RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #17

[70sFan]

Isiah is very overrated. I'd argue that he wasn't even Pistons best player. Until the trade, Dantley was their best offensive player and even if you don't agree, this team won because of their defense. Thomas was the weakest defender on their starting lineup. I don't see him as even close to top 20.

PS: Yes, CP3 is much better player than Zeke ever was. I'm mostly fan of older "eras" but I'm not blind.

[THKNKG]

Isiah is very overrated. I'd argue that he wasn't even Pistons best player. Until the trade, Dantley was their best offensive player and even if you don't agree, this team won because of their defense. Thomas was the weakest defender on their starting lineup. I don't see him as even close to top 20.

PS: Yes, CP3 is much better player than Zeke ever was. I'm mostly fan of older "eras" but I'm not blind.

Magic
Oscar
West
CP3
Nash
Stockton
Frazier
Kidd
Payton
Curry

All have legitimate arguments over IT in my opinion. 20 is way way high.

[Joey Wheeler]

Isiah is very overrated. I'd argue that he wasn't even Pistons best player. Until the trade, Dantley was their best offensive player and even if you don't agree, this team won because of their defense. Thomas was the weakest defender on their starting lineup. I don't see him as even close to top 20.

PS: Yes, CP3 is much better player than Zeke ever was. I'm mostly fan of older "eras" but I'm not blind.

If you enjoy the summer so much you want to start your holidays in early May, sure. If you actually want to win though, you take Isiah. Isiah will do whatever his team needs to get the win and make everyone around him better and play hard, regardless of his own personal stats; otoh, Paul's teams are never as good as the sum of its parts and keep getting bounced by less talented teams in the playoffs with Paul marginalizing other stars on the team with his extreme and inflexible ball dominance.

Also, Isiah could play defense, he wasn't the kind of small guard you needed to hide on the defensive end. And he was the unquestioned leader of the team, he set the tone for the entire franchise, which is something that doesn't show up in any stat.

[mikejames23]

With Chris Paul I legitimately suspect he's already Top ~22 caliber. From 08-17 he's had a rather long prime, and I don't think there are very many players that are Best player on championship team types so winning doesn't even matter as a criteria. I am counting Barkley, Robinson, Moses and Chris Paul will be in the mix. I will post something up pro-Paul in a couple threads.

BTW, def. high on Stock as well. Great 2 way impact and may have been underrated in his own era.

[70sFan]

Isiah is very overrated. I'd argue that he wasn't even Pistons best player. Until the trade, Dantley was their best offensive player and even if you don't agree, this team won because of their defense. Thomas was the weakest defender on their starting lineup. I don't see him as even close to top 20.

PS: Yes, CP3 is much better player than Zeke ever was. I'm mostly fan of older "eras" but I'm not blind.

Magic
Oscar
West
CP3
Nash
Stockton
Frazier
Kidd
Payton
Curry

All have legitimate arguments over IT in my opinion. 20 is way way high.

And you didn't even mention Nate Archibald or Russell Westbrook. Or even Kevin Johnson. Peak-wise Archie Clark was probably just as good if not better but he lacked longevity.

[JoeMalburg]

As time goes by our understanding of what true impact is continues to improve. Simmons' book didn't even come out that long ago, and knowing what we now know, the rankings don't age well at all

Agree to disagree. I think he did a pretty good job of blending old school and new school thinking. I still think his list would be a lot closer to capturing the average hardcore fans perspective than a place like this does. Here the thinking is pretty one-dimensional, in a noble attempt at objectivity, there seems to be a dependence on measurable impact. Which, if you're going to depend exclusively or primarily on any one criteria, that's probably the best one to start with.

Virtually all modern lists have Stockton higher and you need take that into account when you start referencing magazines from the early/mid 90's. [/quote}

You must be aware of the potential irony of this statement. Of damning one past generation for not having the benefits of modernity without realizing the same fate is likely to befall you a generation from now?

And which lists have Stockton ranked higher? I've only seen blogs and message boards do that, again where the echo chamber is very loud and very alluring because of the shared desire to find objective, measurable impact based rankings. I got in trouble earlier for using the term echo chamber, but that's exactly what this is, and I should add I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else here in saying it. But, imo, people's unwillingness to listen to differing philosophical preferences with an open mind is what got Orange Julius Caesar elected. A mistake is only a mistake it if is not learned from. I digress.

From what I remember and some quick google searches on the topic, it was more about the how than the what. He basically wasn't on there because MJ didn't want him there - that in itself deserves a lot of uproar.

