RealGM Top 100 List: #21

[JoeMalburg]

@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.

Thank you.

My top 25 would be the 20 we've voted in plus Mikan, Pettit, Wade, Rick Barry and Durant.

After that I have Baylor, Hondo and Zeke.

I have the other notable guards as follows but am open to changing:

29. Curry
30. Frazier
32. Cousy
--------------(end of tier three)-------------
33. Nash
34. Stockton
36. Drexler
37. Kidd
40. Westbrook
44. Paul
45. Payton
46. Iverson
48. Harden

[Doctor MJ]

I love the effort Joe put in. I know it convinces others, but it still doesn't really resonate for me.

Isiah's box score stats in general are less impressive to me than the other point guards in debate.
Isiah's on/off stats, such as they are, haven't seemed that great.
Isiah's accolades (All-NBA, etc) aren't as good as some of the other guys.

The other thing is this:

I don't think any star in history has the type of polarized opinions of him that Isiah does, in the sense that you tend to have Detroit people on one end, and everyone else on the other. He was the star and leader of the golden age of the franchise, and as a result he is an icon for the ages.

But the team won with defense, and the notion that you should credit a point guard leader as a defensive anchor when he himself isn't considered the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd best defender on the team is just completely without other precedent. I don't even know if I feel comfortable crediting Walt Frazier that way and Frazier was basically the perfect defensive point guard playing in an era where point guards appear to have had considerably more defensive impact (because weaker ball handling and decision making fundamentals made it easier to disrupt the offense with pressure, much like you can still see in the college game and other lesser leagues).

I'll add two more things because everyone should be aware of it:

Isiah's biggest stats came early in his career before the championships. Now, given this, you might expect that Isiah's stat decrease came from him taking on a smaller, more efficient role with the better talent around him. That's not what the data suggests though. Isiah was basically always about a 52% TS scorer, and even back then, that wasn't very good, which brings me to the other point:

Whenever people say "It was tougher back then for a small guy" for a guy with weak shooting efficiency, the thing I have to point out is that however tough it was, that player was CHOOSING to take those hard shots he was missing so you're basically damning the point guard's judgment while trying to defend him, and then relying on the team success to say it must not have mattered.

I have a hard time believing it didn't matter. They won, sure, but winning doesn't mean that everything you did was great. Every success is made up of strengths and weaknesses. Everything I see tell me that the Detroit Pistons won with an astonishingly effective defense that made up for the fact that their offense, and offensive star, were by no means up there with very best the NBA had to offer.

[Lou Fan]

Sorry I can't write a very long post today as I am super pressed for time but I wanted to get my vote in before the thread closes. I came into the project pretty low on D-Wade but have seen some really great arguments for him. His peak was awesome in 06 and 09. He's a GOAT level slasher who was great on defense in his prime (3 all nba defense). He he's also an underated passer imo with a really solid high 30s assist percentage in his prime. His longevity is underrated even though it is pretty poor compared to other guys here. His 2015-16 campaign made him an all star and he carried the heat to a place where they were only 1 game away from the conference finals. His ATG peak is what puts him over the top of the main contenders here. He's also proven to be an awesome playoff performer including one of the GOAT Finals performances 2006.
1st Vote: Dwayne Wade
I am not sure what to do with my alternate as I have Curry (don't kill me before you hear my reasoning) next on my list but nobody is voting for him. My next choice would be Stockton and he is gaining traction here so I'm not sure if I should put him or Curry. Voting for Stockton kinda feels like cheating tho. Trex let me know what to do pls thx

[Joey Wheeler]

I love the effort Joe put in. I know it convinces others, but it still doesn't really resonate for me.

Isiah's box score stats in general are less impressive to me than the other point guards in debate.
Isiah's on/off stats, such as they are, haven't seemed that great.
Isiah's accolades (All-NBA, etc) aren't as good as some of the other guys.

The other thing is this:

I don't think any star in history has the type of polarized opinions of him that Isiah does, in the sense that you tend to have Detroit people on one end, and everyone else on the other. He was the star and leader of the golden age of the franchise, and as a result he is an icon for the ages.

But the team won with defense, and the notion that you should credit a point guard leader as a defensive anchor when he himself isn't considered the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd best defender on the team is just completely without other precedent. I don't even know if I feel comfortable crediting Walt Frazier that way and Frazier was basically the perfect defensive point guard playing in an era where point guards appear to have had considerably more defensive impact (because weaker ball handling and decision making fundamentals made it easier to disrupt the offense with pressure, much like you can still see in the college game and other lesser leagues).

I'll add two more things because everyone should be aware of it:

Isiah's biggest stats came early in his career before the championships. Now, given this, you might expect that Isiah's stat decrease came from him taking on a smaller, more efficient role with the better talent around him. That's not what the data suggests though. Isiah was basically always about a 52% TS scorer, and even back then, that wasn't very good, which brings me to the other point:

Whenever people say "It was tougher back then for a small guy" for a guy with weak shooting efficiency, the thing I have to point out is that however tough it was, that player was CHOOSING to take those hard shots he was missing so you're basically damning the point guard's judgment while trying to defend him, and then relying on the team success to say it must not have mattered.

I have a hard time believing it didn't matter. They won, sure, but winning doesn't mean that everything you did was great. Every success is made up of strengths and weaknesses. Everything I see tell me that the Detroit Pistons won with an astonishingly effective defense that made up for the fact that their offense, and offensive star, were by no means up there with very best the NBA had to offer.

You can't win with just defense. Detroit also could score with the best of them, in large part thanks to Isiah, who was the only great offensive player in those Pistons title teams.

