Ranking Isiah Thomas

[Owly]

Stockton was hyper efficient in a league that didn't even understand what TS% was. In today's game where defence is geared to take away easy points Stockton's effectiveness would be much reduced.

I'm not sure what the one has to do with the other ...

Fwiw, I think the term "true shooting perecentage" was out there from at least '89 (suspect at least some coaches used it before ) though in reference to what we now call efg% .(Barry and Cohn, '89 - later editions cite M Dunleavy Sr iirc)
We can see early box composites looking at integrating the additional value in their shooting measures and discussing how Dale Ellis gains 142.3 points by taking 3s versus his expected return on 2s (even though his 2 point 2pt% is higher) whilst Barkley loses 98.05 (Trupin and Secor Couzens, '89). Again a clear understanding that 3s and 2s take the same number of possessions (1) but yield different values so something more than fg% is needed.
And as Dean Oliver notes at least some coaches had long been aware of the idea of possessions and the need to use the efficiently.

[One_and_Done]

I mean exactly the same thing we're discussing in the #18 thread now. With today's defenses he'd clearly be less efficient.

[Djoker]

...Stockton and Kidd just couldn't take games over with their scoring. Thomas gets criticized for his lack of scoring efficiency but he's still a way more capable scorer than Kidd and Stockton....

Again, this idea that Nash was a great volume scorer and Stockton was Don Buse is a false dichotomy. If you had said that Nash's scoring is more resilient in the playoffs, sure, it is. It's one of the main strengths of Nash over Stockton. But Stockton scored nearly as much as Nash, upped his scoring game more when Malone wasn't in the game than Nash did when Amare was out, and was slightly more efficient.

Stockton was a hyper-efficient scorer (ts% of .608 career, 2465.7 TS Add over his career with a peak just over 200!) who would scored a consistent 15+ ppg over the course of a decade. Isiah was an inefficient scorer who was generally below league average efficiency but was very willing to chuck in bunches (ts% of .516 career, with a career negative TS Add of -.731 and only one year at league average or better). He gives you 5 more points a game in his scoring prime and that prime is only half as long as Stocktons (both had several more years where they were very good players). And that doesn't even include Stockton's greater playmaking.

5 points difference in scoring volume is a ton. Stockton wasn't a valuable scorer because he took very few shots and it's not just that but he wasn't aggressive. Stockton scored 30+ points only twice in his entire playoff career. The opposing teams played him as a playmaker and he got a lot of what Ben Taylor calls "Rondo assists" which are basically assists without leverage. Decent shots for teammates but not great shots that better scorers can generate by pressuring the defense. The engine of Utah's offense wasn't Stockton but actually Malone. The years that Stockton peaked in the late 80's and early 90's, Utah was generally a below average offensive team. And when Stockton declined in the late 90's and was barely even an all-star level player, Utah's offenses peaked behind Malone and were historically good.

I personally don't value longevity much because it's so circumstantial. But yea if you value longevity you'll definitely have guys like CP3, Stockton and Kidd over Isiah. But Stockton was not as good at basketball as Isiah. I feel strongly about that.

[penbeast0]

I mean exactly the same thing we're discussing in the #18 thread now. With today's defenses he'd clearly be less efficient.

Unlikely. With today's stretched floors, he's have more room to go to the rim and run pnr plus coaches today would take more advantage of a 3 point shooter who hits close to 40% so he's probably have considerably higher percentage of 3 point shots which are generally more efficient as well. A lot more pick and pop action getting him more open shots.

[One_and_Done]

I mean exactly the same thing we're discussing in the #18 thread now. With today's defenses he'd clearly be less efficient.

Unlikely. With today's stretched floors, he's have more room to go to the rim and run pnr plus coaches today would take more advantage of a 3 point shooter who hits close to 40% so he's probably have considerably higher percentage of 3 point shots which are generally more efficient as well. A lot more pick and pop action getting him more open shots.

I'm getting a bit tired of repasting the same explanation, so maybe just read the long version in the #18 thread. The short version is that without the high level iso ability that guys like Harden have Stockton would be keyed in on and unable to punish the modern defences that sell out to stop 3s. Yeh he'd still be an all-star, but his efficiency would be nothing special today.