johnson, Allen Iverson, and Tony Parker ahead of Isiah.

I would say Nate Archibald, Tim Hardaway, and Mark Price are close, but fairly clearly below Isiah.

I also think that Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, and Stephen Curry are not yet ahead of Isiah, but have a good chance of passing him by over the course of their careers, since I think all three have already had seasons equal to or better than Isiah's best.

OK, now I get it. Apparently, you've never seen Isiah Thomas play IRL. Other than the fact that Isiah is a much better scorer and defender than Steve Nash, is at worst an equal distributor and a dominant enough player that he would be the cornerstone of a team's offense. There was no doubt who is the better team leader and rallying point for a team. Nash has better shooting percentages, but that is it.

Nash is simply a better version of Mark Price -- except when he was out of Phoenix's system that inflated his assists stats, he basically WAS Mark Price. But if you want a point guard whose defense is so bad his coach once substituted him out on defensive possessions in the playoffs in the fourth quarter, go right ahead.
No. Nash is WAY better than you give him credit for.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2011/04/12/statscube-the-end-of-the-nash-streak/

From 2002 to 2010, Nash's teams were #1 in offensive efficiency EVERY season. No player, not even Magic Johnson, has come close to that feat. While Nash played with some offensively gifted players, many other superstars did as well (i.e. Magic played with Kareem and Worthy).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205

Furthermore, those seasons were not merely the best offense by small margins. They were notably dominant. The above link essentially shows that Nash's offenses were amongst the most dominant teams in history relative to their respective year. When all teams in history are ranked based on how many standard deviations above the mean their offensive efficiency was, Nash's teams rank 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th, and 11th ever. Kareem is the only player whose teams appear twice in the top 11, and he appears only twice.

http://www.basketball-reference.com...&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=ge&c4val=&order_by=pts

Basketball-reference has play-by-play stats since 2001. That link shows a search for the top seasons measured by the team's offensive efficiency when the player is actually on the court. The top places are essentially ALL Nash's Suns, and his offenses do better with him on the floor than any other superstar's offenses did with them on the floor. Nash's Suns scored 120.3 points per possession when he was on the floor in 2005, 118.6 in 2007, 118.2 in 2008, 117.7 in 2010, and 116.7 in 2009. The best seasons for ANY other superstar since these stats were kept were 116.5 by LeBron and Chris Paul in 2013 and 116.1 by Kobe in 2009. So Nash's offenses were REPEATEDLY more efficient with him on the court than any other recent superstar's teams have ever been with them on the court.

A point guard's job is to run the offense efficiently. And Nash has run the #1 offense in the league more than any other player, those offenses were more dominant than any other player's teams have been, and the teams run ludicrously efficiently when he is actually on the court.

Meanwhile, Isiah's teams were only even in the top 5 offenses in the league one time in his entire career (admittedly, they were #1 that year, albeit by a super slim margin).

It is abundantly clear from this that Nash runs an offense far better than Isiah did. You may say Nash played with good offensive talent (i.e. Amare, Dirk). However, Nash's team was #1 in 2006 even without Amare, and Isiah played with his share of very good offensive players anyways (i.e. Adrian Dantley, Mark Aguirre).

Of course, the advanced metrics of today don't necessarily translate from previous eras, when there was comparatively more incomplete data kept. It also does not take into account fundamental changes in offensive approaches (for instance, the 3-point shot was nowhere near the commonplace weapon it is today, the games were more full-court oriented and players concentrated scoring closer to the basket, etc.).

Comparing Isiah to Allen Iverson is a joke, by the way. Isiah was basically Chris Paul with more of a take-over mentality. Iverson was a small shooting guard who domineered the ball to the point he hindered the effectiveness of offensive-minded teammates.
The only metric I was talking about was True Shooting %. First off all, ALL data necessary for TS% was available in Isiah's era, so it is really unclear what "incomplete data" you are referring to. Second, League TS% was actually at its HIGHEST in the 1980s, and yet Isiah still had terrible TS%.

And I was not comparing Isiah to Iverson. I was just responding to PauloCatarino saying that players with bad TS%s have won the MVP (I assumed he was referring to Iverson).

This pretty much ends the conversation here. You evidently were not alive (much less following the NBA) when Isiah played. He clearly was the leader of the Bad Boys, similar to how Michael Jordan was the dominant force on the 1990s Bulls.The Pistons were built around Thomas' talents, his offensive game was the focal point, he was the rallying point for the team. He was the one to whom management conferred on personnel decisions.

Bill Laimbeer was pretty much the on-the-floor bully on the team. He was the one who instigated fights, whined to the referees and got the opposing team's fans to become irritated by his antics. I have no idea on which this sad attempt of revisionism is based where The Bad Boys was "Laimbeer's team."
I actually WAS alive when Isiah played. Admittedly, I lived in Chicago back then, so I was not exactly a Pistons fan. Anyways, you can be alive and watch basketball and not know who is the leader of a team, since only players and those close to the team truly know who is the heart of the team off the court. While, on the court, Isiah seemed to be the leader, I remember reading/hearing that Laimbeer was the team's leader off the court/during timeouts/etc. The reason I say I am not sure is because I obviously have no first hand knowledge of how the Pistons worked in private situations. And neither do you. I would not be surprised if Isiah was the team's leader off the court, but you are giving him all the credit for the team's chemistry, assuming that the team's good chemistry was all his doing. I think that's real presumptuous.

