RealGM Top 100 List: #21

Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ

Dr Spaceman
General Manager
Posts: 8,575
And1: 11,211
Joined: Jan 16, 2013
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#41 » by Dr Spaceman » Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:57 am

mischievous wrote:
The-Power wrote:It really isn't about single players. Paul has shown the rare ability to lead elite offenses consistently. You don't do that without considerably elevating your team's performance.

.

So this is another example of giving him all the credit for the elite offenses, then none of the blame when he loses in the playoffs. I'm still waiting for en explanation as to how you can have it both ways with that. If we acknowledge that his team let him down, then we must also acknowledge that they were also part of the reason their offense was so good in the regular season.


I don't think this is all that strong a point. Paul's teams don't play worse in the playoffs, they just run into superior teams or Paul gets injured.
“I’m not the fastest guy on the court, but I can dictate when the race begins.”
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,632
And1: 3,409
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#42 » by LA Bird » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:51 am

1. John Stockton
Has one of the best longevity for point guards but never really separated himself in any season from contemporaries such as KJ, Price or Payton. He is elite in plus minus type stats in his final years in large part due to his excellent defensive numbers which could be explained by Utah having by far their best seasons in terms of forcing turnovers but in general, I don't really buy into small point guards being a +2 or +3 on defense based on RAPM numbers (same goes for CP3 later). Disappointing elimination game stats throughout Stockton's career along with his passiveness as a scorer drops him a tier lower on offense compared to the other all time offensive PGs. Due to his longevity and consistency, this is about as low as I can rank Stockton and he has the potential to move up higher on my list if there is more evidence to support Stockton being a candidate for GOAT perimeter defender (other than his steal totals).

2. Chris Paul
Excellent stats both box score and plus minus with a reputation as an overly demanding teammate and poor postseason team success... which is more or less the same description of Oscar Robertson who got voted in a long time ago. There are some valid criticisms for Paul at this point (lacking longevity, injury history in the playoffs) but simply saying he hasn't won enough without explaining why isn't one of them.

Thoughts on Mikan since he is getting quite a bit of support:
I haven't evaluated Mikan in my all time list yet so he is currently unranked but with his NBL seasons not included in this project, I don't see him being anywhere close to top 20 with his longevity unless the 49~54 seasons were all GOAT level peaks on par with 88~93 Jordan. While Mikan's supporters would point out he was the most dominant player ever relative to his era, this is conditioned on the fact that he played in the worst era in NBA history. A large part of his statistical dominance appears to be based on his volume scoring, the relative efficiency of which considerably declined after the lane widening in 1952.

Mikan relative TS%
1949 +10.8
1950 +7.7
1951 +8.1
1952 +2.1 <-- Lane widened
1953 +3.5
1954 +2.4

That being said, his scoring efficiency held up well in the playoffs even post rule change and his mobility along with size should see him retaining most of his defensive impact in other eras. He also appears to be a good passer (at least much better than Russell IMO). Taking into account the weaker era, I see Mikan being closer to a Dwight Howard level peak than somebody like Jordan / LeBron so unless major pioneer or legacy points is rewarded, this puts him around top 50 at best. I suppose one could rank Mikan around top 20 if the championships and stats are taken at face value without adjusting for league quality but then again this seems highly inconsistent since I don't recall anybody voting for Mikan during the peak projects just a few years ago.
User avatar
feyki
Veteran
Posts: 2,876
And1: 450
Joined: Aug 08, 2016
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#43 » by feyki » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:05 pm

LA Bird wrote:1. John Stockton
Has one of the best longevity for point guards but never really separated himself in any season from contemporaries such as KJ, Price or Payton. He is elite in plus minus type stats in his final years in large part due to his excellent defensive numbers which could be explained by Utah having by far their best seasons in terms of forcing turnovers but in general, I don't really buy into small point guards being a +2 or +3 on defense based on RAPM numbers (same goes for CP3 later). Disappointing elimination game stats throughout Stockton's career along with his passiveness as a scorer drops him a tier lower on offense compared to the other all time offensive PGs. Due to his longevity and consistency, this is about as low as I can rank Stockton and he has the potential to move up higher on my list if there is more evidence to support Stockton being a candidate for GOAT perimeter defender (other than his steal totals).

2. Chris Paul
Excellent stats both box score and plus minus with a reputation as an overly demanding teammate and poor postseason team success... which is more or less the same description of Oscar Robertson who got voted in a long time ago. There are some valid criticisms for Paul at this point (lacking longevity, injury history in the playoffs) but simply saying he hasn't won enough without explaining why isn't one of them.

Thoughts on Mikan since he is getting quite a bit of support:
I haven't evaluated Mikan in my all time list yet so he is currently unranked but with his NBL seasons not included in this project, I don't see him being anywhere close to top 20 with his longevity unless the 49~54 seasons were all GOAT level peaks on par with 88~93 Jordan. While Mikan's supporters would point out he was the most dominant player ever relative to his era, this is conditioned on the fact that he played in the worst era in NBA history. A large part of his statistical dominance appears to be based on his volume scoring, the relative efficiency of which considerably declined after the lane widening in 1952.

Mikan relative TS%
1949 +10.8
1950 +7.7
1951 +8.1
1952 +2.1 <-- Lane widened
1953 +3.5
1954 +2.4

That being said, his scoring efficiency held up well in the playoffs even post rule change and his mobility along with size should see him retaining most of his defensive impact in other eras. He also appears to be a good passer (at least much better than Russell IMO). Taking into account the weaker era, I see Mikan being closer to a Dwight Howard level peak than somebody like Jordan / LeBron so unless major pioneer or legacy points is rewarded, this puts him around top 50 at best. I suppose one could rank Mikan around top 20 if the championships and stats are taken at face value without adjusting for league quality but then again this seems highly inconsistent since I don't recall anybody voting for Mikan during the peak projects just a few years ago.


Just one example, but it's very important, to me. When you said he declined after the line widened 6 to 12 feet, I have remembered it to make a point about his numbers drop off, because coasting, not the decline.

He scored 61 of his team 91 Points against the defending champion as the revenge of his one getting beat in his 8 Years Prime. It was in the season, but against the defending champion and the only team to beat him in that 8 year span.

He also put up 27-17-3.5 with Great Efficiency compared to the Lg Avr, in the last 3 games of the 52 Finals.

Some people also had said Mikan couldn't adapt to the 24 second rule and his career over with that. But actually, his injury ended his career. Too many made up arguements created to ignoring Mikan.
Image
“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot.”
The-Power
RealGM
Posts: 10,513
And1: 9,938
Joined: Jan 03, 2014
Location: Germany
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#44 » by The-Power » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:13 pm

mischievous wrote:
The-Power wrote:It really isn't about single players. Paul has shown the rare ability to lead elite offenses consistently. You don't do that without considerably elevating your team's performance.

.

So this is another example of giving him all the credit for the elite offenses, then none of the blame when he loses in the playoffs. I'm still waiting for en explanation as to how you can have it both ways with that. If we acknowledge that his team let him down, then we must also acknowledge that they were also part of the reason their offense was so good in the regular season.

First of all, the user I quoted hinted that Paul does not elevate his teams and wanted to see any evidence to the contrary. I, and as far as I'm concerned that's pretty evident, have argued that leading elite offenses should be sufficient evidence that Paul elevates his teams when there's little doubt that he's a major part of those offenses. This context is rather important here given that you insinuate something that wasn't even part of the discussion (i.e. the playoffs in particular). So instead of reading something into it that isn't there I'd recommend that you actually read the context of the discussion before jumping in.

Second, as Dr Spaceman already hinted at, Paul has already shown to have impact on his teams in the playoffs and to be able to led reasonably good playoff offenses before. Not as good as during the regular season but you could still see how he elevated his teams' offenses throughout his career. There is blame to share for the playoff struggles of the Clippers but Paul is only one – minor – part of it and furthermore there's also credit to give. When people argue that he's never made it past the second round and therefore alone shouldn't be a candidate at this point it comes across as flat-out lazy. There are arguments against him to be made but that one isn't convincing.

Lastly, I'm not sure anybody ever wrote what you mentioned above. Who said that Paul should get all the credit for the elite offenses and none of the blame? Who ever disputed that teammates are part of the equation – both when it works well and when it doesn't? I sure as hell didn't but. But since you quoted me as – allegedly – another example of that line of arguing I can only repeat myself: read what was actually written, look at the context and don't make stuff up. I know you're a huge Wade guy and that you started pushing for him, and this means he's ‘in competition‘ with guys like Paul who starts to get some traction. But that shouldn't lead to this sort of dishonest discussion.
The-Power
RealGM
Posts: 10,513
And1: 9,938
Joined: Jan 03, 2014
Location: Germany
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#45 » by The-Power » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:16 pm

LA Bird wrote:Thoughts on Mikan since he is getting quite a bit of support:
I haven't evaluated Mikan in my all time list yet so he is currently unranked but with his NBL seasons not included in this project, I don't see him being anywhere close to top 20 with his longevity unless the 49~54 seasons were all GOAT level peaks on par with 88~93 Jordan.

trex_8063 wrote:This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: where Mikan is concerned, you may also consider NBL as far back as '47).

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=56018045#p56018045
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,632
And1: 3,409
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#46 » by LA Bird » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:55 pm

feyki wrote: Just one example, but it's very important, to me. When you said he declined after the line widened 6 to 12 feet, I have remembered it to make a point about his numbers drop off, because coasting, not the decline.

He scored 61 of his team 91 Points against the defending champion as the revenge of his one getting beat in his 8 Years Prime. It was in the season, but against the defending champion and the only team to beat him in that 8 year span.

Mikan's average against the Royals still decreased from 32.0 to 25.3 per game and 1 game of him dropping 61 points in the middle of the regular season isn't enough to debunk 3 straight years of considerably decreased scoring volume and efficiency.

He also put up 27-17-3.5 with Great Efficiency compared to the Lg Avr, in the last 3 games of the 52 Finals.

Great efficiency = +0.3 TS% above league average over 3 games...?

