Isiah Thomas vs Reggie Miller

[penbeast0]

Isiah had a body of work established before Stockton plus, as Stockton's career progressed, more and more people moved into his camp. So the consensus in 1990 was very different from that in 2000. But I remember it being a big forum of discussion and one that divided the fledgling analytics people from those that didn't believe in stats measuring performance.

[Owly]

...

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.

I would say ... in the first instance it doesn't really matter ... it doesn't alter the truth either way though it might be a guide if there isn't anything better. And as stated later, and I assume Pen would be aware too, yes, there are sources very high on Thomas. Just putting that first bit out to say I'm not that invested but ...

1) You'd need to define terms first. Which Stockton and which Thomas are being compared?
2) To assert that a view was "widely" held you'd need to know that the discussion was being held widely (obviously the context of the discussion shapes expectations but to say a view was widely held whilst knowing but not stating "within a tiny group" would feel misleading). If, as I'd guess this isn't comparing a Stockton and Thomas of the same year ... I don't know that there was the same culture of cross-comparisons as there has been later. If it is at the same year ... I'd be interested to hear the framework here. I would grant there are some sources very high on Thomas but generally after the fact and somewhat woolly rather than a year to year comparison.

If one were nit-picking specific stats' values one could cite a number of contemporary sources calling Thomas a gambler on defense (I think more than saying Stockton's assists were low leverage) but honestly on the Stockton side, the problem with arguing he was less than his boxscore is that a solid size RAPM sample suggests he wasn't or even (in what I've seen, notably the 97-14 Googlesites RAPM but my impression from discussions is others too) that he may have been better than his boxscore. Now that isn't him at his apex, maybe that isn't the case in earlier years (although saying that cuts both ways as it's acknowledging a tool that has him as really good and then saying, but there's an even better version of him). Mileage may differ in interpreting this but I think it creates a substantial problem for a "worse than boxscore" argument.

[Red Beast]

Reggie being better than Isiah is faulty revisionism. When they played, this was never seen as a comparison. Isiah was always viewed as a tier higher, which is, in my view. appropriate.

Miller contributed very little other than scoring. The idea of gravity is simply not accurate. The defensive rules at the time did not allow defenses to play the way they do now. The only gravity Reggie had was that his defender could not sag off him too far which was advantageous for post scorers like Smits. Apart from that he had little to no effect on any other defenders. These rules made the game much easier for him. He would find space using screens and run into a cleared-out area. If he had space (and he didn't need much), he would sink the jumper. If the defender overcommitted, he would pump fake and go to the basket or draw a foul. It was simple but highly effective. If he was covered, he didn't get the ball. Apart from the occasional post up, he very rarely had to create off the dribble. He got most of his points this way, or spotting up. This is why he was so efficient but also limited because it is hard to volume score that way.

Conversely, Isiah created his own shot as well as others. His ability to manufacture offense is what allowed the Pistons to play such a defensive line up. I find it amusing that many on Real GM state that Isiah was carried by the Pistons' defense. Such unsophisticated thinking. They do not appreciate that not only was he a key player on defense, but that he had to carry the biggest burden on offense. I believe that Thomas is more impactful offensively and defensively.

[Djoker]

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.

I would say ... in the first instance it doesn't really matter ... it doesn't alter the truth either way though it might be a guide if there isn't anything better. And as stated later, and I assume Pen would be aware too, yes, there are sources very high on Thomas. Just putting that first bit out to say I'm not that invested but ...

1) You'd need to define terms first. Which Stockton and which Thomas are being compared?
2) To assert that a view was "widely" held you'd need to know that the discussion was being held widely (obviously the context of the discussion shapes expectations but to say a view was widely held whilst knowing but not stating "within a tiny group" would feel misleading). If, as I'd guess this isn't comparing a Stockton and Thomas of the same year ... I don't know that there was the same culture of cross-comparisons as there has been later. If it is at the same year ... I'd be interested to hear the framework here. I would grant there are some sources very high on Thomas but generally after the fact and somewhat woolly rather than a year to year comparison.