The Pistons had one truly great player (Thomas) and several other players who became hall of famers (Joe Dumars, Adrian Dantley before he was traded for Mark Aguirre and Dennis Rodman). In addition, the Pistons had several other solid players, such as Laimbeer and Vinnie Johnson.
What's your point? When I said "great player," I meant the type of player who instantly makes any team he is on a title contender. Most championship teams have one or two of those guys (i.e. LeBron, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Jordan, Magic, Bird, etc.). So usually the best player on a championship team is one of these transcendent players. Despite being the best player on a championship team, Isiah was not one of those guys. That was my point. Instead, Isiah was on teams with a bunch of very very good players (i.e. him, Dumars, Aguirre, Rodman, and a great bench), but no transcendent one. Do you disagree with that?

You evidently have no idea what a "transcendent" player is.

Isiah was a perennial all-NBA caliber player who was an All-Star in 12 of his 13 NBA seasons. Chauncey Billups was a player who struggled in the NBA initially, became a sold contributor to a championship team and had his best individual seasons after Detroit's title championship run (similar to a poor man's Gary Payton).

Like I said, take Chris Paul, add more of a take-charge personality and you have Isiah Thomas. A 20-point-per-game scorer who also can set the table for teammates, contribute on the defensive end and serve as a rallying point for the team. Like Paul in Game 1 vs. Oklahoma City in the 2014 Western Conference semifinals, if Thomas decided go into a scoring mode he would explode and score in bunches (see Game 6, 1988 NBA Finals when he scored 25 points in the fourth quarter). Not to mention Thomas was an intense and feisty competitor, along the lines of a Michael Jordan.

Sometimes, it's best to let people assume you don't know what you're talking about rather than post something and confirm what people suspect.
Again, when I said "transcendent player," I meant a player who instantly makes any team he is on a title contender. I find it difficult to believe that you think Isiah Thomas is one such player. He only finished in the top 5 in MVP voting one time (and it was #5 ). He only finished in the top 10 in the league in Win Shares once (at it was #7 ) and the top 10 in PER twice (and it was #7 and #1 0). Advanced stats like Win Shares and PER can be misleading, but they are a decent shorthand, and when a player doesn't look great in any of them, then his is likely not that great.


I do agree that Isiah is better than Billups. I was making the comparison because PauloCatarino's argument for Isiah rested on the "he was the best player on a championship team" argument, but Billups would have the same argument. Billups isn't THAT far below Isiah though. He too was top 5 in MVP voting once (at #5 ). He was the best player on a championship team with a bunch of very good players that won due to defense. Both won a Finals MVP. Both were good defenders (if anything, Billups was better). They have very similar PERs for their career (Billups being slightly higher despite taking a few seasons to get going). Billups was top 10 in PER once, while Isiah was twice. Both were clutch playoff performers. I rate Isiah higher simply because he was capable of taking over a game in a way that Billups wasn't, since he was a better scorer, but it is hard to find an objective metric that shows Isiah to be much better.

I would also object to your implication that Isiah is better than Chris Paul. Paul is just much better. Paul scores way more efficiently, gets more assists (when you take into account pace), is a better rebounder, and a better defender. Paul also turns the ball over a freakishly low amount of the time for someone who gets so many assists. All of that is borne out by the fact that advanced statistical measures like PER and Win Shares place Paul WAY ahead of Isiah. He has already been top 5 in MVP voting four times. And while Paul's teams have never gone far in the playoffs, Paul has actually performed well in the playoffs (the end of Game 5 this season aside haha), so you can't REALLY argue that Paul's playoffs failures overcome his obvious superiority otherwise. EDIT: I will also point out that Paul has actually never lost in the playoffs to a team that won fewer games in the regular season than his team. So it is not like his teams are choking series' they definitely should be winning.
 
#31 ·
I do agree that Isiah is better than Billups. I was making the comparison because PauloCatarino's argument for Isiah rested on the "he was the best player on a championship team" argument, but Billups would have the same argument.
"Rested"? Nope.
Obviously, there's more, much more to Isiah Thomas than the fact that he was the best player on a championship team. But i was using context: Isiah was the best player on TWO championship teams in an era where the Eastern conference was very tough and playing stronng teams in the Finals.

Still, let's keep that in mind: how many players since Isiah have been the best player on a back-to-back championship team? Shaq, Kobe, Lebron James. Any more? That's pretty elite company.
And i'm not even gonna adress the fact that many people stand by have not Isiah been injured in the Finals he may have won another title...

That being said, stats are cool. Stats show that Steve Nash made the Suns a historically good offensive team. Stats show that a guy named Tracy McGrady had one of the greatest offensive regular seasons ever. Stats show that Tiny Archibald had a regular season no other player in history had and no other player in history will have. That's all cool.
Still, it matters little.

I know it's not a popular opinion, but when comparing great players legacies, winning has great weight. And Isiah won. A lot. And HE was the franchise player. And he didn't have a stacked team. And he faced very tough competition (in comparison, isiah (or the Pistons) winning two championships in the 80's means more to me than, say, Shaq and Kobe winning Finals against the likes of Indiana, New Jersey and Philly).
Sure, there are PGs that have had better or equal stats. During the regular season or in the playoffs. Does it matter much, at the end?