Isiah led a losing franchise into becoming a dynasty that took down the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls. Not just by simply being the best player on the court for the team, but by leading the entire franchise (intangibles). And yet in this list he's already behind several players who have not achieved anything even remotely comparable, be it individually or collectively, and seems like even more are to come...

[therealbig3]

Is Durant clearly ahead of Curry?

I mean, for someone like me, I see Curry as being a significantly better player for the last 3 years, with a higher peak than Durant ever had. I understand that the popular narrative doesn't agree with that view, but that's how I've felt, and the numbers actually back that up.

I understand the longevity angle for Durant...but I'm kind of feeling that Durant has always been a bit overrated and is more of a top 10 player than top 5 over the years. Which matters, but I'm wondering about just how much it matters. Like, I would take 2013-2017 Curry over any 5 years of Durant (would probably be 2012-2014, 2016, and 2017). Past that, you really only have 2010 and 2011, and I'm not sure those two years make up for what I see as the clearly superior peak/prime stretch for Curry.

[JoeMalburg]

I love the effort Joe put in. I know it convinces others, but it still doesn't really resonate for me.

Isiah's box score stats in general are less impressive to me than the other point guards in debate.
Isiah's on/off stats, such as they are, haven't seemed that great.
Isiah's accolades (All-NBA, etc) aren't as good as some of the other guys.

The other thing is this:

I don't think any star in history has the type of polarized opinions of him that Isiah does, in the sense that you tend to have Detroit people on one end, and everyone else on the other. He was the star and leader of the golden age of the franchise, and as a result he is an icon for the ages.

But the team won with defense, and the notion that you should credit a point guard leader as a defensive anchor when he himself isn't considered the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd best defender on the team is just completely without other precedent. I don't even know if I feel comfortable crediting Walt Frazier that way and Frazier was basically the perfect defensive point guard playing in an era where point guards appear to have had considerably more defensive impact (because weaker ball handling and decision making fundamentals made it easier to disrupt the offense with pressure, much like you can still see in the college game and other lesser leagues).

I'll add two more things because everyone should be aware of it:

Isiah's biggest stats came early in his career before the championships. Now, given this, you might expect that Isiah's stat decrease came from him taking on a smaller, more efficient role with the better talent around him. That's not what the data suggests though. Isiah was basically always about a 52% TS scorer, and even back then, that wasn't very good, which brings me to the other point:

Whenever people say "It was tougher back then for a small guy" for a guy with weak shooting efficiency, the thing I have to point out is that however tough it was, that player was CHOOSING to take those hard shots he was missing so you're basically damning the point guard's judgment while trying to defend him, and then relying on the team success to say it must not have mattered.

I have a hard time believing it didn't matter. They won, sure, but winning doesn't mean that everything you did was great. Every success is made up of strengths and weaknesses. Everything I see tell me that the Detroit Pistons won with an astonishingly effective defense that made up for the fact that their offense, and offensive star, were by no means up there with very best the NBA had to offer.

Thanks Doc.

Not trying to Jedi-mind trick you. Just trying to get you to consider perspectives outside your own, I know you value that.

It seems Winter is Coming, and forgive me for pledging my allegiance to the one true king of the North whose name is Isiah.

I admit my love for the Pistons, but I'm no Zeke fanatic. I was a Dumars guy. (Better first name) And if you could find my online arguments from the early 2000s you'd see me arguing that Dumars was nearly as valuable to those teams. I was wrong.

I was going to address the Pistons winning with defense in my post byut didn't have time to finish that argument. You're right they did win primarily with defense, but had you spent the last month as I have watching 75 Piston playoff games from the Isiah era you'd notice a trend. Most Detroit games came down to a class fourth quarter where they'd allow 18-25 points with their defense and depend on Isiah to produce half to 75% of their points directly or indirectly.

So while defense was their calling card they depended on their depth to be great on defense. On offense they rode Vinne or Joe or Aguirre or Buddha Edwards for a period here or there. But the only guy who always finished games was Zeke.

The Pistons knew they couldn't beat the Celtics or Lakers or MJ with offense. They didn't have a player as great as MJ, Bird or Magic so they left the offense to a bunch of role players that any NBA team could acquire and the guy they did have, Isiah.

The other great team that won multiple titles with defense is the Russell Celtics. They had Sam Jones hitting clutch shots, Heinsohn going off on occasion and Hondo taking the goat horns off Russell in 1965. The Celtics won with Russell and defense, but without those clutch scoring moments they and Russell would be looked at much differently.

Take three or four titles away from the sixties Celtics and Russell seems relatively pedestrian and a lot more people look past his leading the leagues top defense every year and have a valid criticism of his lackluster offense.

Maybe Laimbeer, Rodman, Salley, Dumars and Mahorn each get between 7-15% credit for the defense which deserves maybe 55-60% credit for whyvthe Pistons won. Isiah gets the lions share of the offensive credit remaining. Especially when you consider that without his offense it seems impossible they win any series from the ECF or Finals between 88-90.

Which series could they have won w/o Isiah?

Without Ray Allens miracle shot, and Greens suspension LeBron has just one ring.

Without the Lakers meltdowns in '81 and '84, Bird might have just one ring.

The point is that players are always dependent on teammates and luck to an in controllable degree. Why blame Isiah for carrying the offense on a defensive team? Had he insisted on doing it "his way" he gets more all-NBA nods, he puts up ludicrous numbers and wins no titles. Is he better then?

Most of all, you allege that Isiah wasn't in par with the best offensive stars of the game, but he put himself in a situation where not only was he on par, but he was better than Magic, Bird and MJ H2H down the stretch of close games. I demonstrated that. No one else was able to crack the code like Zeke and the Bad Boys. They have no comparable rival all-time. A team with 1 top 50 player, no top 15 player and three top 100 guys that won two titles?

That's crazy!

