Re: RealGM Top 100 List #39

Post #61 » by **Doctor MJ** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:32 pm

Joao Saraiva wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:Does anyone think Iverson deserves some serious traction by now?

Once Thomas is in it will likely be between him and Pierce for me.

People usually say he's not very efficient but Thomas is not an efficient player too. If Thomas goes here right now, I expect Iverson at least to be in one of the next 3/4 spots.

Well, I would expect there are two groups of people likely to champion Isiah:

1) Those who think he was fundamentally different than Iverson. A true playmaker and leader extraordinaire.

2) Those who really, really think Iverson is underrated and group Isiah with Iverson.

My issue is that I see Iverson as extremely problematic, and I'm not sure how different Isiah really was.

Post #62 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:40 pm

Vote for #39 - Isiah Thomas

- 13 year career
- 5x all NBA (3 1st, 2 2nd)
- 1 top 5 and 3 top 10 MVP finishes
- 2x NBA champion
- 1x finals MVP

Decided to take a closer look at isiah's performance when the pistons surrounded him with more talent.

Reg season rankings on the pistons

87 - 2nd in PPG, 1st in APG, 1st in SPG
88 - 2nd in PPG, 1st in APG, 1st in SPG
89 - 2nd in PPG, 1st in APG, 1st in SPG
90 - 1st in PPG, 1st in APG, 1st in SPG

*Isiah was 2nd in PPG to dantley by less than 1 PPG from 87-89, so they were essentially 1A and 1B in scoring.

[EDIT - Of course dantley was more efficient -- 20.3 PPG on 60.5% TS vs. 19.4 PPG on 52.5% TS… let's just get that out of the way]

Playoff production from 87-90

~21 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 8.5 APG, 2.3 SPG
~44% FG, 36% 3PT, 78% FT, 52% TS
36.4 AST%, 111/102 OFF/DEF RTG, .166 WS/48

88 FINALS
19.7 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 9 APG, 2.9 SPG, 51.7% TS

89 FINALS
21.3 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 7.3 APG, 1.5 SPG, 55.2% TS

90 FINALS
27.6 PPG, 5.2 RPG, 7 APG, 1.6 SPG, 62.9% TS

Even with isiah's flaws, I don't think his combination of production and contribution to those pistons teams would be easily replaceable. He's one of the more gifted shot creators and playmakers the league has seen. And yes, I think his personality as a player was key as those teams developed chemistry. That "don't **** with me" attitude (even if he knew he could act that way because the bigs had his back) was a motivator for the team.

At some point you have to look past his lack of efficiency as a scorer and look at the results. While his overall longevity isn't amazing, he had a long stretch of post season success in which he played an important role, and his overall prime is still impressive. I'd also point out that when we usually talk about guys with raw talent like him, it's "what could have been", and that's not the case with isiah. He maximized his raw talent, translating it into winning basketball.

Post #63 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:54 pm

If Iverson had picked up his playoff game to where he was playing appreciably better basketball than his regular season numbers and it had helped his team to achieve championships (or even consistent playoff success), I'd rate him up at Isiah's level. Isiah also was a tough smart defender while Iverson was inconsistent and didn't play good team defense most of the time.

I didn't vote for Isiah here, but he's certainly in consideration for me at this point; Iverson isn't.

SactoKingsFan · Post #64 » by **SactoKingsFan** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:40 pm

Vote: Paul Pierce

Sticking with the Truth for his overall game and well-rounded skillset. With Pierce you get volume scoring (pre Big 3) on very good efficiency (02-11 TS%: 57.2 (+3.9) | League Avg TS%: 53.3) solid/underrated defense, playmaking and rebounding. Pierce was also able to successfully adjust his game to fit within a co-starring role on a title contender, which is a big plus in my book.

Post #65 » by **Texas Chuck** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:20 pm

I don't really see Zeke and AI as being the same guy at all. I'm not ready to vote either guy here, but I can at least see the arguments for Zeke. I don't see them for Iverson yet.

Owly · Post #66 » by **Owly** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:23 pm

Quotatious wrote:
john248 wrote:I don't think I even have Iverson in my top 50. Heck, I have Isiah somewhere in the late 40s. I might even have Nique & TMac higher, but I don't have my list on me currently.

