Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[primecougar]

isiah

nash is the most over rated loser on this board. he had great teams many times and couldnt sniff the finals. how many more excuses does this dude needs. hes the product of a system. when terry porter came and demanded def he was cryin like a lil Bit*h.

he should thank dantoni for making him relevant. hell raymond felton with just amare waas averaging 18-9 loool.

nash had amare, prime marion and a load of spot up shooters

[bastillon]

when terry porter came and demanded def he was cryin like a lil Bit*h.

nash had amare, prime marion and a load of spot up shooters

when Terry Porter came Nash wasn't crying but other guys (!) were mad at Porter for making them play in different OFFENSIVE SYSTEM which required guys like Shaq and Amare to be offensive options instead of just finishing. that's a drastic difference from how they had played previously. Nash was tailor made for being a creator, nobody else could do that on a similar level. long story short, players were agry because Porter took the ball out of Nash's hands and thought that would be better for their defense (where's the logic ?). Porter was an apparent idiot as it was easily seen after Gentry replaced him, installed previous offensive system with Nash at the helm, and they started winning a lot more all over again.

what do you think of 2006 season ? when they were healthy, Suns team looked like this:
PG Nash House
SG Bell Barbosa
SF Diaw Jones
PF Marion Diaw
C Kurt Thomas Burke

they just as good as 2005 Suns until Kurt Thomas went down with season ending injury. is that so much of a talented squad ? the only one who is an arguable all-star is Shawn Marion, the rest of these players doesn't even come close. guys like Kurt Thomas (decent midrange J, good defense) or Raja Bell are exactly the kind of players Nash needs, but they're hardly great talents.

[Dr Pepper]

I went with Thomas. Dude excelled in one of the tougher eras for small players and I think Nash would struggle mightily back then whereas Thomas would be even deadlier today

[Brenice]

That was his impact on their games. That's how they were brought up.

I understand. and how did he bring up Laimbeer who was already rebounding a lot prior to Isiah's arrival ?[/quote]
Laimbeer was playing in Italy and not considered more than a 12th man NBA big when Isiah arrived.

Rodman was Rodman. The guy that sabotaged the Spurs and destroyed the Pistons in 94 is the same guy that was drafted, grew up and became a DPOY. The only differance was Isiah was the leader of the teams he succeeded and Isiah retired just before his career was destroyed. It took a desperate Bulls GM one of the GOAT coaches and MJ to turn him around and he still was never the choir boy that he was under Isiah.

The biggest differance between the 2 is leadership. The leadership gap between them is as big as the Grand Canyon itself. One is a leader of men and the other isnt. Isiah could get any player to play defense while Nash cant get anyone to.[/quote]

They don't want to understand. Attack of the statman. I thought people penalized people for "chasing stats". Not labelling Nash a stat-chaser. A lot of Realgm'ers, that's all they see. They don't want to understand that the 'spirit' of Isiah is what those Pistons were all about. Just like the 'spirit' of Nash is what the Suns are about. If your leader will die for you, you'll run thru a brick wall for him. Isiah and it ain't even remotely close.

[Brenice]

I'm questioning that train of thought because I don't think Isiah was primary reason for their championships as it is evident they won their games with extraordinary rebounding and defense, with offense being a nice supplement.

You got to be kidding me. Isiah set the tone. You want to focus on rebounds, but I'm talking about tenacity, something Nash has little of. Something all winning teams need. Like it or not. Those Piston teams had a 'youngest of nine siblings raised in the growing up in one of the poorest and dangerous neighborhoods of West Chicago. His family sometimes went without food or heat, and the lack of bed space forced some of the kids to sleep on the floor' mentality. They sure didn't get that mentality Laimbeer. What was instinctive for Zeke, was a learned characteristic for Laimbeer. Real recognizes real in my world. Laimbeer was fake-tough. Rodman was a wide-eyed follower. He carved his niche under Isiah's Pistons, because they certainly were not his. Not quite Joe either. Not Rick Mahorn. He was a role-player.

Nash leads a 'soft' team.

[Aeternus]

I'm going to say just one thing in this thread: if I were a Pistons fan I'd be mad as hell reading some posts here, made by supposedly Pistons fans. I'd find downright insulting to see how much players who made the history of the team like Dumars, Laimbeer and Rodman and an all time coach like Chuck Daly are diminished, their mentality questioned as just a product of Isiah "leadership", rather than their own talent and personality. True fans recognize winning as a team result.