Thanks for always challenging me. You're the Isiah to my Stockton. You're better, but I will win the longevity battle.

[theonlyclutch]

#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.

Imagine if modern players had the benefits of the defense having to 'guard' non-shooters on the perimeter instead of cheating off them because of zone defense.

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.

I fail to see much precedence for a lifetime 76% FT shooter consistently shooting 40+% on 3s, whatever era, or did he not practice free throws as well?

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.

But the super high-paced offense in his early years was reminiscent of the D'Antoni system and the primary reason he got the box-score stats he did in his early years.

[mischievous]

So i get how great Stockton was, and I'm actually glad to see many are taking him over Nash. But over Wade? Great longevity, i get it. But..

Career high PER 23.9, Wade tops that on 7 different occasions some of which by a significant margin.

Career high OBPM 6.2, Wade tops that on 3 different occasiosn

Career high BPM 5.5, Wade tops that on 6 different occasions

Career high in VORP 5.5, Wade tops that on 4 different occasions, and despite playing far fewer games, Wade's career vorp total isn't significantly behind(65.9 to 57.7)

Stockton playoffs: using a 10 game sample as cutoff(possibly arbitrary)

Career high PER 22.7, Wade tops that 3 separate occasions

Career high OBPM 5.9, Wade surpasses that once

Career high BPM 6.8, Wade surpasses that twice

Total career VORP 9.9, Wade 11.4 while playing a similar number of games

Some possibly arbitrary box scores, but by this you should see prime to prime they aren't all that close as far as quality, and despite the huge longevity edge and having a voted top 15 all time player for basically his whole career has less playoff success than Wade does.

If box scores aren't worth much to some, it's not like Wade didn't come out as ultra elite by RAPM. 7th overall from 06-11(Nick Collison and Manu are ahead), and no doubt that injuries in 07 and especially 08 weigh that down overall, as he was 1st in 06, 2nd in 2010, and 4th in 09.

I don't particularly use RAPM and it's variants a whole lot, but in this case it's just used to illustrate that he's basically as impactful as his box scores make him out to be.

[trex_8063]

Epic post, JM.
I'm not generally one to put a ton of stock in narrative-based arguments (it's sometimes easy to get swept away by a good spin doctor, so I'm always cautious). That said, this post went a long way toward convincing me I'm underrating Isiah presently. And I sincerely appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into making these kinds of grand opus posts. Well done.

I did, however, want to pick one nit wrt this:

Overall - Isiah gets the edge 5-2-1-1 head-to-head and when it became personal he completely dominated Stockton.

I feel like there was one or two games you awarded your grade on this "Isiah_Even_Stockton" scale with somewhat homer-colored glasses.

In particular, the 2nd meeting (graded "Even") jumped out to me (and if doing these types of comps, I like being more complete in the box data presented): Stockton had 25 pts, 3 reb, 11 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 4 to's @ 65.9% TS. Isiah had 20 pts, 3 reb, 8 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 59.7% TS.

To me, that's clearly an edge to Stockton: he had one more turnover, but was also +1 in steals (cancel each other out, imo); was otherwise then +5 pts (on better shooting efficiency) and +3 ast, while being even in rebounds. Going strictly on the boxscore, I cannot see that game as even.


There was also the 4th meeting of 3/29/89 (graded "Edge: Isiah").
Stockton had 18 pts, 3 reb, 12 ast, 2 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 60.2% TS
Isiah had 25 pts, 5 reb, 8 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 54.7% TS
So Isiah was +7 pts and +2 reb, but was also -4 ast, - 2 stl, and had lesser shooting efficiency. To me, that looks basically "even".


Also, if doing all meetings from '88-'93 (which I admit should favor Stockton, as it's more firmly in his prime), why did you omit the 11th meeting (of 3/17/93)? fwiw (as far as noting the final tally), it's a meeting that goes to Stockton by a pretty sizable margin:
Stockton had 16 pts, 7 reb, 12 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 2 to's @ 58.1% TS (Jazz won, too, btw); Isiah had 14 pts, 2 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 4 to's @ 47.4% TS.

So overall in these years, I would grade it 4-4-2 with 1 game invalidated by cheap shot.
jsia....

[penbeast0]

A few things in the Isiah posts:

1. Isiah was the only great offensive player on the Pistons title teams? Isiah demanded primacy but Aguirre was certainly a great offensive threat, he's Carmelo if he plays with Harden; and Dantley before that was the clearly superior scorer which is one reason Isiah demanded the trade. Isiah was the man, he wasn't the only offensive threat.

2. If you took Isiah off the Pistons, they would struggle to score. If you took Stockton off the Jazz, they would struggle to run the pick and roll, if you took any great player off any team that isn't loaded with similar talent they would struggle.

3. If you give Isiah benefits for what he might do in the modern era, are you doing the same for other players? Calvin Murphy would be benefitted far more than Isiah by today's game v. his own era; the benefits for Stockton (not a slasher, much better and more proven 3 point shooter) would probably be as high or higher than for Isiah. If you assume Isiah will improve his 3 point shot to 40% plus through repetition, why hasn't everyone else done so, or at least all other small guards. I only look at what players actually did in the era they actually played in; anything else is too iffy.

[trex_8063]

Wanted to do a little comparison of the PG's who are getting some buzz presently (Stockton, Paul, Nash, Curry, and Isiah), by way of helping me organize my thoughts while also refreshing myself (and hopefully others) wrt some of the nitty gritty details. But wanted to do so while avoiding the individual "all-in-one" advanced metrics, and take a slightly different tack.