Some people also had said Mikan couldn't adapt to the 24 second rule and his career over with that. But actually, his injury ended his career. Too many made up arguements created to ignoring Mikan.

I never said Mikan couldn't adapt to shot clock so it would be better if you quoted whoever said that instead.
User avatar
LA Bird
Analyst
Posts: 3,632
And1: 3,409
Joined: Feb 16, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#47 » by LA Bird » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:58 pm

The-Power wrote:
LA Bird wrote:Thoughts on Mikan since he is getting quite a bit of support:
I haven't evaluated Mikan in my all time list yet so he is currently unranked but with his NBL seasons not included in this project, I don't see him being anywhere close to top 20 with his longevity unless the 49~54 seasons were all GOAT level peaks on par with 88~93 Jordan.

trex_8063 wrote:This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: where Mikan is concerned, you may also consider NBL as far back as '47).

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=56018045#p56018045

Oops, my mistake for not seeing the edit.
In this case, Mikan probably moves up around 10 spots with the extra 1.75 seasons to somewhere around 40~50.
User avatar
Bad Gatorade
Senior
Posts: 715
And1: 1,871
Joined: Aug 23, 2016
Location: Australia
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#48 » by Bad Gatorade » Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:06 pm

So, for this spot, I’m going to go slightly homer.

He won’t win this spot, and I don’t even know if I’m 100% sure that I’d want him right at this spot, but he’s certainly worthy in my mind, and I thought that I’d throw the case out for him now. I’m voting for the guy I’m arguably most highly associated with on this board – Mr Christopher Emmanuel Paul.

This will probably garner a bit of controversy, thanks to his playoff success and (relatively) incomplete career, but IMO, he’s had a ridiculously good prime, and supplemented it with just enough longevity that he should absolutely be discussed around this point in the convo. And honestly, there are quite a few candidates whose placement at this stage of the project is entirely valid, and it’s up to us to concoct a case for guys we feel should be ranking highly.

Box Score
I don’t even think I need to expand on this all that much, due to general incompleteness of the box score, and due to how highly CP3 performs here. CP3’s numbers are generally quite good – he’s been a consistent 19-10-2 type guy on some very good efficiency. These numbers don’t truly jump out at people though, until we look at his advanced statistics.

Just as a very quick summary – his PER ranks 6th all time, his WS/48 ranks 2nd all time, and his BPM ranks 3rd all time. In the playoffs, these numbers change to… 5th all time, 5th all time, 3rd all-time respectively. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that this isn’t an entirely fair ranking – playing in a 30-team era, it’s a bit easier for top end players to accrue higher advanced stats, because they’re greater outliers with respect to their league than in the 80s and 90s. CP3’s career hasn’t finished yet, so he hasn’t had post-prime play diminishing his averages. Box score stats aren’t the be all and end all. But considering we’re now outside of the top 20 of the project, and CP3 is ranking so highly after 12 years in the league should showcase that his advanced box score stats are… awesome.

Even looking at his PER 100 stats (normalising for pace and what not), he actually seems to be better than he first appears.

For his career, CP3 has averaged 27.6 points per 100 and 14.6 assists per 100. If we look at the amount of seasons every player has had accruing at least 25 PP100 and 10 AP100 with at least 10 WS (qualifiers well below his career averages), CP3 has had 8 seasons eclipsing these milestones. The next highest out of everybody in league history (since 1974, i.e. since per 100 stats became a thing) is Magic Johnson/LeBron James, with 5 each. I included WS as a quick catch-all for things such as team success and efficiency – obviously not a resolute metric, but for a brief litmus test, CP3’s got some great box scores on some very good teams.

Looking at him compared to Magic/Nash (the two guys who ran arguably the two greatest offensive dynasties ever) -

Prime Magic, from 85-91 averaged 27.2 PP100 and 16.2 assists.
Prime Nash, from 05-10 averaged 24.8 PP100 and 15.9 assists.
Over the past 10 years, CP3 averaged 28.3 PP100 and 15.1 assists.

Considering all 3 of these guys were highly efficient, the cursory glance is that CP3 threw together some awesome box scores given the minutes/pace he played. Box score doesn’t even matter all that much in isolation, really – it’s more so some information for those who prefer the box score to other methods of assessment. At least, it shows that he’s carrying a load that compares to the other passing orientated premier offensive players in NBA history. And that's the biggest thing about box scores - they show you why high impact players are useful, and Paul is simply an efficient point/assist production machine.

Impact
For all of his excellence in the box score, this is where I feel like CP3 really shines. His impact stats are similarly awesome.

Looking at a couple of our larger datasets –

08-11 RAPM – 6th with 7.3, with 2nd place being 7.8 and 7th place being 6.7 (i.e. he was closer to being 2nd than being 7th).

15 year RAPM – 5th in the 2001-2015 dataset behind LeBron, Garnett, Duncan and Stockton with the age adjustment (dubious in the case of Stockton due to Stockton being 40...), and 3rd (behind LeBron and Garnett) without the age adjustment.

Year by year PI RAPM – from 2009 onwards (i.e. once he entered his prime + no longer had enough non-prime minutes depressing his prior) he ranked in the top 10 every single year, and was in the top 5 every single year as a Clipper.

Team rating
– on court, he’s been a +8.6, with a +13.8 on/off rating since 2008. This became as high as +14.2 in 2016-17 for the former, and +20.9 in 2014-15 as the latter!

Win Probability
– 5th behind LeBron (the clear leader), Garnett, Duncan and Nowitzki. His effect on win probability is only 1 point behind #2 (Garnett). Aside from Ginobili (19.1), CP3 is well ahead of everybody else in the dataset.

Simply put – he’s had some amazing impact results. All of CP3’s peers with regard to impact since 2001 have already been voted in (i.e. LeBron and the “big 3” power forwards of the 2000s), and a number of the players often perceived to be in his impact realm, or greater (e.g. Kobe, Wade) are actually well below CP3 here! Now, simply looking at RAPM is not entirely conclusive either (in particular, I think there are elements of Kobe that underrate his impact) but the cursory glance, much like the box score, appears to bode well for CP3 too.

So far, his raw metrics paint him very favourably, so let’s look at a few of the reservations people have about him –

His perceived “drop off”


There’s a lot of chatter around CP3’s peak seasons being 2008 and 2009. IMO, a lot of this is simply due to aesthetics (fans remember that CP3 was more “drive-heavy” back then) and because he had better per game stats.

The former is because guards that drive to the hoop with reckless abandon generally resonate better with the eye test (and CP3 has gradually gravitated more to the perimeter during his career) and the latter is due to a combination of reduced minutes and playing alongside Blake. Blake is a very good player, and compared to most bigs, controls the ball quite a lot – in fact, he ranked as high as 10th in 2014-15 and 11th in 2015-16 in “touches per game,” which is a statistic traditionally dominated by guards and LeBron James. So, not only does this depress CP3's stats a bit, but the idea that CP3 is so ball dominant that guys like Blake aren't fully used (which is often proposed around here) just seems like a silly narrative at this point.

If we observe CP3's traditional statistics from the 2008 and 2009 seasons, and look at the past 3 seasons without Blake via WOWY data, here are CP3’s per 100 statistics –

2008-09
31.2 PTS, 6.8 REB, 16.1 AST, 3.9 STL, 3.9 TOV, 58.8 TS%

Past 3 seasons without Blake (2,681 minutes)
30.8 PTS, 7.2 REB, 16.0 AST, 3.0 STL, 4.1 TOV, 57.6 TS%

There is almost no major difference between these stats – scoring, rebound, assist and turnover volume are almost identical. There’s a reduction in his steals, and a minor reduction in his TS%, but these aren’t actually due to a reduction in skill – CP3, despite accruing less steals, is actually a better defender by DRAPM, because his defensive instincts and man defence have improved in order to compensate – his highest DRAPM results are actually his Clipper results, not his 2008/2009 results. And he’s got a minor reduction in TS%, but this is because he’s actually having a larger effect on team spacing now, and allows DeAndre to occupy the interior more. Without DeAndre, he has (in an admittedly small sample of 805 minutes) been averaging 34.4 points per 100 possessions on 60.1 TS% because he’s more free to occupy the space under the rim!

And heck, he’s actually been producing his best RAPM results as a Clipper, rather than as a Hornet. I cannot stress this enough - for all the talk about how 2008 and 2009 was "peak" Paul, andnowhere near this level now, RAPM actually says the exact opposite story.

A lot of CP3 “dropping off” is honestly pure narrative, and because his athleticism isn’t quite as impressive nowadays – it’s not uncommon to hear that CP3 has been getting onto the all-defensive NBA teams by his reputation, and that he’s dropped off… although his best DRAPM results have actually been in the past 4 seasons, finishing as high as 4th in DRAPM last season! This doesn’t mean I’d peg him as the #4 defender, but the best empirical tool we have for measuring defence actually paints him as improving on this front, rather than getting worse!

So, for those who view his 2008/09 seasons highly, is there really any reason to place them above CP3 of the recent seasons?

Playoff success/Big game play

This is the big one. The monkey that has plagued CP3 throughout his career is his play in the big moments. How much of this is actually due to CP3 himself?

I’ve been a bit strapped for time in general (thank you fatherhood), so I’ll blatantly copy-paste one of my former posts:

Spoiler:
Really, the only series that CP3 has played in where his team “should” have won prior to the start of the series are the 2015 Rockets series, and the 2016 Trailblazers series. I’m definitely on board with the idea that a few of these series could have been won, but weren’t, but it doesn’t hurt to look over CP3’s elimination series career in a bit more detail.

2008 Spurs
Even though the Spurs were the defending champions, I don’t think they were really notably better than the Hornets. The series went to 7 games, with the Hornets losing games 6 and 7.

The Hornets lost game 3, with CP3 playing excellent basketball, so there’s not really anything else he could have done. Game 4, he wasn’t quite as good, but he still threw in a solid performance on the whole, and the Hornets lost by 20. It could be argued that CP3 may have done better siphoning some shots away from West (4/15) or Pargo (4/14), but it wasn’t made easier when the Hornets were right in this game after the 1st quarter (-2), and then went down to -13 once CP3 went to the bench for 5 minutes. The team outside of CP3 had a TS% of 0.410… that’s pathetic, so I’m almost entirely certain that CP3 trying to look for his own shot may have made things closer, but his teammates were downright poor, and this game was likely lost anyway due to how poor his teammates were.