[Laimbeer]

I'm going to say just one thing in this thread: if I were a Pistons fan I'd be mad as hell reading some posts here, made by supposedly Pistons fans. I'd find downright insulting to see how much players who made the history of the team like Dumars, Laimbeer and Rodman and an all time coach like Chuck Daly are diminished, their mentality questioned as just a product of Isiah "leadership", rather than their own talent and personality. True fans recognize winning as a team result.

Right, just like talking about Russell's leadership diminishes Auerbach, Cousy and Hondo.

[Aeternus]

I'm going to say just one thing in this thread: if I were a Pistons fan I'd be mad as hell reading some posts here, made by supposedly Pistons fans. I'd find downright insulting to see how much players who made the history of the team like Dumars, Laimbeer and Rodman and an all time coach like Chuck Daly are diminished, their mentality questioned as just a product of Isiah "leadership", rather than their own talent and personality. True fans recognize winning as a team result.

Right, just like talking about Russell's leadership diminishes Auerbach, Cousy and Hondo.

Completely different arguments.
I see no one try to argue that Russell is the reason Cousy developed his ballhandling skills, Havlicek his scoring, Auerbach his man management capabilities. When people talk about Russel's impact, they mention how his defensive skill is the main reason those Celtics teams won, backing that up with the big improvement Russell made on coming to Boston, and the worsening of the WL record on his retiring.

With Isiah I see people arguing that his "tenacity" and "leadership" formed the defensive and rebounding intensity and skills of players whose game was predicated upon them, basically saying that Isiah created them as NBA players. All this being not backed up by team records, pre/post Pistons career accomplishments of said players, and any stats. That's just ridiculous, undemonstrable, and straight disrespectful.

[Brenice]

Are you saying Isiah was not the leader of those teams? Can you prove otherwise?

[Doctor MJ]

Completely different arguments.
I see no one try to argue that Russell is the reason Cousy developed his ballhandling skills, Havlicek his scoring, Auerbach his man management capabilities. When people talk about Russel's impact, they mention how his defensive skill is the main reason those Celtics teams won, backing that up with the big improvement Russell made on coming to Boston, and the worsening of the WL record on his retiring.

With Isiah I see people arguing that his "tenacity" and "leadership" formed the defensive and rebounding intensity and skills of players whose game was predicated upon them, basically saying that Isiah created them as NBA players. All this being not backed up by team records, pre/post Pistons career accomplishments of said players, and any stats. That's just ridiculous, undemonstrable, and straight disrespectful.

Solid points, but I think everyone ends up being guilty of this to some degree.

I will say though that the urge to do this appears particularly strong with Isiah supporters, presumably because there's such a gap between those who see him as someone comparable to Jordan/Magic/Bird, and those who see him more in line with the MVP voting. I can't really think of anyone in NBA history other than Isiah who has been deified as a "title-winning superstar" without being treated like a superstar by contemporary accolades.

[Doctor MJ]

Are you saying Isiah was not the leader of those teams? Can you prove otherwise?

Are you saying his leadership is what made the defense so great? That's clearly what he was referring to.

[Aeternus]

I'm saying that being the leader of a team implies much less impact that you would like, especially on the creation of such an impalpable thing as a "tone" for the defense. Defense and motivating is the coach's job, and when you have an all timer in Chuck Daly as the HC, I can't find a reason to credit such work to Isiah. Especially when no proof is shown of it, and on the contrary it is shown that on a 40 games stretch in '91 the defense was better without Isiah on the court (as Bastillon found out). Since Isiah contribution came in as leadership, you can't even say that's because he was past his prime, as personality doesn't disappear in a man's thirties.

[bastillon]

I'm saying that being the leader of a team implies much less impact that you would like, especially on the creation of such an impalpable thing as a "tone" for the defense. Defense and motivating is the coach's job, and when you have an all timer in Chuck Daly as the HC, I can't find a reason to credit such work to Isiah. Especially when no proof is shown of it, and on the contrary it is shown that on a 40 games stretch in '91 the defense was better without Isiah on the court (as Bastillon found out). Since Isiah contribution came in as leadership, you can't even say that's because he was past his prime, as personality doesn't disappear in a man's thirties.

it was actually worse without Isiah, but the difference was negligible and Isiah's overall impact that year can't be comparable on that basis to the greats of the past.