I'm going to focus primarily on offense (as we're talking about PG's here), and compare thru the following lenses (using career numbers, btw):
1) pts generated (scored and assisted)
2) shooting efficiency
3) turnover economy
4) elite offenses led (that is: for which they were the primary starting PG)
And then give my own personal grade/rank on a few other things:
5) defense
6) leadership
7) longevity


Pts Generated
To level the playing field somewhat I'm going with Per 100 Possession numbers and have roughly assigned pt values to assists (based on an approximate proportion which may have been to 3pters: 2.05 for Isiah, 2.08 for Stockton, 2.2 for Paul, 2.22 for Nash, 2.25 for Curry).
Regular Season
1. Chris Paul - 59.7
2. John Stockton - 55.9
3. Steph Curry - 54.2
4. Steve Nash - 53.9
5. Isiah Thomas - 51.1

Playoffs
1. Chris Paul - 58.5
2. Steph Curry - 54.4
3. Steve Nash - 53.4
t4. John Stockton - 52.4
t4. Isiah Thomas - 52.4


TS%
RS
1. Steph Curry - 61.6%
2. John Stockton - 60.8%
3. Steve Nash - 60.5%
4. Chris Paul - 58.0%
5. Isiah Thomas - 51.6%

Playoffs
1. Steph Curry - 60.9%
2. Chris Paul - 58.5%
3. Steve Nash - 58.3%
4. John Stockton - 56.8%
5. Isiah Thomas - 52.0%


Turnover Economy
Using my Modified TOV% formula: TO / [TSA + TO + (Ast * 2) + (Reb * 0.04)]
RS
1. Chris Paul - 6.30%
2. John Stockton - 8.13%
3. Steph Curry - 8.92%
4. Steve Nash - 8.99%
5. Isiah Thomas - 9.16%

Playoff
1. Chris Paul - 6.82%
2. John Stockton - 8.126%
3. Isiah Thomas - 8.135%
4. Steve Nash - 8.91%
5. Steph Curry - 9.68%


>/= +4.0 rORTG Offenses Led
1. Steve Nash - 10
2. John Stockton - 6
3. Chris Paul - 4
4. Stephen Curry - 3
5. Isiah Thomas - 0

>/= +6.0 rORTG Offenses Led
1. Steve Nash - 6
t2. John Stockton - 3
t2. Stephen Curry - 3
4. Chris Paul - 1
5. Isiah Thomas - 0


Defense
This is my own personal judgment, so is open to debate.
1. Chris Paul
2. John Stockton
3-4. Isiah Thomas/Stephen Curry (I see that as close; gun to my head, I suppose I give the edge to Isiah)
5. Steve Nash

Leadership Intangibles
1. Isiah Thomas (refer to JoeMalburg’s post for reason why I’d put him first here)
After that I’m not really sure. I’d probably put Steve Nash 2nd (+/- John Stockton sort of a 2b). I think I’d probably put Chris Paul 5th in this particular category, but it’s sort of nebulus, isn’t it? So definitely debatable.


Longevity
1. John Stockton (near GOAT-level in this category)


2. Steve Nash
3-4. Chris Paul/Isiah Thomas
**Isiah played one more season, but as I alluded to in a previous thread, Paul has basically been an elite player ALL twelve seasons of his career; I feel we can only [generously] say the same for 10-11 of Isiah’s 13 seasons (and while Paul has missed numerous games, Isiah missed his share of games, too). So gun to my head, I’d actually probably lean toward Paul by the slimmest of margins.

5. Steph Curry

[mikejames23]

JM that was a solid post.

All that being said, I remain unconvinced he was as irreplacable as you make it out to be. It's a bit like I love Tony Parker and what he brings to the team, but I wouldn't say there were other PG's during his own era that would have won titles in the same position. As such I remain somewhat unconvinced if you can't deliver similar types of results with a replacement PG. In this case, I do also believe the bulk of Isiah's fame comes from his title runs.

I was going to post something Pro-Stockton, but it appears he will get in anyway. Suffice to say he has a very interesting combination of several different traits which I feel lead to team success.

- Defense. Really abused the hand checks. I think if you watch him in slow mo he's solid on ball and very strong with rotations and off ball play.
- Textbook PG play on offense. Any coach will love this.
- Tough as nails. He stands up well vs MJ. There's a tape where MJ singles him out and calls him a "dirty player" haha. Plays Magic head to head and performs extremely well. Impressive 1988 matchup for those that want to watch.

Watch on YouTube

- Once he has some wing support as he received in Hornacek, he's been really special.
- It appears overall that some of his best years coincided with great opposing teams - I felt the elimination series vs Rockets was unfortunate as Stock seemed poised for a good peak. Otherwise the 95 team had all the tools in the universe to dismantle opponents.
- +/- great in all these types of studies. Actually he has very strong metrics in general and his WS/48 portrays him as an offensive great. The only non top 20 player who does well in this category is Reggie Miller - but Miller genuinely anchored unstoppable offenses in the playoffs. Something to discuss 10 spots from now.
- Longevity - what's interesting to me is this is done in an era without advanced medical tech. Chris Paul doesn't really have an excuse. Steve Nash greatly benefitted from the Suns medical tech - as you saw how he fell apart with the 13 Lakers. Stockton turned into a super roleplayer and greatly contribute beyond age 35

He's not perfect and I still have concerns over who truly deserved the blame for Utah's losses. I don't believe for a second that Steve Nash at his peak, for example, wouldn't have killed the league with Karl Malone replacing Amare. I suppose I can post something pro-Nash instead.

[trex_8063]

.

Am quoting Pablo here, too, as he'd sort of asked about this.