Game 6, CP3 played a solid game, but one that wasn’t remarkable by any means (although the Spurs were clearly better on the whole, and likely would have won anyway). Game 7, similar story – his game wasn’t bad, per se, but unlike game 6, I think CP3 approaching his “standard” level of play would have likely won them the game. So, on the whole, I think that the Hornets could have taken game 7, making this series quite “winnable.” In a way, the Hornets don’t have that chance without CP3 playing as well as he did throughout the series, but I think they could have taken game 7 had CP3 approached his normal standard of play. So, he had a very good series overall, but had he had one of his “great” games in game 6, or had a “normal quality” game in game 7, I think the Hornets make it through. Probably one of the more winnable series that CP3 didn’t win in his career.

2009 Nuggets
CP3 was banged up in this series, and the Nuggets were a better team than the Hornets – I think a healthy, regular season quality CP3 keeps it competitive, so I’m not entirely sure how to assess this any further.

2011 Lakers
A lot of people are saying this series should have been winnable for the Hornets, but I think people are being quite harsh here – the Lakers were defending champions, and a much better team than this Hornets squad. The Hornets lost games 2, 3, 5 and 6.

Game 2, CP3 had quite a nice game overall, IMO. Very efficient 20 points and 9 assists, and his team shot very poorly on the whole. More than anything, Bynum and Odom were killing the Hornets this game, IMO. Game 3, the Lakers were simply the better team. CP3 played a solid, but unspectacular game, and spectacular game would have been what was needed to trump the Lakers. I think game 5 was a similar story – the Hornets actually went on their best runs in games 3 and 5 when CP3 was playing particularly pass-first, so I’m not so sure “aggression” is where the key factor is here, as much as it was the Lakers simply being better. Game 6, CP3 didn’t have a great game, but the Lakers were likely better anyway, and there’s no guarantee that they win game 7.

Calling this series “winnable” is a stretch, IMO, even if it’s “technically” accurate – the Hornets were a far worse squad than the Lakers, but CP3 played an excellent series (22 and 11.5, incredible shooting efficiency) and the rest of the Hornets were out of their depth. Their best stretches in their “loss” games occurred when CP3 wasn’t really looking for his shot, so I’m not sure you can even pin this down to aggression – the Hornets (who were already a much worse squad, and lost West) were simply out of their depth. I don’t really call this series winnable, just because CP3 was incredible in game 1 – the Hornets won that game by 9, and that’s with CP3 rocking 33 points and 14 assists on 2 turnovers and 71 TS% - this is the sort of standard he would have needed for the series to be winnable, and, well, those expectations are a bit too high, IMO.

2012 Spurs
They weren’t winning this series anyway, but this was one of the rare “poor” playoff series that CP3 has played.

2013 Memphis
This is another series that people often say is winnable, so let’s look at games 3 to 6, and see if it really was –

Game 3, CP3 played like crap. No two ways about it. If he played better, they go up 3-0, and they get the series. Game 4, CP3 was pretty good, but the Clippers lost by 21 due to the utter annihilation their frontcourt faced by Memphis. Gasol, Randolph and Prince, of all people, were savaging the Clippers frontcourt. CP3 isn’t changing this game.

Game 5, none of the Clippers play well aside from CP3, who roasted the Grizzlies for 35 points on efficient shooting with only 1 turnover. Nothing coming from CP3 is changing this game. Game 6, CP3 was excellent again, but the Grizz won comfortably. It wasn’t really the team’s offence that was subpar either – it was their team’s defence.

And that is the story of the 2013 Memphis series, IMO – CP3’s overall play was actually really good, and the Clippers were a +8 ORTG against the league’s second best defence that year, so I’m not entirely sure his “aggression” was at fault here. He played like crap in game 3, and it’s utterly true that winning game 3 may have changed the outcome of the series. But games 4-6, CP3 was clearly not the problem. The problem was Blake’s injury, as well as the team’s defence – the Clippers were destroyed by Gasol and Randolph (with solid performances from Conley and Allen). Honestly, even though the Clippers may have seemed on a similar playing field to the Grizzlies before the series, CP3 played a great series overall, and games 4-6 weren’t really his to blame. In one way, the series was “winnable” but the fact that they lost the series isn’t on CP3, and aside from game 3, I’m not sure how much he could have done. And these games happen – teams often go up 2-0, and then don’t play quite as well in game 3. But after that point, CP3 was really the only Clipper doing anything worthwhile against a very strong Memphis team.

2014 Thunder
I think the Thunder were the better team (I was very high on the Durant/Westbrook era Thunder, and thought they were an excellent squad). This series was unique, in the sense that all of the stars (CP3, Westbrook, Durant, Blake) played a really good series, and it went down to the wire. The Thunder won by less than 1 point per game.

Game 2 – CP3 was okay, but he was absolutely outplayed by Westbrook. I think he could have played better and made the result more competitive, but he didn’t “choke” or anything this game. Game 3, he was awesome, but so were Durant (who was downright unreal) and Westbrook. The biggest difference in this game is that the Thunder role players were better than the Clippers role players, IMO. Game 5 was settled by 1 point, and there’s the infamous “choke” that people allude to quite frequently on this board – not a terrific game from him, but his presence still led the Clippers to a +11 with him on the court. The biggest negative (much like the rest of the series) was Crawford, who absolutely killed the game whenever he was on the court. So, CP3 wasn’t great, and he could have helped take the elusive game 5 with better play, but the biggest impact on the Clippers in the rest of the game occurred when CP3 left the court, and OKC began feasting. So, I’m a bit undecided on game 5. He choked the ending, definitely, but I’m not sure that it’s a choke-job without him on the court in the first place.

Game 6, CP3 was great, but the Clippers lost because Durant was more awesome, and because his team sucked again.

I don’t know how to feel about this series – I think this series could very well be a series where CP3 played some excellent basketball throughout, but had clear elusive junctions in which he could have played better and captured another game or two. But then again, there were also games where there’s no chance that the Clippers win if CP3 didn’t play as well as he did. I think it was a winnable series, overall (and the end result was very close) but I don’t actually hold the series against him, because his actual level of play was quite good on the whole, and the series doesn’t seem like a “choke” if he didn’t play quite as well at certain other junctions to begin with. It’s worth mentioning that CP3 was a net +6.6 per 100 when on the court, so even if he didn’t capture a couple of moments that could have won the series, he was also the primary reason that the series was as close as it was. If Jamal Crawford wasn’t such a playoff choke artist that annihilated his own team whenever he takes the court in the playoffs, there’s a good chance the Clippers win, and a different narrative occurs.

2015 Rockets
A lot is made of the Rockets series, and how the Clippers “choked,” but to be short and sweet – it was the rest of the team, not CP3, and I fully believe this. CP3 put up 26 points and 10-11 assists per game in the infamous final 3 games of the series on elite efficiency.

The rest of the team? TS% of 46.8. That is absolutely pathetic.

Crawford (token team killer), Redick, Rivers… they were all abhorrently bad. Especially Crawford – he shot 12/41 and was -16, -26 and -22 in the past 3 games. CP3’s teammates absolutely wet the bed here, and I really can’t blame the final 3 games on him. I know some people will disagree, but I genuinely don’t, and think that there are some clearly more egregious moments in his career that are worth being lambasted for above this series.

2016 Blazers
Injured along with Blake, so they had no chance.

So on the whole, there’s a bit of a mixed bag with CP3’s playoff career. His overall play has been excellent, IMO. He’s all over the playoff statistics leaderboard, and is just as good of a player as he is in the regular season, where he is excellent.

The main critiques regarding his playoff performance is how “passive” he is, and choking in key moments.

The latter has occurred, definitely. His worst game in 2008 was game 7, and there was the OKC game 5 that he clearly could have won. So I understand the reservations regarding his playoff history here.

I do, however, think people are notoriously harsh on him sometimes – he gets blamed for being too passive in a lot of series, but a lot of the time, there’s nobody outside of LeBron James who could carry a team playing so poorly to victory. Rockets 2015 is a prime example – people would say that he let the game get away, but a 26-10 average across the last 3 games isn’t being “too passive” at all, IMO. Heck, in the first round that year, he was averaging 23 and 8 against the Spurs, but because he happened to hit a couple of big shots in the final game, people would laud the series as an example of how CP3 managed to “perfect” his level of aggression and decision making… but I’m not fully sure that aside from a couple of big shots (which can often be due to chance), that he was all that different against the Spurs than he was against many other teams at other points in his career.

I think that CP3’s “clutch” issues are heavily magnified by how poor his team has been defensively at certain junctions. To use an example, Wade was outstanding in the 2006 NBA finals (34.7 PPG, 57.2 TS%) and he definitely took the game into his own hands (only 3.8 assists per game). He was terrific, and there are no two ways around it. But it’s also worth mentioning that despite a gargantuan performance, his team only mustered a 101 ORTG that series. His teammates were quite poor offensively (average TS% of 50.4), but yes, Wade’s performance, as herculean as it was, only lifted the team to a 101 ORTG. Of course, the Heat only gave up an ORTG of 99 in the series, so they won, and Wade’s efforts were rightfully recognised. But their defence was absolutely integral to their victory too, and if the Mavs played at their normal offensive level, they take the series. It doesn’t mean Wade was any worse – he has an outstanding series either way. But considering how low a 101 ORTG really is (a -4.0 compared to the Mavs “typical” defence that season), it shows you just how important factors such as defence can be to the outcome of a series. And in a few of these series (e.g. 2011 Lakers, 2013 Grizzlies, 2015 Rockets), the inability for the rest of the team to cope defensively is what has brought them down at crucial junctions, even more than CP3’s play/the offensive play of his teammates.