Why Nique over Isiah? Neither was an efficient scorer (Wilkins a little more, but Isiah had a huge edge in terms of playmaking), Thomas performed much better in the playoffs, and he was a better defender than Wilkins. Dominique may have a little better longevity, but is it really significant enough? Isiah was an all-star for about a decade, too.

Why not.

Wilkins was not only more efficient by by .02 (or 2%) in terms of career ts%, but in career with not only a longer career, but a career spanning into a much less efficient era (mid and late 90s).

A huge edge in terms of playmaking? He's a point guard! He also has a huge lead in turning the ball over and not getting rebounds. I wouldn't ordinarily mention at least the latter because it is to be expected, if that's where we're going ...

The defensive gap is small too. Both tend to get comments of something around average with the ability to do a little better when focused. Isiah took more heat early in his career for poor D including reckless gambling (see for instance his making Bob Ryan's All-Sieve team; and criticism of the guards' D on Isiah's early Pistons teams), was a little higher rated (than Wilkins, i.e. a little above average) when he had a good defensive cast.

A "little" better longevity? If 17.9 PER is the bar for a quality or difference making season Dominique has 12 such seasons (all comfortably above the minimum bar) Isiah has 6 (three within 1 of the minimum - i.e. 18.9 or less - and thus worse than Nique's worst season above that bar).

If .144 WS/48 is the bar, Nique has 9 seasons, Isiah has 3 (including one exacly on .144).

So in terms of longevity of quality seasons, Nique's longevity edge is substantial.

And for what it's worth his stats peak is clearly ahead too.

These are arbitrary bars sure (done for about 2000 players seasons being above them when I was last working at my all time listings) but not ones designed to favour either participant. Isiah was clearly getting ASG appearances on name recognition only. So I'd say the edge is very significant.

The only the only legit point I see here in Isiah's favour is the playoffs.

Post #67 » by **Texas Chuck** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:28 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Okay well first, as a guy championing Miller here, let's note that Miller's longevity is much better than Mutombo's. That doesn't make the question moot for Miller, but I'm rather in agreement with any who have a concern based on a non-Top 10 guy with only adequate longevity being up to a certain level. I think Mutombo tends to make us "feel" like he's was that good for so long it overcomes that, but he really didn't.

Oh there is no doubt that Reggie has Deke trumped on longevity. I was simply trying to point out that we are far enough down the list that you aren't going to find a lot of guys who were top 5 or 10 for long stretches. You either take guys with high peaks and little else or longer runs of sustained greatness but at a lower level. Deke, Truth and Miller all fall in the latter, tho I'm higher on Deke's play in that at his best I think he was better than either.

And I certainly agree with your last sentence. Because Deke hung on for a long time he does have the perception of greater longevity than he really has. I take him over just about everyone left (still think Cowens is getting badly underrated here) because I think when you take everything into account--level of play, longevity, impact, ability to play well in a variety of circumstances, playoffs, etc--I think he (or Cowens) represents the best guy left.

But obviously for guys who see Deke in a lessor light, Miller certainly makes sense as a candidate especially considering how strong his longevity is.

Post #68 » by **trex_8063** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:48 pm

Isiah Thomas (5 (6)) - ronnymac2, Basketballefan, Quotatious, Warspite, Clyde Frazier, (lukeharts---needs reasoning to be official)

Paul Pierce (2) - trex_8063, SactoKingsFan

Sam Jones (1) - DQuinn1575

Dikembe Mutombo (1) - Jaivl

Reggie Miller (2) - Doctor MJ, John248

Dwight Howard (1) - penbeast0

Thru post #67. I assume Chuck T. is going to vote Mutombo, though I don't see that he has done so as of yet. Owly's also been very involved in the thread, but not by way of actually supporting a candidate (I, for one, am curious as to his pick).

Post #69 » by **Quotatious** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:58 pm

How about Robert Parish? Do you guys feel comfortable with him as a serious candidate? I think he should already start getting traction, considering that he combines very good two-way play with amazing longevity/durability, and he's apparently a pretty portable player, because of his willingness to sacrifice his game.

The major knock on Chief is that he wasn't really a dominant player in any aspect of the game, but pretty good both on offense and defense. Didn't really have any obvious weaknesses, and he was even talented enough to average 20/10 in a few seasons (well, actually more like 19/11).

