Isiah Thomas vs Dwyane Wade - Higher on the all time list?

[East_Coast]

Accolades are similar, but Isiah had better handles, better shooter, better man defender. Also far superior in the intangibles department. Won two titles in a far more competitive era and never played with a guy as good as Shaq or LeBron.

Note to all: Quote-only posts are in breach of the new post-padding rules. Use the "+1" button if you've got nothing to add, take the time to write out a full post if you do. - rrravenred

[JordansBulls]

Wade's career is comparable to Barkley's and Malone's, not Isiah. Wade is better than Isiah in pretty much every way.

when you say better in every way are you talking as far as prime, peak and career or better rebounder, passer, scorer, etc?

[RayBan-Sematra]

Wade's career is comparable to Barkley's and Malone's, not Isiah. Wade is better than Isiah in pretty much every way.

when you say better in every way are you talking as far as prime, peak and career or better rebounder, passer, scorer, etc?

Pretty sure he meant career..
At this point I have both ranked ahead of Wade but he isn't more then 5-10 spots behind them.

As far as Isiah VS Wade I have Wade ranked higher.
He was just the flat-out better player imo.

He could score on higher volume while remaining more efficient and consistent and he was a much better defensive player.
Similar talent in terms of play-making ability.

He is in the 20-25 range right now and with 2-3 more really good years he'll be firmly in my Top 20, maybe borderline Top 15.

[prs]

Isiah is a glorified Parker/Billups/KJ and tbh 2 of those players are arguably better. Prominent personality on a team much like the 00's Pistons where their honestly wasn't a clear cut best player.

Wade is clearly better and in my top30.

[JordansBulls]

Isiah is a glorified Parker/Billups/KJ and tbh 2 of those players are arguably better. Prominent personality on a team much like the 00's Pistons where their honestly wasn't a clear cut best player.

Wade is clearly better and in my top30.

How is Isiah a glorified Parker/Billups/KJ when he was contantly an allstar and performed big in the playoffs and took an organization that never won anything prior to him to multiple titles?

[Kobe 62 Mavs 61]

took an organization that never won anything prior to him to multiple titles?

Can I ask you what your obsession is with this? What is it that would make winning a title with the Jazz so much less impressive than winning it with the Wizards? Especially when talking about individual player.

I'll be honest: in my 32 years, I've seen some completely arbitrary and nonsensical arguments about a great many subjects, but this personal crusade of yours is certainly among the pantheon.

[G35]

took an organization that never won anything prior to him to multiple titles?

Can I ask you what your obsession is with this? What is it that would make winning a title with the Jazz so much less impressive than winning it with the Wizards? Especially when talking about individual player.

I'll be honest: in my 32 years, I've seen some completely arbitrary and nonsensical arguments about a great many subjects, but this personal crusade of yours is certainly among the pantheon.

Because it means that you have done something many other players have not. Like taking the Hawks to a championship. There is a reason why they have never won a title. Some franchises don't really expect to win but just making the playoff's is their goal. Unlike the Lakers who are disappointed when they lose in the second round.

You are essentially turning around a culture. Michael Jordan made the Bulls into a respected franchise, Tim Duncan did the same thing with San Antonio. If CP3 can take the Clippers to a championship it will be huge. But I still don't believe the Clippers will ever win.....

[Kobe 62 Mavs 61]

The Hawks have won a championship, though...

[MacGill]

Because it means that you have done something many other players have not. Like taking the Hawks to a championship. There is a reason why they have never won a title. Some franchises don't really expect to win but just making the playoff's is their goal. Unlike the Lakers who are disappointed when they lose in the second round.

You are essentially turning around a culture. Michael Jordan made the Bulls into a respected franchise, Tim Duncan did the same thing with San Antonio. If CP3 can take the Clippers to a championship it will be huge. But I still don't believe the Clippers will ever win.....

So if MJ went to a winning franchise, played the exact same way, it wouldn't have meant as much if he won?

Do you then you feel that Magic/Kobe (picking LA) their titles rank lower than MJ's or Isiah's?

To me it is more about the character of the star versus the franchise.

[RayBan-Sematra]

The Hawks have won a championship, though...

Yeah but that was wayyyyyyyyy back in 1958.