Offensively, CP3’s teams have generally been really, really good in the playoffs, and he is by far the biggest reason for this. It’s their defence that has frequently let them down in the series that they’ve lost. I’ve already made some posts about how the Clippers have still been an elite offensive team in their elimination series, but their defence has basically been “worst in the league” level in these series.

I’d also say they’re magnified, because in certain series (e.g. 2011 Lakers), CP3 comes out with a scintillating performance, and then “cools down” towards the end of the series. He’s still normally very, very good, but not quite as good as he sometimes performs at the start of a series. For this reason, I think some of his series are labelled as choke jobs/more winnable than they really should be, simply because he’s performed at such high levels at certain points in the series that people expect this to be emulated every single game, and every single moment. And sometimes, these expectations are simply far too high to reasonably expect of anybody.
It’s also likely magnified because CP3, aside from the 2016 Blazers (where he got injured), has never actually played a team in the playoffs that has won less than 51 games, so some of these series go unnoticed.

Are there moments that he’s choked? Sure. Are there are few series that he could have won that he didn’t? Sure, and there are a couple of times (2008 Spurs, 2014 Thunder) where there’s a very good chance that the series could have been won, or changed, had CP3 played better at certain moments. But it’s just as likely that without CP3’s play, his teams never reach that point in the first place.

So, really, there are series that CP3 could have won that he didn’t, but at the same time, I’m not sure that some of these series really receive a fair critique, given how well that he has had to play in order to bring his team to that point in the first place.


Apologies for formatting - blatant copy/paste there.

That’s a lot to read, and basically, it reads like this – there have absolutely been moments where CP3 has played poorly at crucial junctions. There have been moments where he has played brilliantly, and the odds were simply against him. There have been moments where he has been injured. But, I’m fairly adamant in believing that luck (and the ragtag western conference) has been a huge factor that has hampered his playoff success.

After all, CP3 has only played three and a half playoff games against a team that has won fewer than 51 games, ever. The 3.5 games he played were against Portland in 2016, where he and Blake were injured in game 4 and missed the rest of the series. In Magic’s fabled 1987 season, he played teams that won 37, 42 (on a -2.54 SRS) and 39 games before making the finals. That is a large, large dissonance, and it's the type of difference that can greatly affect team results. Heck, Kidd is often credited for his 2 finals runs in 2002 and 2003 (and rightfully so, because he was a big part of it) but he did not play a single eastern conference team that actually had a win total matching any single team that CP3 has ever played in the playoffs, ever! (sans Portland)

I’d like to repeat one notion that I brought up that really makes me think twice about the criticisms levelled CP3’s way – his “aggression” which is so frequently brought up.

CP3 was berated in the 2015 conference finals for letting the series slip away in the last 3 games, where he averaged 26-10. He was lauded for his aggression vs the Spurs, where he averaged 23-8. In the elusive game 7 (known as one of the “big game moments” in his career), he only took 13 shots, well below his playoff average. He took 4 free throws. He had only 6 assists. In other words, he was 3.4 assists below his career playoff average, 3.1 shots and 1.1 free throws below his career FGA and FTA averages. But, he shot 5/6 from 3, hit a couple of big shots and the Clippers won by 2 points in a dramatic fashion vs the defending champs, so it’s now an aggressive, big time performance.

Is there really such a discernible positive difference from how he approached the Spurs compared to how he’s approached his other postseason opposition? Honestly… there isn’t, IMO. And considering how widespread this sort of opinion is, it demonstrates just how much winning bias is at play within our perceptions. If CP3 shoots 4/6 (still an excellent percentage) in that final Spurs game, he is no longer throwing in a clutch performance, but rather, the narrative morphs to, “he only took 13 shots in a 1 point, game 7 playoff loss.” And that’s honestly why over time, this individual series has actually pushed me away from resonating with the playoff results criticism from CP3 – I’m not really a winning bias fan, and that’s exactly where I feel the attitudes to CP3’s playoff career largely stem from.

How about how he has performed in close/significant games?

In elimination/closeout games for his career in the playoffs –
20.4 PPG, 9.7 AST, 2.3 STL, 2.7 TO, 56.3 TS%

In all games –
21.4 PPG, 9.4 AST, 2.2 STL, 2.7 TO, 58.5 TS%

So, he’s shooting slightly worse (but still clearly above average) in elimination and closeout games, but the rest of his stats are… almost identical, once again.

How about clutch stats?

I haven’t added the 2016-17 numbers to my personal stats, but CP3 has averaged 26.9 PP 36 minutes in the regular season (58.0 TS%) and 26.7 PP 36 (58.3 TS%) in the playoffs prior to last season. Considering that he creates so many of his own shots, his ability as a scorer in the clutch are actually quite noteworthy. These are the numbers for his entire career, not just an arbitrarily defined prime!

Honestly, almost any variable I choose to employ shows very little difference in terms of performance for CP3 depending on the severity of the scenario. His regular season/playoff box scores are highly comparable. His elimination game statistics don’t show any large scale drop off at all. Things such as his win probability once factoring in scoring margin, his close game performance (i.e. clutch stats) all seem to show a very similar story – CP3 doesn’t hit a magical new level in the clutch (certainly not like the way, say, Isiah Thomas seems infinitely better in the playoffs than in the regular season) but his performance, across the board, tends to be highly resilient. And the largest sample baseline we have for his performance (his regular season box score + impact) is incredible.

I get the idea of knocking him for injuries – he does get injured quite a bit, and that’s something that’s going to reduce his career value. But when he’s playing, he’s unreal. And that's why I'm picking him.

My next pick is Stockton. The debate between him and Paul is really, really hard for me - Paul's the clearly better player for me, but Stockton has clearly better longevity. I'm severely in two minds between these guys.

After this, I'm leaning towards Pettit, and giving Wade and Nash a serious look. Mikan is somewhere in the mix too.

So in summation -

#21 - Chris Paul
#22 - John Stockton
I use a lot of parentheses when I post (it's a bad habit)
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,409
And1: 9,936
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#49 » by penbeast0 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:37 pm

LA Bird wrote: ... I don't recall anybody voting for Mikan during the peak projects just a few years ago.
Bird, the last 2 projects started at the beginning of the 24 second clock because it as so difficult to weight Mikan's career so they wouldn't have Mikan because the criteria are different.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
mischievous
General Manager
Posts: 7,675
And1: 3,485
Joined: Apr 18, 2015

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#50 » by mischievous » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:26 pm

The-Power wrote:


Lastly, I'm not sure anybody ever wrote what you mentioned above. Who said that Paul should get all the credit for the elite offenses and none of the blame? Who ever disputed that teammates are part of the equation – both when it works well and when it doesn't? I sure as hell didn't but. But since you quoted me as – allegedly – another example of that line of arguing I can only repeat myself: read what was actually written, look at the context and don't make stuff up. I know you're a huge Wade guy and that you started pushing for him, and this means he's ‘in competition‘ with guys like Paul who starts to get some traction. But that shouldn't lead to this sort of dishonest discussion.

So yeah, I'm not sure why you have got so offended and went on a mini rant when that's just something I've wondered about, and it doesn't just have to do with Paul, but other players as well. It in fact had nothing to do with Wade, so I'm not sure what the point of bringing him up was other than an indirect attempt to agitate or bait me. Wade's case is strong enough as it is, he doesn't need anyone to start reaching for him to have a case and that's not what I'm doing.

There is no dishonest discussion here, but as i said it seems to be this thing not just Paul but with other players, they get glorified for their team offenses being stellar, but then when their offenses fail them it seems to get swept under the rug and blame goes to their teammates. Or then when some other guys' have had better individual performances in the regular or postseason, the guy with the better team offensive rating seems to get the benefit of the doubt. You talk about me not using context, when that's exactly what people do with the team offense thing. You can dodge the question at hand, and say it has nothing to do with anything or that I'm making stuff up, but an answer has still not been given.

The-Power wrote:When people argue that he's never made it past the second round and therefore alone shouldn't be a candidate at this point it comes across as flat-out lazy. There are arguments against him to be made but that one isn't convincing.

Not in itself no. But he brings up a good point about how in the Rockets series, their wins were with Paul missing a game and then playing lower minutes in the other 2, did anybody respond to that? It could just be noise over a small sample of games, but definitely something worth looking at.

Something else, i have no idea why his injuries always get ignored. Paul has hindered or arguably hindered his team's chances at advancing, in 09, 12, 15, and 16. That's a lot of seasons in his prime, so when it comes to the "not getting past 2nd round" thing, there may be some meat to that argument when we at least look at injuries.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,648
And1: 8,294
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#51 » by trex_8063 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:38 pm

Thru post #49:

George Mikan - 4 (janmagn, penbeast0, Winsome Gerbil, wojoaderge)
John Stockton - 3 (Dr Positivity, LABird, pandrade83)
Bob Pettit - 2 (Pablo Novi, scabbarista)
Dwyane Wade - 2 (mischievous, 2klegend)
Chris Paul - 1 (Bad Gatorade)


Have really enjoyed the discussion so far.
Speaking for myself, I cannot understand why so many people lose interest and fall out of the project once past ~#15 (or where ever a player of interest finally got in), because this is where it starts to get more interesting to me.

Once the [somewhat predictable] top 20 are in, the field seems suddenly wide open again. I can't wait until [probably somewhere in the 30's-50's] we start having threads where like 8-9 players are receiving 1st ballot votes. Already we have five players getting votes, and I'd not be surprised to see others (Nash? Durant? Hondo?) get some support, too.

Depending on how you view era strength (and longevity), I could see fantastic cases for Pettit or Mikan (especially Pettit, imo); I see fantastic cases for Stockton and Wade. And while I know they're somewhat polarizing figures, I see pretty good cases for Chris Paul and perhaps Kevin Durant, too. And guys like Nash, Ewing, Pippen, and Havlicek are more or less right there, too.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
The-Power
RealGM
Posts: 10,513
And1: 9,938
Joined: Jan 03, 2014
Location: Germany
   

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#52 » by The-Power » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:50 pm

mischievous wrote:So yeah, I'm not sure why you have got so offended and went on a mini rant when that's just something I've wondered about, and it doesn't just have to do with Paul, but other players as well.

