Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[Rapcity_11]

What exactly did Isiah do in the playoffs that year?

What legitimate argument does Isiah have over Nash?

"uhh well isiah thomas has rings hes a winner yaaa!!!!! dats why man!!"

Sorry but thats not an argument at all and I don't see anybody on Isiahs side making a legit case for him. Why? because there isn't one.

You want to throw stats, and limit things to "that year" as in 1 year? Trump This!

How about 43 and 9, with 25(NBA Finals Record) of those points coming in 1 quarter after severely spraining an ankle in a game 6 in the 88 Finals.

How about 16 points in 94 seconds of a playoff game.

How about Finals MVP in 1990.

How about 3 time NBA finals participant.

How about 2 time NBA champion.

How about NCAA champion.

How about NCAA Finals MVP.

Defeated Jordan, Magic, and Bird in high level playoff series.

And then there is Steve Nash. What has he done?

All that's showing is that Isiah played on a better team than Nash.

The ironic thing about the sprained ankle game is that the Pistons lost. Really seems to counteract the notion that "Isiah willed the Pistons to titles" with games like that. That game really goes to show that what team wins is only partly to do with what each player provides.

[Brenice]

And then there is Steve Nash. What has he done?

So 2 games? Nice....

1988 another year where his playoff numbers are yet again underwhelming and they of course lost that series.

You quote me talking about one playoff year then list that year as an accomplishment shortly after. He played poorly in their first championship.

Finals MVP? Nice wheres his second one? I mean he was the superstar right? Oh wait he only got one of those. Tony Parker has one too, so does Chauncey Billups.

I'm only seeing the Pistons being better than the Suns, which I agree with. Nothing shows that Isiah is a better player than Nash, because well.. he isn't.

In reality Isiah Thomas is Tim Hardaway level, not Steve Nash level.

Let's see, 1 Finals MVP. Where is Nash's first?

Are you looking at stats for the 88 finals they lost in how many games? Were his poor 'stats' the result of him not playing much in GAME 7 because of that injury? NOOOOOOOO! His stats were poor. If it wasn't for that injury, he might very well have 2 Finals MVP's.

For the record, I posted accomplishments from more than 1 playoff year, starting from playoffs starting back from 1984 thru 1989. Not one series. Not one year. Not one Final appearance.

And again, please answer this by talking about what Nash has done, not by trying to tear down Zeke accomplished.

Again, Nash has done what?

[bastillon]

I dunno, the fact that Isiah wasn't taken seriously as an MVP candidate even when his team was the best in the league seems to be a pretty good indicator of how contemporary observers saw him. Let's remember that team success has pretty much always meant drastic overrating of players as MVP candidate. Unseld won an MVP, Jermaine O'Neal finished 3rd in MVP voting. Isiah couldn't even get that going for himself.

Isiah's prime coincided with MJ, Magic, Bird, Barkley, Malone, and Hakeem's. That's 6 guys who would always finish better than you. Unseld nor Jermaine O'neal or hell even Steve Nash are getting in that group for MVP voting.

completely irrelevant JB, as Isiah didn't even make it past Dale Ellis on NBA teams. either way, Phoenix Nash would obviously finish higher than Hakeem or Barkley as they were playing on poor teams and weren't even strong MVP candidates. he wouldn't have won it, obviously, but top3 finish is very much available here. Malone wasn't that good at the time. Bird wasn't that good anymore.

also, Nash's prime coincided with Duncan, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, young LeBron, past prime Shaq, prime Wade, prime TMAC.

MJ - Kobe, Wade
Magic - Duncan
Bird - KG
Malone - Dirk
young Barkley - young LeBron
young Dream - past prime Shaq

now in some cases there's a significant margin, but as a whole it's pretty comparable group.

[Warspite]

Isiah practically got carried in Detroit's first championship. How do people try to use this as an argument for him?

Wills his team in the playoffs with his .481 TS?

He played well during their 2nd championship but the first clearly shows that it had way more to do with Detroit being very good all around than Isiah being some superstar.

