Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[Doctor MJ]

Warspite, I'm the same guy I've always been. I've driven people nuts for years.

I really don't understand your "mature and gracious enough" comment. You're literally replying to me making the exact same point as someone else back at them. Maybe you object to me using the "the problem with X supporters" line, but on the scale of things on RealGM it's not something I'd ever conceive of warning a poster. If it were, I would have warned the poster instead of bantering with him.

I guess I'll make clear, I'm not accusing Isiah supporters of anything worse than committing a logic error due to their emotional ties. And that kind of error, we all make in one place or another, so I'm not even saying something general about their mental capabilities. If that's not allowed, then no conversation is possible.

Perhaps you're upset to be grouped with others who advocate for Isiah based bad logic? If so, my apologies.

I've made clear that I'm open to arguments for Isiah based on his intangibles, but that people using that argument need to understand that they always have their work cut out for them. I support Russell over Wilt, but I don't expect to be able to convince everybody that I'm right because of his lack of stats.

I've also made clear generally that I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything, but if people start banging my opinion, I'll bang back, and frankly I enjoy the conflict or else I wouldn't spend so much time on this board. We've got team boards for people who don't want to talk with people who disagree with them. When you come to a general board though, you need to expect that your opinion will be challenged.

And let me be clear: Isiah supporters tend to believe very strongly in their guy, and tend to be shocked with people pick Nash over him. If you're under the impression that Nash supporters are swarming milquetoast Isiah supporters, let me disabuse you of that notion straight away. And to be frank: You were the first Pistons guy I ever remember doing this with on the board, and you've always gotten heated in these debates. Ain't nothing new here.

Last I'll just be clear: I have a GOAT list, Mikan's not above those other guys. If you're under the impression I go simply by who won the MVP, I don't. I go by my own assessments of what a player has accomplished, and how impressive that was given his circumstances. Typically, this means I go for the guy I think was better at peak, though admittedly longevity plays a factor as well.

[Doctor MJ]

I also wish you would have banned someone whos name is profanity and a violation of the TOS.

This would be GodDamnRobin, yes? I don't see the problem. RealGM doesn't censor those words, and it's not even clear who "Robin" is or in what sense the preceding phrase is being used, but you're free to report it if you'd like. Maybe some other mod will have a problem. If you feel strongly enough about it, take it directly to the admins.

[rrravenred]

I said it because y'all use stats or advance stats as the Bible and these rule changes have been made to promote scoring and help lesser athletes(non black) play in a sport dominated by african americans.

Well... I'd say an statistical approach is somewhat more useful than having a preprinted bible, as you can revise the interpretation as long as you develop new analytical tools and they withstand rigorous analysis (the +/- family are a reasonably good example of an approach that's weathered a fair amount of scepticism). The views of a lot of Isiah fans in this thread, however, appear to have been frozen in amber.

Your second point is... weird. The rule-innovative ABA was a proudly Black league (which may have been to its detriment in its contest with the determinedly mass-market NBA [1]). You want to look at the leading 3PM seasons and they're overwhelmingly African-American players. The vast majority of players who benefited from the no-handcheck rules wee (a) Athletic Slashers and (b) African-American.

Could you use some non-Nash examples of star players you feel the league went out of their way to promote with rule changes in order to illustrate your point?



[1] Paging TrueLAFan, Paging TrueLAFan.

[GodDamnRobin]

This was raised by someone else. If the name isn't acceptable, it wouldn't have been approved when I joined.

[Brenice]

Your second point is... weird. The rule-innovative ABA was a proudly Black league (which may have been to its detriment in its contest with the determinedly mass-market NBA [1]). You want to look at the leading 3PM seasons and they're overwhelmingly African-American players. The vast majority of players who benefited from the no-handcheck rules wee (a) Athletic Slashers and (b) African-American.

Could you use some non-Nash examples of star players you feel the league went out of their way to promote with rule changes in order to illustrate your point?

The no-hand check rules help all offensive players. I just said I would have liked to see how Isiah would do without being hand-checked. A benefit the whole world of NBA announcers admit to this being a factor, however Realgm deems it no big deal. But again, why was the rule changed? People want to say that Derek Harper style of play led to the rule change. However, I don't see Scottie Pippen defending a Magic without his hand on him. Sure Scottie played good position defense with his body, but his hands were on Magic too. Take handchecking out during that era, and Scottie couldn't touch Magic. They couldn't touch Jordan. Wasn't Jordan known for knocking peoples hands off his body? Magic swiped hands off him too. That was Zeke's era. From Magic to Jordan.