You have quoted my post and wrote:
So this is another example of giving him all the credit for the elite offenses, then none of the blame when he loses in the playoffs. I'm still waiting for en explanation as to how you can have it both ways with that.

There's an obvious insinuation that what I wrote was an example of what you argued against in the following when in fact clearly wasn't. I'm just not too fond of people putting words in my mouth, (deliberately) misrepresenting my point and not looking at the context of the discussion before responding. Maybe I came across as a bit harsh but it's something I've been bothered by for some time now – and perhaps you undeservedly got in the way of a greater point I was trying to make using this particular instance as an example.

If you're criticizing people for praising one player for everything that goes well while blaming the teammates, and nobody else, for everything that goes wrong then I certainly won't disagree with you. But that's not at all what I did, so I'm not sure why you quoted me on that to make your point. I haven't even seen anybody else doing what you criticize in this project.

You talk about me not using context, when that's exactly what people do with the team offense thing. You can dodge the question at hand, and say it has nothing to do with anything or that I'm making stuff up, but an answer has still not been given.

To be clear: I was referring to the discussion where you disregarded the important context of my previous post; it wasn't about the analysis of Paul's career at all. Though I'm still not sure what you want to be answered. Are you sure you're not arguing against a straw man once again?
Hornet Mania
General Manager
Posts: 9,009
And1: 8,495
Joined: Jul 05, 2014
Location: Dornbirn, Austria
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#53 » by Hornet Mania » Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:52 pm

Sorry I missed the last vote, I had to fly to the US for the next couple weeks. Should be able to at least vote at more regular intervals, but don't have much free time. I'm glad Moses squeezed into that 20th spot, he was my choice for sure.

21. John Stockton
Alt vote: Patrick Ewing


Stockon has such incredible longevity, his cumulative career value seem quite a bit higher than most of the other contenders (I'm willing to be persuaded on this point though), typically I'm a peak/prime >longevity guy but now that the majority of players with truly dominant period are in the longevity argument is carrying more water with me.

I'm surprised Ewing hasn't been discussed more. He never won a title but he was a fantastic defensive anchor with an offensive game that, in retrospect might look poor, but for his era was respected. I always considered him a bit below Hakeem/Robinson but it wasn't a dramatic difference. A few spots below Admiral sounds about right to me. For all the flack Ewing got for never beating the Bulls or winning a title it's not like the Knicks have done much since he left town. A centerpiece you can build a decade-long contender around is quite impressive.

Also considering: Pettit, Baylor, Nash, Wade, Mikan ( so a mix of old-school and 21st century stars)
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,516
And1: 22,526
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#54 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:03 pm

Vote Joh Stockton
Alt Bob Pettit

Trex was wondering why the drop off in enthusiasm at this stage in the project, and I think it's because it gets harder to choose. Every vote I'm giving seems fluid and ready to change with the right argument.

I've had Nash ahead of Stockton for quite a while, and may again soon enough but right now Stocktons longevity is sticking with me.

Could easily go with Nash, Paul, or Curry for that or the next spot, but I do have a ton of respect for Pettit so I'll give him the alt here.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,850
And1: 16,407
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#55 » by Dr Positivity » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:14 pm

LA Bird wrote:Thoughts on Mikan since he is getting quite a bit of support:
I haven't evaluated Mikan in my all time list yet so he is currently unranked but with his NBL seasons not included in this project


His NBL seasons count
Liberate The Zoomers
andrewww
General Manager
Posts: 7,989
And1: 2,687
Joined: Jul 26, 2006

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#56 » by andrewww » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:47 pm

In terms of the candidates and comparisons between similar style players:

Nash vs Stockton vs CP3

I have Nash as having the clear best offensive peak among these 3. CP3 probably has the best combination offense vs defense. Stockton was consistent but I don't sense he would have been capable of being made a go-to scorer which teams used against Nash to limit his playmaking (eg. Dallas would rather Nash drop 40 than to dish out 20 assists in order to beat Phoenix).

Pettit vs Mikan vs Ewing

Pat was the best defender, Mikan imo dominated a weak era, and Pettit was consistently elite but question marks persist about his defense.

Curry vs Wade vs Durant

Curry has the greatest offensive peak in this group, KD the most diverse skill set, Wade was elite at his peak as an offensive dynamo (never was anything special with shooting from deep though) and was a very good help defender before he got lazy.

Am leaning towards Nash/Curry/Wade/Durant at this point in time.
User avatar
feyki
Veteran
Posts: 2,876
And1: 450
Joined: Aug 08, 2016
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#57 » by feyki » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:53 pm

LA Bird wrote:
feyki wrote: Just one example, but it's very important, to me. When you said he declined after the line widened 6 to 12 feet, I have remembered it to make a point about his numbers drop off, because coasting, not the decline.

He scored 61 of his team 91 Points against the defending champion as the revenge of his one getting beat in his 8 Years Prime. It was in the season, but against the defending champion and the only team to beat him in that 8 year span.

Mikan's average against the Royals still decreased from 32.0 to 25.3 per game and 1 game of him dropping 61 points in the middle of the regular season isn't enough to debunk 3 straight years of considerably decreased scoring volume and efficiency.


Like I said "Coasting".

He also put up 27-17-3.5 with Great Efficiency compared to the Lg Avr, in the last 3 games of the 52 Finals.
Great efficiency = +0.3 TS% above league average over 3 games...?


He had %48 TS in those 3 games compared to the %43.5 TS Lg Avr. Of course, %10 better efficiency makes him as great in that regard.

Some people also had said Mikan couldn't adapt to the 24 second rule and his career over with that. But actually, his injury ended his career. Too many made up arguements created to ignoring Mikan.
I never said Mikan couldn't adapt to shot clock so it would be better if you quoted whoever said that instead.


Thanks. But I have just said, he gets too many blame.
Image
“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot.”
JoeMalburg
Pro Prospect
Posts: 885
And1: 520
Joined: May 23, 2015
     

10 Reasons why #11 comes before #12 and #13 (and #3) 

Post#58 » by JoeMalburg » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:02 pm

With an alarming number of votes for Stockton coming in, I guess it's time to unveil the case for Isiah Lord Thomas

10 Reasons number #11 comes before #12 and #13 (and #3)...

#1 He’s a true superstar and franchise player in a way that John Stockton, Steve Nash and Chris Paul are not.

"God placed his hand on Isiah and said, 'You shall play basketball, and you shall play it great " -Rory Sparrow

He transformed the Pistons franchise from doormat, having won just one playoff series since 1962, to one of the NBA’s elite franchises of the 1980’s and still a largely respected franchise today. In his first game he scored 31 points and dished out 11 assists as the Pistons beat the Bucks who’d go on to win 55 games. Detroit jumped from 22 to 39 wins in Isiah's rookie year. The next year, he made the All-NBA team at just 21 years old. By his third season the Pistons won 49 games, second most in franchise history and went to the playoffs for the first of what would be a franchise record nine year postseason streak led by Zeke. Additionally the Pistons attendance went from last in the league the year before he arrived, to 14th to 9th to 1st by the time he was old enough to drink. In 1989, they opened a new arena, the Palace of Auburn Hills, that season they led the NBA in attendance for the fifth consecutive year and became the first team to draw over 1 million fans (postseason included) three years in a row. They went from playing in a football stadium and 228,000 fans a year to setting records for attendance in a state of the art arena that was still considered among the best as it closed it doors this season.. Isiah did what superstars do, he transformed the culture and made Detroit a basketball city.

“Internally, we call the Palace the house that Isiah built. Simply put, Isiah Thomas was the difference maker and the key to the franchise’s success.” - Tom Wilson, long-time Pistons president and CEO.



#2: He has a winners resume only matched by (some) others almost universally in the top 20

“After a bad stretch, Isiah called a team meeting, something unheard for a rookie to do and said, ‘I didn’t come here to lose, I came out here to win, and if you don’t want to win, then don’t play,’ ” Greg Kelser said. “He’s 20 and he’s calling out everybody. From that day forward, it was Isiah’s team.”

A winner of the highest order at every level. He took his team to the State Finals in High School, Won a Championship at Indiana as the best player and won two NBA titles as the team's best player. The Pistons and Thomas have as good of a case as any for being robbed of a title in 1988. Literally one obviously bad call not made and the Pistons odds of winning the game go over 95%. That doesn’t account for the injury Thomas suffered which affected him severely in the fourth quarter of game six and made him all but useless in game seven. But he doesn’t need that third ring to separate himself from the pack quite distinctly.

Here’s the list of players with multiple Championships as their team's best player taking into account the general variance of popular opinion.

Two or More for Sure:
Russell, Jordan, Mikan, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kareem, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem, LeBron, Isiah

Two or more in my opinion:
Wilt, Frazier, Doctor J (ABA), Mel Daniels (ABA)

Could be debated two or more:
Havlicek, Cowens, Curry, Reed? (I can’t see it anymore, but who knows)


Now you can talk about how basketball is a team game, and it is. And you can mention that the Pistons were a deep team, and they were. You can talk about all the good fortune that usually follows players and teams and win titles and that’s true also. But look at that list. Aside from Isiah (and Mikan), everyone on that top line was ranked inside the top eleven. That is too striking a correlation to ignore. We ranked the top 11 players based on our own criteria and what we came up with is a list of 10 of the 12 guys to unquestionably win two titles as their teams best player and another that has the strongest case for being the best on two Champions in Wilt. We excluded Mikan (due to era almost exclusively) and Isiah, because…

And mind you, I am not arguing for Isiah to be #12 or #13 all-time. Not even #21. I have him at #28, moves between #23 and #31 these days for me. But he was and still is a different level of player than Stockton or Nash or Paul were. That’s my argument here, if you’re going to vote for Stockton, you have to vote for the guy who was better than him first. The guy who achieved greater things and was held in higher regard by his peers and the honest media that was carry a personal bias. (more on that...right now)



#3 - He made five all-NBA teams, but it should have been eight and he belonged on the Dream Team


“Had Isiah not been so unpopular among other players and committee members he’d have been on the Dream and Stockton would’ve been left out. That’s just a fact.” - Jack McCallum



From 1983 to 1987, Isiah was an all-NBA player every season. He was first team in 1985 and 1986, then rightfully surpassed in 1987 by Michael Jordan, joining Magic on the first team. From 1983 to 1987 the Pistons were not a title contending team. The media acknowledged that Isiah was a superstar talent, the NBA made a now legendary promotional video called Superstars and there he was alongside Magic, Bird, Doctor J, Barkley, Hakeem and Dominique. But at the end of the day Isiah couldn’t join the elite until his team won a title. Isiah took that to heart, there are several interviews with him, in-game pieces where he addresses wanting the title, the process of getting there and the lessons he had to learn along the way. So Isiah changes his game for the 1987-88 season. His scoring and assist numbers drop below 20 and 10 for the first time since the 1983 season. He adopts a philosophy for his role which he describes as follows:

1st Quarter: Get everyone involved
2nd Quarter: Feed the hot hand
3rd Quarter: Look for my shot, take advantage of opportunities
4th Quarter: Winning time, if someone else is hot, feed them, if not, I have to get hot


The outcome was that for the next three seasons Isiah was the best player on the NBA’s best team. He had far and away more significant postseason moments than anyone else and yet, he made zero all-NBA teams. Why? Well, I can’t say for sure, but enough has been written to convince me it was almost solely a vendetta.