At the time that was not known, now it very much is, you're correct. At the time, no reason was given, and people were furious. Stockton took a lot of crap about it, so much so that Isiah's dad called John's dad and told him how bad Isiah and his family felt about what was happening to John. McCallum was SI's took hoops writer and he was in Isiah's camp and made a point to show that Stockton was far from the best choice in the minds of NBA insiders by running a GM's poll that showed KJ was favored over Stockton almost 3-1.

Not sure how old you are, if '83 is a clue? But I will say that I sincerely don't think John was ever considered near Isiah's level during their mutual prime seasons. Basketball is my life, not that that makes my opinion any more valid than yours, but I have a pretty strong memory of there being a clear divide in levels of player. I feel like Stockton got a lot of respect based not on being great, but on being very good for a very long time.

This is really questionable. A great point guard should lift everyone up offensively and there's nothing telling me that Isiah did this to a greater degree than Stockton - this is pretty much based on your opinion and I'm not conceding this.

I worded this poorly. I should have asked why so many players reputations grew from playing with Isiah. My basic premise is this:

Laimbeer and Johnson were cast offs thrown in trades as afterthoughts.
Mahorn, Rodman and Salley were offensive liabilities.
Aguirre was a scorer that couldn't create his own shot.
Edwards was a journeyman scorer who was famously bad on defense.
Joe Dumars was a late first round pick from McNeese State.

And let's remember how little it cost the Pistons to acquire all these assets. And this isn't some awful deal like the ones that allowed the Celtics to trade Joe Barry Carroll for a HOF Frountcourt or allow the Lakers to draft #1 overall in '79 and '82 and add Magic and Worthy to the fray.

Let us remember who these names are or better who they were...

Average ws/48 and BPM per season for the five guys who started elsewhere before Detroit...

Mahorn - .096 - 0.6
Laimbeer - 0.99 - 0.9
Aguirre - .129 - 2.1
Johnson - .110 - 1.9
Edwards - .114 - -0.9

So I love this team, love the construction, love the attitude and really love the results. But this team, without Isiah...I'm not sure we're talking about them at all, ever.

Meanwhile the Jazz never had a shortage of talent around Stockton. In addition to playing with a top 20 all-time player his entire career, they almost always had a space eating rim protector, a long athletic defensive minded wing and a scoring off guard. From Bailey to Corbin to Russell or from Griffith to Malone to Hornacek or Eaton to Spencer to Ostertag, they put the right kind of players around John and Karl for 15 years, and what did it get them?

One last one for you: Why did Stockton and not Isiah make All NBA every year during their mutual prime?

Because of what Isiah said about Larry Bird in the playoffs the spring after 1987. He was blacklisted by most NBA writers from everything after that. It helped that John was white and so were over 90% of those voting.

[wojoaderge]

I have Isiah behind Nash, in the same group with Clyde and CP3 (right below Clyde and just above CP3), and above everybody else

[70sFan]

Isiah is very overrated. I'd argue that he wasn't even Pistons best player. Until the trade, Dantley was their best offensive player and even if you don't agree, this team won because of their defense. Thomas was the weakest defender on their starting lineup. I don't see him as even close to top 20.

PS: Yes, CP3 is much better player than Zeke ever was. I'm mostly fan of older "eras" but I'm not blind.

If you enjoy the summer so much you want to start your holidays in early May, sure. If you actually want to win though, you take Isiah. Isiah will do whatever his team needs to get the win and make everyone around him better and play hard, regardless of his own personal stats; otoh, Paul's teams are never as good as the sum of its parts and keep getting bounced by less talented teams in the playoffs with Paul marginalizing other stars on the team with his extreme and inflexible ball dominance.

Also, Isiah could play defense, he wasn't the kind of small guard you needed to hide on the defensive end. And he was the unquestioned leader of the team, he set the tone for the entire franchise, which is something that doesn't show up in any stat.

Teams won championship, not sinlge players. Pistons had excellent coach, system and roleplayers. Paul didn't have it with Clippers.

Also, it wasn't Isiah who made Pistons Bad Boys. Before Dantley trade along with drafting Rodman and John, Pistons were run and gun team. Isiah had his best seasons before championships. As I said before, Dantley was better offensively than him and he wasn't important on D.

BTW, Isiah was so unselfish and did everything for his teammates that he was the main reason why Dantley left Pistons. They didn't like each other because Thomas wanted to be the man. Today people don't remember it because Pistons won after that and people like you can call Thomas great leader and unselfish teammate. He was far from perfect teammate and he wasn't that great offensive player (of course compared to the best ever).

