Isiah Thomas vs Reggie Miller

[GeorgeMarcus]

They were very different players, but 'in a vacuum' I'd say it's close. Leaning toward Reggie only because his skillset is easier to plug into any offensive system

How is it close, at all, outside of rings that Isiah wasn't even the best player on the team for?

Well for starters, Isiah was the best player on his team

[Top10alltime]

They were very different players, but 'in a vacuum' I'd say it's close. Leaning toward Reggie only because his skillset is easier to plug into any offensive system

How is it close, at all, outside of rings that Isiah wasn't even the best player on the team for?

Well for starters, Isiah was the best player on his team

He wasn't the best player on his team. Joe Dumars was better, and arguably Rodman too. I don't know why Joe Dumars is ever below Isiah Thomas on an all-time list, same with Rodman.

[GeorgeMarcus]

How is it close, at all, outside of rings that Isiah wasn't even the best player on the team for?

Well for starters, Isiah was the best player on his team

He wasn't the best player on his team. Joe Dumars was better, and arguably Rodman too. I don't know why Joe Dumars is ever below Isiah Thomas on an all-time list, same with Rodman.

HARD disagree, hating Isiah is such a random feature of RealGM

[Top10alltime]

Well for starters, Isiah was the best player on his team

He wasn't the best player on his team. Joe Dumars was better, and arguably Rodman too. I don't know why Joe Dumars is ever below Isiah Thomas on an all-time list, same with Rodman.

HARD disagree, hating Isiah is such a random feature of RealGM

RealGM doesn't hate Isiah. Dumars was just the better scorer + defender. Rodman was a better defender, by even more of a gap than Dumars who is already 35x the defender Isiah is.

You give good explanations, and are better than most posters on RealGM, I hoped to have seen more from you

[penbeast0]

They were very different players, but 'in a vacuum' I'd say it's close. Leaning toward Reggie only because his skillset is easier to plug into any offensive system

How is it close, at all, outside of rings that Isiah wasn't even the best player on the team for?

Well for starters, Isiah was the best player on his team

What year? He certainly was during the Kelly Tripuka years, in 84 they were the top ranked offense in the league and I would certainly give most of the credit for that to Isiah rather than Tripuka or Laimbeer. Their title years, they were still ranked 7th and 11th (out of 27) with good shooters other than Rodman and Salley (Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Aguirre, Edwards, Laimbeer) which isn't great but isn't terrible either. Isiah was certainly the playmaker on that offense. It really depends on how much credit for the defense and intimidation factor you give to the stronger defenders.

Of course, this is a comp to Reggie, not other Pistons and he was also the main (but not the only) offensive engine on his team.

[migya]

How is it close, at all, outside of rings that Isiah wasn't even the best player on the team for?

Well for starters, Isiah was the best player on his team

What year? He certainly was during the Kelly Tripuka years, in 84 they were the top ranked offense in the league and I would certainly give most of the credit for that to Isiah rather than Tripuka or Laimbeer. Their title years, they were still ranked 7th and 11th (out of 27) with good shooters other than Rodman and Salley (Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Aguirre, Edwards, Laimbeer) which isn't great but isn't terrible either. Isiah was certainly the playmaker on that offense. It really depends on how much credit for the defense and intimidation factor you give to the stronger defenders.

Of course, this is a comp to Reggie, not other Pistons and he was also the main (but not the only) offensive engine on his team.

You don't think Isiah was the best player during their title years? He was a great playmaker, always was also. He scored quite well, haven't checked but think he was their leading scorer. He was a good defender, maybe overrated but was effective. Don't think Dumars was quite better than him yet.

[Jaivl]

Well for starters, Isiah was the best player on his team

What year? He certainly was during the Kelly Tripuka years, in 84 they were the top ranked offense in the league and I would certainly give most of the credit for that to Isiah rather than Tripuka or Laimbeer. Their title years, they were still ranked 7th and 11th (out of 27) with good shooters other than Rodman and Salley (Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Aguirre, Edwards, Laimbeer) which isn't great but isn't terrible either. Isiah was certainly the playmaker on that offense. It really depends on how much credit for the defense and intimidation factor you give to the stronger defenders.

Of course, this is a comp to Reggie, not other Pistons and he was also the main (but not the only) offensive engine on his team.

You don't think Isiah was the best player during their title years? He was a great playmaker, always was also. He scored quite well, haven't checked but think he was their leading scorer. He was a good defender, maybe overrated but was effective. Don't think Dumars was quite better than him yet.

