Where do you rank Isiah Thomas all-time?

[Joey Wheeler]

No player's ranking should be that dependent on rings. Even without rings, there should still be some indication of them being on the level of where they are ranked.

Tim Duncan's resume for example is boosted by rings, but even without it, he still has the statistics, MVP's, All-NBA teams that suggest he is on that level.

With Isiah, people are skipping all that and ranking him higher than players clearly better than him because of his team winning. That's not right.

The highest he ever was in MVP voting was 5th. He was never a top 5 player. But he's supposed to be top 20 or whatever because he won a ring shooting 48 TS%. Please.

He might be the most overrated player in NBA history.

People don't rate Isiah highly because he has rings but because he is the main reason Detroit have those rings.

He's underrated here because stats and people's unwillingless to see basketball (and most sports) as a dynamic sport than can't really be reduced to an Excel spreadsheet. This is so clear in this case; if we go by stats, the Pistons didn't have a single top 50 player all-time when they won 2 titles in a row, should have won 3 in a row really (robbed against the Lakers in 1988) and in the years before and after lost a razor tight CF to Bird's Celtics and another to Jordan's Bulls. This obviously doesn't add up; looking at the history of the NBA where elite talent wins the only explanation for the Pistons being this successful without any elite all-time players would be Chuck Daly being by far the GOAT coach or something.

[liamliam1234]

But that is just looking at names (and those Pistons probably had three other starters deserving of the all-time top hundred consideration anyway). The mid-2000s Pistons were far less talented, but still won a dominant title, nearly repeated, and went to three more conference finals. The historically dominant 2014 Spurs had a lot of names, but not a single top ten player that season. Props to the Pistons for hitting that sweet spot before the Bulls rounded into form and after the Celtics/Lakers were dropping off, but that does not make Isiah a top twenty-five player.

Again, I think it is instructive to look at how he compared with someone of a relative contemporary in Payton. This is taken from the GOAT project (user = pandrade83):

If you're taking Isiah here, I understand the case. You're putting all the weight on leadership and playoff clutch performance. Regular season stats don't matter to you and it's hard to build a case around Isiah based on advanced metrics.

So, let's compare playoff results:

During Payton's 10 year prime ('94-'03) he put up 24-8-5, 2 steals, 3 Turnovers & 53% TS.
During Isiah's 10 year prime ('83-'92) he put up 20-9-5, 2 steals, 3.3 Turnovers & 52% TS.

Very comparable - probably a slight edge to Payton but it's close; if the Isiah supporter wanted to call it a wash, I'm OK with that.

Next, let's look at closeout/elimination game performance:

Same time periods -

Isiah put up 21-9-5, 2 steals & 3.1 Turnovers on 50% TS
Payton put up 23-8-6, 2 steals & 2.7 Turnovers on 55% TS

Payton gets a fairly decisive edge here.

Next, let's look at how they performed during the later rounds. For Payton during the prime I referenced, we only have '96-'98 to look at, so we'll compare that against Isiah's '88-'90 perfomance.

Patyon put up 21-7-5, 2 steals, and 2.9 TO on 55% TS
Isiah put up 20-8-5, 2 steals, 3.5 TO on 52% TS

Again - edge goes to Payton - and keep in mind - that Payton was an elite defender and the only PG to win DPOY. He put up better offensive #'s while being his team's defensive anchor.

You won't see D like this on MJ from Isiah.

Watch on YouTube

I know - Isiah won the rings. Did he light it up in the defining games of the Bad Boys' runs where they overcame/held off an obstacle?

'88 vs. Boston when they slayed the Celtic monster, he went 1-11 for 9 points, 9 assists & 5 rebounds. Not a great game - he was lucky that Vinnie & Edwards went off for 39 off the bench & Dantley got 22. He was really lucky that the defense clamped down on Bird (4/17), Parish & Ainge (4 points combined for those two).

In '89 after Magic pulled his hamstring, the series was never in doubt. But in the Final game, the Lakers clinged to a 2 point lead.

Isiah was fine. He went 5-9 for 14 points, 5 ast & 3 reb. But others like Dumars (23 & 6) were more impactful - and Dumars won the FMVP.

In '90, when Detroit held off Chicago for one last time, Isiah was very good - 21, 11 & 8.
He was very good in the closeout game in the Finals vs. Portland too, taking over with 29 points on 13/20 shooting. He did have 7 turnovers which is a bit much but OK.

My point isn't that Isiah was a poor playoff performer; that would be un-true - this isn't to trash him.

The point is that GP was a stronger playoff performer and that Isiah wasn't this killer who dominated every big win either as he is being lionized for. Payton was a better playoff performer and everything we have shows he was the better overall player in the regular season as well.

As to leadership/competitive spirit, Isiah has a case for the GOAT amongst point guards. But it's not like Payton is poor in this area, he's not Chris Paul or anything. His trash talk was a psychological weapon and he is highly respected by his contemporaries and those who followed him.

