Explain to me why Isiah Thomas is overrated

[BasketballFan7]

I have frequently heard this mentioned as I have lurked these boards. I know nothing about him and never watched him play, I am just interested. Prior to visiting this board, I would have likely considered him (based off of reputation) to be the 3th-5th best PG of all time (Magic, Oscar, Nash/Stockton/Isiah). I am just interested to hear why, and also any opposing arguments. This is more respective to prime, as obviously he didn't have great longevity.

His age 23 season jumps off of the page to me: 21.2 PPG, 13.9 APG, 4.5 RPG, 2.3 SPG, 3.7 TOPG, and supposedly very good defense.

Also was a good playoff performer.

Thoughts?

[PCProductions]

I think it's because he fits in the classically overrated role of "best offensive player on a defensive team". Great player, but that's why he's overrated.

[penbeast0]

His strength is his playoff resume and his raw scoring/assist numbers. His weakness compared to the likes of Stockton, Nash, Jerry West who you didn't mention is that he shot a lot and didn't shoot that well. He was league average or so in efficiency while those three were Steph Curry level compared to their peers (though at much lower volumes in Stockton's case); compared to other greats like Gary Payton or Jason Kidd, he has the efficiency to match up but they were great defensive players while Isiah wasn't in that class (and Walt Frazier is better at both scoring efficiently and defense).

So, when you look at what you want in your PG . . . efficient scoring, disruptive defense, great playmaking, and leadership, Isiah is a little below most of the top 10 list in scoring and defense, about average in playmaking, and leadership (his strength) is the most subjective . . . this board likes statistical evidence as well as anecdotal and team based. Isiah doesn't have the numbers to be top 5, and the rest of the argument for him is very subjective without more advanced metrics to back up the intangiles.

[Owly]

I have frequently heard this mentioned as I have lurked these boards. I know nothing about him and never watched him play, I am just interested. Prior to visiting this board, I would have likely considered him (based off of reputation) to be the 3th-5th best PG of all time (Magic, Oscar, Nash/Stockton/Isiah). I am just interested to hear why, and also any opposing arguments. This is more respective to prime, as obviously he didn't have great longevity.

His age 23 season jumps off of the page to me: 21.2 PPG, 13.9 APG, 4.5 RPG, 2.3 SPG, 3.7 TOPG, and supposedly very good defense.

Also was a good playoff performer.

Thoughts?

Short version, look at his advanced metrics. Even the most favourable metrics (otoh Pelton's WARP) don't put him in all-time elite company (just below Mark Jackson, Chris Webber, Terry Porter, Larry Nance, tied with Mookie Blaylock career wise).

Don't have time to do the long version right now, but with regard to the numbers above (and whilst I'm more of a fan of his 3 year mid-80s peak) they are inflated by an era of high pace, a high team pace, an era of high shooting %s. I'd also argue "supposedly very good defense". Early in his career Bob Ryan named him to an "All-Sieve [i.e. No-D] Team" for the Hollander Pro Basketball Handbook, whilst suggesting he was a reckless gambler. When the team improved he was probably in the range "average" to "above average" in that area, never noteworthy.

Regarding " a good playoff performer" true, but exagerated or overemphasised in terms of "stepped up his play in the playoffs" which is true, but in large part because of pedestrian RS numbers.

[theonlyclutch]

I would argue that, even on the RealGM PC board (more objective than most), he gets perhaps the best narrative behind him in terms of being able to rack up raw boxscore numbers on super high pace teams, and then therefore becoming the most established "star" of two title teams, compare him to say, Chauncey Billups for example:

Per game:
Peak Isiah (84-85): 21.2 PPG, 13.9 APG, 4.5 RPG, 2.3 SPG, 3.7 TOPG
Peak Billups (05-06): 18.5 PPG, 8.6 APG, 3.1 RPG, 0.9 SPG, 2.1 TOPG