In the spring of 1987, following a heartbreaking game seven defeat, Thomas lent credence to teammate Dennis Rodman’s allegations that Bird was overrated because of his race Thomas prefaced his comments by calling Bird “an exceptional talent” but followed it up with “...but I’d have to agree with Rodman. If he was black, he’d be just another good guy.”. Isiah was a notoriously sore loser, he was so competitive, his best quality as a basketball player, his worst, it seems, as a human being off the court. He never handled the fallout well, he wasn’t honest about it, he blamed Dennis indirectly, the media as well. Instead of just admitting it was frustration at Bird beating him and serving up the most humiliating moment of his career in the series turning closing seconds of game five, he deflected. Instead of being the bigger man, Isiah remained as he was on the court, the ultra competitive little man.

The media already disliked Isiah and probably to a large extent, rightfully so. But this got him all but blacklisted from the things they had control of. It was petty, but we know it happens and I think this is one of the clearest examples. The voters traditionally favored the player from the better team if things were relatively equal, especially if the more winning player had a superstar reputation. But not in the case of Isiah from 1988-1990. His coach, teammates and the town that rooted for him, all knew that Isiah was a better player during the title years, again he sacrificed stats a little to win a lot, that’s what the media criticized him for not doing sooner, while they were voting him All-NBA. How else do you explain it?

This wasn’t the end of the anti-Isiah bias either, we all know what happened with the Dream Team now. We know everyone knew he belonged on that team, and also knew, they couldn’t put him on that team. So Isiah, wasn’t the most likable guy, but he was loved by his teammates and the Pistons fans. And more importantly, the love Piston fans had for him was generated by his play on the court. Isiah had a great smile, right? But Adrian Dantley isn’t nearly as incorrect as he is bitter when he calls Isiah a con-man. Isiah was salty and unapproachable while he played, burned bridges with ownership as soon as he retired and his left a Sherman-esque trail of destruction in his wake everywhere he’s gone post-playing career. But yet from 1981-1994, Piston fans loved him, adored him, worshipped him. He made Detroit a basketball city.

"If you went strictly on terms of ability, then Isiah should have been chosen for the Dream Team," - Magic Johnson



#4 & #5 & #6 - Thomas was sensational during the playoffs, especially in big games, especially in the last two rounds, especially in the second half, especially in the fourth quarter, especially in crunch time. Oh and especially when facing elimination too.

"Like many other superstars—at least the smart ones—Thomas learned long ago that piling up statistics is less intriguing than chasing or craving what he cannot guarantee. Like winning. By that measure, regardless of what anyone else says, he is an unqualified success." - Johnette Howard, Sport Magazine 1989

Isiah is one of the all-time great postseason crunchtime players and streak scorers. Here’s a list of some of the things he did in the playoffs:

>16 points in 96 seconds to force overtime in game five of the 1984 playoffs vs. the Knicks. (L)


>24 points in third quarter of game three of the 1987 ECSF @Atlanta (W)

>25 second half points, 17 in the third vs. the Hawks in game four of the 1987 ECF @Atlanta
https://youtu.be/9AqmjZHIDLo?t=46m12s

>11 points 3 assists in fourth quarter of 1987 ECF Game seven @ Boston (L)

>15 points 3 assists on 4/6 fgs, 2/2 3-pt and 5/5 fts in fourth quarter of 1988 ECF Game one @Boston (W)

>20 points in fourth quarter and 4 points in last 9 seconds of third quarter in 1988 ECF Game 5 @Boston (W)

>25 points, 11 after spraining ankle in third quarter of 1988 NBA Finals Game six @Los Angeles (L)

>17 points in fourth quarter of 1989 ECF Game six @ Chicago, outscored Jordan 15-2 in final 9 mins (W)

>10 points 3 assists in fourth quarter as Pistons come back from down 8 to win game two of the ‘89 Finals. (W)

>16 points 2 assists in fourth quarter of game one of the 1990 Finals leading Detroit back after trailing the entire game. Ten points on 3/3 fgs and 4/4 fts in last 3:45. (W)

>30 second half points, 22 in the third quarter, 8 in the final 3:20 of the fourth on 2/2 fgs and 4/4 fts of game game four of the 1990 NBA Finals @ Portland (W)

The thing that’s most impressive, is that, that reads almost exactly like a list of Detroit's most important playoff games during that era. In fact, using those games and just a few more details, I can walk you through the Pistons run from 1984-1990 and show you how Isiah was essential at literally every crucial step along the way.

The first playoff series in 1984, they were close and they knew for sure Isiah would be clutch. The 1987 Hawks series, winning both games on the road against the team that eliminated them the year before behind Isiah who scores more than 50 second half points in the two games combined. The closeout game in 1987, losing to the Celtics at the garden, but Isiah was clutch in his first game back in Boston since the game five disaster. And he would begin a pattern of being absolutely dominant late in big late round playoff games on the road. What’s more clutch than that?

The Next year, Game one of the 1988 ECF, back in Boston, Isiah dominates the fourth and Detroit wins. Game Five at Boston, series tied at two, Isiah dominates the fourth and Pistons win. Clinch series at home in six. What should have happened in 1987. On to the Finals, he struggles for parts of first five games but Detroit leads 3-2, seeing a chance to take the title, he does just that with 25 point, heroic third quarter. Pistons lose on bad call, he’s not healthy for game seven, they lose. On to 1989, Bulls starting to look like a threat, game six @ Chicago, Isiah closes it out on the road by outscoring MJ 15-2 down the stretch. Gets his team off to great start en route to blowout in game one of the 1989 Finals and closes out game two with 10 points in final 7:30. Pistons go on to sweep depleted Lakers.

Pistons go a combined 16-1 in first two rounds during ‘89 and ‘90 playoffs. In the 1990 ECF Isiah averages 26-6-9 in three road games and goes for 21-8-11 in blowout game seven win at home. Then in the Finals he dominates the fourth quarter, specifically the last six minutes and Detroit comes back after trailing all game to beat Portland. The teams split the next two games, then in game four, at Portland, Isiah goes for 32 points. 2 in the first half, 22 in the third quarter and eight in the final three minutes and change as the Pistons take control of the series and break the Blazers will. That’s why at the end of game five, even though Vinne Johnson just hit the shot a few minutes earlier that won the title, the Pistons flock to Isiah and mob him.

I also want to highlight game two of the 1988 ECF, also at Boston. The Pistons should have won this game, would have if modern review rules were in place and it would only add to Isiah’s legacy. This was the double overtime game, and it is a perfect example of how dependent the Pistons were on Isiah offensively if there wasn’t a hot hand to ride. In the last 6:30 of regulation and all of the both overtimes, Isiah either scorers or assists on every Pistons basket. He is the only Piston to score a field goal in the last six minutes of regulation, scores all seven of the Pistons points in the first regulation and assists on Dumars two buckets in double overtime. His Piston teammates shot a combined 2/10 from the field in the final 18 minutes plus. Isiah also hit a three-pointer with seven seconds left in the first overtime that put Detroit up by three. On the Celtics last play, designed for Bird, the pass was thrown behind Larry and landed in a surprised Kevin McHale’s hands who rushed up a shot not knowing he had a ton of time and hit the second three-pointer of his career. Except, replay showed that his toe was (barely) on the line. It should have been a two, instead, double overtime, Celtics win.

And it wasn’t always just one quarter. From time to time, more often than most more prolific regular season stars, even on the ultra-balanced slow it down Pistons, Isiah did put up superstar stat lines and of course reserved them for crucial games. Take a look:

During the 1987 playoffs
Round 1 Game 1 - 34-9-9-4, 15/29 fg 3-5 ft, (W) setting tone for playoffs and series sweep
Round 2 Game 1 - 30-4-10-2, 11/18 fg 6-7 ft, (W), The Hawks eliminated Detroit in 1986.
Round 2 Game 3 - 35-8-8-5, 11/23 fg 12/14 ft (W) @ATL
Round 2 Game 4 - 31-3-3-3, 12/24 fg 6/9 ft (W) @ATL
Round 3 Game 6 - 21-5-9-1, 10/19 fg ⅓ ft (W)
Round 3 Game 7 - 25-4-9-4, 10/28 fg 4/7 ft (L) @BOS

During the 1988 playoffs
Round 1 Game 1 - 34-9-3-4, 13/26 fg 8/10 ft (W)
Round 1 Game 5 - 16-6-11-6, 7/16 fg 2/2 ft (W, Isiah does all his damage in first half of blowout to close series)
Round 2 Game 5 - 25-5-9-1, 9/20 fg 7/7 ft (W, closeout series)
Round 3 Game 1 - 35-2-12-1, 12/19 fg 2/3 3-pt, 9/10 ft, (W, @ Boston Garden)
Round 3 Game 5 - 35-8-5-4, 14/20 fg, 7/9 ft, (W, @ Garden to take 3-2 series lead going home)
Finals Game 6 - 43-3-8-6, 18/32 fg, 2/3 3-pt, 5/7 ft, 25 4th quarter points, (L, phantom foul decided game and took Finals from Pistons)

In the 1989 playoffs he closed out the Milwaukee series with a triple-double, closed out Michael and the Bulls with 33 points on the road in game six and averaged 24 and 8 in the first three games of the NBA Finals as the Pistons took control of what would eventually be a sweep.