Rules to allow zone defenses are for people who can't play man defense. Weak defenders can be hidden in zones. True ballers man-up. 3pt shooting is a way to keep players who have trouble scoring one-on-one, involved. MJ gets double-teamed, and passes to a Paxson, Kerr, or Armstrong. Paxson and Kerr were shooting mainly open 2's. Armstrong came later and shot open 3's. Know, we have everybody shooting 3's. But, the scorers are still the Wade's, LeBron's etc. They are trying to develop the 3ball. Ray Allen was scorer first, not just a 3ball shooter. Reggie Miller too. Euro's come over shooting the 3ball first. Dirk is a 7ft prime example. My point was Zeke grew up playing one-on-one, going to the rim, not shooting 3's. 3's had to be adapted into his game during his NBA career. Nash grew up a decade later, with 3pointers the norm.

The 3pt shot hurt the mid-range game. That is a game for shooters, not scorers. African-Americans are predominately scorers. Euro-Americans are predominantly shooters. You tell me who the Euro-players who are "slashers" instead of shooters. There are exceptions.

Same for zone defenses. The best man defenders are...

[GodDamnRobin]

Here is how you sound: "Boats are a racist plot, because they were built with the knowledge that white people could swim better than blacks"

[Brenice]

That's where you are wrong.

[Warspite]

Your second point is... weird. The rule-innovative ABA was a proudly Black league (which may have been to its detriment in its contest with the determinedly mass-market NBA [1]). You want to look at the leading 3PM seasons and they're overwhelmingly African-American players. The vast majority of players who benefited from the no-handcheck rules wee (a) Athletic Slashers and (b) African-American.

Could you use some non-Nash examples of star players you feel the league went out of their way to promote with rule changes in order to illustrate your point?

The no-hand check rules help all offensive players. I just said I would have liked to see how Isiah would do without being hand-checked. A benefit the whole world of NBA announcers admit to this being a factor, however Realgm deems it no big deal. But again, why was the rule changed? People want to say that Derek Harper style of play led to the rule change. However, I don't see Scottie Pippen defending a Magic without his hand on him. Sure Scottie played good position defense with his body, but his hands were on Magic too. Take handchecking out during that era, and Scottie couldn't touch Magic. They couldn't touch Jordan. Wasn't Jordan known for knocking peoples hands off his body? Magic swiped hands off him too. That was Zeke's era. From Magic to Jordan.

Rules to allow zone defenses are for people who can't play man defense. Weak defenders can be hidden in zones. True ballers man-up. 3pt shooting is a way to keep players who have trouble scoring one-on-one, involved. MJ gets double-teamed, and passes to a Paxson, Kerr, or Armstrong. Paxson and Kerr were shooting mainly open 2's. Armstrong came later and shot open 3's. Know, we have everybody shooting 3's. But, the scorers are still the Wade's, LeBron's etc. They are trying to develop the 3ball. Ray Allen was scorer first, not just a 3ball shooter. Reggie Miller too. Euro's come over shooting the 3ball first. Dirk is a 7ft prime example. My point was Zeke grew up playing one-on-one, going to the rim, not shooting 3's. 3's had to be adapted into his game during his NBA career. Nash grew up a decade later, with 3pointers the norm.

The 3pt shot hurt the mid-range game. That is a game for shooters, not scorers. African-Americans are predominately scorers. Euro-Americans are predominantly shooters. You tell me who the Euro-players who are "slashers" instead of shooters. There are exceptions.

Same for zone defenses. The best man defenders are...

Clyde Drexler was asked about the rules changes and he frankly said he would shoot 4-6 more FTs every game and have a 4% increase in FG%. He believed 40ppg in a peak yr was possible for him in todays NBA.

Joe Dumars said MJ would avg at least 40ppg in todays rules.


Even though the asts rules are even more liberal today than before I think Isiahs apg would be lower because he would be scoring a lot more. I know his FG% would increase because he missed as many as 3 layups a game from what would be fouls today. Im still not so sure he would ever reach 50%. I do think 23-25ppg is right about where he would be. So a 24ppg 7apg player that gets to the FT line as much as LBJ. His rebounding was very good for a little man but IMHO reb stats are as much about pace/teammates as they are about ability.

My biggest problem with Nash is that he isnt a leader on par with Bird, Magic, MJ like Isiah was. In his prime he was considered a liability and someone who couldnt win playoff games. Then the rules changed and he changes teams and puts up gaudy stats and wins 2 MVPs but does very little in the post season. His supporters love those stats but isnt that a red flag? Its just my opinion but that looks alot like the PG version of Adrian Dantley/Mark Aguirre/George Gervin.