From these raw numbers, it would be easy to conclude that Isiah is much better than Billups, but that would be discounting the fact that Isiah played in one of the fastest-paced teams (mid-80s pistons) in a faster-paced era and Billups played in one of the slowest-paced teams (mid-00s pistons) in a slower-paced era, so when these box score numbers are pace-adjusted, we get:

Per 100 pos:
Peak Isiah (84-85): 25.5 PP100, 16.6 AP100, 5.3 RP100, 2.8 SP100, 4.5 TOP100, 115 ORTG
Peak Billups (05-06): 28.3 PP100, 13.2 AP100, 4.8 RP100, 1.3 SP100, 3.2 TOP100, 127 ORTG

Straightaway, you could see that whatever volume superiority that Isiah appears to have almost all but disappeared, combine that with the fact that Billups was scoring at 60.2 TS% (+5.7% compared to league avg) and Isiah was scoring at 52.9 TS% (-1.4% compared to league avg), it would be more than reasonable to have concluded that 05-06 Billups was better than 84-85 (peak) Thomas.

He also gets a ton of (arguably undue) credit for the success of the bad boy Pistons, I don't see anyone else being named as the "star" of a title team when he averages 18/8/4 on 48.1 TS% in the playoff run.

Heck, it would be very arguable that Isiah best playoff run (1990), is worse than Billups best playoff run (2009):
Per Game:
Isiah (20 Gs): 20.5 PPG, 8.2 APG, 5.5 RPG, 2.2 SPG, 3.6 TOPG, 56 TS%, 113 ORTG
Billups (16 Gs): 20.6 PPG, 6.8 APG, 3.8 RPG, 1.3 SPG, 1.9 TOPG, 66.4 TS%, 135 ORTG

[Be the Best]

He is only underrated on this board. The media and casual fans are the ones that overrate him. They think he is a top 15-25 player ever. To me he is a top 35 player ever and no higher. The project rated him 39th which is a little low for my liking but nothing criminal.

I also didn't see him play so i can't really comment on his game.

[nate33]

Also, "Peak Isiah" won 46 games and was eliminated in the 2nd round. Isiah didn't really have much postseason success until much later in his career when he was posting very ordinary numbers.

For some reason, history looks back kindly on Isiah, as if he was posting those 21 point, 11 assist years while leading his team to championships. That's not the case. In his championship runs, he was posting 19 and 8 with an ORtg of 105. Those aren't exactly superstar numbers. Those numbers don't even rank him among the top 20 or so players in the game at the time.

[colts18]

Even Isiah's contemporaries didn't think he was that good.

Here is how Isiah did in All-NBA voting during the Pistons peak
87:
2nd team All-NBA with Fat Lever but behind Magic and MJ
88:
No all-NBA team (Finished behind Stockton and Drexler
89:
No All-NBA team despite it being expanded to 3 all-NBA teams (finished behind Stockton, Kevin Johnson, Price, and Dale Ellis)
90:
No All-NBA team (Finished behind Stockton, Drexler, Kevin Johnson, and teammate Joe Dumars)
91:
No All-NBA team (Finished behind the same guys as 1990)

In that 5 year stretch no one in the media thought he was a superstar. He finished between 8th and 17th in MVP voting during that span. I'm curious why?

[Jim Naismith]

Regarding " a good playoff performer" true, but exagerated or overemphasised in terms of "stepped up his play in the playoffs" which is true, but in large part because of pedestrian RS numbers.

There's plenty of evidence behind the claim that Isiah is one of the stars who greatly raised his game in the playoffs.

See http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?712733-dropoffs-in-WS-48-from-regular-season-to-playoffs for more details.

By WS/48 improvement, Isiah is #1 among all NBA stars through history.

By PER, Isiah is #3.

By TS%, Isiah is #14.

By USG*Ortg/100, Isiah is #7.

By USG diff + Ortg diff, Isiah is #4.