[trex_8063]

Thru post #88 (22 votes, requiring 12 for an true majority):

Dirk Nowitzki - 8 (Bad Gatorade, Dr Positivity, Joao Saraiva, LABird, mischievous, Senior, trex_8063, andrewww)
David Robinson - 6 (Narigo, micahclay, Hornet Mania, drza, Doctor MJ, 2klegend)
Moses Malone - 3 (JordansBulls, mdonnelly1989, scabbarista)
Charles Barkley - 2 (Winsome Gerbil, Outside)
George Mikan - 2 (penbeast0, janmagn)
Bob Pettit - 1 (Pablo Novi)

Pettit is eliminated, vote transferred to Bob Cousy who is ineligible for lack of any first place votes; displaced as a ghost vote.
Mikan and Barkley are then eliminated. penbeast0, you never did specify an alternate pick, so your vote also becomes a ghost vote; otherwise we have two votes transferred to Dirk, one to Robinson:

Dirk - 10
Robinson - 7
Moses - 3

Still no true majority, so Moses is eliminated; two votes transfer to Robinson, one to Wade (ghost vote):

Dirk - 10
Robinson - 9
(three ghost votes)

By default, this spot goes to Dirk (fwiw, 5 of the 6 people who gave Robinson their first vote had Dirk as their alternate). Will have the next thread up shortly....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[70sFan]

Wait, did just someone call Aguirre "a scorer that couldn't create his own shot"? What the hell? Have you ever seen Mark play? He was Carmelo before Carmelo started playing basketball...

[THKNKG]

.

You should post your big conceptual Dirk/DRob post anyway - it'd be helpful for me to better delineate that spot (those 2 + Oscar/West is a tough 4 to choose between).


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Joey Wheeler]

Isiah is very overrated. I'd argue that he wasn't even Pistons best player. Until the trade, Dantley was their best offensive player and even if you don't agree, this team won because of their defense. Thomas was the weakest defender on their starting lineup. I don't see him as even close to top 20.

PS: Yes, CP3 is much better player than Zeke ever was. I'm mostly fan of older "eras" but I'm not blind.

If you enjoy the summer so much you want to start your holidays in early May, sure. If you actually want to win though, you take Isiah. Isiah will do whatever his team needs to get the win and make everyone around him better and play hard, regardless of his own personal stats; otoh, Paul's teams are never as good as the sum of its parts and keep getting bounced by less talented teams in the playoffs with Paul marginalizing other stars on the team with his extreme and inflexible ball dominance.

Also, Isiah could play defense, he wasn't the kind of small guard you needed to hide on the defensive end. And he was the unquestioned leader of the team, he set the tone for the entire franchise, which is something that doesn't show up in any stat.

Teams won championship, not sinlge players. Pistons had excellent coach, system and roleplayers. Paul didn't have it with Clippers.

Also, it wasn't Isiah who made Pistons Bad Boys. Before Dantley trade along with drafting Rodman and John, Pistons were run and gun team. Isiah had his best seasons before championships. As I said before, Dantley was better offensively than him and he wasn't important on D.

BTW, Isiah was so unselfish and did everything for his teammates that he was the main reason why Dantley left Pistons. They didn't like each other because Thomas wanted to be the man. Today people don't remember it because Pistons won after that and people like you can call Thomas great leader and unselfish teammate. He was far from perfect teammate and he wasn't that great offensive player (of course compared to the best ever).

That'd be a good argument if Paul didn't keep losing to teams that are less talented than his. He's not losing to the Spurs and the Warriors... besides, you could make an argument Isiah never played with anyone as talented as Blake, 6'11 athletic freak who's a walking mismatch. But Paul is someone players don't necessarily enjoy playing with, especially star players, which is part of the reason he hasn't been successful in the playoffs.

Anyway, Dantley left because he was a selfish player (who wanted to be 'the man') who didn't adhere to the Pistons' unselfish basketball ethos. It had nothing to do with Thomas wanting to be 'the man', which he never was in the traditional sense anyway. He was the best player and leader on the team, but he wasn't monopolizing possessions or shots. The Pistons were the ultimate team in the true sense of the word, they came at you as a unit on both ends, which was only possible precisely because their best player was unselfish and unconcerned about his personal stats.

Isiah was the best player and leader of a mini(dynasty) that repeatedly took out Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers and Jordan's Bulls. Paul is the leader of a team who keeps getting bounced out by less talented teams with HCA every year in the playoffs. I know who I'm taking for my team.

[pandrade83]

As time goes by our understanding of what true impact is continues to improve. Simmons' book didn't even come out that long ago, and knowing what we now know, the rankings don't age well at all

Virtually all modern lists have Stockton higher and you need take that into account when you start referencing magazines from the early/mid 90's. [/quote}

You must be aware of the potential irony of this statement. Of damning one past generation for not having the benefits of modernity without realizing the same fate is likely to befall you a generation from now?