If one were nit-picking specific stats' values one could cite a number of contemporary sources calling Thomas a gambler on defense (I think more than saying Stockton's assists were low leverage) but honestly on the Stockton side, the problem with arguing he was less than his boxscore is that a solid size RAPM sample suggests he wasn't or even (in what I've seen, notably the 97-14 Googlesites RAPM but my impression from discussions is others too) that he may have been better than his boxscore. Now that isn't him at his apex, maybe that isn't the case in earlier years (although saying that cuts both ways as it's acknowledging a tool that has him as really good and then saying, but there's an even better version of him). Mileage may differ in interpreting this but I think it creates a substantial problem for a "worse than boxscore" argument.

They are contemporaries and the relevant comparisons are during both of their primes. So late 80's and early 90's.

Your point on RAPM is fair but it also comes from seasons in which Stockton played very low minutes. In Squared2020 data thus far, Stockton in his prime years doesn't look THAT good. Of course, the Jazz are somewhat under-sampled both in terms of number of games but also in terms of winning % in those games so it's possible that he could look better. But anyways, I wouldn't put all stock in RAPM. That's just one data point. And it doesn't (and wouldn't) preclude Stockton from being worse than his box score.

[Owly]

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.

I would say ... in the first instance it doesn't really matter ... it doesn't alter the truth either way though it might be a guide if there isn't anything better. And as stated later, and I assume Pen would be aware too, yes, there are sources very high on Thomas. Just putting that first bit out to say I'm not that invested but ...

1) You'd need to define terms first. Which Stockton and which Thomas are being compared?
2) To assert that a view was "widely" held you'd need to know that the discussion was being held widely (obviously the context of the discussion shapes expectations but to say a view was widely held whilst knowing but not stating "within a tiny group" would feel misleading). If, as I'd guess this isn't comparing a Stockton and Thomas of the same year ... I don't know that there was the same culture of cross-comparisons as there has been later. If it is at the same year ... I'd be interested to hear the framework here. I would grant there are some sources very high on Thomas but generally after the fact and somewhat woolly rather than a year to year comparison.

If one were nit-picking specific stats' values one could cite a number of contemporary sources calling Thomas a gambler on defense (I think more than saying Stockton's assists were low leverage) but honestly on the Stockton side, the problem with arguing he was less than his boxscore is that a solid size RAPM sample suggests he wasn't or even (in what I've seen, notably the 97-14 Googlesites RAPM but my impression from discussions is others too) that he may have been better than his boxscore. Now that isn't him at his apex, maybe that isn't the case in earlier years (although saying that cuts both ways as it's acknowledging a tool that has him as really good and then saying, but there's an even better version of him). Mileage may differ in interpreting this but I think it creates a substantial problem for a "worse than boxscore" argument.

They are contemporaries and the relevant comparisons are during both of their primes. So late 80's and early 90's.

Your point on RAPM is fair but it also comes from seasons in which Stockton played very low minutes. In Squared2020 data thus far, Stockton in his prime years doesn't look THAT good. Of course, the Jazz are somewhat under-sampled both in terms of number of games but also in terms of winning % in those games so it's possible that he could look better. But anyways, I wouldn't put all stock in RAPM. That's just one data point. And it doesn't (and wouldn't) preclude Stockton from being worse than his box score.

Whilst I suppose where its the only such information it makes some sense as a source, having a low general trust of RAPM makes a trust in a either a multi-year RAPM scattered over multiple years without the virtue of a large sample (why multi-year RAPMs are good) but with the cost of smushing together different versions of players, or a single season one where the samples are tiny and in either case where - so far as I'm aware - the raw on-off isn't available as a sort of potential quality check ... seems like an odd choice. And I'm not saying these numbers are "fiddled" or anything such to be absolutely clear, just very incomplete allowing nothing like the relatively like-for-like comparison of full seasons or stretches of season. And for what it's worth if you are into very incomplete data, the Pollack "versus 76ers" data looked very good for Stockton (and had him as the clear team leader).

I don't know anyone who "put[s] all stock in RAPM".

RAPM doesn't "preclude" Stockton being worse than his boxscore ... it just means we have actual evidence that suggests it's significantly unlikely for one spell of his career - something I would suggest rather more substantial and comprehensive than your belief that one aspect of his box contribution was overvaluing him.