If Nash was 18.2/4.3/8.3 on .481 TS during a championship run people would say the will of god carried him to the finals, and that the other phoenix players are for sure HoFers that completed a nearly impossible task being torn down by the plague that is steve nash.

Isiah does it? Well he clearly willed his team to victory!

So the Triple double in game 5 of the 2nd rd to close out the Bucks is being carried?

The 33pts 1on1 duel in Chicago with MJ to close him out and end his season was also being carried?

Isiah had a hamstring pull in the playoffs that yr and had a hand injury. He had some bad games in the playoffs and coasted in some wins. Trying to get healthy and nurse him self while saving him self and biding his time. Yet in the big games he came through. Did you see Dumars FG% in the Finals? You ever watch the series? Dumars is draining shot after shot. Hes completely open and recieves perfect passes time after time. Yet you think Isiah has nothing to do with that?

Still Isiah was carried in the Finals in 1989?

game 1 24pts (leads all scorers) 9asts and 2 TOs
game 2 21pts 7asts 4rebs 2stls 1bl and 3TOs (hits game winning FTS)
game 3 26pts 8asts 3rebs 2stls and 2 TOs
game 4 14pts 5asts 3rebs 2stls and 3 TOs (foul trouble played 10 fewer mins)

For the series Isiah avgs 21ppg 7apg 2spg and shoots 50%

[rrravenred]

48.5 FG%, actually, Warspite.

[Rapcity_11]

Can't we just forget FG% all together when we have better measures of efficiency?

[Doctor MJ]

It's funny that people act like Isiah had nothing to do with Detroit winning back to back, while sandwiched between the Bird/Magic era and the MJ era. Had to defeat at some point in their careers Bird, Magic, and Jordan. All these excuses, the Celtics and Lakers were too old while the Bulls were too young. Not acknowledging that Isiah was only a couple years younger than Bird and Magic, and a couple years older than Jordan.

Of course he had something to do with it. He was their star, but promoting him to be just as important to the Pistons as those other guys were to their teams is simply wrong, and frankly bizarre given that it's not like contemporary observers held Isiah up as an MVP level guy like they did the others.

And as far as it being between the peaks of the other dynasties, how is this even a debate? The Lakers & Celtics were clearly at their best before the Pistons titles, and the Bulls were clearly at their best after the Pistons titles. Not saying that it wasn't an accomplishment to beat them as they were at the end of the 80s, but every dynasty has an arc. The fact that the Shaq Lakers eventually lost to the Spurs does not mean the Spurs beat the peak Lakers. It only makes sense to judge the teams in question by observing them directly.

Also, "only a couple years younger than & older than". Okay, I'm just going to take the direct route here and shock the world.

Wait for it....

It's not that Isiah beat Jordan because Jordan was too young.

It's that Isiah DID NOT BEAT Jordan. The Pistons beat the Bulls.

In fact, <pauses for dramatic effect>, young Jordan was actually better than Isiah. I know, I know, hard to believe. You might be surprised to know that Jordan has drastically better stats than Isiah, was given far more MVP respect than Isiah, was given far more DPOY respect than Isiah, and was agreed upon by approximately 100% of basketball observers to be clearly superior to Isiah by a large margin, but I'd encourage you to look it up.

[Doctor MJ]

Let's see, 1 Finals MVP. Where is Nash's first?

Dude.

Here's what just transpired:

You: "Bob is a nicer guy than Joe, see, he won the Nice Guy of the Year award"

Other guy: "The Nice Guy of the Year award is chosen by drug-addicted chimpanzees who are bribed with cocaine-laced bananas. Last year they gave the award to a serial killer"

You: "Hey, Bob 1, Joe 0, don't give me more of your excuses."

[rrravenred]

Now now, some of those drug-addicted chimpanzees played NBA basketball... that's more than you pointy-headed statisticians can claim. Nerd.

[Doctor MJ]

Now now, some of those drug-addicted chimpanzees played NBA basketball... that's more than you pointy-headed statisticians can claim. Nerd.

Yikes, careful there. Don't want to get near anything that sounds racial.