And which lists have Stockton ranked higher? I've only seen blogs and message boards do that, again where the echo chamber is very loud and very alluring because of the shared desire to find objective, measurable impact based rankings. I got in trouble earlier for using the term echo chamber, but that's exactly what this is, and I should add I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else here in saying it. But, imo, people's unwillingness to listen to differing philosophical preferences with an open mind is what got Orange Julius Caesar elected. A mistake is only a mistake it if is not learned from. I digress.

ESPN, Fox Sports, Bleacher Report . . .every modern website. A quick Google Search will tell you this.

From what I remember and some quick google searches on the topic, it was more about the how than the what. He basically wasn't on there because MJ didn't want him there - that in itself deserves a lot of uproar.

At the time that was not known, now it very much is, you're correct. At the time, no reason was given, and people were furious. Stockton took a lot of crap about it, so much so that Isiah's dad called John's dad and told him how bad Isiah and his family felt about what was happening to John. McCallum was SI's took hoops writer and he was in Isiah's camp and made a point to show that Stockton was far from the best choice in the minds of NBA insiders by running a GM's poll that showed KJ was favored over Stockton almost 3-1.

The poll is a great insight - but it just says that most GMs would've rather taken KJ over Stockton, not Isiah.

Not sure how old you are, if '83 is a clue? But I will say that I sincerely don't think John was ever considered near Isiah's level during their mutual prime seasons. Basketball is my life, not that that makes my opinion any more valid than yours, but I have a pretty strong memory of there being a clear divide in levels of player. I feel like Stockton got a lot of respect based not on being great, but on being very good for a very long time.

Stockton made ALL NBA every single year during their mutual primes. Isiah didn't. A huge plank of your argument is that Isiah was generally considered the better player while they were both playing - but one kept making All NBA and the other didn't.

This is really questionable. A great point guard should lift everyone up offensively and there's nothing telling me that Isiah did this to a greater degree than Stockton - this is pretty much based on your opinion and I'm not conceding this.

I worded this poorly. I should have asked why so many players reputations grew from playing with Isiah. My basic premise is this:

Laimbeer and Johnson were cast offs thrown in trades as afterthoughts.
Mahorn, Rodman and Salley were offensive liabilities.
Aguirre was a scorer that couldn't create his own shot.
Edwards was a journeyman scorer who was famously bad on defense.
Joe Dumars was a late first round pick from McNeese State.

And let's remember how little it cost the Pistons to acquire all these assets. And this isn't some awful deal like the ones that allowed the Celtics to trade Joe Barry Carroll for a HOF Frountcourt or allow the Lakers to draft #1 overall in '79 and '82 and add Magic and Worthy to the fray.

Let us remember who these names are or better who they were...

Average ws/48 and BPM per season for the five guys who started elsewhere before Detroit...

Mahorn - .096 - 0.6
Laimbeer - 0.99 - 0.9
Aguirre - .129 - 2.1
Johnson - .110 - 1.9
Edwards - .114 - -0.9

So I love this team, love the construction, love the attitude and really love the results. But this team, without Isiah...I'm not sure we're talking about them at all, ever.

I'm not going to delve too deep into it, but showing advanced metrics of some of these guys isn't going to help you - because some of those players generated more favorable ratings based on those metrics than Isiah during the title runs. That doesn't mean I think that they were better than Isiah - but if you put together a core of Laimbeer, Rodman & Dumars - that's pretty good - not to mention other strong role players.

Meanwhile the Jazz never had a shortage of talent around Stockton. In addition to playing with a top 20 all-time player his entire career, they almost always had a space eating rim protector, a long athletic defensive minded wing and a scoring off guard. From Bailey to Corbin to Russell or from Griffith to Malone to Hornacek or Eaton to Spencer to Ostertag, they put the right kind of players around John and Karl for 15 years, and what did it get them?

Here's where I think you're starting to prop up Stockton's teammates beyond reason (while also grossly overstating the Isiah impact). In the playoffs, teams made Eaton a non-factor. 3 of Stockton's first 4 "stud" playoff performances in closeout/elimination games were losses partially because Eaton was a no-show. He couldn't move and smart teams can plan around that. Ostertag/Spencer/Griffith/Corbin aren't starting on Detroit from '87-'91. I thought Bailey was decent when I was a kid but advanced stats paint him in a pretty unfavorable light too. You're talking about guys who really wouldn't see the court on those Detroit teams here.

One last one for you: Why did Stockton and not Isiah make All NBA every year during their mutual prime?

Because of what Isiah said about Larry Bird in the playoffs the spring after 1987. He was blacklisted by most NBA writers from everything after that. It helped that John was white and so were over 90% of those voting.

So were those same writers who you mentioned earlier racist against Isiah and black-balling him from All NBA or were they the ones who thought he was better than Stockton? Consistency matters.