In the 1990 NBA Finals, Isiah averaged 27 points and 7 assists per game while being NBA Finals MVP. Only Jerry West (‘69, ‘70), Michael Jordan (1991) and LeBron James (5 times) have posted the same numbers.

In the postseason from 1984-1990, over a 93 games sample size, Isiah averaged 22 points, 5 rebounds and 9 assists on 45/35/77 shooting. You’ll also see a significant jump in his advanced stats and especially impact numbers. His PER jumped from 19.4 to 20.9. His WS/per 48 increased from .133 to .161. His BPM goes from 3.4 to more than double that at 7.5 and his VORP adjusted to an 82 game average goes from 4.1 to 7.5. Now even if I don’t think these stats fully demonstrate his value and impact, they clearly show he is turning up his level of play significantly in the postseason. And of course, that game six third quarter in the 1988 Finals is still one of the most amazing things I’ve ever seen in the NBA playoffs and one of the seminal moments in NBA Finals history.





Finally, furthering the narrative that Isiah is at his best when he most needs to be. In games facing elimination he elevates his play significantly. Throughout his career, the Pistons faced elimination fourteen times. In those games they have a very solid 7-7 record. Excluding game seven versus the Lakers in 1988 when he was not able to go at full speed, Thomas has averaged 24.2 points, 6.4 rebounds, 10.2 assists and 1.7 steals while shooting .473 from the field (113-239), .333 from three (7-21) and .736 from the line (81-110) in thirteen games. Those games are copy and pasted from a file a have poorly below...

PTS REB AST STL FG 3PT FT Result
1984 RD1 GM 4 22 7 16 1 8-15 0-0 6-7 W
1984 RD1 GM 5 35 3 12 2 13-25 2-3 7-9 L OT
1985 RD2 GM 7 37 12 9 0 12-28 0-2 13-17 L
1986 RD1 GM 3 20 3 11 4 6-10 0-0 8-11 W
1986 RD1 Gm 4 30 10 12 0 13-29 0-0 4-9 L
1987 RD3 Gm 6 21 5 9 1 10-19 0-0 1-3 W
1987 RD3 Gm 7 25 4 9 0 10-18 0-1 5-7 L
1988 RD1 GM 5 16 6 11 5 7-16 0-1 2-2 W
1990 RD3 GM 7 21 8 11 2 7-17 1-3 6-8 W
1991 RD1 GM 5 26 5 11 1 9-15 1-3 7-9 W
1991 RD3 GM 4 16 7 5 2 6-14 0-0 4-6 L
1992 RD1 GM 4 15 3 12 2 5-12 1-1 4-5 W
1992 RD1 GM 5 31 10 6 1 7-20 3-5 14-17 L
24.2 6.4 10.2 1.7 .473 .333 .736 7-6



#7 - Thomas played in an era that was much more difficult for players of his stature than today

"If he were six inches taller, we're talking about the greatest player in the history of basketball." - Chuck Daly.

Imagine how much better Isiah Thomas gets with the benefits of:
a) growing up with the three-point line and using it to his full advantage
b) the spacing that is created by having shooters all around you on the floor and only having one post player as opposed to 2-3 in the paint at all times
c) being able to carry the ball and perform modern style hesitation dribbles without being called for a violation
d) Not having larger players be allowed to hand check him to contain him
e) Being past the perception that little guys are never as value as big guys.

I’ll expand on that last one a bit. Isiah got very little MVP attention during his career. But that’s not because he wasn’t worthy, it’s because he was tall enough. Isiah was fond of saying “They pay by the inch in this league” and while that’s part typically salty Zeke, it’s also true, or at least was in his day. From 1958 through the end of Isiah’s career a total of three guards won the MVP. 6’9” Magic Johnson, 6’6” Michael Jordan and 6’5” Oscar Robertson. Of the 19 players 6’4” or shorter who rank above Isiah all-time in MVP shares, only five, West, Cousy, Tiny Archibald, Lenny Wilkens and Dave Bing started their careers before Zeke and only West and Cousy received significant support in more than one season. Isiah has more MVP shares than guys like Walt Frazier and John Havlicek who won titles in the 1970’s as their team's best player but were passed up for MVP consideration in favor of taller teammates Willis Reed and Dave Cowens who usually rank behind Hondo and Clyde on all-time lists.

How different would today’s players games be without that line? Imagine Isiah Thomas in today’s game. He’d be a 40%+ three-point shooter just through repetition. His percentage sunk because he took a lot of shot clock and quarter buzzer beater shots. He made a lot too. That was one of the big draws during his first two seasons, the number of half court shots he hit. (Think it was four his rookie year) Remember that the first time he played a game with a three-point line was in the NBA. Isiah learned to utilize the line as his career went on and by the time his team was playing for Championships, he was using the line to hurl daggers at opponents in the clutch.

He shot 35% from three during the playoffs over 93 prime games averaging 2.2 attempts per game. Before the 1989-90 season he began working on his three-point shot relentlessly, anticipating extending his career when he lost more quickness. He set career highs for makes and attempts and shot over 30%, a rarity in the league at that time. In the playoffs he attempted three and half triples a game and made 47% of them. Thomas was, an inconsistent, but capable three-point shooter in his era. He was one the league's best three-point shooters in a much different NBA in 1982-83, his second season, making the fourth most triples (36) while shooting the second highest percentage (.288), my how far we’ve come. Isiah would have made the trip with us.

But it goes beyond that. Anyone who has coached basketball can tell you how much impact it has both positive and negative, but it’s unquestionably changed the game. In 1987 damn near every half court offense at every level of basketball ran through the post, in 2017, almost none of them do, save the small-town mega mismatches in the prep game. The offense today would be built around Isiah’s strength’s from the time he was ten. And his teammates strengths would have complimented all the things he was by the far the best at in his day. Like creating off the dribble, finding the open man, finishing at the basket against bigger players and creating his own shot or a shot for a teammate from anywhere on the court. Isiah would have been more valued in today’s game then he was then, and then he was considered a half step below the elite, mostly due to his size.

I’ll take it a step further. Isiah was a coachable superstar despite having the requisite ego to be an alpha and the requisite chip on his shoulder to do so at his stature. He was willing and able to adapt his game for the best of the team when asked. The Pistons went from a run and gun team that set the NBA record for combined points in a game with the Denver Nuggets in 1983, to the definitive defensive force of the era and maybe, at that point, in NBA history. Thomas went from having complete freedom to orchestrate everything on offense, to playing off the ball at times to improve the flow of the now half-court reliant Pistons. Put him in a D’Antoni system and what do you think happens? My guess is something along the lines of a James Harden/Steve Nash hybrid the will of a champion and the willingness to step on and over anyone to get there. Perhaps D’Antoni and Isiah would both have the respect they deserve in that case.



#8 - He dominated his all-star point guard contemporaries head-to-head

Isiah took these matchups personal and often made a point to demonstrate his superiority. This is the way of the game he was brought up on. He’d be different today, but then this is how things were done. I include Magic Johnson in here, who Isiah did not dominate, but also did not get dominated by. In fact you’ll see that both really brought the best out of one another.

Magic Johnson - http://bkref.com/tiny/HUUtA

Mark Price - http://bkref.com/tiny/q4cNh

Kevin Johnson - http://bkref.com/tiny/HISj1

Doc Rivers - http://bkref.com/tiny/cOqss

Mo Cheeks - http://bkref.com/tiny/XQtjh

And most of all for the purpose of this post, John Houston Stockton.

I am going to focus on 1988-1993. This is the end of Isiah’s prime and a few years past it and the beginning of Stockton's prime. This will cover a total of ten games. Starting with the first time they ever matched up as starters and ending with their first meeting after Karl Malone intentionally injured Isiah with one of the dirtiest plays in NBA history.

Meeting #1 1/20/1988 - Pistons win 120-117 @Utah
Thomas - 28 points 12 assists 2 steals 9/15 FG
Stockton - 12 points 11 assists 3 steals 4/10 FG
Edge: Isiah

Meeting #2 3/9/1988 - Pistons win home game 103-98
Thomas - 20 points 8 assists 9/15 FG
Stockton - 25 points 11 assists 8/15 FG
Edge: Even

Meeting #3 3/1/1989 - Pistons win home game 96-85
Thomas - 10 points 6 assists 5/9 FG in 19 minutes
Stockton - 14 points 12 assists 4/10 FG
Edge: Even

Meeting #4: 3/29/1989 - Pistons win 108-104 @ Utah in Double Overtime
Thomas - 25 points 5 rebounds 8 assists 8/18 FG
Stockton - 18 points 12 assists 2 steals 4/10 FG
Edge: Isiah

Meeting #5: 12/15/1989 - Jazz win home game 94-91
Thomas - 18 points 5 rebounds 6 assists 6/17 FG
Stockton - 26 points 4 assists 8/15 FG
Edge: Stockton


Meeting #6: 2/4/1990 - Pistons win home game 115-83
Thomas - 16 points 6 rebounds 8 assists 7/10 FG
Stockton - 6 points 10 assists 4 steals 1/7 FG
Edge: Isiah


Meeting #7 12/05/1990 - Jazz win home game 106-85
Thomas - 21 points 5 rebounds 7 assists 9/20 FG
Stockton - 14 points 18 assists 4 steals 6/11 FG
Edge: Stockton

Meeting #8 11/15/1991 (less than two months after Dream team was announced) - Pistons win home game 123-115
Thomas - 44 points 4 rebounds 4 assists 15/22 FG
Stockton - 20 points 13 assists 6/10 FG
Edge: Isiah

Meeting #9 (one month later) 12/14/1991 - Jazz win home game 102-100
Malone delivers cheap shot in first quarter, Isiah does not return

Edge: None

Meeting #10 (the next time the two team meet) 3/3/1993 - Jazz win @ Detroit 106-98
Thomas - 40 points 6 assists 3 steals 14/29 FG
Stockton - 10 points 12 assists 4/8 FG
Edge: Isiah

Overall - Isiah gets the edge 5-2-1-1 head-to-head and when it became personal he completely dominated Stockton. You can’t tell me or anyone else who watched these games that John was better than Zeke. Including Stockton.