I believe Isiah Thomas would have gotten that Suns team to the NBA Finals. A setback like Amare leaving the bench wouldnt have detered him and defined his career. Of course I also believe Amare wouldnt have left the bench because he would have feared Isiah and theres no way Horry even tries that punk move vs Isiah Thomas. The Spurs knew that the Suns were mentaly weak and a reflection of there leader.

Do you think Horry would have hip checked Isiah playing the 89 Bad Boys? The 89 Pistons intimidated and scared every team and every player. They were the direct reflection of there leader.

[RandomKnight]

So then why should ONE player get all the credit for any of their success? That's the problem with Nash

No, that's EXACTLY the problem with Isiah supporters. They want to use the Pistons titles to say he's better than anyone who never won a ring. Nash supporters are saying no such thing.

You used to be a good poster. I dont know what happend to you. This whole thread is all about you and your straw man arguments and always trying to change the subject and modify the debate when your loseing. You have used about dozen straw men to try to help yourself and your unable to knock any of them down.

I understand Bastillon hes always been a little off but not you.

I have np with you putting Nash over Isiah in your GOAT list. By your criteria that makes sense. By your criteria Mikan should be above Shaq and Magic and Bird. However I wouldnt pick Mikan on my team over those players just as I wouldnt pick Nash over Isiah.

Nash had a "greater" career but Isiah is still the better player.

Oh and I havent used the rings argument at all.

I like the single season assist record that he set
I like the dominating of the allstar game and being the best player on the East team for half his career.
I like the fact that he plays great defense.
I like the big game performances.
I like the overcoming of disasterious performances/circumstances
I like how Isiah won at every level he played.
I like the praise he gets from coach Daly

I have had the oppertunity to meet both Nash and Isiah and shoot around with both. I think Nash is a better person and someone I would rather date my daugther. I however would rather be with Isiah if Im going to war.

Theres no right or wrong answer between Nash or Isiah. Its simply preferance. I wish you were mature and gracious enough to understand that.

I also wish you would have banned someone whos name is profanity and a violation of the TOS.

I have the exact opposite problem with Doctor MJ when it comes to Nash. He has a good grasp on the facts (more detailed and specific than I do) but fails to assert the obvious conclusion they lead to. Presumably because it is just too far outside the prevailing current of thought on the matter.

That conclusion is that Nash is one of the three highest impact players to ever step on a basketball court (Michael and Russel). And Nash has the best overall argument of those three for shear on court impact.

I am not speaking of goat list placement here. That has to do with accomplishments along with peak/impact/longevity etc.

Anyway, now DocMJ can make the argument that he must be doing something right if he is being attacked from the two extreme positions in this discussion.

I will say that other than what I consider his timidity on the Nash issue, I like both his thinking and style. And I generally agree with him.

[bastillon]

My biggest problem with Nash is that he isnt a leader on par with Bird, Magic, MJ like Isiah was. In his prime he was considered a liability and someone who couldnt win playoff games. Then the rules changed and he changes teams and puts up gaudy stats and wins 2 MVPs but does very little in the post season. His supporters love those stats but isnt that a red flag? Its just my opinion but that looks alot like the PG version of Adrian Dantley/Mark Aguirre/George Gervin.

what do you mean ?
27/17/3
48/5/5
34/12/13
39/12/9
29/13/4
29/15/5
that's what Nash did in consecutive games in 2005 playoffs vs Mavs and Spurs after Joe Johnson had eye surgery. has Isiah ever come close to matching that ? the answer is no. not even remotely close.

also, Dantley/Aguirre/Gervin didn't lead 60 win teams. it's one thing to put up good stats on bad offense. Nash was doing great on all time great offense.

Do you think Horry would have hip checked Isiah playing the 89 Bad Boys? The 89 Pistons intimidated and scared every team and every player. They were the direct reflection of there leader.

that's preposterous. sophomore Horry was going after Oakley and Harper but he'd be scared of little Isiah dude had no fear and that had nothing to do with that bump anyway. it was clearly a psychological play.

[Regulio]

I'd take Isiah over Nash.
Isiah may have had worse stats than Nash, but he had big balls, led his team to a couple of titles, playing despite sprained ankle and owning the court when it really mattered. You just can't look at everything from statistics perspective.
Bad Boys are one of the best teams in history of the game and they certainly would have not achieved what they did without Isiah leading them. Their competition were truly legendary teams as well.
On a side note, he was a fantasy scorer too.