To the comparison and views of people at the time
Personally, it’s hard to say when primes are, it’s fuzzy but I don’t have them overlapping ’87 Stockton is good in absolute terms but worse (at least rate-production wise) than any year of his after and using what might be a guys 17th best year to define him seems rough. Isiah’s tough, because of the playoffs, but RS wise there’s a dropoff after ’86.
Still if you’re looking from say ’88-91 (you may be including ’87, I wouldn’t on Stockton at least for the aforementioned 17th year reason – maybe you haven’t got ’91 for Thomas but you do say “early 90's” rather than just 1990 so I put a second [first wholly 90s] season in there).

For what it’s worth, in that window for what it’s worth Stockton trounces Thomas in the regular season boxscore
PER: 23.3 to 17.5
WS/48: .232 to .113
BPM: 8.5 to 2.8
It’s narrower in the playoffs but still clear
PER: 22 to 19.4
WS/48: .191 to .146
BPM: 8.3 to 5.9
Even if you want to cut out ’91 for Thomas (or both players – it doesn’t change Stockton significantly) with Thomas now up to 20.2; .164; 6.7 … Stockton still has an advantage. And then I think Stockton has a decided advantage in terms of non-boxscore defense and floor spacing.

But this wasn’t about numbers …
In accolades … and granting these are an indirect measure of player goodness … but you were saying very absolutely that

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.

And yet all years bar one Stockton makes second team all-NBA (third team in ’91 and a better ballot score than 2nd team forward Mullin) and Thomas doesn’t make any team (on incomplete information, because people didn’t fill out a third team, we can say that Thomas was in position where he would have had a pretty good lead for the second guard (Lever was ahead) on the 3rd team had it existed in ’88 - though hard to know as lots of information missing on what all those third team ballots would have been). We consistently see Stockton doing better on MVP ballots in this window. These are RS only but paint a consistent picture from the time of Stockton ahead contradicting the above quote.
cf: https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1988.html and similar.

In ’90 after perhaps his best playoff performance in a long run, after his FMVP, after the ring halo and a then rare repeat, after all that Barry and Cohn (by no means perfect but guys who would put their name to comprehensive criticisms of the entire league and guys who would be employed by minor and major league teams respectively and who it’s clear had significant league-wide contacts) … at a time when they’re willing to offer the crude “two rings explains it all” as a case for Thomas (and making clear playoffs are very much included here) … they rank him 4th among point guards. Stockton is regarded as second only to Magic, placing narrowly ahead of Kevin Johnson.

I don't think it matters much because people can be wrong. But looking at the cited spell, which I think matches your criteria, my view of the evidence cited is that it quote strongly contradicts to assertion that "almost everyone" including league figures, had Thomas ahead contemporaneously.


Edit: For what it's worth and sustaining all the caveats about a very incomplete RAPM ... Stockton as 11th overall and the clear cut best Jazz player, clear cut best non-Magic-Johnson point guard ... given the noise in such things and the sample size (and how I think the point of RAPM is to regress back for smaller samples) ... I'd say this was (and I repeat that the caveats remain) a positive for Stockton being at very least not worse than his box-side numbers.

[Djoker]

They are contemporaries and the relevant comparisons are during both of their primes. So late 80's and early 90's.

Your point on RAPM is fair but it also comes from seasons in which Stockton played very low minutes. In Squared2020 data thus far, Stockton in his prime years doesn't look THAT good. Of course, the Jazz are somewhat under-sampled both in terms of number of games but also in terms of winning % in those games so it's possible that he could look better. But anyways, I wouldn't put all stock in RAPM. That's just one data point. And it doesn't (and wouldn't) preclude Stockton from being worse than his box score.

Whilst I suppose where its the only such information it makes some sense as a source, having a low general trust of RAPM makes a trust in a either a multi-year RAPM scattered over multiple years without the virtue of a large sample (why multi-year RAPMs are good) but with the cost of smushing together different versions of players, or a single season one where the samples are tiny and in either case where - so far as I'm aware - the raw on-off isn't available as a sort of potential quality check ... seems like an odd choice. And I'm not saying these numbers are "fiddled" or anything such to be absolutely clear, just very incomplete allowing nothing like the relatively like-for-like comparison of full seasons or stretches of season. And for what it's worth if you are into very incomplete data, the Pollack "versus 76ers" data looked very good for Stockton (and had him as the clear team leader).