[TRNBA12]

Isiah Thomas gets rated by the media as one of the best players of all time and draws a distinction between the 89 and 90 Pistons title teams and the 04 Pistons title teams, with the Thomas led ones being superstar-driven and the Billups/Wallace led ones being the unicorn non star team. However statistically Thomas wasn't a top 5 PG in 89 or 90. After Magic and Stockton, comparing Isiah to other PGs in the league during those years:

In 89:

Isiah Thomas: 18.2 pt, 8.3 ast, 3.4 rebounds, .528 TS%, 17.1 PER, 7.0 WS
Kevin Johnson: 20.4 pt, 12.2 ast, 4.2 reb, .597 TS%, 20.5 PER, 12.2 WS
Terry Porter: 17.7 pt, 9.5 ast, 4.5 reb, .555 TS%, 17.7 PER, 9.2 WS
Mark Price: 18.9 pt, 8.4 ast, 3.0 reb, .623 TS%, 20.6 PER, 11.3 WS
Fat Lever: 19.8 pt, 7.9 ast, 9.3 reb, .513 TS%, 20.6 PER, 9.2 WS

In 90:
Isiah Thomas: 18.4 pt, 9.4 reb, 3.8 reb, .501 TS%, 17.3 PER, 6.7 WS
Kevin Johnson: 22.5 pt, 11.4 ast, 3.6 reb, .585 TS%, 22.8 PER, 11.6 WS
Terry Porter: 17.6 pt, 9.1 ast, 3.4 reb, .597 TS%, 20.0 PER, 11.7 WS
Mark Price: 19.6 pt, 9.1 ast, 3.4 reb, .589 TS%, 21.1 PER, 10.1 WS
Fat Lever: 18.3 pt, 6.5 ast, 9.3 reb, .504 TS%, 19.9 PER, 8.8 WS

None of Johnson, Porter, Price or Lever are in the HOF.

The Pistons were one of the best defense and rebounding teams of all time and had one of the deepest teams. Yes there are other arguments in favor of Isiah - he peaked higher to the top of the mountain in the mid 80s, he came up bigger in the playoffs, etc. But it's difficult to support the idea that he was a superstar player any more than 00 Billups or Tony Parker were at their best. Tony Parker is my favorite comparison for his size, ballhandling skill and having good playoff resume and both players best #s came in seasons where they didn't win the title

[BasketballFan7]

His strength is his playoff resume and his raw scoring/assist numbers. His weakness compared to the likes of Stockton, Nash, Jerry West who you didn't mention is that he shot a lot and didn't shoot that well. He was league average or so in efficiency while those three were Steph Curry level compared to their peers (though at much lower volumes in Stockton's case); compared to other greats like Gary Payton or Jason Kidd, he has the efficiency to match up but they were great defensive players while Isiah wasn't in that class (and Walt Frazier is better at both scoring efficiently and defense).

So, when you look at what you want in your PG . . . efficient scoring, disruptive defense, great playmaking, and leadership, Isiah is a little below most of the top 10 list in scoring and defense, about average in playmaking, and leadership (his strength) is the most subjective . . . this board likes statistical evidence as well as anecdotal and team based. Isiah doesn't have the numbers to be top 5, and the rest of the argument for him is very subjective without more advanced metrics to back up the intangiles.

I consider West a 2 from what I have read.

[BasketballFan7]

A lot of good information in this thread, thank you. Particularly liked the era context (pace, avg TS%, other PG of that time) and comparison to Tony Parker.

[fleet40]

He is not overrated. He is placed where he belongs - An all-time great, and one of the greatest point guards of all time. And if you put size into it, I place him as one of the greatest pound for pound players of all time. You guys have to remember dude was 6' on a good day. But a terror on the court with no fear, and would tear your testicals out and shove them down your throat to win.

And why he "may" be placed by some above the likes of Stockton, Payton ect. is that he won 2 titles in what I place as the best era of Bball. He beat Larry, Magic, and Michael. The only team to have a winning playoff/final record against those players.