For me, it's laughable to defend the likes of Jason Kidd over Isiah. Teams didn't defend Jason Kidd. They didn't need to. John Stockton could never take over a game, like Isiah could. Nor Gary Payton. Has Chris Paul ever been to the WCF?

Yes, teams, not individuals, win championships.
But, again, the Pistons weren't stacked (nor historically nor considering the era they competed in). They were a great team, led by Isiah Thomas, who was the set-up man while also being the most dangerous scorer and the guy opposing teams planned their defenses around. Isiah didn't play with Russell (and a plethora of other hofs), or Reed (MVP winner), or Karl Malone (MVP winner), or Duncan (MVP winner).
 
#33 ·
Haha.

I love the fact no consideration is given to the pace Isiah's teams played at when Nash (!!!!!) is declared a better player. I'm sure Isiah would have been a much more efficient scorer on a 7 second or less offense. He wouldn't have two championships, but he would have shot better percentages.....
 
#34 ·
I love the fact no consideration is given to the pace Isiah's teams played at when Nash (!!!!!) is declared a better player. I'm sure Isiah would have been a much more efficient scorer on a 7 second or less offense. He wouldn't have two championships, but he would have shot better percentages.....
Steve Nash's shooting percentages are abnormally high, which seem to be regarded more as a baseline standard by lessthanjake. Isiah Thomas' percentages are more realistic. Moreover, Thomas is the significantly better defender, as good of a passer and a better suited player around whom to build an offense.

I just find it amazing how Nash supporters want to overlook his notoriously bad defense and that he's never been more than a complementary player.
 
#38 ·
"Rested"? Nope.
Obviously, there's more, much more to Isiah Thomas than the fact that he was the best player on a championship team. But i was using context: Isiah was the best player on TWO championship teams in an era where the Eastern conference was very tough and playing stronng teams in the Finals.

Still, let's keep that in mind: how many players since Isiah have been the best player on a back-to-back championship team? Shaq, Kobe, Lebron James. Any more? That's pretty elite company.
And i'm not even gonna adress the fact that many people stand by have not Isiah been injured in the Finals he may have won another title…
Again, my point is that being "the best player on championship winning teams" USUALLY means a lot because championship teams usually have a once-in-a-generation type player. But it doesn't HAVE to mean a whole lot. Isiah was not nearly at the same level as virtually any other best-player-on-a-championship-team. He just had a super deep team full of really good players who played great defense. Thus, it doesn't mean much.

It's worth pointing out that Isiah wasn't even necessarily the best player on those teams. Sure, he was their go-to scorer in clutch situations, but that doesn't mean everything. He did not lead the team in PER in 1989, and was #3 on the team in Win Shares. While he was a very slight #1 in PER on the 1990 team, he was actually only #4 in Win Shares on the Pistons that year despite playing the most minutes. And Isiah was not actually that close to being #1 in Win Shares either year.

Of course, stats are not everything, and I do agree that Isiah probably was the best player on those teams. However, no true superstar is #3 or #4 on his team in Win Shares. That only happens to the best player on a team when that player is barely the best one his team, and that was true of Isiah. That just is not the same as being a superstar.

That being said, stats are cool. Stats show that Steve Nash made the Suns a historically good offensive team. Stats show that a guy named Tracy McGrady had one of the greatest offensive regular seasons ever. Stats show that Tiny Archibald had a regular season no other player in history had and no other player in history will have. That's all cool.
Still, it matters little.

I know it's not a popular opinion, but when comparing great players legacies, winning has great weight. And Isiah won. A lot. And HE was the franchise player. And he didn't have a stacked team. And he faced very tough competition (in comparison, isiah (or the Pistons) winning two championships in the 80's means more to me than, say, Shaq and Kobe winning Finals against the likes of Indiana, New Jersey and Philly).
Sure, there are PGs that have had better or equal stats. During the regular season or in the playoffs. Does it matter much, at the end?
That's so silly though. Sure, Isiah won, but he simply did not contribute to his team as much as many other PGs in history have. He just happened to have better players around him who more than compensated for that. Why should we consider him better because of that?

Championships are really only a useful way of measuring the VERY BEST players. And that is because the VERY BEST superstars tend to be the ones who win championships over the other superstars (e.g., Jordan over Malone). But Isiah is not at that level. For a player like Isiah, championships are not a very instructive metric because he was not a player who put the team on his back and won them a championship (as players like LeBron, Shaq, etc. were). Thus, just as we would not say that Chauncey Billups is definitely better than Steve Nash or Chris Paul because of winning, we should not say that Isiah is either.

For me, it's laughable to defend the likes of Jason Kidd over Isiah. Teams didn't defend Jason Kidd. They didn't need to. John Stockton could never take over a game, like Isiah could. Nor Gary Payton. Has Chris Paul ever been to the WCF?

Yes, teams, not individuals, win championships.
But, again, the Pistons weren't stacked (nor historically nor considering the era they competed in). They were a great team, led by Isiah Thomas, who was the set-up man while also being the most dangerous scorer and the guy opposing teams planned their defenses around. Isiah didn't play with Russell (and a plethora of other hofs), or Reed (MVP winner), or Karl Malone (MVP winner), or Duncan (MVP winner).
I wouldn't NECESSARILY take Jason Kidd over Isiah. But here's the thing. Both Isiah and Kidd scored real inefficiently. Isiah shot more shots though, so his inefficiency arguably hurt his team more. Meanwhile, Kidd was AT LEAST equal at passing but a much better rebounder and a better defender. Admittedly, there's more to it than that. The fact that teams did not need to guard Kidd closely undoubtedly made it harder on the rest of the team, for instance. But it really is not absurd to regard Kidd as the better player.

