Isiah Thomas 1990 or Steve Nash 2006, who was better?

JordansBulls · Post #1 » by **JordansBulls** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 1:37 pm

lorak · Post #2 » by **lorak** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 2:07 pm

Steve Nash and it's not even close. Isiah is very overrated.

Laimbeer · Post #3 » by **Laimbeer** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 2:41 pm

If you understand intangibles, it's Isiah. The two championships were a crowning achievement of a career spent leading a team. That team doesn't win two titles with Nash. On the flip side, Isiah probably wouldn't rack up the kind of stats Nash did with that team.

It's something like a Wilt/Russ comparison.

lorak · Post #4 » by **lorak** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 2:58 pm

Laimbeer wrote:If you understand intangibles, it's Isiah. The two championships were a crowning achievement of a career spent leading a team. .

Isiah wasn't leader of these championship teams.
And in terms of intangibles Nash > Isiah. Everybody wants to play with Nash, everybody is better playing with Nash.

Laimbeer · Post #5 » by **Laimbeer** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 3:02 pm

DavidStern wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:If you understand intangibles, it's Isiah. The two championships were a crowning achievement of a career spent leading a team. .

Isiah wasn't leader of these championship teams.
And in terms of intangibles Nash > Isiah. Everybody wants to play with Nash, everybody is better playing with Nash.

As far as Isiah not being the leader on those teams, I guess you disagree with the players who were actually on the team, as well as the coach.

Everybody that wants to run and score wants to play with Nash. If you want to win, Isiah.

lorak · Post #6 » by **lorak** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 3:39 pm

Laimbeer wrote:
DavidStern wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:If you understand intangibles, it's Isiah. The two championships were a crowning achievement of a career spent leading a team. .

Isiah wasn't leader of these championship teams.
And in terms of intangibles Nash > Isiah. Everybody wants to play with Nash, everybody is better playing with Nash.

As far as Isiah not being the leader on those teams, I guess you disagree with the players who were actually on the team, as well as the coach.

Everybody that wants to run and score wants to play with Nash. If you want to win, Isiah.

No, if you want to win - Laimbeer, Rodman, Mahorn, Dumars... versatile defenders who could defend against anyone. Nash in that team would be perfect fit and thanks to him Pistons would be also better on offensive end of the floor.

JordansBulls · Post #7 » by **JordansBulls** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 8:34 pm

DavidStern wrote:Steve Nash and it's not even close. Isiah is very overrated.

How is this?

KING JAMES1978 · Post #8 » by **KING JAMES1978** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 8:47 pm

DavidStern wrote:Steve Nash and it's not even close. Isiah is very overrated.

No.Isiah is underrated.People forget or don't know how good Isaih was at his prime.I don't like him as a person but as a player was great.
Also have you ever watch him at the playoffs?1984 vs Knicks?At the Finals vs Lakers??
Ok you choose Nash but don't say that Isiah is overrated.He is for sure one of the five Greatest Point guards ever!

lorak · Post #9 » by **lorak** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 9:14 pm

KING JAMES1978 wrote:
DavidStern wrote:Steve Nash and it's not even close. Isiah is very overrated.

No.Isiah is underrated.People forget or don't know how good Isaih was at his prime.I don't like him as a person but as a player was great.
Also have you ever watch him at the playoffs?1984 vs Knicks?At the Finals vs Lakers??!

Yeah, I saw him against King in 1984, against Lakers in 1988, every series against Celtics and most of the games against Bulls. And when Pistons were winning it was mainly because of their defense, not because of Isiah. In fact his greatest playoff games were also a Pistons loses - G5 vs NYK in 1984 (16 pts in 94 seconds) and G6 vs LAL in 1988 (25 pts in a quater).

An Unbiased Fan · Post #10 » by **An Unbiased Fan** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 9:28 pm

1990 Playoffs
Isiah - 20.5 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 8.2 apg, Finals MVP
Teams faced, Pacers, Knicks, Bulls, Blazers

2006 Playoffs
Nash - 20.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 10.2 apg
Teams faced, Lakers, Clippers, Mavs

So Isiah put up similiar numbers as Nash despite not playing in that run & gun system. He also led Detroit through the Knicks, Bulls, and Blazers. While Nash needed 7 games to beat both LA teams, and lost to the Mavs in the WCF.