[Brenice]

Are you saying Isiah was not the leader of those teams? Can you prove otherwise?

Are you saying his leadership is what made the defense so great? That's clearly what he was referring to.

He was responding to me. I was not referring to the team defense. I was talking about the tenacity. The aggressive behavior of the team. The Bad Boys was not coined because of a defense and rebound first mindset, with the 'any means necessary' attitude second. No, the 'any means necessary' attitude was first, with defense and rebounding a result of that attitude.

I'm saying his tenacity infected the team. Mahorn was an ok post defender, similar to a Kendrick Perkins. He took on the enforcer role. Laimbeer would have probably turned out to be an excellent rebounder without Zeke, but his agitating style of play was 'fake' as he played by any means necessary he learned from Zeke. Rodman went from a 2nd round pick observer to carving out a role to play on that team. He learned to iritate people. Dumars was a good player, good offensively and sturdy defender. But he was a quiet player. It was Zeke's team. Zeke didn't want Adrian Dantley. Zeke had him traded for Zeke's boy from Chicago, Mark Aguire.

I am not saying Zeke was the best pass first point guard, running an offense. He was the best score-first point guards of all-time, when you consider his assists into the equation. Example, Iverson could best scoring point guard ever, but his assists really make him a small shooting guard. So Zeke in reality, was high-level at both. Then you add his tenacity, run into a wall willingness. Why do you think he got broken up? Why did Iverson get broken up. Their toughness. Nash is not in their league with that. It allowed him to play well in his late 30's though.

[JordansBulls]

I'm saying that being the leader of a team implies much less impact that you would like, especially on the creation of such an impalpable thing as a "tone" for the defense. Defense and motivating is the coach's job, and when you have an all timer in Chuck Daly as the HC, I can't find a reason to credit such work to Isiah. Especially when no proof is shown of it, and on the contrary it is shown that on a 40 games stretch in '91 the defense was better without Isiah on the court (as Bastillon found out). Since Isiah contribution came in as leadership, you can't even say that's because he was past his prime, as personality doesn't disappear in a man's thirties.

it was actually worse without Isiah, but the difference was negligible and Isiah's overall impact that year can't be comparable on that basis to the greats of the past.

But neither can Nash's.

[Aeternus]

^^^ (I meant Brenice's post, not JordansBulls's) The above post is exactly what I meant in my first post: how can you credit, without any proof, Isiah Thomas for the impact of Laimbeer defense? How can you say his playing style was "fake" and legitimized only by Isiah's "leadership" with a straight face? That's equivalent to deny him any credit for his personality and development as a player, without a scratch of proof to do it. Same for the other players. Straight disrespectful. Show me any proof of Isiah impact on them, and I'll rethink my opinion. As of now you've shown none.

Also, IMO what won the Pistons their rings was indeed their defense&rebounding first mindset. I have my doubt on the efficacy of their unsportsmanlike behavior on the court toward victory. It was a public facade, but basketball is won with skill and sweat, not with unsportsmanlike fouls and behavior.

Another point: I don't see how a 6' PG who peaked at around 23ppg at .52 TS% on 38mpg could ever be considered the best score-first point guard, when at the moment we have in the league three other pgs in Paul, Williams and Rose who managed respectively 23ppg at .60 TS%, 20ppg on .566 TS%, 25ppg on .55 TS% while hovering around 8-11 apg. All clearly better scoring seasons.


Ah, forgot to answer to the Nash point: it is straight ignorance to imply that a player who coexisted throughout his life with Spondylolisthesis, a degenerative back illness that force him to work constantly to keep his body particularly fit and requires constant attention, a guy who played through a smashed face more than once in the playoffs, who has all time great ball control in the paint, where he scores a lot, doesn't have tenacity and toughness and is still healthy at a relatively advanced age because he shied from contact. Not even disrespectful, straight hate.

[bastillon]

But neither can Nash's.

can't it though ?