[Lou Fan]

Isiah is very overrated. I'd argue that he wasn't even Pistons best player. Until the trade, Dantley was their best offensive player and even if you don't agree, this team won because of their defense. Thomas was the weakest defender on their starting lineup. I don't see him as even close to top 20.

PS: Yes, CP3 is much better player than Zeke ever was. I'm mostly fan of older "eras" but I'm not blind.

Magic
Oscar
West
CP3
Nash
Stockton
Frazier
Kidd
Payton
Curry

All have legitimate arguments over IT in my opinion. 20 is way way high.

I completely agree. I have all of those guards with the exception of Frazier over IT.

[70sFan]

If you enjoy the summer so much you want to start your holidays in early May, sure. If you actually want to win though, you take Isiah. Isiah will do whatever his team needs to get the win and make everyone around him better and play hard, regardless of his own personal stats; otoh, Paul's teams are never as good as the sum of its parts and keep getting bounced by less talented teams in the playoffs with Paul marginalizing other stars on the team with his extreme and inflexible ball dominance.

Also, Isiah could play defense, he wasn't the kind of small guard you needed to hide on the defensive end. And he was the unquestioned leader of the team, he set the tone for the entire franchise, which is something that doesn't show up in any stat.

Teams won championship, not sinlge players. Pistons had excellent coach, system and roleplayers. Paul didn't have it with Clippers.

Also, it wasn't Isiah who made Pistons Bad Boys. Before Dantley trade along with drafting Rodman and John, Pistons were run and gun team. Isiah had his best seasons before championships. As I said before, Dantley was better offensively than him and he wasn't important on D.

BTW, Isiah was so unselfish and did everything for his teammates that he was the main reason why Dantley left Pistons. They didn't like each other because Thomas wanted to be the man. Today people don't remember it because Pistons won after that and people like you can call Thomas great leader and unselfish teammate. He was far from perfect teammate and he wasn't that great offensive player (of course compared to the best ever).

That'd be a good argument if Paul didn't keep losing to teams that are less talented than his. He's not losing to the Spurs and the Warriors... besides, you could make an argument Isiah never played with anyone as talented as Blake, 6'11 athletic freak who's a walking mismatch. But Paul is someone players don't necessarily enjoy playing with, especially star players, which is part of the reason he hasn't been successful in the playoffs.

Anyway, Dantley left because he was a selfish player (who wanted to be 'the man') who didn't adhere to the Pistons' unselfish basketball ethos. It had nothing to do with Thomas wanting to be 'the man', which he never was in the traditional sense anyway. He was the best player and leader on the team, but he wasn't monopolizing possessions or shots. The Pistons were the ultimate team in the true sense of the word, they came at you as a unit on both ends, which was only possible precisely because their best player was unselfish and unconcerned about his personal stats.

Isiah was the best player and leader of a mini(dynasty) that repeatedly took out Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers and Jordan's Bulls. Paul is the leader of a team who keeps getting bounced out by less talented teams with HCA every year in the playoffs. I know who I'm taking for my team.

Dantley was one of the main reasons Pistons became important in NBA. Ask Chuck Daly, he always recalled how Dantley helped this young team with his awareness and hard work. He also gave them excellent first option on halfcourt. He was the main reason why Pistons transformed from fastbreak team to tough, slow and defensive minded one.

Watch 1987 ECF or 1988 Finals. Dantley was far more efficient offensive player. Thomas didn't play that well against Celtics and even with his famous heroic performance in the finals, he wasn't that great overall.

[JoeMalburg]

With Chris Paul I legitimately suspect he's already Top ~22 caliber

Give me the list of top 25 guys who haven't seen a conference finals. Heck name one who gang been to the Finals?

Top 50 without a conference finals? Is there one?

That seems like an impossible exception to the rule don't you think?

[JoeMalburg]

As time goes by our understanding of what true impact is continues to improve. Simmons' book didn't even come out that long ago, and knowing what we now know, the rankings don't age well at all

Virtually all modern lists have Stockton higher and you need take that into account when you start referencing magazines from the early/mid 90's. [/quote}

You must be aware of the potential irony of this statement. Of damning one past generation for not having the benefits of modernity without realizing the same fate is likely to befall you a generation from now?

And which lists have Stockton ranked higher? I've only seen blogs and message boards do that, again where the echo chamber is very loud and very alluring because of the shared desire to find objective, measurable impact based rankings. I got in trouble earlier for using the term echo chamber, but that's exactly what this is, and I should add I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else here in saying it. But, imo, people's unwillingness to listen to differing philosophical preferences with an open mind is what got Orange Julius Caesar elected. A mistake is only a mistake it if is not learned from. I digress.

ESPN, Fox Sports, Bleacher Report . . .every modern website. A quick Google Search will tell you this.