Isiah >> Nash

Laimbeer · Post #11 » by **Laimbeer** » Sat Oct 2, 2010 11:03 pm

DavidStern wrote:
No, if you want to win - Laimbeer, Rodman, Mahorn, Dumars... versatile defenders who could defend against anyone. Nash in that team would be perfect fit and thanks to him Pistons would be also better on offensive end of the floor.

Those guys aren't a title team without Isiah. They're very good players, but defense is as much wanting to as being able. Leadership and desire lifted them from being just another version of the Portland, Sacramento, and Seattle teams that vie for the title of best team to never win anything.

Nash doesn't take a game by the throat when he has to. He rolls up nicer stats at times, but he isn't a great leader. He played om some very talented teams, but they reflected his game and personality - soft.

lorak · Post #12 » by **lorak** » Sun Oct 3, 2010 7:37 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:1990 Playoffs
Isiah - 20.5 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 8.2 apg, Finals MVP
Teams faced, Pacers, Knicks, Bulls, Blazers

2006 Playoffs
Nash - 20.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 10.2 apg
Teams faced, Lakers, Clippers, Mavs

So Isiah put up similiar numbers as Nash despite not playing in that run & gun system.

Wrong. In playoffs heir teams played at the SAME pace (1990 Pistons 92.2, 2006 Suns 92.3). Nash was better passer and also much more efficient scorer (61.5 to 56.0 TS%). And of course Suns offense was much better than Pistons, and you know - PG is responsible for offense. Pistons were winning because of their defense and Isiah had little to do with that.

Besides you chose the best Isiah's playoff run in his career, while Nash was better (than in 2006) in several other seasons. So to be fair you should also choose Nash best playoff run, which was 2005, when he faced very good defensive teams (Spurs that season were one of the best defensive teams of all time): 23.9 ppg, 11.3 apg, 4.8 rpg, 60.4 TS%. That was against teams with average DRtg -4.2 (Drtg below league average). Isiah in 1990 faced teams with 0.1 (so Pistons opponets were worst than average!). So overall here is huge difference in defensive quality of competition. Despite so good competition Suns were able to still be very good offensive team in playoffs: 10.4 (!) ORtg above league average in playoffs. On the other hand 1990 Pistons were barely above league average with 0.3 ORtg, despite they played against much worse defensive teams (in fact their ORtg decreased in playoffs, while Suns in 2005 increased!)

Laimbeer wrote:
DavidStern wrote:
No, if you want to win - Laimbeer, Rodman, Mahorn, Dumars... versatile defenders who could defend against anyone. Nash in that team would be perfect fit and thanks to him Pistons would be also better on offensive end of the floor.

Those guys aren't a title team without Isiah. They're very good players, but defense is as much wanting to as being able. Leadership and desire lifted them from being just another version of the Portland, Sacramento, and Seattle teams that vie for the title of best team to never win anything.

Nash doesn't take a game by the throat when he has to. He rolls up nicer stats at times, but he isn't a great leader. He played om some very talented teams, but they reflected his game and personality - soft.

LOL
God, please give NBA more as soft players like Nash...

Kabookalu · Post #13 » by **Kabookalu** » Sun Oct 3, 2010 8:05 am

Laimbeer wrote:
DavidStern wrote:
No, if you want to win - Laimbeer, Rodman, Mahorn, Dumars... versatile defenders who could defend against anyone. Nash in that team would be perfect fit and thanks to him Pistons would be also better on offensive end of the floor.

Those guys aren't a title team without Isiah. They're very good players, but defense is as much wanting to as being able. Leadership and desire lifted them from being just another version of the Portland, Sacramento, and Seattle teams that vie for the title of best team to never win anything.

Nash doesn't take a game by the throat when he has to. He rolls up nicer stats at times, but he isn't a great leader. He played om some very talented teams, but they reflected his game and personality - soft.

You put Isiah on those Suns team in place of Nash and they aren't any tougher. Isiah isn't going to be making Amare Stoudemire into even a below average defender.

bastillon · Post #14 » by **bastillon** » Sun Oct 3, 2010 11:59 am

Laimbeer wrote:Nash doesn't take a game by the throat when he has to. He rolls up nicer stats at times, but he isn't a great leader. He played om some very talented teams, but they reflected his game and personality - soft.

wow

first of all, Nash's boxscore stats don't reflect his impact... not even close. +/-, teammates improvement with him and team ORtg - that's where Nash's value is.