He was, but not by that much (in fact, he's exactly tied with Dumars for MVP shares those two years... two votes each). At the very least, he was flanked by 3 other slightly worse players, it was clearly an ensemble cast situation.

People probably overreact to Dumars winning FMVP on 1989. Even if it's possible he played better that singular series, he wasn't a better player during the playoffs or during the whole season. It's similar to some of the **Gasol > Kobe in the Finals** takes, just closer.

[migya]

What year? He certainly was during the Kelly Tripuka years, in 84 they were the top ranked offense in the league and I would certainly give most of the credit for that to Isiah rather than Tripuka or Laimbeer. Their title years, they were still ranked 7th and 11th (out of 27) with good shooters other than Rodman and Salley (Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Aguirre, Edwards, Laimbeer) which isn't great but isn't terrible either. Isiah was certainly the playmaker on that offense. It really depends on how much credit for the defense and intimidation factor you give to the stronger defenders.

Of course, this is a comp to Reggie, not other Pistons and he was also the main (but not the only) offensive engine on his team.

You don't think Isiah was the best player during their title years? He was a great playmaker, always was also. He scored quite well, haven't checked but think he was their leading scorer. He was a good defender, maybe overrated but was effective. Don't think Dumars was quite better than him yet.

He was, but not by that much (in fact, he's exactly tied with Dumars for MVP shares those two years... two votes each). At the very least, he was flanked by 3 other slightly worse players, it was clearly an ensemble cast situation.

People probably overreact to Dumars winning FMVP on 1989. Even if it's possible he played better that singular series, he wasn't a better player during the playoffs or during the whole season. It's similar to some of the **Gasol > Kobe in the Finals** takes, just closer.

From a valuable to the team standpoint, Isiah was the best player. His playmaking on its own was important to that team's success. Sure, breaking the rules in the way they did was the biggest factor.

[Owly]

What year? He certainly was during the Kelly Tripuka years, in 84 they were the top ranked offense in the league and I would certainly give most of the credit for that to Isiah rather than Tripuka or Laimbeer. Their title years, they were still ranked 7th and 11th (out of 27) with good shooters other than Rodman and Salley (Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Aguirre, Edwards, Laimbeer) which isn't great but isn't terrible either. Isiah was certainly the playmaker on that offense. It really depends on how much credit for the defense and intimidation factor you give to the stronger defenders.

Of course, this is a comp to Reggie, not other Pistons and he was also the main (but not the only) offensive engine on his team.

You don't think Isiah was the best player during their title years? He was a great playmaker, always was also. He scored quite well, haven't checked but think he was their leading scorer. He was a good defender, maybe overrated but was effective. Don't think Dumars was quite better than him yet.

He was, but not by that much (in fact, he's exactly tied with Dumars for MVP shares those two years... two votes each). At the very least, he was flanked by 3 other slightly worse players, it was clearly an ensemble cast situation.

People probably overreact to Dumars winning FMVP on 1989. Even if it's possible he played better that singular series, he wasn't a better player during the playoffs or during the whole season. It's similar to some of the **Gasol > Kobe in the Finals** takes, just closer.

I would argue that it's very debatable and (related) depends on what one means.

Thomas is not the leader in (I'm doing this Dantley excluded here)
89 RS PER: (Johnson; Thomas 2nd, 5 players between 17.3 and 16.3)
89 RS WS/48: (Rodman; Thomas 8th among rotation, ahead of Edwards)
89 Playoff PER: (Johnson; Thomas 2nd)
89 Playoff WS/48: (Salley; Thomas 7th, ahead of Aguirre and Edwards)
90 RS WS/48: (Laimbeer: Thomas 7th ahead of Johnson)
90 RS BPM: (Laimbeer; Thomas 2nd)

The does lead in 89 BPM (RS and playoffs), 90 RS PER (narrowly from Dumars) and across the board for the 90 playoffs.

It depends what you trust then and what you mean. He's strong on average but it's not clear cut or a thing where there's clear cut separation on the whole (though for the '90 playoffs he does have a strong box-side advantage).

Then there's non-box defense (and box-aggregates attempts to parse team defense). DWS and DBPM most rank Thomas very high in their hierarchy of Pistons defenders and are, in my opinion, very low on Dumars and Rodman (and arguably not capturing the full value of what Mahorn and maybe Laimbeer do).

There's also the matter of minutes - which could cut both ways. You accumulate more value playing more. On the other hand it could be argued that Thomas was the one player who, for whatever reason, didn't have to sacrifice minutes.

One possible justifiable (non-negative) reason for the above is something I've noted before that adds to his contextual value (but not his goodness) he's the only real point guard, whilst other positions have greater authentic depth at that position.