At the time that was not known, now it very much is, you're correct. At the time, no reason was given, and people were furious. Stockton took a lot of crap about it, so much so that Isiah's dad called John's dad and told him how bad Isiah and his family felt about what was happening to John. McCallum was SI's took hoops writer and he was in Isiah's camp and made a point to show that Stockton was far from the best choice in the minds of NBA insiders by running a GM's poll that showed KJ was favored over Stockton almost 3-1.

The poll is a great insight - but it just says that most GMs would've rather taken KJ over Stockton, not Isiah.

Not sure how old you are, if '83 is a clue? But I will say that I sincerely don't think John was ever considered near Isiah's level during their mutual prime seasons. Basketball is my life, not that that makes my opinion any more valid than yours, but I have a pretty strong memory of there being a clear divide in levels of player. I feel like Stockton got a lot of respect based not on being great, but on being very good for a very long time.

Stockton made ALL NBA every single year during their mutual primes. Isiah didn't. A huge plank of your argument is that Isiah was generally considered the better player while they were both playing - but one kept making All NBA and the other didn't.



I worded this poorly. I should have asked why so many players reputations grew from playing with Isiah. My basic premise is this:

Laimbeer and Johnson were cast offs thrown in trades as afterthoughts.
Mahorn, Rodman and Salley were offensive liabilities.
Aguirre was a scorer that couldn't create his own shot.
Edwards was a journeyman scorer who was famously bad on defense.
Joe Dumars was a late first round pick from McNeese State.

And let's remember how little it cost the Pistons to acquire all these assets. And this isn't some awful deal like the ones that allowed the Celtics to trade Joe Barry Carroll for a HOF Frountcourt or allow the Lakers to draft #1 overall in '79 and '82 and add Magic and Worthy to the fray.

Let us remember who these names are or better who they were...

Average ws/48 and BPM per season for the five guys who started elsewhere before Detroit...

Mahorn - .096 - 0.6
Laimbeer - 0.99 - 0.9
Aguirre - .129 - 2.1
Johnson - .110 - 1.9
Edwards - .114 - -0.9

So I love this team, love the construction, love the attitude and really love the results. But this team, without Isiah...I'm not sure we're talking about them at all, ever.

I'm not going to delve too deep into it, but showing advanced metrics of some of these guys isn't going to help you - because some of those players generated more favorable ratings based on those metrics than Isiah during the title runs. That doesn't mean I think that they were better than Isiah - but if you put together a core of Laimbeer, Rodman & Dumars - that's pretty good - not to mention other strong role players.

Meanwhile the Jazz never had a shortage of talent around Stockton. In addition to playing with a top 20 all-time player his entire career, they almost always had a space eating rim protector, a long athletic defensive minded wing and a scoring off guard. From Bailey to Corbin to Russell or from Griffith to Malone to Hornacek or Eaton to Spencer to Ostertag, they put the right kind of players around John and Karl for 15 years, and what did it get them?

Here's where I think you're starting to prop up Stockton's teammates beyond reason (while also grossly overstating the Isiah impact). In the playoffs, teams made Eaton a non-factor. 3 of Stockton's first 4 "stud" playoff performances in closeout/elimination games were losses partially because Eaton was a no-show. He couldn't move and smart teams can plan around that. Ostertag/Spencer/Griffith/Corbin aren't starting on Detroit from '87-'91. I thought Bailey was decent when I was a kid but advanced stats paint him in a pretty unfavorable light too. You're talking about guys who really wouldn't see the court on those Detroit teams here.

Because of what Isiah said about Larry Bird in the playoffs the spring after 1987. He was blacklisted by most NBA writers from everything after that. It helped that John was white and so were over 90% of those voting.

So were those same writers who you mentioned earlier racist against Isiah and black-balling him from All NBA or were they the ones who thought he was better than Stockton? Consistency matters.

It's my interpretation that you'd rather assume something that isn't clear to make a point than ask clarification.

If I'm you believe I'm as off base and inconsistent as you suggest with your response, why start a dialogue?

[Bad Gatorade]

That just tells me those numbers are highly flawed and entirely unreliable. That's a ludicrous suggestion. I don't fully understand why so many here put so much stock in numbers that are highly questionable and never even been tested by peer review...

I play basketball on the weekends at a famous Church in Detroit, the scoreboard was donated by Jalen Rose and pictures of George Gervin and Ralph Simpson hang on the wall outside the gym among others. We talk basketball a lot, and advanced metrics never come up. I'm not saying that way of evaluating things is right, or better, but I can tell you I'm just as impressed with their knowledge of the game as I am with the people on here. I think the better approach is somewhere in the middle. If the numbers suggest that a conclusion that the basketball world has long drawn and accepted is wrong, we can't assume the numbers are right, we have to be skeptical. Just as when we see a player like Pete Maravich who is largely revered and selected to the 50@50 team, but the numbers suggest he was a far less impactful player, we can be expected to dig deeper and not just take the reputation at it's word.