[Warspite]

My biggest problem with Nash is that he isnt a leader on par with Bird, Magic, MJ like Isiah was. In his prime he was considered a liability and someone who couldnt win playoff games. Then the rules changed and he changes teams and puts up gaudy stats and wins 2 MVPs but does very little in the post season. His supporters love those stats but isnt that a red flag? Its just my opinion but that looks alot like the PG version of Adrian Dantley/Mark Aguirre/George Gervin.

what do you mean ?
27/17/3
48/5/5
34/12/13
39/12/9
29/13/4
29/15/5
that's what Nash did in consecutive games in 2005 playoffs vs Mavs and Spurs after Joe Johnson had eye surgery. has Isiah ever come close to matching that ? the answer is no. not even remotely close.

also, Dantley/Aguirre/Gervin didn't lead 60 win teams. it's one thing to put up good stats on bad offense. Nash was doing great on all time great offense.

Do you think Horry would have hip checked Isiah playing the 89 Bad Boys? The 89 Pistons intimidated and scared every team and every player. They were the direct reflection of there leader.

that's preposterous. sophomore Horry was going after Oakley and Harper but he'd be scared of little Isiah dude had no fear and that had nothing to do with that bump anyway. it was clearly a psychological play.

Do you realy want to compare playoff stats?


So you argee with me about Horry? It was a psychological play and the Suns/Nash failed it. Larry Bird steals an inbound and wins the game and the series and the Pistons come back the next yr and vanquish the Celtics. The Suns never recover and are no longer contenders.

[GodDamnRobin]

That's right Warspite, if Nash was a true leader he'd have taught Amare and Diaw self restraint during a team scuffle, just like Isiah obviously managed to with the bad boys.

[bastillon]

Do you realy want to compare playoff stats?

the stretch I've just showed:
27/17/3
48/5/5
34/12/13
39/12/9
29/13/4
29/15/5

is a conclusive evidence that Nash wasn't doing "very little" in the playoffs. as a matter of fact Magic and MJ would have a really hard time doing better than that, especially given Nash's elite efficiency - for instance in 48 pt game he was like 20/28 from the field IIRC. it's truly idiotic to call Nash as a guy who regresses during the postseason.

So you argee with me about Horry? It was a psychological play and the Suns/Nash failed it. Larry Bird steals an inbound and wins the game and the series and the Pistons come back the next yr and vanquish the Celtics. The Suns never recover and are no longer contenders.

first of all, Horry would go after Isiah in no time. I've seen him go after literally every guy possible. he wasn't scared of Barkley, Shaq or Oakley so stop making fool of yourself with that "he'd be scared of Isiah" because given his history it's just ridiculous.

second, Suns didn't have the opportunity to recover because their front office blew up the team. that's the difference between Nash and Isiah. when Isiah made one of the dumber plays of all time, his team came back next year and had another opportunity to win... and then lost in '88 finals and had yet another opportunity... and then met Lakers in '89 finals who beat them in '88 and Magic got injured. Nash didn't have a break like that. he was the one making great plays, but injuries were on his teams (JJ 05, Kurt and Bell in 06) as well as suspensions (07). then instead of finally competing without legit issues, front office blows up the team bringing a terrible defensive big man who was getting torched on pick and rolls all series long in 08.

so imagine Rodman gets injured in '88 - Bird destroys their SFs and Celtics go back to the finals instead of posting miserable stats vs Rodman (~15 ppg 35% FG). then Laimbeer is injured midseason in '89 with Aguirre breaking down during a playoff series. Bulls advance to the finals. then Dumars misses game 7 in '90 and without his contributions Pistons are again out in ECFs. Isiah never had to deal with anything like that.

[JordansBulls]

My biggest problem with Nash is that he isnt a leader on par with Bird, Magic, MJ like Isiah was. In his prime he was considered a liability and someone who couldnt win playoff games. Then the rules changed and he changes teams and puts up gaudy stats and wins 2 MVPs but does very little in the post season. His supporters love those stats but isnt that a red flag? Its just my opinion but that looks alot like the PG version of Adrian Dantley/Mark Aguirre/George Gervin.

what do you mean ?
27/17/3
48/5/5
34/12/13
39/12/9
29/13/4
29/15/5
that's what Nash did in consecutive games in 2005 playoffs vs Mavs and Spurs after Joe Johnson had eye surgery. has Isiah ever come close to matching that ? the answer is no. not even remotely close.

also, Dantley/Aguirre/Gervin didn't lead 60 win teams. it's one thing to put up good stats on bad offense. Nash was doing great on all time great offense.