Again, you keep acting like Isiah was a superstar at the level of a LeBron, Shaq, Duncan, etc. Those guys were not #4 on their teams in Win Shares. Those guys did not have 17 PERs the years of their championships. They did not only manage to make the top 5 in MVP voting one time. How in the world can you act like Isiah was a big superstar when every piece of empirical evidence shows that he was not even close to one?

Kevin Johnson in the same realm as Isiah Thomas?
KJ was statistically superior to Isiah in every way. At some point, stats have to trump blind emotion. KJ is clearly statistically superior to Isiah, so the idea that it is laughable to say KJ is in the same realm as Isiah is just silly.

Steve Nash's shooting percentages are abnormally high, which seem to be regarded more as a baseline standard by lessthanjake. Isiah Thomas' percentages are more realistic. Moreover, Thomas is the significantly better defender, as good of a passer and a better suited player around whom to build an offense.

I just find it amazing how Nash supporters want to overlook his notoriously bad defense and that he's never been more than a complementary player.
No. Isiah Thomas's shooting efficiency was terrible by ANY standard. His career TS% was 0.516. Allen Iverson, a player known for his shooting inefficiency, had a higher TS% despite the fact that Iverson played in an era with particularly low TS%'s and Isiah played in an era with particularly high league TS%'s. Jason Kidd, who was a notoriously bad shooter, had a very slightly lower career TS%, but when adjusted for the difference in era, Isiah's was likely worse. Honestly, I challenge you to find a superstar who scored more inefficiently relative to league standards than Isiah Thomas did. I honestly do not think it can be found. He was that bad.

As for Nash's defense, I think that is overblown. Nash was a bad man defender, but he played in an era without hand checking. Quick PGs can get by even the best man defenders now. Thus, PG defense does not matter as much as any other position. And, to the extent that it does matter, the real difference in PGs is in help defense. Nash was not actually a bad help defender. In fact, he was pretty solid at providing timely help. And, while he did not get as many steals as other top PGs, he was often one of the top players in the league at drawing charges. I wouldn't say he was a good defender, but I do not think his "bad" defense was a significant liability to his team.

It would have been so interesting to see a prime Nash with a more defensive oriented team behind him. Could he have taken on more of a scoring load and remained as efficient? Defenses would have been more geared towards stopping him rather than having to cover offensive threats like Stoudemire and Johnson/Barbosa - surely this would have pulled those percentages down a reasonable amount…..
So I'm not sure whether Nash could have taken on more of a scoring load. Skills-wise, I am certain he could have. The man shot all of his shots off the dribble. He created all his own shots, and could have shot much more; he just chose not to. When his team needed him to score, though, he did. For instance, he was often amongst the top scorers in the NBA in crunch time scoring. I am not sure he had the mentality to do that all game, though.

However, hypothetically, he could have had a more defensive oriented team without sacrificing offense. For instance, replace Amare with David Robinson. David Robinson could do everything Amare did on offense, but would have made the Suns a top 10 defense easily (the Spurs were top 10 every year he played). Or, even, give those Suns teams Serge Ibaka instead of an aging Shaq. Suddenly, they get elite shot blocking but can still spread the floor and run the fast break real well.

Anyways, replace Amare with David Robinson and I think the Suns would have absolutely easily won championships. The offenses would have remained historically good (if anything, they would have gotten better), but suddenly the team would be an elite defense (DRob, Marion, and Bell = elite defense). Now obviously DRob was a superstar so it is sorta an unfair replacement, but most championship teams have two superstars. And the point is more general. If Nash had had a big man who was quick, could shoot, and could run the floor, but ALSO could guard the rim, actually guard centers, and rebound decently, he would've been unstoppable.
 
#41 ·
Again, my point is that being "the best player on championship winning teams" USUALLY means a lot because championship teams usually have a once-in-a-generation type player. But it doesn't HAVE to mean a whole lot. Isiah was not nearly at the same level as virtually any other best-player-on-a-championship-team. He just had a super deep team full of really good players who played great defense. Thus, it doesn't mean much.

It's worth pointing out that Isiah wasn't even necessarily the best player on those teams. Sure, he was their go-to scorer in clutch situations, but that doesn't mean everything. He did not lead the team in PER in 1989, and was #3 on the team in Win Shares. While he was a very slight #1 in PER on the 1990 team, he was actually only #4 in Win Shares on the Pistons that year despite playing the most minutes. And Isiah was not actually that close to being #1 in Win Shares either year.

Of course, stats are not everything, and I do agree that Isiah probably was the best player on those teams. However, no true superstar is #3 or #4 on his team in Win Shares. That only happens to the best player on a team when that player is barely the best one his team, and that was true of Isiah. That just is not the same as being a superstar.
I see where i'm not getting my point across...

I'm not saying Isiah Thomas was a superstar at the level of (in his day) Magic, Bird or Jordan. He was obvioulsy not. He was a tier down.