I'll be honest, reading your response frustrates me a lot, I just want to laugh at how crazy some of your conclusions sound to me, but I know I'm just not understanding the context from which you're perspective is coming. Just as one example, you write this:

"This isn't to say that Isiah was a bad player at all - he was definitely a good player. But he's one of the key examples of a player whose mythos is drawn from championships/playoff success as opposed to his actual play."

And I have to laugh because Isiah was considered a Superstar by the end of his rookie season. His "mythos" is drawn from eyeballs watching him. You're doing after the fact analysis without the context of what smart people at the time were thinking and saying. That matters. At least to me it does.


I know that you probably don't care much about what the careers of the Bad Boy Pistons were like before that team was assembled or what their reputations were and how that team was able to put everyone (except Isiah) in an ideal spot for their strengths because of just how good Isiah was. Just as I don't care very much about some guy who doesn't use his real name's made up metric. Both have value, but only as much as you or I place on them. I'm here to better understand how you guys have used this amazing data to draw conclusions that seem way off base to me. The problem I'm running into is that you're much better at making your points to each other than someone who does;t share your analytical philosophy and zeitgeist.

I've been working on a way too long post about Isiah Thomas, as soon as someone votes for Stockton or Paul above him (which I can't wait to tell the guys at the gym and get a good laugh out of them) I'll lay out the case from my point of view as best I can and hope that can break the ice. If not I'll just go back to lingering, comparing my reactions to NBA events with others, using the team forums to see how fan bases are reacting and of course stealing y'all's good ideas when I come across them.

Have a Good Day Powerade!

Alright, so, WOWY stands for "with or without you" and the WOWY studies that ElGee (a forum member, who is not just somebody who "doesn't use his real name" but a guy who has actually released a book on basketball) has undertaken essentially stem from analysing win-loss records when a player is present, and when a player is absent, and using this information to observe impact for players in older eras. WOWY uses regression (which is a very, very fundamental statistical concept) and win-loss data (a barometer you seem to value highly) which... is pretty simple, really. So it's not simply a "made up metric" as much as it is assessing an actual array of win-loss observation, which you seem to be pretty high on.

What the WOWY data is telling us is that Isiah was on a very good team. Even in 1990-91, just one year removed from their second championship, the Pistons were 19-15 without Isiah on the court (roughly 46 wins). That's lower than what they were doing with him (31-17, roughly 53 wins equivalent) and he certainly had a clear impact, but for all the talk of how the Pistons only played well alongside Isiah, it seems to throw a thorn in that line of thinking.

Heck, until 1987 (when Isiah's numbers started dropping), the Isiah Pistons were only around a 46 win team, peaking at 49 wins despite Isiah's individual accolades up until that point. Their offence remained fairly similar from Isiah's individual peak seasons, but their defence improve quite a lot - this is what propelled the Pistons into championship contention/success. That's not looking too deep into stats at all, IMO. Observing why the Pistons improved significantly in the late 80s shows that it was their defensive culture that was enhanced. And things such as the ascension of Dennis Rodman as a defensive force (i.e. the two time DPOY who "wouldn't have made it through his first 5 years in the pros" if it wasn't for Thomas... right? ) are very, very important factors to consider. Heck, I'd also hazard a guess that one of the reasons their offence stayed fairly similar despite Thomas' declining statistics is that Joe Dumars himself began developing into quite a nice offensive player.

I get that you like the eye test, but the eye test can be quite misleading. When casually talking with fellow basketball nuts, how often are we going to say, "man, how about that Draymond Green's RAPM! wow!" over "did you see that John Wall pass? oh boy!" Certain things lend themselves more to casual conversation, and certain things are more aesthetically pleasing to our eyes. This isn't to say that the eye test doesn't matter (after all, why are we even on a basketball forum if we don't watch basketball?!?! I find it mildly crazy that the "box score watcher" accusations are thrown around so wildly as they often are) but coupling a granular analysis via both statistics and eye test helps understand a player's impact even further, helps understand what makes players tick, and helps us understand basketball, period. And honestly, the statistical impact of Isiah just doesn't really resonate well enough with me to place him above guys like CP3, Stockton, Nash, who I just feel are better players.

Also, with reference to what "people at the time" would say about Isiah, it's worth considering that when the Pistons started making waves as a team (> 50 win regular seasons, deeper playoff runs), Isiah's accolades actually lessened. Isiah dropped to the All NBA second team in 1987, and never made a team from 1988 onwards - if anything, his individual accolades through the media were inversely correlated to the Pistons' success. He went from a lower end top 10 MVP candidate to never ranking top 10 in MVP voting after 1987. Heck, even the 1989 Finals MVP was awarded to Dumars instead!