I don't know anyone who "put[s] all stock in RAPM".

RAPM doesn't "preclude" Stockton being worse than his boxscore ... it just means we have actual evidence that suggests it's significantly unlikely for one spell of his career - something I would suggest rather more substantial and comprehensive than your belief that one aspect of his box contribution was overvaluing him.


To the comparison and views of people at the time
Personally, it’s hard to say when primes are, it’s fuzzy but I don’t have them overlapping ’87 Stockton is good in absolute terms but worse (at least rate-production wise) than any year of his after and using what might be a guys 17th best year to define him seems rough. Isiah’s tough, because of the playoffs, but RS wise there’s a dropoff after ’86.
Still if you’re looking from say ’88-91 (you may be including ’87, I wouldn’t on Stockton at least for the aforementioned 17th year reason – maybe you haven’t got ’91 for Thomas but you do say “early 90's” rather than just 1990 so I put a second [first wholly 90s] season in there).

For what it’s worth, in that window for what it’s worth Stockton trounces Thomas in the regular season boxscore
PER: 23.3 to 17.5
WS/48: .232 to .113
BPM: 8.5 to 2.8
It’s narrower in the playoffs but still clear
PER: 22 to 19.4
WS/48: .191 to .146
BPM: 8.3 to 5.9
Even if you want to cut out ’91 for Thomas (or both players – it doesn’t change Stockton significantly) with Thomas now up to 20.2; .164; 6.7 … Stockton still has an advantage. And then I think Stockton has a decided advantage in terms of non-boxscore defense and floor spacing.

But this wasn’t about numbers …
In accolades … and granting these are an indirect measure of player goodness … but you were saying very absolutely that

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.

And yet all years bar one Stockton makes second team all-NBA (third team in ’91 and a better ballot score than 2nd team forward Mullin) and Thomas doesn’t make any team (on incomplete information, because people didn’t fill out a third team, we can say that Thomas was in position where he would have had a pretty good lead for the second guard (Lever was ahead) on the 3rd team had it existed in ’88 - though hard to know as lots of information missing on what all those third team ballots would have been). We consistently see Stockton doing better on MVP ballots in this window. These are RS only but paint a consistent picture from the time of Stockton ahead contradicting the above quote.
cf: https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1988.html and similar.

In ’90 after perhaps his best playoff performance in a long run, after his FMVP, after the ring halo and a then rare repeat, after all that Barry and Cohn (by no means perfect but guys who would put their name to comprehensive criticisms of the entire league and guys who would be employed by minor and major league teams respectively and who it’s clear had significant league-wide contacts) … at a time when they’re willing to offer the crude “two rings explains it all” as a case for Thomas (and making clear playoffs are very much included here) … they rank him 4th among point guards. Stockton is regarded as second only to Magic, placing narrowly ahead of Kevin Johnson.

I don't think it matters much because people can be wrong. But looking at the cited spell, which I think matches your criteria, my view of the evidence cited is that it quote strongly contradicts to assertion that "almost everyone" including league figures, had Thomas ahead contemporaneously.


Edit: For what it's worth and sustaining all the caveats about a very incomplete RAPM ... Stockton as 11th overall and the clear cut best Jazz player, clear cut best non-Magic-Johnson point guard ... given the noise in such things and the sample size (and how I think the point of RAPM is to regress back for smaller samples) ... I'd say this was (and I repeat that the caveats remain) a positive for Stockton being at very least not worse than his box-side numbers.

That's a fair post man. There isn't a ton I would argue against there. And yea I'd say post 1990, Stockton was a better player than Isiah who succumbed to injuries and began losing a step or two.

The one thing I'd reiterate is that Stockton looking incredibly strong as an older player playing limited minutes does not preclude him from being overrated from high assist totals in his prime. I mean... what I'd point to is that the Jazz offenses were largely mediocre until the mid-90's until Malone became the focal point. So Stockton's individual offensive numbers didn't translate to great offensive basketball. And his limitations are visible on tape. He hardly pressured defenses as a scorer and this meant a lot of his assists were low leverage "Rondo assists". Especially in the half court, he was basically a non-threat at a scorer and not even necessarily because he couldn't score, but because he wouldn't. He sometimes passed up an open shot to give a teammate a half-contested one. And in the PS, he often became even more conservative and less aggressive too. Meanwhile, when the offense ran through Malone who was a very potent and aggressive scorer, his assists were high leverage, teammate shot quality improved and Utah offenses exploded into the stratosphere. From 1995-1998, Utah had one of the best 4-year offensive stretches in history behind Malone, not Stockton.