“I was never one to back down, so I always took on the challenge of playing Isiah and he gave it right back at me, no one challenged me more.”

-John Stockton on why he chose Isiah Thomas to welcome him into the Hall of Fame





#9 - Isiah was unanimously considered a Superstar by his peers and the media writ large in the era he played and observers of that era largely still hold that view of him.

"I used to sit out there and look around at the crowd and say, I hope these people know what they're seeing,' " says Chuck Daly. " 'I hope they know they will never see this again.' I'm doing that again, watching Isiah: I hope these people understand that they will never see that move again."

I certainly understand that with the objective analytical approach you take, this won’t mean much to some of you, but in the era Isiah played, it mattered. We didn’t have advanced stats, but we still knew there were things you couldn’t measure with the stats we had. They were called intangibles then, and now, even though many of them are now tangibly measured but the fantastic resource that is advanced metrics, there are still intangibles. Still things we haven't figured out how to measure or express numerically. And to me, clearly, among the things we still can’t measure, is how much respect Isiah’s game demanded from other great players and what having Isiah meant to a team without other great players.

I’ll start with what on the surface seems rather trivial, but seemed very significant at the time. Isiah Thomas was a stud in all-star games. Today, the NBA All-Star game mostly sucks. Occasionally you get a few great highlights or a couple cool moments, or a close finish, but mostly it’s a half-hearted exhibition. It wasn’t always like that. Until somewhere around the time guys like Larry Johnson started making guest appearances on Family Matters, NBA players wanted to prove themselves in the all-star game. Isiah won the MVP twice, and was a major factor in every game he played, save his rookie year. Players deferred to him, he took the ball, he decided who would get the shots and he usually chose well. He was comfortable assuming a primary role among elite players, and they were comfortable with him doing so. That matters.

I don’t like when people try to change history with a fresh perspective after the fact. I think it’s valuable to look at things in new ways to understand them more fully, but I don’t think you can change the conclusions already drawn about a player. Here is a list of publications that have ranked Thomas all-time over the past 15 years. I’m not saying we always have to defer to them, but I am suggesting that if such a wide range of expert opinions all have Isiah in the same range and all but one have him above Stockton, you need more than some advanced metrics which were not used at the time the players played to make a convincing case to change a near consensus opinion. And remember that it’s only as close as it is because of Stockton’s incredible longevity. In terms of peak play accomplishments, as discussed in point #2, Isiah is in a different stratosphere.

SLAM 75 (2003) - #17
Elliott Kalb: Who's better, who's best (2003) - #25
Simmons Pyramid (2010) - #23
SLAM 500 (2011) - #19
SI Top 50 - (2016) - #29
ESPN Top 50 (2016) - #26

Not wanting to wade to deep in these waters and commit an appeal to authority fallacy, I will leave it with one more thing from Simmons and the Ringer. This is a wonderful piece in it’s entirety, but I cut out the portion that deals with Isiah and Chris Paul specifically, but the historical rankings of point guards briefly as well.

From a Bill Simmons Article, April 2017, entitled “The Last Days of the Point God”

“You know how Russell Westbrook hogs the ball too much? Chris Paul never hogs it enough. He borrows Isiah Thomas’s model of making teammates better for 42 minutes, then taking over the last six. He’s a better, more efficient, more durable version of Thomas — someone I still consider to be the best pure point guard I ever watched.
You can’t fairly compare their numbers since Isiah’s generation never valued 3s; he certainly lacked the training/dieting/video/travel/spacing advantages that Chris enjoys now. But unlike Chris, occasionally Isiah would just GO OFF, like Curry or Kyrie on their hottest nights. What Isiah accomplished in Game 6 of the 1988 Finals ranks among the best playoff performances ever. Chris Paul never could have done it. Why? Because he never would have thought about doing it. The Point God simply isn’t wired that way. It’s his biggest flaw.
Isiah headed into Game 6 thinking, “We’re up 3–2, we’re on the road, they can’t defend me, I can’t let this get to Game 7, I’m going for the jugular.” He finished with 43 points on 18-of-32 shooting — only two 3s! — dished out eight assists and dropped 25 in the third quarter, many of them after badly spraining his ankle. He spent the fourth quarter limping around and persevering, filming a sports movie with a **** ending that absolutely should have been rewritten. The Pistons blew the final minute, then they blew Game 7. But Isiah’s Game 6 lives on.
What pushed Isiah to that desperate place? What pushed him to sob on Dan Patrick’s ESPN show years later while watching the tape? Years of pain. Years of falling short. Years of hearing that the Pistons couldn’t succeed with a puny guard as their best guy. They were one year removed from one of the worst playoff collapses in any sport — Game 5 and Game 7 in Boston — and after anguishing over it for 12 months, Isiah wanted redemption so badly that a swollen ankle couldn’t even stop him.
I believe Chris Paul cares just as much as Isiah did. But if Thomas brought the Clippers into Game 5 — with Griffin gone, with Redick slumping, with a one-in-four chance that Jamal Crawford might get hot, with the CP-Blake-Doc era heading for a precarious end — he would have tossed away the “42 minutes for you, last 6 for me” mantra and owned the game. Isiah would have thrown the Clippers on his back, engaged the crowd, pulled them into it, played off their energy, made everyone believe.
Like Magic and Bird, Thomas understood the balance between performance and art. It wasn’t just about winning or putting up numbers. It was about the way you resonated — with everyone. It was about extracting the best performances from every teammate, challenging their manhood, pushing them, making them believe in themselves (and you, too). Nobody had built an NBA champion around a small guard until those Pistons teams did it twice. And they did it because Thomas grasped every nuance of that position — everything — and performed accordingly.
Chris came so freaking close. Again, he’s a better version of Isiah in almost every way. Better defender. Better shooter. Better on pick-and-rolls. I believe that Chris’s signature move — go left to right, veer to the right of the foul line, hint that you’re driving, then uncork the 15-foot fallaway — doubles as the most unstoppable two-point shot in the history of that position except for Magic’s junior skyhook. It’s certainly deadlier than anything Thomas had.
But I don’t believe Isiah would have squandered Game 5, and here’s why …
38 minutes, 28 points, 9 assists, 2 turnovers, 10–19 FG, 4–4 FT.
That’s a perfectly fine line. Seriously. Kudos to Chris Paul. But if you showed me that line BEFORE Game 5, I would have said four words to you: “The Clippers are done.”

CP3 could retire tomorrow as one of the seven best point guards ever. I would rank them like this …
1. Magic
2. Oscar
3. Cousy
4. Isiah
5. Curry
6. Nash
7. Paul
(With Curry climbing and Frazier, Kidd, Stockton, GP and Russ fighting for the next five spots.




#10 - Conclusion: Because he did that ****

The entire argument here is as follows:

1) The goal of a superstar player selected early in the draft is to transform the culture of his team lead a group of players that can be assembled around him to a Championship.

2) I Have demonstrated that by reputation and traditionally defining characteristics that Isiah Thomas was a superstar.

3) I have demonstrated that in the most important games and most important moments during the four year stretch that Detroit contended for a title that Isiah Thomas was the player they turned too consistently in the clutch and that he came through very frequently in spectacular fashion.

4) To that effect the Pistons, led by Isiah, won two championships in between three teams that are considered among the greatest in NBA history all led by top 10 players all-time as this project sees it.

5) Isiah Thomas has thus separated himself from players like Stockton, Nash and Paul to such a degree in terms of actual accomplishment that the numbers and the hypothetical potential they represent given the right situation are not enough to justify them being rated higher.

Finally, there is this really beautiful moment at the end of the 1989 Finals. Isiah comes off the court waiting to shoot free throws while the LA crowd is saluting Kareem with seconds to go, the game in hand, and instantly starts to be overcome by the emotion of the moment. He grabs a towel and covers his face as he starts to cry and John Salley goes to him and says in his ear. “You’re the **** man. You made it happen. You hear me? You made this **** happen.” There is no advanced, traditional or impact stat that can measure that. Isiah just made the **** happen. That's what it's all about.

andrewww
General Manager
Posts: 7,989
And1: 2,687
Joined: Jul 26, 2006

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#59 » by andrewww » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:08 pm

@JoeMalburg

Excellent case made for Isiah, he seems to be largely forgotten in this discussion (I admit being guilty of this as well). I do value a player who consistently raises his game in big playoff moments, and against his head to head contemporaries too. Considering you have him above players like Curry, Nash, and Paul..all of whom are viable candidates at this point in the project, I am surprised to see you possibly seeing him as low as 31st in your range of what you perceive as a reasonable ranking.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 30,133
And1: 25,419
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List: #21 

Post#60 » by 70sFan » Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:26 pm

I think it's time for Bob Pettit. Think about it - how many players available have 10 seasons as top 5 player in the league? Pettit wasn't great because of weak era, he played at his prime level until his last season. The league changed from 1956 to 1965 a lot, Pettit changed his game too. He added and perfected his jumpshot, added more muscles, used his inconsistent hook shot less. He's also underrated as a playoffs performer. Didn't have any real weakness in his game. Tough and physical defender. Not real anchor, but clearly above average which is important for his position. He wasn't ball dominant, could play without the ball, gives you nice spacing and great offensive rebounding.

Some people say he doesn't have great longevity, but that's not true. Wade, Durant, Paul and Curry don't have longer career at this point. Only Stockton has clear edge among voted players. I just can't see him being below top 25 and I hope he will be voted soon.

Return to Player Comparisons