[Owly]

Regarding " a good playoff performer" true, but exagerated or overemphasised in terms of "stepped up his play in the playoffs" which is true, but in large part because of pedestrian RS numbers.

There's plenty of evidence behind the claim that Isiah is one of the stars who greatly raised his game in the playoffs.

See http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?712733-dropoffs-in-WS-48-from-regular-season-to-playoffs for more details.

By WS/48 improvement, Isiah is #1 among all NBA stars through history.

By PER, Isiah is #3.

By TS%, Isiah is #14.

By USG*Ortg/100, Isiah is #7.

By USG diff + Ortg diff, Isiah is #4.

I don't think you understood the point. It is (as stated) true that he stepped up in the playoffs. It's just a heckload easier to do from a low baseline (as stated). Baron Davis elevated his game a great deal in the playoffs, so did Johnny Moore, Frank Ramsey etc.

It doesn't make them top 20 type players which is where some have placed Isiah.

[Doctor MJ]

I have frequently heard this mentioned as I have lurked these boards. I know nothing about him and never watched him play, I am just interested. Prior to visiting this board, I would have likely considered him (based off of reputation) to be the 3th-5th best PG of all time (Magic, Oscar, Nash/Stockton/Isiah). I am just interested to hear why, and also any opposing arguments. This is more respective to prime, as obviously he didn't have great longevity.

His age 23 season jumps off of the page to me: 21.2 PPG, 13.9 APG, 4.5 RPG, 2.3 SPG, 3.7 TOPG, and supposedly very good defense.

Also was a good playoff performer.

Thoughts?

Fundamentally there's a strange discrepancy between his stature and his actual accolades. Typically these things, whether you're overrated or underrated, match up. In Isiah's case he's often talk about as one of the 4 man Rushmore of the '80s, but in any kind of actual contemporary voting he simply wasn't in that league. This discrepancy stems from him being the star of 2 championship teams in a glorified era where those other 3 guys were sharing championships between them. As such it gave him a historical shine that simply didn't exist in his own time.

Though to be clear it's not that he wasn't respected, it's just that it's pretty weird for Isiah to get talk about as leading the Pistons like Jordan led the Bulls when in their title years he wasn't anything close to an MVP candidate and basically shared honors with Joe Dumars who was something of a C-list star.

You bring up his age 23 season, but the crucial thing to understand is that there are other guys from that era with even more impressive seasons without the same stature. Go look up Adrian Dantley and you'll see a guy who totally trounces Isiah by the numbers for example. So I think fundamental thing to understand is that if you go by Isiah's actual numbers, adjusting for some era things and making note of efficiency, it's more than simply acceptable to be impressed, it's necessary. Isaiah was a star. The end.

But there is no normal path to channel Isiah's reputation from where his stats say he should be, or where his accolades say he was, that leads you to elevating him to the level that some do.

Additionally as others have mentioned: While getting overrated by rings is maybe the biggest mistake that gets made in evaluating players, there is the matter that Detroit won the title because of an unreal defense led by other players, while the offense that Isiah led was considerably less impressive. Time and again when we scenarios like that, we tend to see the offensive star get too much credit for what happened out there.

[penbeast0]

His strength is his playoff resume and his raw scoring/assist numbers. His weakness compared to the likes of Stockton, Nash, Jerry West who you didn't mention is that he shot a lot and didn't shoot that well. He was league average or so in efficiency while those three were Steph Curry level compared to their peers (though at much lower volumes in Stockton's case); compared to other greats like Gary Payton or Jason Kidd, he has the efficiency to match up but they were great defensive players while Isiah wasn't in that class (and Walt Frazier is better at both scoring efficiently and defense).