(Nerd stereotypes however remain officially funny)

[rrravenred]

Absolutely unintended. We're all simians if you go enough generations back, in any case.

[Doctor MJ]

Absolutely unintended. We're all simians if you go enough generations back, in any case.

Think again...

[Doormatt]

You should just stick to basketball and leave the internetting to the pros.

[Brenice]

Doctor MJ

I understand all that. All of it is true. But when people look at Isaih only during the 2 year championship season or 3 year championship appearances, that's all they focus on.

What Isiah was a scoring first point guard playing the point. Maybe not as score first as an AI or Arenas, but he was score first. Over the years he was probably one of the few who became adept at both, but still with a score first mentality. Zeke's threat offensively opened up shots for his teammates becuase of his scoring threat.

Nash has always been a pass first point guard. Ran the offense better, shot better, but he is not the scorer Zeke was. The threat of his passes, like a Rondo, open up shots for him.

They are both great, but different.

I just prefer Zeke because of the other areas of the game.

[MarJJMar]

Nash has always been a pass first point guard. Ran the offense better, shot better, but he is not the scorer Zeke was. The threat of his passes, like a Rondo, open up shots for him.

eh...

Nash is the best shooter of all time nobody schemes for him to have open shots.

[Brenice]

Nash has always been a pass first point guard. Ran the offense better, shot better, but he is not the scorer Zeke was. The threat of his passes, like a Rondo, open up shots for him.

eh...

Nash is the best shooter of all time nobody schemes for him to have open shots.

Did I say they schemed for that? I said the threat of his passing helps open him up for shots. Defenses play him to pass, and that is different to how score first point guards are defended.

Also, Larry Bird shot better than Nash. Are you arguing that Nash was better? The difference though Larry was an excellent passer, they defended him to shoot first, pass second. Nash being a pure point guard, defenses defend him to pass first, shoot second. That's why his shooting percentage is better and people throw out these percentages and portray him as the best shooter of all-time. He is not.

[JordansBulls]

Actually Isiah is the one with the slightly higher volume stats.

Nash is the one with the greater impact. Like Russ.

How does Nash have impact when he has lost with HCA more times than Isiah and never won anything? He also never led in PER or win shares on his team (Isiah hasn't either) but at least he hasn't lost multiple series with HCA.

[Brenice]

They are exact opposites:

one is a shoot first, pass second
the other is a pass first, shoot second

one is hated
the other is loved

one is black
the other is white

one is underrated
the other is overrated

one is a winner
the other is a loser

[rsavaj]

Absolutely unintended. We're all simians if you go enough generations back, in any case.

Think again...

OT: But we are, aren't we?

[bastillon]

Actually Isiah is the one with the slightly higher volume stats.

Nash is the one with the greater impact. Like Russ.

How does Nash have impact when he has lost with HCA more times than Isiah and never won anything? He also never led in PER or win shares on his team (Isiah hasn't either) but at least he hasn't lost multiple series with HCA.

Nash never lost against a worse team than his own by statistical measures. actually usually Nash willed his teams to wins against heavily favored teams. Suns were supposed to be out in the 2nd round in 2005. result ? 30/12/6 in one of the best series of all time (I wonder if MJ ever had stats like that during a playoff series). then again in 2006, being outrebounded on average by about 10 rebounds, Suns advanced to WCFs and when they finally lost to Dallas, having played 15 games in 30 days, their injury list looked list this:
Bell
Marion
Kurt Thomas
Amare
Tim Thomas

should I even mention 2010 and the Spurs sweep ? the one eyed killer game etc ?

HCA argument, despite being ridiculed, actually makes some sense. however, as with every other stat, you've gotta make your analysis carefully, after having considered circumstances involved. otherwise it makes no sense and it's justified to be laughed at after making such irresponsible comparison. HCA argument is to prove you lost to your opponent despite having a better team. but HCA is dependant upon W-L and thus, it's totally unacceptable to rely on it without accounting for SRS and injuries.

PER and Win Shares are boxscore stats. whenever anyone is refering to impact as a statistical tool, it means on/off which is non-boxscore metric. in other words, PER and WS does not equal impact.