I'd probably put him around #50, but am considering moving him up a few spots. Still not really comfortable with Parish over McHale (because Kevin was IMO the better player in their primes), but Parish's longevity edge is pretty big.

Post #70 » by **trex_8063** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:07 pm

Quotatious wrote:How about Robert Parish? Do you guys feel comfortable with him as a serious candidate? I think he should already start getting traction, considering that he combines very good two-way play with amazing longevity/durability, and he's apparently a pretty portable player, because of his willingness to sacrifice his game.

The major knock on Chief is that he wasn't really a dominant player in any aspect of the game, but pretty good both on offense and defense. Didn't really have any obvious weaknesses, and he was even talented enough to average 20/10 in a few seasons (well, actually more like 19/11).

I'd probably put him around #50, but am considering moving him up a few spots. Still not really comfortable with Parish over McHale (because Kevin was IMO the better player in their primes), but Parish's longevity edge is pretty big.

Absolutely, and I mentioned him in my post for the #38 slot:

Spoiler:

I want to get Paul Pierce in first: he's the only guy---or at least the only guy with a reasonable shot of getting voted in within the next 1-2 spots---who I fairly firmly have ahead of Parish. Once he's in, Parish is definitely one of my top candidates. I actually have him more in the ~42-45 range on my ATL.

Post #71 » by **Quotatious** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:29 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Absolutely, and I mentioned him in my post for the #38 slot:
Spoiler:

I want to get Paul Pierce in first: he's the only guy---or at least the only guy with a reasonable shot of getting voted in within the next 1-2 spots---who I fairly firmly have ahead of Parish. Once he's in, Parish is definitely one of my top candidates. I actually have him more in the ~42-45 range on my ATL.

Once Isiah gets in (I'm not a fan, but I think he's very deserving at this point - actually I'm a little lower on him now, than I was before the project, when I had him over Payton and Gervin), Pierce is probably going to be my first choice, then Dwight. I know you're advocating for Iverson, and I think he should be pretty close to Zeke, so I'll consider him pretty soon, as well, just don't feel comfortable with Iverson over Ray or Reggie (originally, I had all three guys in the early 50s, behind some guys with really high peaks, but poor longevity - for example KJ was one of those - I'm higher on his prime than for example Isiah's, but he seriously lacks longevity). Reed, Cowens, Thurmond and Unseld are hard for me to compare to the younger guys, too (I'm leaning towards Hayes over all of them, because of his longevity/durability, even if his prime was a little less impressive). English/Wilkins seem to be deserving of top 45-50, as well.

For me, the project is actually getting MORE interesting now that we're getting close to the 40-50 range, than it was earlier, because there's going to be a lot more diversity - people more or less seemed to agree on candidates, it was a matter of choosing which guy you wanted to support, based on your general methodology, while now, I see at least 15 guys with good cases to be ranked around #45.

I'm also hoping to learn a lot more about some of the players I've mentioned. I'm generally much less knowledgeable about these guys, than the true all-time greats (as I suppose many of you guys, as well).

Post #72 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:59 pm

Quotatious wrote:How about Robert Parish? Do you guys feel comfortable with him as a serious candidate? I think he should already start getting traction, considering that he combines very good two-way play with amazing longevity/durability, and he's apparently a pretty portable player, because of his willingness to sacrifice his game.

The major knock on Chief is that he wasn't really a dominant player in any aspect of the game, but pretty good both on offense and defense. Didn't really have any obvious weaknesses, and he was even talented enough to average 20/10 in a few seasons (well, actually more like 19/11).

I'd probably put him around #50, but am considering moving him up a few spots. Still not really comfortable with Parish over McHale (because Kevin was IMO the better player in their primes), but Parish's longevity edge is pretty big.

Without taking a look at the #s and career lengths, I'm pretty sure I'd have cowens / mchale / parish in that order if someone asked me. Parish's longevity was really impressive as he was still a more than productive player at 37 years old. I'm just not sure it's enough to put him over 2 very talented players who had great careers in their own right. I'll start looking into this soon as cowens is on my radar over the next few spots.

Joao Saraiva · Post #73 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:41 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Joao Saraiva wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:Does anyone think Iverson deserves some serious traction by now?

Once Thomas is in it will likely be between him and Pierce for me.