But i wasn't discussing Isiah's place on the All-Time Top Players. I WAS discussing Isiah's place on the list of greatest point guards to play the game (see my first post on the thread).
And yes, even in the Point Guards list Isiah isn't on the level of Magic, Oscar, West (if considered a pg). Even here, he is a tier down.

That's so silly though. Sure, Isiah won, but he simply did not contribute to his team as much as many other PGs in history have. He just happened to have better players around him who more than compensated for that. Why should we consider him better because of that?

Championships are really only a useful way of measuring the VERY BEST players. And that is because the VERY BEST superstars tend to be the ones who win championships over the other superstars (e.g., Jordan over Malone). But Isiah is not at that level. For a player like Isiah, championships are not a very instructive metric because he was not a player who put the team on his back and won them a championship (as players like LeBron, Shaq, etc. were). Thus, just as we would not say that Chauncey Billups is definitely better than Steve Nash or Chris Paul because of winning, we should not say that Isiah is either.
All you got from my posts was "Isiah was better because he won more championships"? Man, i sure am a lousy writer.
Isiah is better than some of the point guards people usually regard above him because (i) he was a good scorer (scorer, not shooter), (ii) a player to build a team around (iii) great leader (iv) great passer (v) clutch player (vi) good defender.

Stats are cute. But results are more important. IF Iverson's Sixers had won the championship against the Lakers how many people would have said something the likes of "well, the sixers won despite the fact that Iverson was a inefficient chucker and non-defender"?

Point guards have had comparable or even better stats than Isiah Thomas. But put KJ/Tim Hardaway/John Stockton/etc on that Pistons team and they sure as hell wouldn't be winning back-to-back championships. Not against Bird's-Celtics, Magic's-Lakers, Jordan's-Bulls and even Drexler's-Blazers.
And i do believe if Isiah replaced some of the point guards people are talking about in this thread those teams would be better.
In fact, i would pretty much like to see isiah being defended by the likes of Derek Fisher and Tony Parker in the NBA Finals...

I wouldn't NECESSARILY take Jason Kidd over Isiah. But here's the thing. Both Isiah and Kidd scored real inefficiently. Isiah shot more shots though, so his inefficiency arguably hurt his team more. Meanwhile, Kidd was AT LEAST equal at passing but a much better rebounder and a better defender. Admittedly, there's more to it than that. The fact that teams did not need to guard Kidd closely undoubtedly made it harder on the rest of the team, for instance. But it really is not absurd to regard Kidd as the better player.
Jason Kidd was a great player in his prime. A great point guard. But offensive-wise, he was very limited. Teams actually prepared to defend Isiah Thomas.

Again, you keep acting like Isiah was a superstar at the level of a LeBron, Shaq, Duncan, etc. Those guys were not #4 on their teams in Win Shares. Those guys did not have 17 PERs the years of their championships. They did not only manage to make the top 5 in MVP voting one time. How in the world can you act like Isiah was a big superstar when every piece of empirical evidence shows that he was not even close to one?
No i'm not.
Even in his prime Isiah Thomas wasn't the level of superstars like Magic, Bird or Jordan. But he belonged with the Ewings, Olajuwons (his dominant prime came after), Barkleys, Wilkins.

KJ was statistically superior to Isiah in every way. At some point, stats have to trump blind emotion. KJ is clearly statistically superior to Isiah, so the idea that it is laughable to say KJ is in the same realm as Isiah is just silly.
I have it the other way around: how come a player with (i) better stats (ii) comparable if not superior talent around didn't produce the same (or better) results?
Honest question: did you watch the Bad Boys play? They were the most feared team in the league. And eventhough they had ONE other scoring option, it was Isiah Thomas leading them. On the floor and on the scoreboard.
An example would be the 1990 Finals... (btw, the team Isiah dropped 27ppg on had eliminated in those same playoffs the "superior-stats-than-Isiah" Kevin Johnson's Suns (who had Chambers, Hornacek, Majerle and Eddie Johnson)...
 
#39 ·
It is funny thing about Steve Nash. His defense was so bad that I can point it out as a primary reason why teams he played on got bounced from the playoffs. He could not defend his position. He required weird cross matches (like Marion guarding the PG) that totally disrupted his team in the playoffs.

Also, Zeke can be credited for creating the term "Pure Point" guard. It is a concept that sprts reporters came up with around the time of The Dream Team to try and justify John Stockton making the team over Thomas.
 
#42 ·
I see where i'm not getting my point across...

I'm not saying Isiah Thomas was a superstar at the level of (in his day) Magic, Bird or Jordan. He was obvioulsy not. He was a tier down.

But i wasn't discussing Isiah's place on the All-Time Top Players. I WAS discussing Isiah's place on the list of greatest point guards to play the game (see my first post on the thread).
And yes, even in the Point Guards list Isiah isn't on the level of Magic, Oscar, West (if considered a pg). Even here, he is a tier down.
I suppose what you are implicitly pointing out is that there are very few PGs who have been the type of transcendent superstar I am talking about. So I suppose me saying Isiah is not one of those guys is sorta meaningless when talking about where he ranks amongst PGs.