Whilst tied in their (tiny) MVP ballots (one last place vote each year) Dumars does have a small "accolades" edge in making a third team all-NBA (in '90) and a narrow edge in all-NBA points over the two-year span (16 + 94 > 57 + 36).

To me if Dumars is ahead or within touching distance by the boxscore, then I'd be inclined to think Dumars's non-box D (and box-aggregates mis-placing of defensive credit) moves him ahead of Thomas. That probably puts (at least?) Dumars ahead for all of '89 and the '90 regular season. Whilst I am inclined to suspect the boxscore is significantly too aggressive on his D in '90 playoffs (3.2 DBPM especially and then to lesser degree 2nd in DWS though that's partially minutes) he's also the clear OBPM and PER leader and even the leader in OWS (partially minutes again, but WS family is generally "low" on Thomas's - which is to say it's significantly [excessively?] influenced by his typically weaker shooting percentages) and it's hard for me to see a case someone is making up the gap (even if defensive numbers exaggerate it) beyond the boxcore.

Whilst I'd quibble at the margins then (on the whole, I'm inclined towards saying "he wasn't") I'd say it's correct to characterize this as an ensemble cast.

[Warspite]

He wasn't the best player on his team. Joe Dumars was better, and arguably Rodman too. I don't know why Joe Dumars is ever below Isiah Thomas on an all-time list, same with Rodman.

HARD disagree, hating Isiah is such a random feature of RealGM

RealGM doesn't hate Isiah. Dumars was just the better scorer + defender. Rodman was a better defender, by even more of a gap than Dumars who is already 35x the defender Isiah is.

You give good explanations, and are better than most posters on RealGM, I hoped to have seen more from you

Tell me you dont know baksketball without telling me you dont know basketball.

Telling me the shooting guard is a better player because he hits more wide open shots which are created by the PG who is double and triple teamed all game baffles my mind.

If Dumars was a better player than Isiah Thomas from 1982 through 1989:

1. Why didnt Dumars go pro at 18 yrs old?
2. Why didnt he get a Div1 scholarship?
3. Why didnt he make an all-star team?
4. Why didnt he ever get 1st team all NBA?
5. Why was he drafted 18th?
6. Seriously if Joe Dumars in college was better than the 3rd best guard in the NBA why wasnt he a lottery pick?
7. Why didnt the Pistons trade Isiah Thomas for Mo Cheeks and Charles Barkley if Dumars was the better player?
8. Why did he only play 23mpg as a rookie? (Couldn't take the starting job from John Long until the all-star break)
9. Why didnt the Pistons record improve in 86?
10. Why did they trade for Dantley if they had a top player lead scorer already?

The role of the PG is to make everyone around them look like a better player than he normally is.
Isiah Thomas did that so well that people 40 years later think his supporting cast was a bunch of stars that carried him to titles.

I often wonder if Curry had blown his achilles instead of Thompson would Thompson now considered the GOAT shooter? Would some stat geek years from now be claiming that Thompson carried Curry to titles?

We know that Isiah Thomas was discriminated against because of his Union activity and because of racism from both sides (he was simultaneously black and not black enough) for awards/accolades but those who played and those who watched knew that for about 60+ games a year Isiah Thomas was the best player on the court.

Isiah Thomas was the best player under 6'5" (Jerry West) of the 20th century.

There are 2 types of basketball experts on RealGM.

1. Those that played and studied the game.
2. Those that read stat sheets.

[Owly]

Why didnt the Pistons trade Isiah Thomas for Mo Cheeks and Charles Barkley if Dumars was the better player?

Do you have any sources that that was offered? And when (presumably post Dumars' drafting for it to be raised, but specifically)? Thanks in advance for any information.

[penbeast0]

...

Isiah Thomas was the best player under 6'5" (Jerry West) of the 20th century.

There are 2 types of basketball experts on RealGM.

1. Those that played and studied the game.
2. Those that read stat sheets.

John Stockton was better. I said it at the time, I say it now. I know you are a Detroit fan but Stockton was better at everything (playmaking, defense, efficiency, availability, less drama, he was even a dirtier Bad Boys type) except calling his own number which is a legitimate skill and Isiah's one argument over Stockton. Doesn't make Isiah anything but a great player but, assuming you have West at 6'5 basketball height (6'3 real height), Stockton is still the superior player.

[Warspite]

Why didnt the Pistons trade Isiah Thomas for Mo Cheeks and Charles Barkley if Dumars was the better player?

Do you have any sources that that was offered? And when (presumably post Dumars' drafting for it to be raised, but specifically)? Thanks in advance for any information.