People usually say he's not very efficient but Thomas is not an efficient player too. If Thomas goes here right now, I expect Iverson at least to be in one of the next 3/4 spots.

Well, I would expect there are two groups of people likely to champion Isiah:

1) Those who think he was fundamentally different than Iverson. A true playmaker and leader extraordinaire.

2) Those who really, really think Iverson is underrated and group Isiah with Iverson.

My issue is that I see Iverson as extremely problematic, and I'm not sure how different Isiah really was.

Allen Iverson might be problematic... or he just didn't find a coach and a group as great for him as Isiah.

Still I care more about on court production... I think Isiah's better spot might be because he was a two time champion. If Allen Iverson somehow won in 01 vs the Lakers I think he would have a much better spot in all time lists.

I'm not particularly that high on Iverson or Isiah, but I believe they might be arround similar spots. I would even give an advantage to AI, I think he peaked higher.

Owly · Post #74 » by **Owly** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:26 pm

Vote: Paul Pierce

As last time, I feel he and Parish have to most to offer in terms of (over career) productivity, but I lean that Pierce has maybe edged ahead, and Pierce doesn't have the playoff black marks that Parish does (not that I weight playoffs hugely, I feel chance and other out of a players control factors play a fair role in any players deviation from typical expected - perhaps RS - productivity, but it's helpful as a tiebreaker).

Also on my radar:
Schayes: Won a title as the man (and was clear cut, no doubt THE man on that team), excellent playoff player etc. So any criteria that had Isiah anywhere soon has him sooner. He's the next PF on my radar and I'm not sure he's far off the PFs already in (historically he's regarded as elite but the huge batch of 90s and 2000s PFs seem to have pushed him into the background. I think he's not far off Pierce and Parish in terms of career productivity and has a higher peak, one of the very highest left on the board (only McGrady and Neil Johnston come to mind as higher, and there are some doubts about Johnston due to team record).

and then there's the guys argued for

Miller: Depends somewhat on confidence he could create more (or were playoffs flukey, though if they were he was very lucky to be so consitently good, or is it just that whilst you can gameplan to send a guy one way or double team, it's tough to gameplan how not to get hit by a pick) and who gets credit for his efficiency, him or his screen setters? Hmmm. I also wonder about historical SGs like Sharman and Sam Jones.

Mutombo: Another hard to measure by the boxscore, not highly recognised accolade wise at the time (though the $s he got suggest there was recognition he was valuable) guy. Questions would be: (a) what was his impact on O? Not inefficient but perhaps a lack of range allows opposing bigs to camp in the lane? (b) Is this RAPM-y, defensive bigs can have a huge impact, candidacy? If so does that mean that, say, Shawn Bradley is somewhere at the periphery of the 100, or 120ish (random numbers plucked off the top of my head)? If not is it because Mutombo with his accolades and relatively strong reputation at the time make putting his case easier, or are their careers genuinely sufficiently different (rebounding, mpg, longevity, man D, offensive efficiency etc), that Bradley shouldn't be in said ballpark. Not saying this against him, and I guess it shows the anti-D bias in traditional analyses (somewhat understandable given how hard it is to quantify, but if Gervin can get in by being great at one end, perhaps Mutombo should be too far away) that there's an instict to question him this high.

john248 · Post #75 » by **john248** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:43 pm

Quotatious wrote:
john248 wrote:I don't think I even have Iverson in my top 50. Heck, I have Isiah somewhere in the late 40s. I might even have Nique & TMac higher, but I don't have my list on me currently.

Why Nique over Isiah? Neither was an efficient scorer (Wilkins a little more, but Isiah had a huge edge in terms of playmaking), Thomas performed much better in the playoffs, and he was a better defender than Wilkins. Dominique may have a little better longevity, but is it really significant enough? Isiah was an all-star for about a decade, too.