But if he is NOT that type of transcendent superstar, then he is not an irreplaceable player who would turn any team into a championship team. And if he is not that type of player, then, logically, there are probably other PGs you could plug in that team and win a title with. I'll address this again below, but I strongly disagree that those Pistons would not have won with KJ. I agree that they might not have won with Stockton, because those Pistons needed another scorer and Stockton is not a scorer. It would not have been a good fit. But if you replace Isiah with any other elite PG who can score (i.e. KJ, Chris Paul, Payton, Parker, Rose, Westbrook, etc.) I think there is a real good chance those teams still win a championships.

And I think that is where we fundamentally disagree. I think Isiah was an all star level player who fit very well in a very good team. Nothing more. You think Isiah was irreplaceable and was the reason that team was so good. Obviously, this is a matter of opinion. I feel like Isiah's inferior stats demonstrate that I am right that he was not so great. You feel like the fact that his team won championships in a tough era despite not being ridiculously stacked indicates that he must have been the reason the team won. Ultimately, I think your argument is a bit circular though. You are basically saying that Isiah is better than these other players because he won, and those other players would not have won in his situation because he is better. That argument does not necessarily follow, especially when Isiah is clearly statistically worse than many of these guys.

Stats are cute. But results are more important.
Result ARE more important but they are heavily dependent on the team a player has around him. And while those Pistons may not have had tons of elite scorers (though Aguirre was certainly an elite scorer), they were a championship level team because of elite defense. And Isiah was a good defender, but he was NOT the reason their defense was so good. The way I see it, he was on a team with a GREAT defense that needed a good PG who could score. He was one such a PG, so he fit well in the team, but other great PGs with similar scoring ability would probably have won as well, because those Pistons won due to team defense, not Isiah's offensive skills.

Point guards have had comparable or even better stats than Isiah Thomas. But put KJ/Tim Hardaway/John Stockton/etc on that Pistons team and they sure as hell wouldn't be winning back-to-back championships. Not against Bird's-Celtics, Magic's-Lakers, Jordan's-Bulls and even Drexler's-Blazers.
And i do believe if Isiah replaced some of the point guards people are talking about in this thread those teams would be better.
In fact, i would pretty much like to see isiah being defended by the likes of Derek Fisher and Tony Parker in the NBA Finals…
As I mentioned above, I agree that the Pistons probably would not have done as well with Stockton. But that isn't because Stockton is a worse player; it is because the Pistons needed a volume-scoring PG because they had a lot of defensive-minded players. KJ and Tim Hardaway would have fit in that team. Ultimately, I think Tim Hardaway is a worse player than Isiah, so I won't argue they would've won with him. However, I see no reason that the Pistons would not have won with KJ. KJ was clearly statistically superior. Your only reason for thinking KJ wouldn't have won on the Pistons is that he didn't win on the Suns. But that is not a valid reason since, obviously, the Suns were not the Pistons; it was a completely different situation. It is really silly to believe that any player who did not win a championship was somehow incapable of winning one, no matter what team you put him on. Ultimately, by that logic, you just end up believing that any star player who won a championship is better than one who did not. There are WAY too many other factors at play for that to be true.

Realistically, I think there are a number of PGs would could have won championships on those Pistons. Do you REALLY think those Pistons would not have won with Gary Payton? Payton had an entire decade (1994 - 2003) in which, every year, he was statistically better than Isiah was in 1989 and 1990. He was just as capable a scorer, and he would have made those Pistons defenses even better. Chris Paul is just at a completely different level as a player than Isiah. There is not one single thing Isiah does better on the basketball court. Those are two guys who would have fit on the Pistons. They can score, and they are hard-nosed players that would have fit the Pistons style of play and attitude. Moreover, they are notably statistically better. I see no reason to believe they wouldn't have gotten as good or better results as Isiah got.

The only argument I can conceive of you having here is that these other players were not leaders like Isiah. But really, the "leadership" thing is just a circular argument as well. You think Isiah won because of his leadership, but, let's be honest, you just think he was a good leader because he won. That is not a persuasive line of reasoning. Of course, you may be right that Isiah was a fantastic leader, but I think it is silly to just assume that the leader of a championship team must possess leadership skills other star players do not have.

Jason Kidd was a great player in his prime. A great point guard. But offensive-wise, he was very limited. Teams actually prepared to defend Isiah Thomas.
I don't disagree. I am not Kidd's greatest fan. And certainly, I think Kidd would not have fit as well as Isiah on those Pistons teams. However, Kidd was better than Isiah in every phase of the game but scoring (passing is debatable, but I'd take Kidd). It is at least debatable which one is better. I wouldn't vigorously argue with someone who put Isiah ahead of Kidd, though, because I agree that his limited offense is a significant negative.

No i'm not.
Even in his prime Isiah Thomas wasn't the level of superstars like Magic, Bird or Jordan. But he belonged with the Ewings, Olajuwons (his dominant prime came after), Barkleys, Wilkins.
You may not be saying it directly, but you are implicitly acting like Isiah belongs in that group. You are emphasizing that he was the best player on two championship teams. The implication, then, is that he is comparable to other guys who were the best players on multiple championship teams. My point is that he is NOT comparable to those guys at all.