1st Vote: Dwayne Wade
I am not sure what to do with my alternate as I have Curry (don't kill me before you hear my reasoning) next on my list but nobody is voting for him. My next choice would be Stockton and he is gaining traction here so I'm not sure if I should put him or Curry. Voting for Stockton kinda feels like cheating tho. Trex let me know what to do pls thx

Yeah, it's a definite grey area. The way I kind of look at it is like this:
Suppose your honest choice for your 1st (or 2nd) vote is Player A.....but Player A has absolutely no traction or support from the rest of the field (and perhaps doesn't show much sign of gaining support any time soon). And also suppose that of the players who are developing a little bit of buzz/discussion (and/or votes), the one among them that you rank the highest is Player B.....I would not object to you using your vote for Player B in that instance (even though you personally rank Player A ahead of him).

For example, I don't think Bob Cousy is going to get any serious support any time soon. So I'd hate, for example, to see Pablo Novi get frustrated casting his vote for Cousy for the next 30-40 threads straight. So I'd not have any problem at all if he decided to go one or two players further down on his personal list to the next player who IS generating a little buzz, and casting a vote for that.


To me, that's a little different than conniving manipulation. True manipulation would involve thinking along the lines of: "Well, I really don't like Player C" (who has a lot of support) "and don't want to see him voted in yet.....so I'll vote for Player B because he seems to have the best chance of beating Player C." (even though there are other players----who DO have buzz/traction----you rank ahead of Player B)


I realize the line between these two things can be somewhat blurry at times. Just use your best judgment, and I'll advise as best as I can if asked.


I would say if Curry is your honest feeling for the alternate, I'm going to advise making him your official 2nd pick (he is already getting discussion, if not votes; so he's likely not far from having some traction in the project).

Since my 1st vote is likely to go to Stockton, I must admit I'm reluctant to offer any OTHER advice as that might look like I'm colluding to get the result I want .

[JoeMalburg]

I'm going to be hella busy. I knew what I was getting into. Nonetheless, I hate being forced into the role of Isiah's defender, I just wanted to highlight his highlights which seem ignored, forgotten, or in the least overlooked.

So here I go.

A few things in the Isiah posts:

1. Isiah was the only great offensive player on the Pistons title teams? Isiah demanded primacy but Aguirre was certainly a great offensive threat, he's Carmelo if he plays with Harden; and Dantley before that was the clearly superior scorer which is one reason Isiah demanded the trade. Isiah was the man, he wasn't the only offensive threat.

2. If you took Isiah off the Pistons, they would struggle to score. If you took Stockton off the Jazz, they would struggle to run the pick and roll, if you took any great player off any team that isn't loaded with similar talent they would struggle.

3. If you give Isiah benefits for what he might do in the modern era, are you doing the same for other players? Calvin Murphy would be benefitted far more than Isiah by today's game v. his own era; the benefits for Stockton (not a slasher, much better and more proven 3 point shooter) would probably be as high or higher than for Isiah. If you assume Isiah will improve his 3 point shot to 40% plus through repetition, why hasn't everyone else done so, or at least all other small guards. I only look at what players actually did in the era they actually played in; anything else is too iffy.

A lot of NO's. But I'm a positive guy so I'll make them yes's.

1) Yes, Isiah was on the only great offensive player on the Piston title teams. Vinne had great games, great moments. Joe was great in the care free '89 Finals, as were Isiah and Vinne. Aguirre was a great scorer with Dallas. He had few notable playoff games with Detroit. Mostly he provided the role Dantley was needed in, instead of the one Dantley saw himself in.

1B) Yes, Dantley was traded because he didn't like Isiah and he could have ruined the chemistry of the team because he was starting to let it be known. Isiah said, him or me, and it was an easy choice for Trader Jack. Dantley did a lot for the Pistons, he brought professionalism, he taught the Pistons how to prepare for games, how important it was to take care of your business, but he resented Isiah. Isiah was too cocky, too brash, too much of an a-hole. The others guys got it, but Dantley didn't. He came from a losing culture and Isiah reminded him of less talented players with the same mentality and he fairly assumed Isiah was a problem. But he was wrong, and history proved that.

When the Pistons downgraded talent from Dantley to Aguirre. They got a team player. I guy who knew Isiah, and respected him. As a result they could play Rodman more, give Dumars more shots and not coincidentally they went on a 45-6 (or something to that effect) run en route to the title. Isiah was the unquestioned guy and they got way better. Dantley wanted to be the man, but his style of play is great for him and a major negative for everyone else. He was a ball stopper and he always thought he was the best option. adrian figured out what was best for him. Isiah figured out what was best for the team.

2) Yes if you took Isiah off the Pistons they'd struggle to score and the results would be 2 fewer NBA titles.
2B) Yes if you took Stockton off the Jazz they'd struggle to pick and roll and the result would be a different offense and likely still zero titles.

3) Yes, a fair point for sure, but I think you misunderstood my intention. I wasn't trying to say Isiah deserves to be elevated, I was just putting his numbers in context. Explaining that he tailored his game to the time and worked incessantly hard at it. His approach would have been different in a different era, but the work ethic would not. I feel that's a fair assumption. Do you disagree?

Note: The 40% three-point shooter assumption is entirely subjective I admit. But it's based on his proficiency from 20-22 feet. That became his pet shot because as his game developed, that was the shot that was most available to him at the point the offense was instigated. That's where the defense started to get lax and that's where he could sneak in a clean look without the defense suspecting. I think he'd have moved that shot back out of necessity as much as foresight if he were born in the early nineties instead of the early sixties.

Note 2: I'm not done yet, but looking through 71 of 93 prime playoff games for Zeke (searching for more films), I have him at 277-562 from the 20-22 foot range. That's just above 49&, I could see him being deadly from three if he were brought up on it and recognized the advantage the way Nash, Curry and the like have.


Note 3: And I respect the fact that you value actual achievements over the hypothetical, me too. That's why I have Isiah above Stockton, Nash and Paul.