Nash is also one of the most clutch player in the NBA and has always been that way ever since he has joined the Suns:

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/j ... index.html
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/j ... index.html
http://www.82games.com/CSORT11.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0910/CSORT11.HTM

Nash is the ONLY option in the crunch time and Suns play epic offense in those moments. I don't know if there's a better definition of "take a game by the throat".

JordansBulls · Post #15 » by **JordansBulls** » Sun Oct 3, 2010 2:32 pm

Choker wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:
DavidStern wrote:
No, if you want to win - Laimbeer, Rodman, Mahorn, Dumars... versatile defenders who could defend against anyone. Nash in that team would be perfect fit and thanks to him Pistons would be also better on offensive end of the floor.

Those guys aren't a title team without Isiah. They're very good players, but defense is as much wanting to as being able. Leadership and desire lifted them from being just another version of the Portland, Sacramento, and Seattle teams that vie for the title of best team to never win anything.

Nash doesn't take a game by the throat when he has to. He rolls up nicer stats at times, but he isn't a great leader. He played om some very talented teams, but they reflected his game and personality - soft.

You put Isiah on those Suns team in place of Nash and they aren't any tougher. Isiah isn't going to be making Amare Stoudemire into even a below average defender.

Isiah grew up on the West side of Chicago, he knows what it is to be tough.

Laimbeer · Post #16 » by **Laimbeer** » Sun Oct 3, 2010 5:42 pm

Getting busted up doesn't prove much either way. It happens to all kinds of players, happened to Isiah. The soft comes from the style of team and play that springs up around a guy like Nash. He's gone to Dallas and Phoenix, his teams always seeming to underachieve in the playoffs. You tube clips aside, the record is pretty clear.

lorak · Post #17 » by **lorak** » Sun Oct 3, 2010 7:23 pm

Laimbeer wrote:Getting busted up doesn't prove much either way. It happens to all kinds of players, happened to Isiah. The soft comes from the style of team and play that springs up around a guy like Nash. He's gone to Dallas and Phoenix, his teams always seeming to underachieve in the playoffs. You tube clips aside, the record is pretty clear.

Underachieve in the playoffs? Facts disagree with your opinion:

2005
Suns 7.08 SRS, lost to better team - Spurs 7.84 SRS

+
before season nobody thought they could win 60 games, they were perceived as borderline playoff team:
http://www.nba.com/preview2004/pho.html
This is one of those teams that are right there... they could make the playoffs."

http://www.slamonline.com/online/the-ma ... a-preview/
prediction: 3rd place in Pacific Division

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/tank/nba/nba2005.html

prediction: 8th place in Western Conference and 44 wins

2006
Suns 5.48 SRS, lost to better team - Mavs 5.96 SRS

Stoudemire was injured so again predictions before season were that Suns are borderline playoff team. But in reality they again advanced to WCF.
Imagine what would happened with 80s Pistons if for example Laimbeer was injured whole year?

2007
Suns 7.27 SRS, lost to better team - Spurs 8.35 SRS

2008
Suns 5.14 SRS, lost to worse team - Spurs 5.10 SRS

2009
Suns missed playoffs, but .561 winning %

2010
Suns 4.68 SRS, won with better team - Spurs 5.07 SRS, lost to better team - Lakers 4.78

Post #18 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Oct 3, 2010 7:35 pm

Wow, I think every point I wanted to make has been made. Good job guys.

Astounding both the vast quantity of factually wrong opinions of Nash there are out there, and how practiced people've gotten at debunking these ideas again and again.

All that said, I can see arguments for Isiah in this comparison.

Jimmy76 · Post #19 » by **Jimmy76** » Sun Oct 3, 2010 8:45 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Wow, I think every point I wanted to make has been made. Good job guys.

Astounding both the vast quantity of factually wrong opinions of Nash there are out there, and how practiced people've gotten at debunking these ideas again and again.

All that said, I can see arguments for Isiah in this comparison.

Seriously I'm tempted to save about ten posts and copy paste them int every thread about Nash since people are still incredibly misinformed somehow

And props to Davidstern great posts

Kabookalu · Post #20 » by **Kabookalu** » Sun Oct 3, 2010 8:46 pm

DavidStern just owned this thread.