Anyways, I think Isiah was clearly worse than Olajuwon and Barkley. Both those guys were consistently in the discussion for MVP. Isiah never even sniffed an MVP award. Ewing and Wilkins are closer to Isiah's level. I don't think it is wrong to put Isiah on the same tier as those guys, though I do think that both were marginally better. For instance, I think its relatively clear that Ewing was regarded as better than Isiah given that he was near the top of MVP voting on 1989 and 1990 and Isiah essentially got no votes at all despite playing on teams that won far more games than Ewing's. Wilkins is even closer, but there really was a time when Wilkins was regarded alongside Bird, Magic, and Jordan. For instance, in 1986, Wilkins was 2nd in MVP voting, ahead of Magic despite being on a team that won far fewer games than the Lakers. Isiah was never regarded in that way.

I have it the other way around: how come a player with (i) better stats (ii) comparable if not superior talent around didn't produce the same (or better) results?
Honest question: did you watch the Bad Boys play? They were the most feared team in the league. And eventhough they had ONE other scoring option, it was Isiah Thomas leading them. On the floor and on the scoreboard.
An example would be the 1990 Finals... (btw, the team Isiah dropped 27ppg on had eliminated in those same playoffs the "superior-stats-than-Isiah" Kevin Johnson's Suns (who had Chambers, Hornacek, Majerle and Eddie Johnson)…
It is really silly to talk about "comparable if not superior talent" without thinking about how the team fits together. The Suns did not have the defense the Pistons had. So yeah, they had a lot of talent, but it wasn't really the type of team you'd expect to really contend for a championship. History has shown that (with very few exceptions) basically two types of teams win championships: (1) those led by arguably the best player in the league, and (2) those with a bunch of very good players who play absolutely elite defense (i.e. Bad Boys Pistons, 2004 Pistons, 2008 Celtics, etc.). KJ's Suns were neither of those things.
 
#43 ·
I suppose what you are implicitly pointing out is that there are very few PGs who have been the type of transcendent superstar I am talking about. So I suppose me saying Isiah is not one of those guys is sorta meaningless when talking about where he ranks amongst PGs.

But if he is NOT that type of transcendent superstar, then he is not an irreplaceable player who would turn any team into a championship team. And if he is not that type of player, then, logically, there are probably other PGs you could plug in that team and win a title with. I'll address this again below, but I strongly disagree that those Pistons would not have won with KJ. I agree that they might not have won with Stockton, because those Pistons needed another scorer and Stockton is not a scorer. It would not have been a good fit. But if you replace Isiah with any other elite PG who can score (i.e. KJ, Chris Paul, Payton, Parker, Rose, Westbrook, etc.) I think there is a real good chance those teams still win a championships.

And I think that is where we fundamentally disagree. I think Isiah was an all star level player who fit very well in a very good team. Nothing more. You think Isiah was irreplaceable and was the reason that team was so good. Obviously, this is a matter of opinion. I feel like Isiah's inferior stats demonstrate that I am right that he was not so great. You feel like the fact that his team won championships in a tough era despite not being ridiculously stacked indicates that he must have been the reason the team won. Ultimately, I think your argument is a bit circular though. You are basically saying that Isiah is better than these other players because he won, and those other players would not have won in his situation because he is better. That argument does not necessarily follow, especially when Isiah is clearly statistically worse than many of these guys.



Result ARE more important but they are heavily dependent on the team a player has around him. And while those Pistons may not have had tons of elite scorers (though Aguirre was certainly an elite scorer), they were a championship level team because of elite defense. And Isiah was a good defender, but he was NOT the reason their defense was so good. The way I see it, he was on a team with a GREAT defense that needed a good PG who could score. He was one such a PG, so he fit well in the team, but other great PGs with similar scoring ability would probably have won as well, because those Pistons won due to team defense, not Isiah's offensive skills.



As I mentioned above, I agree that the Pistons probably would not have done as well with Stockton. But that isn't because Stockton is a worse player; it is because the Pistons needed a volume-scoring PG because they had a lot of defensive-minded players. KJ and Tim Hardaway would have fit in that team. Ultimately, I think Tim Hardaway is a worse player than Isiah, so I won't argue they would've won with him. However, I see no reason that the Pistons would not have won with KJ. KJ was clearly statistically superior. Your only reason for thinking KJ wouldn't have won on the Pistons is that he didn't win on the Suns. But that is not a valid reason since, obviously, the Suns were not the Pistons; it was a completely different situation. It is really silly to believe that any player who did not win a championship was somehow incapable of winning one, no matter what team you put him on. Ultimately, by that logic, you just end up believing that any star player who won a championship is better than one who did not. There are WAY too many other factors at play for that to be true.

Realistically, I think there are a number of PGs would could have won championships on those Pistons. Do you REALLY think those Pistons would not have won with Gary Payton? Payton had an entire decade (1994 - 2003) in which, every year, he was statistically better than Isiah was in 1989 and 1990. He was just as capable a scorer, and he would have made those Pistons defenses even better. Chris Paul is just at a completely different level as a player than Isiah. There is not one single thing Isiah does better on the basketball court. Those are two guys who would have fit on the Pistons. They can score, and they are hard-nosed players that would have fit the Pistons style of play and attitude. Moreover, they are notably statistically better. I see no reason to believe they wouldn't have gotten as good or better results as Isiah got.

The only argument I can conceive of you having here is that these other players were not leaders like Isiah. But really, the "leadership" thing is just a circular argument as well. You think Isiah won because of his leadership, but, let's be honest, you just think he was a good leader because he won. That is not a persuasive line of reasoning. Of course, you may be right that Isiah was a fantastic leader, but I think it is silly to just assume that the leader of a championship team must possess leadership skills other star players do not have.