Anyways, please read this scouting report by Ben Taylor on Stockton. I think it summarizes him really well and explains a lot of the points I'm trying to make.

https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/01/25/backpicks-goat-25-john-stockton/

Isiah Thomas, who was an aggressive scorer, constantly pressured defenses and produced many high leverage plays. We just see assists, not quality of assists. Even in Isiah's peak years from 1984-1986, when the Pistons' supporting casts were really nothing special (not Bad Boys yet), the team was very good offensively posting +3.7, +1.7 and +1.8 ORtg. In their title window, though Isiah's usage declined, the offense didn't actually improve appreciably. From 1987-1991, they posted +0.9, +2.4, +3.0, +1.8 and +0.3 rORtg. Worth noting that in games with Isiah in 1991, they posted a +1.5 rORtg. I've actually watched a lot of Isiah's games recently too and he looks very impressive. The eye test definitely supports him which is the opposite of the impression I have of Stockton.

Bottom line is, I prefer Isiah as an offensive player. I could see a case for Stockton more if I believed that his defense was exceptional. But then, he's just not a defensive stopper that the likes of Kidd and Payton were in that era. He's small, he's not athletic.. There were many matchups where he was just overwhelmed. Don't get me wrong. He was a positive on defense but not elite to the point where that could be his calling card to overtake Isiah who is a superior offensive centerpiece and himself a solid defender.

[penbeast0]

...I mean... what I'd point to is that the Jazz offenses were largely mediocre until the mid-90's until Malone became the focal point. So Stockton's individual offensive numbers didn't translate to great offensive basketball.

So, Karl Malone had his 4 highest fga/game in 88, 89, 90, and 91. . .but he didn't become the focal point of the Jazz offense until the mid 90s? In 1992 when Malone shot a little bit less, the Jazz had their best offense so far, 4th in the league. Though still a consistent top 10 offense, they didn't really take off until adding another good scorer with Hornacek replacing the weaker Jeff Malone who didn't shoot 3's or create for others. With Hornacek they were 4th, 2nd, (both seasons with Stockton leading the league in assists), 2nd, 1st (Stockton for the first time plays significantly less minutes), 3rd, 6th, 3rd (Hornacek replaced by John Starks). An outstanding run of team offense that Thomas never matched and only a handful (Oscar, Magic, Nash . . . that's about it) point guards in the league ever exceeded. And that's despite playing with non-scoring centers like Ostertag, Adam Keefe, etc.

Getting someone else who could playmake indeed helped; Sloan's diversifying the offense a bit to take advantage of Hornacek's talents probably helped even more. Stockton's individual assist numbers before Hornacek are like Isiah's inefficient shooting so much on the Bad Boys. They are more a reflection of the shortage of other playmakers. You don't want the ball in the hands of Darrell Griffith, Jeff Malone, Blue Edwards, David Benoit, Thurl Bailey, Mark Eaton, Fulton Spencer, etc. or even a younger Karl Malone except as a finisher. But it does make your offense predictable and thus more defensible.

Those guys weren't creating a lot of "Rondo Assists" points either; they were open shooters or post players, not guys would take a pass and create for themselves like Paul Pierce and Ray Allen so that particular myth/comp is also a false narrative.

[Owly]

They are contemporaries and the relevant comparisons are during both of their primes. So late 80's and early 90's.

Your point on RAPM is fair but it also comes from seasons in which Stockton played very low minutes. In Squared2020 data thus far, Stockton in his prime years doesn't look THAT good. Of course, the Jazz are somewhat under-sampled both in terms of number of games but also in terms of winning % in those games so it's possible that he could look better. But anyways, I wouldn't put all stock in RAPM. That's just one data point. And it doesn't (and wouldn't) preclude Stockton from being worse than his box score.