[Winsome Gerbil]

And while I know they're somewhat polarizing figures, I see pretty good cases for Chris Paul and perhaps Kevin Durant, too.

Just because they are anatomically better equipped for the WNBA.

[trex_8063]

John Stockton was marginally slow in working up to his "star" years (wasn't until his 4th season that he'd reached All-NBA level; though was the same for Steph Curry). But from then on---to his 19th season---he never declined any further than a borderline All-Star. Even in his final season he was still a 10.8 ppg/7.7 apg (57.7% TS and 3.5 Ast:TO ratio) while playing just under 28 mpg (was still on pace to be a 14/10 guard per 36 minutes), and still ranking somewhat near the top of the league in RAPM and other impact metrics.

So that's 16 seasons ranging between borderline All-Star and All-NBA level, and during which he'll almost never miss a game because he was an utter iron-man.

In broad strokes, his career value can perhaps be somewhat summed up in looking at some cumulative measures like career rs VORP (he's 20th all-time in NBA/ABA history---or since 1973 anyway), or career rs WS (5th all-time), or even career playoff [where he sustains some criticism] WS (18th all-time) and VORP (19th since 1973).


A lot of good stuff has been presented about Stockton already. I was recently watching G3 of the '92 WCSF (vs Portland); jeez that offensive cast pretty well sucks outside of Stockton/Mailman and Jeff Malone (not great, but def not bad either): no back-up PG worth his salt when Stockton sits (they'd have either Jeff Malone or Blue Edwards playing the point when Stockton sat: both terrible ball-handling and playmaking guards), almost no outside shooting (except for Stockton) which allowed Portland to double-down off of Benoit or Corbin (or even Edwards) with relative impunity; and the commentators were even commenting how (with Eaton down low) it's sometimes like playing 4-on-5.
Somehow Stockton/Malone managed a +4.0 rORTG out of that mess, which I find remarkable.

wrt Stockton's defense, in watching this, I'm reminded that his lateral quickness really wasn't much better than Steve Nash's, and could not uncommonly be beat off the dribble. But he was so attentive, knowledgeable, and aggressive (read: dirty); he really gets away with a lot of physical play on the perimeter and in fighting thru screens. I'm not criticising; kudos to him for pushing the boundaries of what was "legal" at the time to help make him as effective a defender as he was. Quick hands, too.

Anyway, I've not got much more time presently, so I'm gonna lay out my votes.

1st vote: John Stockton
2nd vote: I'm between Dwyane Wade and Chris Paul presently. In my gut, I'm kinda leaning toward Wade, so I think I'll make him my official 2nd pick. Not good on longevity (which is a big deal to me), but he's arguably the highest peak left on the table (with the possible exceptions [imo] of Bill Walton and maybe Steph Curry, both who have much lesser longevity than Wade).

[JoeMalburg]

Epic post, JM.
I'm not generally one to put a ton of stock in narrative-based arguments (it's sometimes easy to get swept away by a good spin doctor, so I'm always cautious). That said, this post went a long way toward convincing me I'm underrating Isiah presently. And I sincerely appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into making these kinds of grand opus posts. Well done.

I did, however, want to pick one nit wrt this:

Overall - Isiah gets the edge 5-2-1-1 head-to-head and when it became personal he completely dominated Stockton.

I feel like there was one or two games you awarded your grade on this "Isiah_Even_Stockton" scale with somewhat homer-colored glasses.

In particular, the 2nd meeting (graded "Even") jumped out to me (and if doing these types of comps, I like being more complete in the box data presented): Stockton had 25 pts, 3 reb, 11 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 4 to's @ 65.9% TS. Isiah had 20 pts, 3 reb, 8 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 59.7% TS.

To me, that's clearly an edge to Stockton: he had one more turnover, but was also +1 in steals (cancel each other out, imo); was otherwise then +5 pts (on better shooting efficiency) and +3 ast, while being even in rebounds. Going strictly on the boxscore, I cannot see that game as even.


There was also the 4th meeting of 3/29/89 (graded "Edge: Isiah").
Stockton had 18 pts, 3 reb, 12 ast, 2 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 60.2% TS
Isiah had 25 pts, 5 reb, 8 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 54.7% TS
So Isiah was +7 pts and +2 reb, but was also -4 ast, - 2 stl, and had lesser shooting efficiency. To me, that looks basically "even".


Also, if doing all meetings from '88-'93 (which I admit should favor Stockton, as it's more firmly in his prime), why did you omit the 11th meeting (of 3/17/93)? fwiw (as far as noting the final tally), it's a meeting that goes to Stockton by a pretty sizable margin:
Stockton had 16 pts, 7 reb, 12 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 2 to's @ 58.1% TS (Jazz won, too, btw); Isiah had 14 pts, 2 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 4 to's @ 47.4% TS.

So overall in these years, I would grade it 4-4-2 with 1 game invalidated by cheap shot.
jsia....

Good questions, I think I can explain myself and you'll see it my way.

RE: Game #2 3/9/88

The Pistons controlled the entire game. I wasn't able to get film, but the Pistons dominated the game. Isiah scored 16 of his 20 in the first half per the Detroit Free Press and the Jazz only cut the lead to single digits late. Stockton played more minutes and presumably added to his totals as the Jazz outscored the Pistons in the third and fourth after being down by nearly twenty. So I called it even since Stockton had better numbers, but Isiah started hot and his team won the game.

RE: Game #4 3/29/89

That was actually the last time the Pistons would win in Utah until 2003. For me Isiah gets the edge in a great back and forth battle. Stockton sent the game to overtime with a three at the buzzer. Isiah tied it up with 32 seconds to go in the first overtime and then missed a shot at the buzzer that would have won it. In the second overtime, Isiah fouled Stockton out on a crossover drive and in total scored 4 points and assisted on Detroit's other two field goals in the period. So I gave Zeke the edge.