I don't have time to check the numbers at the moment, but Nique has more quality seasons which I felt could be backed up by the numbers. It's one thing to say....well, offense wash, defense edge, positional advantages...but when it came down to it, I prefered Nique. Each have their positional advantages, but their strength as an offense player leaves me more impressed with Nique without factoring in longevity which clearly doesn't favor Isiah in this comparison. A career ORTG of 106 is rather mediocre in comparison to someone who finished at 112, and I can argue that their peaks are about the same or even favoring Nique. I don't see much of an argument for him other than name value. I'd even argue Zo and Dwight too who both play a position with a real positional defensive advantage.

drza · Post #76 » by **drza** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:58 pm

Vote: Isiah Thomas

I've been voting him for awhile now, so there's been a lot of repeat in my reasoning. Cliff notes: he was a gifted playmaker/scorer; I believe that his addition to the Pistons/tenure on the Pistons was clearly the biggest factor in their improvement from a bottom-tier offense (DFL in 1980, 81) to a top-tier offense (top 7 - 10 over Zeke's entire prime, peaking at #1); he was a great postseason performer; he was the team leader; by my eye-test he was about the 3rd best player in the NBA over a five year-or so span of 83 - 87, then showed himself able to fit into/lead an excellent ensemble cast from about 88 - 90.

Just for kicks, I pulled up a comp of Chris Paul's current 9-year career vs Isiah's first 9 seasons:

Reg season avgs.
Paul: 617 games, 36.4 mpg, 18.6 points (57.5% TS), 9.9 apg, 4.4 rpg, 2.4 TO
Zeke: 716 games, 36.7 mpg, 20.0 points (52.2% TS), 9.8 apg, 3.7 rpg, 3.9 TO

Reg season per 100:
Paul: 617 games, 36.4 mpg, 27.2 points (20.2 FGA + 7.8 FTA =23.6 shots), 14.5 ast, 3.5 TO
Zeke: 716 games, 36.7 mpg, 25.9 points (21.6 FGA + 7.3 FTA = 24.8 shots), 12.6 ast, 5.0 TO

Playoffs per 100
Paul: 53 games, 38.8 mpg, 28.5 pts (21.5 FGA + 7.5 FTA = 24.8 shots), 13.4 ast, 4.1 TO
Zeke: 93 games, 38.5 mpg, 28.8 pts (23.6 FGA + 8.5 FTA = 27.3 shots), 12.0 ast, 4.5 TO

OK, so clearly Paul is more efficient as both a scorer and a distributor. There's no way around that. However, when you look at win shares saying that Paul is almost twice as valuable in the regular season as Zeke based purely on those efficiency differences (or the huge PER difference), when by both style and volume they are so similar and we're talking about Zeke using about 4 more possessions to achieve it I just think the efficiency difference is WAY overvalued in our 1-number box score stats.

Then, you also have to look at that Zeke was a lot more durable than Paul...almost 100 more regular season games (and 40 more playoff games) over the same time span.

And that once the playoffs came around, the efficiency gap shrunk a bit...Paul still more efficient, but to a much closer degree...and considering Zeke's playoff pedigree is an important part of his legacy, I think this is significant.

Anyway, Paul has long been voted in and I'm not really making a case for Zeke over Paul in this thread. The point is, stylistically I could see Paul as essentially the evolutionary Zeke. He's a bit more efficient, but less durable. And in the postseason, I don't see much gap between them. Plus, I've long been on record with my belief that the way we use efficiency in evaluations is overdone.

I guess this became a bit of a ramble (keep having to stop and come back to it as work interferes). Lost my train of thought a bit. Bottom line: I think Zeke is more than deserving here, and despite Owly's inevitable rebuttal post that I probably won't have time to address, I'm hoping that this is finally his spot.

Post #77 » by **Texas Chuck** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:38 pm

trex_8063 wrote: I assume Chuck T. is going to vote Mutombo, though I don't see that he has done so as of yet.

I'm torn between Deke and Cowens actually. Cowens has some longevity concerns but we have a guy who was the best player on 2 champions, an MVP, and was a top 5 player for 5 years+. I'm having trouble deciding if Deke's defensive impact is enough for me to rank him above possibly the best franchise player type left on the board.

Owly · Post #78 » by **Owly** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:04 pm

drza wrote:Vote: Isiah Thomas

I've been voting him for awhile now, so there's been a lot of repeat in my reasoning. Cliff notes: he was a gifted playmaker/scorer; I believe that his addition to the Pistons/tenure on the Pistons was clearly the biggest factor in their improvement from a bottom-tier offense (DFL in 1980, 81) to a top-tier offense (top 7 - 10 over Zeke's entire prime, peaking at #1); he was a great postseason performer; he was the team leader; by my eye-test he was about the 3rd best player in the NBA over a five year-or so span of 83 - 87, then showed himself able to fit into/lead an excellent ensemble cast from about 88 - 90.