Whilst I suppose where its the only such information it makes some sense as a source, having a low general trust of RAPM makes a trust in a either a multi-year RAPM scattered over multiple years without the virtue of a large sample (why multi-year RAPMs are good) but with the cost of smushing together different versions of players, or a single season one where the samples are tiny and in either case where - so far as I'm aware - the raw on-off isn't available as a sort of potential quality check ... seems like an odd choice. And I'm not saying these numbers are "fiddled" or anything such to be absolutely clear, just very incomplete allowing nothing like the relatively like-for-like comparison of full seasons or stretches of season. And for what it's worth if you are into very incomplete data, the Pollack "versus 76ers" data looked very good for Stockton (and had him as the clear team leader).

I don't know anyone who "put[s] all stock in RAPM".

RAPM doesn't "preclude" Stockton being worse than his boxscore ... it just means we have actual evidence that suggests it's significantly unlikely for one spell of his career - something I would suggest rather more substantial and comprehensive than your belief that one aspect of his box contribution was overvaluing him.


To the comparison and views of people at the time
Personally, it’s hard to say when primes are, it’s fuzzy but I don’t have them overlapping ’87 Stockton is good in absolute terms but worse (at least rate-production wise) than any year of his after and using what might be a guys 17th best year to define him seems rough. Isiah’s tough, because of the playoffs, but RS wise there’s a dropoff after ’86.
Still if you’re looking from say ’88-91 (you may be including ’87, I wouldn’t on Stockton at least for the aforementioned 17th year reason – maybe you haven’t got ’91 for Thomas but you do say “early 90's” rather than just 1990 so I put a second [first wholly 90s] season in there).

For what it’s worth, in that window for what it’s worth Stockton trounces Thomas in the regular season boxscore
PER: 23.3 to 17.5
WS/48: .232 to .113
BPM: 8.5 to 2.8
It’s narrower in the playoffs but still clear
PER: 22 to 19.4
WS/48: .191 to .146
BPM: 8.3 to 5.9
Even if you want to cut out ’91 for Thomas (or both players – it doesn’t change Stockton significantly) with Thomas now up to 20.2; .164; 6.7 … Stockton still has an advantage. And then I think Stockton has a decided advantage in terms of non-boxscore defense and floor spacing.

But this wasn’t about numbers …
In accolades … and granting these are an indirect measure of player goodness … but you were saying very absolutely that

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.

And yet all years bar one Stockton makes second team all-NBA (third team in ’91 and a better ballot score than 2nd team forward Mullin) and Thomas doesn’t make any team (on incomplete information, because people didn’t fill out a third team, we can say that Thomas was in position where he would have had a pretty good lead for the second guard (Lever was ahead) on the 3rd team had it existed in ’88 - though hard to know as lots of information missing on what all those third team ballots would have been). We consistently see Stockton doing better on MVP ballots in this window. These are RS only but paint a consistent picture from the time of Stockton ahead contradicting the above quote.
cf: https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1988.html and similar.

In ’90 after perhaps his best playoff performance in a long run, after his FMVP, after the ring halo and a then rare repeat, after all that Barry and Cohn (by no means perfect but guys who would put their name to comprehensive criticisms of the entire league and guys who would be employed by minor and major league teams respectively and who it’s clear had significant league-wide contacts) … at a time when they’re willing to offer the crude “two rings explains it all” as a case for Thomas (and making clear playoffs are very much included here) … they rank him 4th among point guards. Stockton is regarded as second only to Magic, placing narrowly ahead of Kevin Johnson.

I don't think it matters much because people can be wrong. But looking at the cited spell, which I think matches your criteria, my view of the evidence cited is that it quote strongly contradicts to assertion that "almost everyone" including league figures, had Thomas ahead contemporaneously.


Edit: For what it's worth and sustaining all the caveats about a very incomplete RAPM ... Stockton as 11th overall and the clear cut best Jazz player, clear cut best non-Magic-Johnson point guard ... given the noise in such things and the sample size (and how I think the point of RAPM is to regress back for smaller samples) ... I'd say this was (and I repeat that the caveats remain) a positive for Stockton being at very least not worse than his box-side numbers.

That's a fair post man. There isn't a ton I would argue against there. And yea I'd say post 1990, Stockton was a better player than Isiah who succumbed to injuries and began losing a step or two.

