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

[Kobe 62 Mavs 61]

What wiould that change? Most people that saw Isiah play then would still say Wade, so I don't get it. Like saying "too many people voting that don't have blonde hair". It doesn't really make a difference.

[FlashKing]

Too many people voting that didn't see Isiah play in his prime.

Youtube will help with that problem.

[ahonui06]

Wade is a better player, but Isiah is a better leader.

[Brenice]

Too many people voting that didn't see Isiah play in his prime.

I thought Zeke played in only 2 seasons, when the Bad Boys won it all.

Who did Wade's teams beat? Hint, not LeBron's teams, Wades teams?

[sportjames23]

Wade

Wade would be Jordan's toughest competition in the 90s

How so? He's really not that great of a shooter. There were better rim protectors and perimeter defenders in the 90s. Plus, teams could pack the paint and hand check. Defenders now a days have to work extra hard to stop opposing offenders. Wade would no doubt be a great player, but there won't be many Dallas Maverick teams to shred for 30+ points.

Thank you.

[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.

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

In what way did you prove this to me?

[Kobe 62 Mavs 61]

I explained it here.

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.

Can you defend your position rationally and logically, as opposed to just "it makes a nice storyline"?

[JordansBulls]

Playing for an organization that is known for winning is pretty simple. For instance, the Lakers are a winning organization so it is easy for top 3-5 players in the league playing with LA to win titles. Nearly every decade they have been in the finals and/or won Titles. So obviously when a big name is there they will win. That won't happen with any other franchise automatically except maybe Boston.

Mikan 5 finals in 6 years with the Lakers
Jerry West 9 Finals with the Lakers
Magic 9 finals with the Lakers
Kareem 8 finals with the Lakers
Kobe 7 finals with the Lakers


I think it is pretty obvious that playing with the Lakers means you will be in the finals plenty of times. So what happens if those players played with an organization that had never been in the finals? That is a different. They certainly are good enough to get to the finals and win a few titles, but they wouldn't get there nearly as much with different franchises.

Bulls were not a winning organization until MJ came along and and since he left still is a losing organization

Rockets were not a winning organization until Hakeem came along and once he left have not had much success (past the first round once in 12 years)

Pistons were not a winning organization until Isiah came along

The Spurs were constantly winning 50+ games with David Robinson but didn't start winning titles until Duncan came along.


When players are close in all time ranking and overall the taking a franchise that never won before matters.


For instance, Isiah taking an organization to titles as the man for an organization that has not won before doesn't put him ahead of someone like Magic because Magic was clearly a better player. However Hakeem taking an organization that never won before can certainly put him above someone like Bird or Shaq since they are all relatively the same level.


Also you mentioned the Hawks won, yes they did but that was in St Louis. They never won in Atlanta, so technically they never did win it all.

[Kobe 62 Mavs 61]

You just repeated your argument. You made no case as to why it would be correct.

[Brenice]

With all of Wade's impact, what has he accomplished when you consider:

The 06 Heat beat the Mavs and who else in the east? The Pistons, Nets, and Bulls. The rest of his impactful career, the most impactful thing he did was team with LeBron and Bosh. Wade is a great player, but don't overrate him.

[JordansBulls]

You just repeated your argument. You made no case as to why it would be correct.

1:00:00 to 1:02:00 mark speaks of turning the Bulls franchise around.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e01huxPPb1U[/youtube]

[Kobe 62 Mavs 61]

That's the narrative, thank you. But do you have a logical and critical argument?

[BmanInBigD]

There's some sort of idea that Isaiah was some great scorer or that he was the clear cut best player and the one carrying the Pistons. Isaiah was definitely the leader on the Pistons and the most outspoken guy, but this idea that he was carrying these guys just has no basis. People just like stories so much more than they like the reality of what is actually happening,

This. People need to base stuff on actual facts and stats instead of nostalgia.

Agree totally with this. And don't give me any of that I didn't watch him crap. I'm older than he is. When you think of the "bad boy" Pistons, whom do you think of? Thomas is just as liable to be 3rd or 4th on the list as first. Clearly the leader but questionably even the clearly best player.

[Brenice]

[Agree totally with this. And don't give me any of that I didn't watch him crap. I'm older than he is. When you think of the "bad boy" Pistons, whom do you think of? Thomas is just as liable to be 3rd or 4th on the list as first. Clearly the leader but questionably even the clearly best player.

That's just ridiculous. Are you saying those those teammates are grouped together with Zeke in all-time player rankings? They were good players on the team, but the greatest was Zeke. Right now on the Heat, Wade could be argued as the 3rd best player. You do realize that don't you?

[JordansBulls]

That's the narrative, thank you. But do you have a logical and critical argument?

I already provided that information for you. If you want to accept it then that is your choice.

[Kobe 62 Mavs 61]

You provided nothing aside from your opinion, without any critical analysis or logical support.

[tsherkin]

Right now on the Heat, Wade could be argued as the 3rd best player. You do realize that don't you?

Behind Lebron and who? Not Bosh. And not this edition of Ray-Ray, though you could certainly argue that Allen fits next to Lebron more effectively.

[Amare_1_Knicks]

Right now on the Heat, Wade could be argued as the 3rd best player. You do realize that don't you?

Behind Lebron and who? Not Bosh. And not this edition of Ray-Ray, though you could certainly argue that Allen fits next to Lebron more effectively.

Hmm, really? Wade to me, has clearly looked like the Heats third best player.

[tsherkin]

Hmm, really? Wade to me, has clearly looked like the Heats third best player.

Answer the question, though, who is better than him besides Lebron on the Heat?

Bosh is having a nice season and has played 3 more games, but Wade is still a more dynamic playmaker and I'd bet he doesn't rock a 63% TS all year long. He's shooting 67% from 16-23 feet, you really think that's going to last? A guy who hasn't shot over 47% in the last 6 years? C'mon, it's important to know the difference between a shooting streak and a guy struggling with injury. Bosh, by the way, is also over 75% from the field at the rim, and he hasn't shot better than 69.9% in the last 6 years either, usually closer to 64%, or less. Another area where he's quite likely to regress.

You can say that Bosh is having a hotter start to the season but it's not sustainable and that means he's not really the better player, just enjoying a streaky shooting spurt. Even still, Wade himself is performing well but his draw rate is down, which is mostly what's hurting him. I'd expect that to rise a little as well.

I suppose this is a semantic debate, yes? Bosh is "playing better" because he's riding a hot streak and Wade certainly isn't at his best, has missed 3 games and isn't in prime form. I don't think that means Bosh is a better player, though. Performance and ability don't always meet, especially in small samples, let alone those confused by injury.

[Brenice]

But Wade is towards the age where injuries erode your game. You want to give Wade the benefit of the doubt that he will return with his total game. Wade WAS a better player than Bosh, but I'm not keeping him there forever because of injuries. The reason he is 3rd best player on the Heat, is injury related, but that don't make it not true. Until he comes back and maintains a high level, Bosh is better.