So, when you look at what you want in your PG . . . efficient scoring, disruptive defense, great playmaking, and leadership, Isiah is a little below most of the top 10 list in scoring and defense, about average in playmaking, and leadership (his strength) is the most subjective . . . this board likes statistical evidence as well as anecdotal and team based. Isiah doesn't have the numbers to be top 5, and the rest of the argument for him is very subjective without more advanced metrics to back up the intangiles.

I consider West a 2 from what I have read.

West played PG on his Laker teams from his rookie season, though sometimes the team ran with 2 PGS. If you watch film, you will see that he brings the ball up and initiates the Laker offense pretty consistently and if you look at stats, you will see that he led all Laker guards in assists every season he was in the league (Baylor led the team during West's rookie season). Look at the other Laker guards like Barnett, Goodrich, etc. you will see they were more off ball players most years with West being the on ball guy. And, for that matter, West led the entire NBA in assists one year which I don't think ANY generally acknowledged 2 guard has ever done. So, by any measure that people define the position of PG generally, West was the Laker PG.

So, why do you hear people call West a SG? Well, he was a great scorer and people look at those scoring numbers relative to his assist numbers (in an era where assists were harder to come by) and they see a modern 2 guard. Also, he had excellent size, roughly Dwyane Wade equivalent. Finally, he and Oscar were the two All-Pro guards virtually every year and Oscar, not West, is one of the 3 greatest assist producers in the history of the NBA with Stockton and Magic.

Of the great PGs, the one who actually played the most 2 guard is Magic, not West (or Oscar who people claim this about sometimes too). Magic spent the first few years of his career as a 2 for the Lakers next to Norm Nixon who got more assists (to less turnovers) and tended to initiate the offense more. But, the Lakers realized Magic was a special talent and moved Nixon for the right to draft an undersized SG in Byron Scott who could play the 2 next to him.

[tsherkin]

Doc eloquently explained the narrative dissonance.

For me, Isiah was always overrated, apart from basically one season before he won titles. He was an inefficient scorer heralded for volume, which cheapened the value of his playmaking. He certainly had some key and impressive moments in the playoffs, but Zeke never had superstar impact. More importantly, when he won, he wasn't actually the driving force.

Relative to the stars to whom he is most commonly compared, he flatly wasn't as good. That makes him overrated in that context.

[theonlyclutch]

He is not overrated. He is placed where he belongs - An all-time great, and one of the greatest point guards of all time. And if you put size into it, I place him as one of the greatest pound for pound players of all time. You guys have to remember dude was 6' on a good day. But a terror on the court with no fear, and would tear your testicals out and shove them down your throat to win.

And why he "may" be placed by some above the likes of Stockton, Payton ect. is that he won 2 titles in what I place as the best era of Bball. He beat Larry, Magic, and Michael. The only team to have a winning playoff/final record against those players.

This is exactly the sort of narrative that people in this post were taking about when we are saying why Isiah is overrated, he didn't "beat Larry, Magic and Michael" (matter-of-fact: Magic only played in 3 games in the 1989 finals because of injury), the Detroit Pistons beat the Celtics/Lakers/Bulls, in the 1989 ECF, when MJ and Isiah's teams played each other, their stats were:

Isiah - 20.7/7.8/5.0, 102/102 ORTG/DRTG splits, 45.6 TS%
MJ - 29.7/6.5/5.5, 112/106 ORTG/DRTG splits, 56.1 TS%

The Pistons won 4-2, but in no way could you say that Isiah "outplayed" MJ in this series, at all, frankly, I just see a volume chucker who got carried by a great defense.

[BasketballFan7]

Many wonderful responses. As I said, I knew little to nothing when coming into this thread.

[SkyHookFTW]

Doc and Tsherkin lay it out well, but I'd like to add that if Isiah didn't have to be a main scoring option and could have just concentrated on his excellent playmaking skills, he might be looked upon more kindly. Imagine Isiah on a team like the 83 Sixers compared to the 88 Pistons. On that Sixers team he would have been the 4th scoring option, and a different player.