Just for kicks, I pulled up a comp of Chris Paul's current 9-year career vs Isiah's first 9 seasons:

Reg season avgs.
Paul: 617 games, 36.4 mpg, 18.6 points (57.5% TS), 9.9 apg, 4.4 rpg, 2.4 TO
Zeke: 716 games, 36.7 mpg, 20.0 points (52.2% TS), 9.8 apg, 3.7 rpg, 3.9 TO

Reg season per 100:
Paul: 617 games, 36.4 mpg, 27.2 points (20.2 FGA + 7.8 FTA =23.6 shots), 14.5 ast, 3.5 TO
Zeke: 716 games, 36.7 mpg, 25.9 points (21.6 FGA + 7.3 FTA = 24.8 shots), 12.6 ast, 5.0 TO

Playoffs per 100
Paul: 53 games, 38.8 mpg, 28.5 pts (21.5 FGA + 7.5 FTA = 24.8 shots), 13.4 ast, 4.1 TO
Zeke: 93 games, 38.5 mpg, 28.8 pts (23.6 FGA + 8.5 FTA = 27.3 shots), 12.0 ast, 4.5 TO

OK, so clearly Paul is more efficient as both a scorer and a distributor. There's no way around that. However, when you look at win shares saying that Paul is almost twice as valuable in the regular season as Zeke based purely on those efficiency differences (or the huge PER difference), when by both style and volume they are so similar and we're talking about Zeke using about 4 more possessions to achieve it I just think the efficiency difference is WAY overvalued in our 1-number box score stats.

Then, you also have to look at that Zeke was a lot more durable than Paul...almost 100 more regular season games (and 40 more playoff games) over the same time span.

And that once the playoffs came around, the efficiency gap shrunk a bit...Paul still more efficient, but to a much closer degree...and considering Zeke's playoff pedigree is an important part of his legacy, I think this is significant.

Anyway, Paul has long been voted in and I'm not really making a case for Zeke over Paul in this thread. The point is, stylistically I could see Paul as essentially the evolutionary Zeke. He's a bit more efficient, but less durable. And in the postseason, I don't see much gap between them. Plus, I've long been on record with my belief that the way we use efficiency in evaluations is overdone.

I guess this became a bit of a ramble (keep having to stop and come back to it as work interferes). Lost my train of thought a bit. Bottom line: I think Zeke is more than deserving here, and despite Owly's inevitable rebuttal post that I probably won't have time to address, I'm hoping that this is finally his spot.

Don't have time to do this properly but ...

- 3.7 lost possessions (per 100 or a little more than a full game these days or for the Bad Boys, slightly than less than one in the mid 80s) is no small thing in and of itself.

- The cost here though is greater given that those possessions are likely to lose a live ball and possibly concede easy points at the other end (particularly turnovers, albeit perhaps somewhat mitigated by the potential for offensive rebounds on the misses).

- It's not just those extra possessions. On top of that Paul is giving you extra points (1.3) and assists (1.9).

Add it all up together and it's not surprising the metrics think it's a large difference. It's a large difference. Also Paul rebounds better, spaces the floor more credibly and is a better defender.

I'm not going to try and anchor Isiah's ranking to Tim Hardaway's but RS wise it's a better (or not so bad) comparison. I am tempted to say (as ever) that it shouldn't be too far off Gus Williams' though.

Post #79 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:06 pm

Owly wrote: ...

I'm not going to try and anchor Isiah's ranking to Tim Hardaway's but RS wise it's a better (or not so bad) comparison. I am tempted to say (as ever) that it shouldn't be too far off Gus Williams' though.

If you are going to, make sure you also do playoff since that's Isiah's best argument.

Post #80 » by **trex_8063** » Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:09 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Isiah Thomas (6 (7)) - ronnymac2, Basketballefan, Quotatious, Warspite, Clyde Frazier, drza, (lukeharts---needs reasoning to be official)

Paul Pierce (3) - trex_8063, SactoKingsFan, Owly

Sam Jones (1) - DQuinn1575

Dikembe Mutombo (1) - Jaivl

Reggie Miller (2) - Doctor MJ, John248

Dwight Howard (1) - penbeast0

Updated thru post #80, and I believe we've crossed the 48-hr mark.