The one thing I'd reiterate is that Stockton looking incredibly strong as an older player playing limited minutes does not preclude him from being overrated from high assist totals in his prime. I mean... what I'd point to is that the Jazz offenses were largely mediocre until the mid-90's until Malone became the focal point. So Stockton's individual offensive numbers didn't translate to great offensive basketball. And his limitations are visible on tape. He hardly pressured defenses as a scorer and this meant a lot of his assists were low leverage "Rondo assists". Especially in the half court, he was basically a non-threat at a scorer and not even necessarily because he couldn't score, but because he wouldn't. He sometimes passed up an open shot to give a teammate a half-contested one. And in the PS, he often became even more conservative and less aggressive too. Meanwhile, when the offense ran through Malone who was a very potent and aggressive scorer, his assists were high leverage, teammate shot quality improved and Utah offenses exploded into the stratosphere. From 1995-1998, Utah had one of the best 4-year offensive stretches in history behind Malone, not Stockton.

Anyways, please read this scouting report by Ben Taylor on Stockton. I think it summarizes him really well and explains a lot of the points I'm trying to make.

https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/01/25/backpicks-goat-25-john-stockton/

Isiah Thomas, who was an aggressive scorer, constantly pressured defenses and produced many high leverage plays. We just see assists, not quality of assists. Even in Isiah's peak years from 1984-1986, when the Pistons' supporting casts were really nothing special (not Bad Boys yet), the team was very good offensively posting +3.7, +1.7 and +1.8 ORtg. In their title window, though Isiah's usage declined, the offense didn't actually improve appreciably. From 1987-1991, they posted +0.9, +2.4, +3.0, +1.8 and +0.3 rORtg. Worth noting that in games with Isiah in 1991, they posted a +1.5 rORtg. I've actually watched a lot of Isiah's games recently too and he looks very impressive. The eye test definitely supports him which is the opposite of the impression I have of Stockton.

Bottom line is, I prefer Isiah as an offensive player. I could see a case for Stockton more if I believed that his defense was exceptional. But then, he's just not a defensive stopper that the likes of Kidd and Payton were in that era. He's small, he's not athletic.. There were many matchups where he was just overwhelmed. Don't get me wrong. He was a positive on defense but not elite to the point where that could be his calling card to overtake Isiah who is a superior offensive centerpiece and himself a solid defender.

Looking to be very brief here as I've already spent too much time on this ... So not necessarily tackling everything here.

1) Thanks for engaging seriously, honestly, with a friendly spirit. Some debates (here, about Isiah ... whatever really) aren't always civil. To get a "that's fair"-ish response from a non-mod ... feels good and like I don't want to argue.

2) On low minutes ... depends what you mean ... slight outlier but '02, age 39 Stockton plays 31.3mpg x 82 games for 2566 RS minutes. 97-'03 (for RAPM purposes) is 15834 minutes and having a decent off sample probably helps it. If it's about him playing a few less minutes a game than before ... sure ... he is 35 when this happens though (and played almost every game most years, plus playoff runs ...)

3) On "the Jazz offenses were largely mediocre until the mid-90's until Malone became the focal point. So Stockton's individual offensive numbers didn't translate to great offensive basketball."
I'm not going to check the precise timeline but I'm pretty sure Malone always had a bunch of points and 2nd place scoring finishes. So it's not like he wasn't a big part of what went on.
I'd say
a) Mark Eaton went. Other centers coming in weren't good offensive players. But they weren't glaringly awful ones. My understanding is Eaton was.
b) Jeff Hornacek arrived. He's a huge upgrade on what went before.
c) I do think Malone improved as a passer.
I don't think any of this reflects badly on Stockton. I don't see the causal relationship you seem to.

4) I've read and saved Ben's 40. It's been a fair while since I read it though (don't have time to re-read presently). He always seemed low on Stockton for someone broadly inclined towards impact metrics. From memory maybe the Stockton article was one that talks about passes missed and that really feels like something I broadly don't care about ... something that we think maybe a player could have done but didn't do. Like if it was affecting morale or something maybe. But if the impact is there then "he could have done even better" doesn't feel such a valid criticism. I think he's a good thinker, assuming he's good at video analysis though not in a good place to judge, don't honestly know about how he aggregates stuff to a ranking. Maybe this isn't fair. Maybe the passing is inflated by simple passes. To the extent it's true, at significant scale, and not overridden by other non-box positives expect to see that hurt impact stats though.