The media weren't actually viewing Thomas in the same light that he is often viewed nowadays. Aside from All Star appearances, most of the media-based accolades (e.g. All NBA teams, Finals MVP) were no longer being given to Thomas. His story just doesn't add up to me - for all the talk of his excellence, he never really combined individual statistical success, accolades (which I'm using as a barometer for "media-acknowledged perception that goes beyond stats") and team success together. I view the change in Detroit's success just as much due to the defensive strength of that squad as Thomas' presence. In particular, looking at team DRTG in 1992 (healthy Rodman) vs 1993 (injured Rodman) vs 1994 (no more Rodman) shows a much, much more clear correlation to a player's characteristics + impact on team success!

Compared to his media accolades in the 80s/early 90s, the common perception of Thomas often perpetuated throughout the media (a top 5 all timeish PG) almost seems like "after the fact" analysis to me - he was obviously well respected, otherwise he wouldn't have made all of those all star squads, but his other accolades do nothing to lend him the reputation of a top 5 PG that many media outlets seem to propagate today. And that's why I believe that his reputation is often enhanced by championships after-the-fact, and why I don't think he belongs anywhere near the top 20, especially when CP3, Nash, Stockton and Frazier exist.

[Joey Wheeler]

Teams won championship, not sinlge players. Pistons had excellent coach, system and roleplayers. Paul didn't have it with Clippers.

Also, it wasn't Isiah who made Pistons Bad Boys. Before Dantley trade along with drafting Rodman and John, Pistons were run and gun team. Isiah had his best seasons before championships. As I said before, Dantley was better offensively than him and he wasn't important on D.

BTW, Isiah was so unselfish and did everything for his teammates that he was the main reason why Dantley left Pistons. They didn't like each other because Thomas wanted to be the man. Today people don't remember it because Pistons won after that and people like you can call Thomas great leader and unselfish teammate. He was far from perfect teammate and he wasn't that great offensive player (of course compared to the best ever).

That'd be a good argument if Paul didn't keep losing to teams that are less talented than his. He's not losing to the Spurs and the Warriors... besides, you could make an argument Isiah never played with anyone as talented as Blake, 6'11 athletic freak who's a walking mismatch. But Paul is someone players don't necessarily enjoy playing with, especially star players, which is part of the reason he hasn't been successful in the playoffs.

Anyway, Dantley left because he was a selfish player (who wanted to be 'the man') who didn't adhere to the Pistons' unselfish basketball ethos. It had nothing to do with Thomas wanting to be 'the man', which he never was in the traditional sense anyway. He was the best player and leader on the team, but he wasn't monopolizing possessions or shots. The Pistons were the ultimate team in the true sense of the word, they came at you as a unit on both ends, which was only possible precisely because their best player was unselfish and unconcerned about his personal stats.

Isiah was the best player and leader of a mini(dynasty) that repeatedly took out Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers and Jordan's Bulls. Paul is the leader of a team who keeps getting bounced out by less talented teams with HCA every year in the playoffs. I know who I'm taking for my team.

Dantley was one of the main reasons Pistons became important in NBA. Ask Chuck Daly, he always recalled how Dantley helped this young team with his awareness and hard work. He also gave them excellent first option on halfcourt. He was the main reason why Pistons transformed from fastbreak team to tough, slow and defensive minded one.

Watch 1987 ECF or 1988 Finals. Dantley was far more efficient offensive player. Thomas didn't play that well against Celtics and even with his famous heroic performance in the finals, he wasn't that great overall.

Let's get the facts right btw. Dantley had to leave because Daly was taking his minutes away in favor of Rodman in the 89 season. In a game at Boston, Daly called for a substitution late in the 4th and he refused to leave the court (Rodman ended up leaving instead), which was when his fate was sealed. It had absolutely nothing to do with Isiah wanting to be 'the man', he wasn't that kind of player anyway...

As for the rest, Dantley was indeed important for the Pistons (he was never as good as Isiah tho) but by 89 he had become a toxic presence and his trade was absolutely the correct call as the results showed. As for those series, Dantley is the more efficient scorer yes, but that's all he is; Isiah was the leader and made everyone else around him better. The game 6 performance in 88 was the stuff of legend, but wasn't an isolated occurrence at all

[70sFan]

Dantley performance in Staple Center was almost as impressive but people don't remember it because AD was never liked by casual fans. Nevermind, this is not my point. Neither Dantley nor Thomas deserves to be mentioned in top 20 ever. Definitely not before Stockton.