Do you think Horry would have hip checked Isiah playing the 89 Bad Boys? The 89 Pistons intimidated and scared every team and every player. They were the direct reflection of there leader.

that's preposterous. sophomore Horry was going after Oakley and Harper but he'd be scared of little Isiah dude had no fear and that had nothing to do with that bump anyway. it was clearly a psychological play.

Do you realy want to compare playoff stats?


So you argee with me about Horry? It was a psychological play and the Suns/Nash failed it. Larry Bird steals an inbound and wins the game and the series and the Pistons come back the next yr and vanquish the Celtics. The Suns never recover and are no longer contenders.

And that is even when the Suns picked up Shaq.

[Aeternus]

And that is even when the Suns picked up Shaq.

Are you actually implying that bringing in a way post prime offense first player who doesn't run nor defend anymore in exchange for the best defender and rebounder of a team who doesn't need any offense but is starved in defense and rebounding was an improvement for that Suns team? Really?
This is worse than 37ppg Amar'e.

[Brenice]

first of all, Horry would go after Isiah in no time. I've seen him go after literally every guy possible. he wasn't scared of Barkley, Shaq or Oakley so stop making fool of yourself with that "he'd be scared of Isiah" because given his history it's just ridiculous.
The problem is that Zeke is a hit first and a pay back guy. Nash is a turn the other cheek guy. I don't have no problem with that in general, but Zeke was not going to be intimidated by Horry or anyone else. That's the psychological thing being talked about. It is called 'being tested'. Horry no doubt did that because the Spurs were having problems with Nash, no doubt. But it worked as the Suns lost the series, bottom line. How do they say it, "Nice guys finish last."

second, Suns didn't have the opportunity to recover because their front office blew up the team. that's the difference between Nash and Isiah. when Isiah made one of the dumber plays of all time, his team came back next year and had another opportunity to win... and then lost in '88 finals and had yet another opportunity... and then met Lakers in '89 finals who beat them in '88 and Magic got injured. Why did you neglect to mention that in '88, Zeke is the one who got hurt? You remember, game 6 where Zeke scored a still standing record of 25 points in the 3rd quarter of a game they lost? Being that his injury was severe enough that he played limited minutes in game 7, they were already up 3 games to 2, when in game 6 Zeke got hurt. Also, of note, does these limited minutes affect his advance stats? See if you going to tell the story, tell the whole story.Nash didn't have a break like that. he was the one making great plays, but injuries were on his teams...Isiah never had to deal with anything like that.

[Brenice]

And that is even when the Suns picked up Shaq.

Are you actually implying that bringing in a way post prime offense first player who doesn't run nor defend anymore in exchange for the best defender and rebounder of a team who doesn't need any offense but is starved in defense and rebounding was an improvement for that Suns team? Really?
This is worse than 37ppg Amar'e.

I thought Nash played with BOTH Shaq and Amare at the same time. Did Shaq not average 21 pts, 10 rebounds, 30 minutes per game, while playing 75 games? Shaq's stats were similar to Amare's. I'll let the advance stats guys translate that for me.

[Aeternus]

I thought Nash played with BOTH Shaq and Amare at the same time. Did Shaq not average 21 pts, 10 rebounds, 30 minutes per game, while playing 75 games? Shaq's stats were similar to Amare's. I'll let the advance stats guys translate that for me.

Uhm no? In 2007-08 Shaq only played 30 games for the Suns, averaging 13/10 in the RS and 15/9 in the PS.
Phoenix had average D in the RS, then they traded away Marion, and the impact was felt in the playoffs, with an early exit against the Spurs (happened yearly ), due to lack of defense and rebounding.
The year later they didn't make the playoffs, Amar'e missed 30 games, Nash and Shaq 8 each, Shaq averaged 18/8 (don't know where you took that 21ppg, Shaq didn't reach that since 04-05), Porter tried to destroy the offense and got fired. So, no. The Suns didn't lose contendership because of a psychological blow, but because of a managerial assassination attempt.

Also, it should be noted that when Porter took away the ball from Nash's hands (hence reducing his role in the team), the team offense collapsed. When Daly chose to reduce Isiah's role on the Pistons, they became contenders. Speaks volume on who was actually needed on each team and what kind of impact they were having.

*Also let us notice how Shaq's efficiency peaked in his PHO years despite the age. Looks like Nash effect...
**Also as soon as Porter got fired the offense went back to top of the league status. If it ain't broken...

[bastillon]

after Porter was gone Suns offense was at 118 ORtg. for the reference point, Lakers '87 had 115 ORtg. so much for Nash not being able to play with low post big on offense.