5) Pretty confident '97 AScreaming RAPM had Utah's big 3 about equal in impact and thereafter (AScreaming then Googlesites ... from memory, think I trended NPI to get a purer, in-year result) Stockton at least had a narrow edge. Malone played more to accumulate additional value. Still "Utah had one of the best 4-year offensive stretches in history behind Malone, not Stockton." ... I don't remember offense defense splits and whilst granting the minutes point latterly (and some Malone advantages in 94-96 on-off) I think for net rate impact it's not just later years skewing favorable to Stockton that makes him look better than Malone in long-term RAPM (though it might help) he's looking at least as approximately as good, year-after-year including the two PBP era years in the span you cited. I may be misremembering some things here.

6) I would disagree "with very good offensively posting +3.7, +1.7 and +1.8 ORtg". Mileage may very. Language is woolly enough for some room for reasonable disagreement. On average (+2.466666667) and in two of the three years cited have very little case for "very good" to me. Granting some possibility for overlap I'd instinctively be interested to see what ranges you'd describe as "average", "above average", "good", "very good", perhaps "outstanding" and "elite" or whatever terms you might use - though per my opening not really seeking to extend the broad debate.

7) Whilst watching games is important, especially for certain things and the "how" a lot of the case against Stockton and for Thomas is "my eye test" and whilst I'd defer to professionals massively on the specifics, even there aggregating that accurately, consistently into a coherent, balanced view of a player with the data requires another skillset again. So when it's just chat on here where it's Stockton's small and not-athletic and the assumptions off that don't fit the data ... there's very limited use for that to me.

8) Assuming it's true the better offense with Thomas in '91 is interesting if not an earth shattering shift (though obviously that means a bit worse than the average without him). In part because I think TRex had his impact in '91 as defensive (not sure what if any controls he had, though they didn't, iirc, control for Salley, whom to my reading/recollection seemed to have the better case for the defensive impact). Again I don't know how much Salley impact the offensive end.
What I would say is something I've said before. Thomas has contextual value as the only point guard. Any of the four then three bigs can be paired in whatever notional combination. Rodman can swing up to the 4. Detroit can even go 3 guard and have one of them notionally at the three. Dumars could swing to PG but asking him to do that full time (and soak up some of the now increased backcourt minute load) does, I think make him worse. I don't think it would be fair to credit that as Isiah's impact, so much as the negative impact of playing someone out of position. I'd have to look at what else changed (how much Dumars, Johnson play more; who else is sopping up guard minutes; how does controlling for Salley impact things (if at all) and change the size of the sample.

9) Where it's the language of "prefer" at face value (as in "like more") ... I'm not going to care. Where that is used to mean "think is better" as it can be and I think is here ... big picture I think this has been covered - I think Stockton was better in the window cited; I think, for whatever it's worth, there's the evidence I cited that others saw it that way in the window cited; I think there's boxscore evidence that Stockton had a clear advantage in the window cited and whilst reduced that continued to be the case in the playoffs; I think Stockton has non-box positives over Thomas and most point guards of the time in terms of spacing and non-box defense and I think Stockton's later career impact numbers tend to undermine suggestions that he's less than his boxscore (even if specific criticisms could be true) - particularly for that window but given it's over a decent sample I'd be surprised if it were true for any larger scale sample.

10) Don't know that it matters but on "In their title window, though Isiah's usage declined, the offense didn't actually improve appreciably" with a comp from 84-86 with 87-91 it's worth noting, at least by Reference's definition of the term and I think based on the numbers we're talking regular season (haven't checked playoffs) ... this line of reasoning often comes up that Isiah stepped back, sacrificed etc and so far as I can tell ... it isn't true. Thomas's usage is 24.6 for 84-86 then 25.4 from 87-91 and at or above the 84-86 average for each individual year (a trend that continues to the very end of Isiah's career). His TOV% goes up (and this seems to be reflected in worse turnover economy as a team) and his assist% goes down and their pace goes down but his usage is mildly up.

Anyhow I'm not really looking to get into this any more. Hope all is good with you.