1) Bill Russell joins the Celtics +4 SRS
Bill Russell retires -7 SRS
2) Larry Bird joins the Celtics +12 SRS (wow thats big)
3) Magic Johnson retires due to AIDS -7 SRS
4) Shaq joins Magic +7 SRS
5) Michael Jordan retires in 93 -3 SRS; it'd be -7 if we're taking 92 as a comparison point
Michael Jordan comes back for 96 +7.5 SRS (+10 SRS with Rodman; +6.5 SRS without Rodman)
6) Tim Duncan joins the Spurs and David Robinson comes back from season ending injury +11 SRS
7) Steve Nash starts balling +10 SRS
8) Big Three arrives +13 SRS

this is clearly one of the greatest turnarounds in history.

[JordansBulls]

But neither can Nash's.

can't it though ?

1) Bill Russell joins the Celtics +4 SRS
Bill Russell retires -7 SRS
2) Larry Bird joins the Celtics +12 SRS (wow thats big)
3) Magic Johnson retires due to AIDS -7 SRS
4) Shaq joins Magic +7 SRS
5) Michael Jordan retires in 93 -3 SRS; it'd be -7 if we're taking 92 as a comparison point
Michael Jordan comes back for 96 +7.5 SRS (+10 SRS with Rodman; +6.5 SRS without Rodman)
6) Tim Duncan joins the Spurs and David Robinson comes back from season ending injury +11 SRS
7) Steve Nash starts balling +10 SRS
8) Big Three arrives +13 SRS

this is clearly one of the greatest turnarounds in history.

On your #1 lets not forget Heinsohn came that year who was the ROY and Russell missed 1/3 of the season and Cousy won MVP that year.
And when he retired it was also when Sam Jones left as well.
It's like me using point #5 after 1998 for the Bulls to say the SRS went from 7.24 to -8.58 the next year.

On to your point 7 let's not forget Amare missed 29 games as well the prior season the Suns had Marbury as their PG (not said).

[bastillon]

On your #1 lets not forget Heinsohn came that year who was the ROY and Russell missed 1/3 of the season and Cousy won MVP that year.
And when he retired it was also when Sam Jones left as well.

Boston's improvement had everything to do with their DEFENSE. how does Heinsohn, an extremely poor defender and a mediocre rebounder, make any sort of significant impact on their DEFENSE ? Sam Jones didn't have anything to do with their defense either, and their downfall came on that end of the floor. I don't think change of offensive players made significant impact on their defensive efficiency. clearly it was Russell's doing.

On to your point 7 let's not forget Amare missed 29 games as well the prior season the Suns had Marbury as their PG (not said).

when Suns were healthy they still sucked so that doesn't really change the point. they went at about .250 when Nash was injured so that pretty much means they were garbage when Nash was off the floor. you would have to be Suns fan to know things like that, but when Nash was going to the bench late in the 3rd quarter, they would ALWAYS lose their advantage. it's some small sample of couple games, we're talking about YEARS of consistent results.

[Doctor MJ]

Are you saying Isiah was not the leader of those teams? Can you prove otherwise?

Are you saying his leadership is what made the defense so great? That's clearly what he was referring to.

He was responding to me. I was not referring to the team defense. I was talking about the tenacity. The aggressive behavior of the team. The Bad Boys was not coined because of a defense and rebound first mindset, with the 'any means necessary' attitude second. No, the 'any means necessary' attitude was first, with defense and rebounding a result of that attitude.

I'm saying his tenacity infected the team. Mahorn was an ok post defender, similar to a Kendrick Perkins. He took on the enforcer role. Laimbeer would have probably turned out to be an excellent rebounder without Zeke, but his agitating style of play was 'fake' as he played by any means necessary he learned from Zeke. Rodman went from a 2nd round pick observer to carving out a role to play on that team. He learned to iritate people. Dumars was a good player, good offensively and sturdy defender. But he was a quiet player. It was Zeke's team. Zeke didn't want Adrian Dantley. Zeke had him traded for Zeke's boy from Chicago, Mark Aguire.

I am not saying Zeke was the best pass first point guard, running an offense. He was the best score-first point guards of all-time, when you consider his assists into the equation. Example, Iverson could best scoring point guard ever, but his assists really make him a small shooting guard. So Zeke in reality, was high-level at both. Then you add his tenacity, run into a wall willingness. Why do you think he got broken up? Why did Iverson get broken up. Their toughness. Nash is not in their league with that. It allowed him to play well in his late 30's though.

lol, well if you weren't talking about the impact on defense, then everyone would think your point was trite, so it's kind of crucial for you to address this...

which you did here, so, cool.