[Kobe 62 Mavs 61]

Unless MacGill is using character in a very general way (which he may be, and in fact probably is, but I can't be sure), for me it's not about 'character' so much as 'how good they were when they played'.

Critical thinking is seen as a good thing, right? Without sounding overly preachy or whatever that word is, the method of critical thinking, basically, is to break **** down to their components and then compare those components, to find out what actually matters and what doesn't. So let's use critical thinking:

#1- You used the Hawks as an example, but they have in fact won a championship, which makes me think that not even you, defending this, truly believe the argument as JB framed it. A 'franchise that has never won before' is not actually the important part of that.

#2- You talked about cultures of teams, winning vs losing, and I reiterate that I mentioned the Wizards and the Jazz. The Wizards have won in the past and the Jazz have not, but I don't think any basketball observer would posit that the Wizards have a culture of winning where the Jazz do not. If anything, it's the other way around. So I propose that's a second piece of evidence that JB's 'franchise that has never won before' is not actually important at all- certainly not as important as he's implying- and actually, as I mentioned, rather arbitrary.

#3- So now let's investigate winning cultures and losing cultures and how players can effect it. Well, I propose that the best- and possibly only, let's be honest- way that they can effect it is by playing well. Play well enough, for long enough and the team is going to be better and the culture can slowly change. I think that would be a strong piece of evidence to suggest- breaking down the argument into components, being critical thinkers- that the more important thing that just 'changing culture' would be simply playing well.

#4- Why? Because a player that plays very well for a significant period of time in a winning culture is being unfairly penalized for something totally outside of their control as opposed to a player that plays just as well in a losing culture over a period of time to change that culture. Why would we allow that as observers? And how could we possibly objectify that subjective narrative? McGrady got a Magic team to the playoffs that sucked, and Kobe won a championship with Shaq on the Lakers. Is McGrady suddenly better now? Or, because the Magic had already reached the Finals- albeit with an entirely different team- the 'culture' wasn't bad enough to counteract his bad team? How does any of that make sense anyway: just compared the players on how they play!

#5- I think the conclusion is that we can accept that the vast majority of what JB is saying is just narrative. It means nothing. It is literally meaningless for most of what people, when they try to judge and rate and compare basketball players, are trying to do. It's arbitrary and ultimately pointless; it's a distraction that should be discarded.

[MacGill]

Unless MacGill is using character in a very general way (which he may be, and in fact probably is, but I can't be sure), for me it's not about 'character' so much as 'how good they were when they played'.

That is exactly what I am alluding to here. The fact that we had game changing stars in hindsight dictate where they were going to play at also means that we very well may have seen lesser franchises by overall title appeal step into the game.

I agree that it means nothing also which is why I referenced what I did. That is the luck of the lottery selections and I don't use Chicago never won as a means to inflate MJ's greatness.

[JordansBulls]

Because it means that you have done something many other players have not. Like taking the Hawks to a championship. There is a reason why they have never won a title. Some franchises don't really expect to win but just making the playoff's is their goal. Unlike the Lakers who are disappointed when they lose in the second round.

You are essentially turning around a culture. Michael Jordan made the Bulls into a respected franchise, Tim Duncan did the same thing with San Antonio. If CP3 can take the Clippers to a championship it will be huge. But I still don't believe the Clippers will ever win.....

Spot on with this. This is very important when guys are close to the same level overall.

[MacGill]

Spot on with this. This is very important when guys are close to the same level overall.

JB man, come on now!

Do all players even have the same lottery odds of going to a franchise that has won nothing before? Then break it down further having game changing players in that draft when then win opportunity?

I mean really?

[Kobe 62 Mavs 61]

Because it means that you have done something many other players have not. Like taking the Hawks to a championship. There is a reason why they have never won a title. Some franchises don't really expect to win but just making the playoff's is their goal. Unlike the Lakers who are disappointed when they lose in the second round.

You are essentially turning around a culture. Michael Jordan made the Bulls into a respected franchise, Tim Duncan did the same thing with San Antonio. If CP3 can take the Clippers to a championship it will be huge. But I still don't believe the Clippers will ever win.....

Spot on with this. This is very important when guys are close to the same level overall.

Uhh, no it doesn't, and I just explained to you why. Critical thinking. Utilize it.