I don't disagree. I am not Kidd's greatest fan. And certainly, I think Kidd would not have fit as well as Isiah on those Pistons teams. However, Kidd was better than Isiah in every phase of the game but scoring (passing is debatable, but I'd take Kidd). It is at least debatable which one is better. I wouldn't vigorously argue with someone who put Isiah ahead of Kidd, though, because I agree that his limited offense is a significant negative.



You may not be saying it directly, but you are implicitly acting like Isiah belongs in that group. You are emphasizing that he was the best player on two championship teams. The implication, then, is that he is comparable to other guys who were the best players on multiple championship teams. My point is that he is NOT comparable to those guys at all.

Anyways, I think Isiah was clearly worse than Olajuwon and Barkley. Both those guys were consistently in the discussion for MVP. Isiah never even sniffed an MVP award. Ewing and Wilkins are closer to Isiah's level. I don't think it is wrong to put Isiah on the same tier as those guys, though I do think that both were marginally better. For instance, I think its relatively clear that Ewing was regarded as better than Isiah given that he was near the top of MVP voting on 1989 and 1990 and Isiah essentially got no votes at all despite playing on teams that won far more games than Ewing's. Wilkins is even closer, but there really was a time when Wilkins was regarded alongside Bird, Magic, and Jordan. For instance, in 1986, Wilkins was 2nd in MVP voting, ahead of Magic despite being on a team that won far fewer games than the Lakers. Isiah was never regarded in that way.



It is really silly to talk about "comparable if not superior talent" without thinking about how the team fits together. The Suns did not have the defense the Pistons had. So yeah, they had a lot of talent, but it wasn't really the type of team you'd expect to really contend for a championship. History has shown that (with very few exceptions) basically two types of teams win championships: (1) those led by arguably the best player in the league, and (2) those with a bunch of very good players who play absolutely elite defense (i.e. Bad Boys Pistons, 2004 Pistons, 2008 Celtics, etc.). KJ's Suns were neither of those things.
All right, let's get this back on track.

I started this thread questioning the article (and video) where guys were talking about Steve Nash, John Stockton and Jason Kidd as some of the Top Point guards to play the game. There was also mention of Oscar, Magic, Payton and even Cousy.
No one mentioned Isiah Thomas.
Now, i do believe that Isiah Thomas was better than Kidd, Stockton and Payton, so i thought it was unfair leaving him out of the top point guards ever to play the game.

Isiah Thomas has the individual and colective accolades to merit a mention while talking about the great point guards of the NBA.
Now, if you want to go ahead and state Kevin Johnson had better stats than Isiah Thomas, cool. No problem. If you want to go ahead and state Thomas wasn't a "transcendent" player, it's also cool with me. Isiah wasn't at the level of Magic, Bird, Jordan, Duncan, etc., etc? Cool. I agree.

What i don't seem adequate is putting up scenarios like "if player A was in the Pistons instead of Isiah, the team would have won just the same". The WHAT IF game is what it is: a game. It's not reality. And looking back on the ACTUAL careers and accomplishments (individual and colective) of the greatest point guards ever, there's no doubt in my mind that Isiah should be ranked above Payton, Stockton, Kidd, Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway and the likes. Players that could have had better stats than Isiah Thomas but sure as hell didn't have greater careers.

That's all that i'm saying.
 
#45 ·
I go with Isiah way over Nash. I agree - you have a Big three in pg's of Magic, Oscar and West. Then Isiah is in that next tier with Clyde (( I never saw Cousy play). Nash is overrated but great. The NBA has opened up the game the moment Nash moved to Phoenix.

But let's face it- Nash was a huge reason not only why the Suns were so good- but also a big detriment at the moment of going against the best liek a team such as the Spurs. He's like a baseball hitter that is incredible until he faces in the league championship series or finals an inevtiable staff that will put a large dent in his overall impact.

Phoenix HAD to have The Matrix guard Parker because Nash was such an anemic defender (The Matrix just wasn't quick enough to guard him either.). If Nash was at least able to not get wiped out by Parker - then you could have had the Matrix helping out Amare by assisting on some doubles to Duncan. The way it was vs the Spurs- they were an awful matchup. Bowen could guard Nash at one end competently while Suns struggled to guard Duncan/Parker.

For all of Isiah's less than stellar metrics he could guard anyone his size and he showed as cited below he was a huge impact.

On the flip side the NBA allowed hand-checking back in Isiah's day. The physical defense hurt offensive numbers. Plus you had expansion in 88-89 (4 teams) deluting the talent pool which means for a passer he doesn't have as many skilled players. In 84-85 Isiah averaged almost 14 assists per game. He could play run and gun but didn't have the team. Anyhow- he had a .194 playoff win share in their 2nd title. Magic in his prime one year when he won had a .198 and Kobe's last title he had a .190.

Two points there is NO WAY from what I remember that Laimbeer was the leader. And as stated Nash's defense was so awful he hurt his team immeasurably because he couldn't guard Parker. Overall Nash is great no doubt but his defnese so poor he needed to play against teams with holes in their offense in order to be a champion.

I think it is convincingly ---Isiah.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top