The real dagger for me were the games after the Dream Team snub and after the Malone cheap shot. He wanted to prove something and it wasn't about disrespecting Stockton. It was about others disrespecting him. Again, crappy personality trait, unless you're a pro athlete.

RE: Last 1993 meeting

You caught me in a bias here. In excluded it because it was after Isiah's prime and unlike the previous game in 1993, he wasn't out for blood. This game was a meaningless game for a Pistons team in turmoil. The Pistons got annihilated and Isiah didn't play much. 1992-93 was the end. Laimbeer and Aguirre fell off a cliff, we're basically unplayable. Daly was gone and Rodman was becoming a problem. It shows more bias on my part to include the earlier 1993 game, but I felt it was important as Isiah has spoke about how much that game meant to him.

Thanks for the thoughts and thoughtful challenges.

[Lou Fan]

I'm locking in my second vote for John Stockton. I have Curry just a hair above him but he hasn't gotten a single first place vote or second place vote that I've seen.

[2klegend]

Bob Pettit - Case for: Considered legit megastar status in his time, 2x MVP. Solid longevity, an all-star for all his 11 seasons and in his prime for roughly 9 of those. Excellent rebounder. Likely posted outstanding offensive rebound numbers. ATG great big at getting to line. Floor spacing big. Solid playoff performer including big performance to win title. Still a superstar in early-mid 60s, which likely means he’d have translated to late 60s and expansion diluted 70s. Great intangibles, played hard every single minute and great toughness. Slightly above average defense at a big man position would still add value. Case against: Scoring efficiency for his era is above average but not freakish. Doesn’t appear to be an elite defender. Lacks post prime years. An offensive driven player at big man which is a less offensive position than perimeter players in contention here.

John Stockton - Case for: PG is most offensive position and Stockton has all the hallmarks of high impact offensive PG play between his playmaking and being a floor spacer. One of the best defensive PGs in history. Great longevity and continued to make impact up until the end. Amazing durability. Great intangibles. Great portability and often put on all time teams due to fit with other stars. Case against: Not rated a superstar in his time. Never finished higher than 8th/9th in MVP voting. Lacked elite shot creation talent and this came back to bite Jazz at times. Jazz peak offensively when he has a smaller role. If Jazz had two MVP caliber talents who never missed games and played hard every night, not being more successful is surprising. Played with perfect system and star in Malone to maximize his numbers.

George Mikan - Case for: Dominance in his time is only matched by players in the top 5. Including his NBL years, has a 8 year competitive prime longevity to other candidates here. The best defensive player in the league at the most defensive position C. Did everything you could ask him to do. Case against: Benefitted from lesser competition and unrefined style of game. Even within the shotclock era, peaked earlier when the competition was presumably worse. Not a perfect offensive player of his era. Plays least offensive position in C and passed by pre shot clock players offensively such as Cousy, pre War Arizin, Johnston. When taking into account weaker competition, may have one of weaker offensive cases in contention for this spot.

Steve Nash - Case for: As with Pettit, rated a legit superstar in his prime as shown by multiple MVPs. Has a reasonable 8 seasons of longevity in Phoenix alone. Spectacular ORAPM in Phoenix, elite offensive player at most offensive position PG. Makes All-NBA teams in Dallas so those are hardly irrelevant years. Good portability, great intangibles. Quality playoff performer. Case against: A weak defender, hurts even at PG. RAPM lukewarm on Dallas version which hurts overall superstar longevity. In Phoenix not an elite overall boxscore performer, with WS and BPM not supporting his case as a superstar.

Dwyane Wade - Case for: Elite peak, reaching top of league in RAPM in 06 and coming close other times. Top level playoff record carrying his team in 06 and other successes like 11 Finals and 10 first round. Awesome offensive skillset playing a valuable role as a penetrating creator, as one of the greatest slashers and great passer for his position. Good defender. Case against: Weak longevity after injuries, only 5-6 prime years. Average portability as a non 3pt shooter.

Kevin Durant - Case for: Elite, MVP caliber peak. ATG portability, due to both his off ball game and defensive potential when he is able to save energy. Good teammate. Good playoff performer including big Finals MVP performance. Good playmaker and rebounder. Case against: Removing first two years where his impact stats sucked and his foot injury year, a little light in longevity side in 7 other seasons. Not truly embraced by RAPM/RPM compared to his boxscore stats.

Elgin Baylor - Case for: Huge peak for his time as a scorer, rebounder and passer. In his prime a good playoff performer and a shot from carrying Lakers to championship in 62. Continued to be rated as an all-star, 1st team All NBA and top 10 MVP vote guy the rest of the 60s. Case against: Prime cut short at about 4 years due to injury. Declines after his injury and while continues to be an all-star, never ranks in top 10 in WS again after 63 due to shooting % issues. Takes a lot of shots on a team with a better offensive player. Appears to be more like a Melo Dominique type of player the rest of his career.

Stephen Curry - Case for: Arguably the best peak left on the board. Truly amazing offensive impact in his prime years due to the floor warping impact of his shooting along with his boxscore production. The most valuable player on 2 champions. Solid defender. Great intangibles. Case against: Very weak longevity compared to other candidates. About 4 season prime, 3 at best player in the league level. Wasn’t his GOAT level regular season self in the 2016 playoffs possibly due to injury. Not much defensive impact between good not great play, and playing PG.