Im not saying the trade was offered but that Isiah Thomas in 1986 had similar trade value.

[Warspite]

...

Isiah Thomas was the best player under 6'5" (Jerry West) of the 20th century.

There are 2 types of basketball experts on RealGM.

1. Those that played and studied the game.
2. Those that read stat sheets.

John Stockton was better. I said it at the time, I say it now. I know you are a Detroit fan but Stockton was better at everything (playmaking, defense, efficiency, availability, less drama, he was even a dirtier Bad Boys type) except calling his own number which is a legitimate skill and Isiah's one argument over Stockton. Doesn't make Isiah anything but a great player but, assuming you have West at 6'5 basketball height (6'3 real height), Stockton is still the superior player.

I 100% respect you and your opinion between Stockton and Isiah. I do wonder why Stockton wasnt guarding MJ at the end of the games in the Finals if he was a better defender since that is what Isiah Thomas did.

Jerry West said one of the things that made him upset with the Lakers was that they listed him as 6'2" when he was 6'4" barefoot. He said he was 6'5" in todays shoes. IMHO Jerry West knows more about Jerry West than anyone else.

[Jaivl]

Why didnt the Pistons trade Isiah Thomas for Mo Cheeks and Charles Barkley if Dumars was the better player?

Do you have any sources that that was offered? And when (presumably post Dumars' drafting for it to be raised, but specifically)? Thanks in advance for any information.

Im not saying the trade was offered but that Isiah Thomas in 1986 had similar trade value.

I mean, what's even the logic behind this?

"Why didn't the Thunder trade Westbrook for LeBron and Irving if Durant was the better player (source: I made it up)?". Huh?????

[hagredionis]

Isiah was the leader of team which won 2 rings beating such legendary teams as Magic's Lakers and MJ's Bulls (3x). But now according many forumers here Reggie is better. lol.

[Jaivl]

Isiah was the leader of team which won 2 rings beating such legendary teams as Magic's Lakers and MJ's Bulls (3x). But now according many forumers here Reggie is better. lol.

The Pistons beat MJ's Bulls, while the Pacers lost to MJ's Bulls.

[Owly]

Isiah was the leader of team which won 2 rings beating such legendary teams as Magic's Lakers and MJ's Bulls (3x). But now according many forumers here Reggie is better. lol.

The Pistons beat MJ's Bulls, while the Pacers lost to MJ's Bulls.

Or better yet, we could abandon the conceit entirely, not define either team by a single player and just note that the Bulls teams defeated had SRSes of 3.76, 2.13 and 2.74 (the latter two arguably inflated by expansion) and perhaps were not regarded as particularly "legendary".

[Owly]

Why didnt the Pistons trade Isiah Thomas for Mo Cheeks and Charles Barkley if Dumars was the better player?

Do you have any sources that that was offered? And when (presumably post Dumars' drafting for it to be raised, but specifically)? Thanks in advance for any information.

Im not saying the trade was offered but that Isiah Thomas in 1986 had similar trade value.

Oh. Well thanks for clarifying, that much is appreciated. That might have been better in the original post, in my opinion. Asking why they didn't make a trade that wasn't offered and that doesn't seem to really relate to Dumars particularly feels puzzling at best.

Fwiw, with Barkley being bigger, younger (and with less mileage), coming off a season in which he had slightly more MVP shares in that season than Thomas ever had or would have in a single season and across the Reference composites was producing at least a little better across the board, with a more clearly upward trajectory ... I can't say that I'd see Philly's need to not only do that but then also give up Cheeks too (coming off a season where it seem that at least parts of the organization would have know that they were doing a lot better with him on court).

[Djoker]

...

Isiah Thomas was the best player under 6'5" (Jerry West) of the 20th century.

There are 2 types of basketball experts on RealGM.

1. Those that played and studied the game.
2. Those that read stat sheets.

John Stockton was better. I said it at the time, I say it now. I know you are a Detroit fan but Stockton was better at everything (playmaking, defense, efficiency, availability, less drama, he was even a dirtier Bad Boys type) except calling his own number which is a legitimate skill and Isiah's one argument over Stockton. Doesn't make Isiah anything but a great player but, assuming you have West at 6'5 basketball height (6'3 real height), Stockton is still the superior player.

Just for the record.. You were among the very few people who felt that way at the time. Isiah was widely considered the better player. By fellow players and coaches, by the media, by just about everyone really.

Calling your own number is really really important. Stockton's playmaking was a tad overrated because he didn't pressure the defense much as a scorer. There were a lot of low leverage "Rondo assists" in there.