Patrick Ewing - Case for: Great defensive center at the most defensive position gives him high baseline of value. Solid decade long prime and a good player as a rookie on. Made it to Game 7 of Finals with pretty weak team and overall had bad luck running into Jordan Bulls. High effort level, the sweat gawd. Some floor spacing value. Case against: Not a natural offensive player at least offensive position. Mediocre passer. Despite solid offensive numbers, few believe in his impact on that end.

Deciding between some players

Pettit vs Mikan vs Baylor: Pettit has a little better longevity than Mikan and it's unclear how much better late shoclock era Mikan is than early shotclock Pettit is vs their era. I believe in the era Pettit proved himself in more. As for Pettit and Baylor, Pettit's peak looks as good or close to as Baylor's, and he has a consistently elite decade while Baylor drops off due to health.

Stockton vs Nash: Stockton has defensive edge throughout his career and better longevity. Nash was the one heralded as a star. even if Nash was better offensively he has to be a lot to make up the D and longevity and it's not unclear how much he is ahead on O. I'll go with Stockton

Stockton vs Ewing: Ewing's defense could be as valuable as Stockton's offense, and Stockton's defense and Ewing's offensive overall is also a good discussion. Stockton has better longevity and was still putting up good RAPM seasons in early 00s.

Wade vs Durant vs Curry: Wade over Curry, Wade has more longevity and truly exceptional peak himself considering postseason play and defense as well as the high level offense. With Durnat I'm slightly scared off by whether his impact stats are as good as Wade or Curry who are more of the facilitators of their team's offense.

Pettit vs Stockton vs Wade: Because Wade is at longevity deficit he would have to be noticably better at peak. He may be the best, but Pettit has a case for a star peak as well. So will go Pettit. For Stockton/Pettit - It depends on whether we're willing to treat Stockton as star level offensively. I'm willing to not just because of passing, but when considering the value of his floor spacing and efficiency was potentially underrated at the time. He has a great combination of offensive play, defensive value and longevity and intangibles. The more I think of it the more Stockton's case against Barkley and Moses was underrated at the time.

Vote: John Stockton

2nd: Bob Pettit

Injury played a role in limiting Wade prime but his prime is not short. He missed a lot of games but in the year he played, he was top 10 in the NBA for 9 years, '05-13. 9-years in the NBA top 10 is very good. Stockton is more consistent throughout his career. There is no high and low in his game. However Peak Wade is on a different level to Stockton/Pettit. If we can ignore his missed game for a moment, we are talking about a guy who averaged 26.9 PER, .206 WS48, 7.31 BPM, 5.91 VORP from '06-13. And this include his heavily injured down year in '08.

If we exclude his injured down year in '08, then he pumped up to 27.8 PER, .227 WS48, 8.03 BPM, 6.48 VORP.

Those are the types of 6-7years prime that rival the like of Duncan/KG/Barkley and close to MJ/Lebron level. Those are the numbers that speak if healthy was not an issue for him, Wade is likely the 2nd best SG historically on statistical impact, only behind MJ.

[Doctor MJ]

I love the effort Joe put in. I know it convinces others, but it still doesn't really resonate for me.

Isiah's box score stats in general are less impressive to me than the other point guards in debate.
Isiah's on/off stats, such as they are, haven't seemed that great.
Isiah's accolades (All-NBA, etc) aren't as good as some of the other guys.

The other thing is this:

I don't think any star in history has the type of polarized opinions of him that Isiah does, in the sense that you tend to have Detroit people on one end, and everyone else on the other. He was the star and leader of the golden age of the franchise, and as a result he is an icon for the ages.

But the team won with defense, and the notion that you should credit a point guard leader as a defensive anchor when he himself isn't considered the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd best defender on the team is just completely without other precedent. I don't even know if I feel comfortable crediting Walt Frazier that way and Frazier was basically the perfect defensive point guard playing in an era where point guards appear to have had considerably more defensive impact (because weaker ball handling and decision making fundamentals made it easier to disrupt the offense with pressure, much like you can still see in the college game and other lesser leagues).

I'll add two more things because everyone should be aware of it:

Isiah's biggest stats came early in his career before the championships. Now, given this, you might expect that Isiah's stat decrease came from him taking on a smaller, more efficient role with the better talent around him. That's not what the data suggests though. Isiah was basically always about a 52% TS scorer, and even back then, that wasn't very good, which brings me to the other point:

Whenever people say "It was tougher back then for a small guy" for a guy with weak shooting efficiency, the thing I have to point out is that however tough it was, that player was CHOOSING to take those hard shots he was missing so you're basically damning the point guard's judgment while trying to defend him, and then relying on the team success to say it must not have mattered.

I have a hard time believing it didn't matter. They won, sure, but winning doesn't mean that everything you did was great. Every success is made up of strengths and weaknesses. Everything I see tell me that the Detroit Pistons won with an astonishingly effective defense that made up for the fact that their offense, and offensive star, were by no means up there with very best the NBA had to offer.

You can't win with just defense. Detroit also could score with the best of them, in large part thanks to Isiah, who was the only great offensive player in those Pistons title teams.

Isiah led a losing franchise into becoming a dynasty that took down the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls. Not just by simply being the best player on the court for the team, but by leading the entire franchise (intangibles). And yet in this list he's already behind several players who have not achieved anything even remotely comparable, be it individually or collectively, and seems like even more are to come...

Edited.

I wrote something angry before in response to this post. No one's responded, so I'm just erasing it. Didn't violate any RealGM rules in the post, but sufficed to say it's not one of my finer moments.

So that i don't leave people in suspense, basically the data tells us the Pistons had a stronger defense than offense, and so it is what it is. Doesn't mean they didn't have offense too, as they must have, but there is objective data backing up their reputation as a defense-first team, and while one can make up of that what you will, it doesn't make sense to say the Pistons could score as well as anyone. There were teams better at scoring. There were none better at keeping others at scoring.