Stockton: "Consistent, Tremendous Warrior-like play"
Jason Terry: "My idol Gary Payton"
George Karl: "Gary Payton was the best player I ever coached"
SI posted a great article about how Payton had transformed into a strong leader https://www.si.com/vault/1999/12/20/271562/the-hustler-the-surprising-sonics-are-taking-their-cue-from-brash-gary-payton-who-has-blossomed-into-a-team-leader-as-well-as-the-best-all-around-guard-in-the-game

Had Karl figured out defensive strategy sooner, Seattle could've potentially pulled a monstrous upset over the '96 Chicago Bulls, but alas it wasn't meant to be. Compared to players who we're taking about here, Isiah is as good as you're going to get on the leadership/intangibles component. No one left is better - few are his equal. I'd rate the Glove as above average but not great.

If you're going to take Isiah for his leadership/intangibles, there's a healthy amount of tangibles to overcome first. But let me borrow from a Chuck Klosterman quote in Simmons' book:

"The problem, of course, is my use of the word ‘tangible’. Anything described as tangibly good is inferred to mean intangibly flawed. . . .
His wins validate everything. . . .
The real question is this: who was better in a vacuum? If we erase the social meaning of their careers - in other words, if we ignore the unsophisticated cliche that suggests the only thing valuable about sports is who wins the last game of the season - which of these two men was better at the game?"

The answer is fairly clearly Payton - and that's after engaging Isiah on his turf.

You say basketball is not played on a spreadsheet, but all Isiah’s argument comes down to is the equation of “ostensible ‘best’ player on two title teams = better than everyone who cannot claim that”. And that is so much lazier.

[Lost92Bricks]

People don't rate Isiah highly because he has rings but because he is the main reason Detroit have those rings.

He's underrated here because stats and people's unwillingless to see basketball (and most sports) as a dynamic sport than can't really be reduced to an Excel spreadsheet. This is so clear in this case; if we go by stats, the Pistons didn't have a single top 50 player all-time when they won 2 titles in a row, should have won 3 in a row really (robbed against the Lakers in 1988) and in the years before and after lost a razor tight CF to Bird's Celtics and another to Jordan's Bulls. This obviously doesn't add up; looking at the history of the NBA where elite talent wins the only explanation for the Pistons being this successful without any elite all-time players would be Chuck Daly being by far the GOAT coach or something.

The main reason Detroit won rings was because they were the best defensive team in the league anchored by Dumars/Rodman/Laimbeer/Mahorn/Salley. Isiah was like the 6th best defender on the team.

There have been other examples of teams winning without any major offensive stars...2004 Pistons and 2014 Spurs along with those late 80's Pistons teams.

[Joey Wheeler]

But that is just looking at names (and those Pistons probably had three other starters deserving of the all-time top hundred consideration anyway). The mid-2000s Pistons were far less talented, but still won a dominant title, nearly repeated, and went to three more conference finals. The historically dominant 2014 Spurs had a lot of names, but not a single top ten player that season. Props to the Pistons for hitting that sweet spot before the Bulls rounded into form and after the Celtics/Lakers were dropping off, but that does not make Isiah a top twenty-five player.

Again, I think it is instructive to look at how he compared with someone of a relative contemporary in Payton. This is taken from the GOAT project (user = pandrade83):

You say basketball is not played on a spreadsheet, but all Isiah’s argument comes down to is the equation of “ostensible ‘best’ player on two title teams = better than everyone who cannot claim that”. And that is so much lazier.

This is some very unfair framing on your part. You make it sound like I'm ranking players by how many times they won as the clear cut best player, which you have no idea if it is the case or not. It isn't btw.

Besides, the post you responded to had an entire section dedicated to how integral Isiah and his skillset were to the Pistons' identity and to how they wouldn't be able to maintain that same identity with other point guards more know for their gaudy stats. My argument definitely does not come down to "He was the best player on those teams, therefore he should be ranked this high." Maybe you mean I'm not backing my argument with statistics, which is a fair criticism but again stats are a useful frame but basketball can't be reduced to them. Again, my post has an entire paragraph about how Curry scoring 47 points on strong efficiency wasn't what his team needed from their offensive star in order to maximize their chances to win, that should show that I'm not basing my argument on stats but on my observations (which I'm aware are subjective and many/most might disagree with).

As for the pandrade83 post, it's instructive but everything in there I could find on basketball reference, I kinda tend to just skim past long statistical breakdowns, I would be more interested in his personal impressions from watching those players because again I don't think you can conclude one player is better or performed better than the other by just citing a bunch of stats, the skillsets that help win games are so much broader than what stats can capture.

People don't rate Isiah highly because he has rings but because he is the main reason Detroit have those rings.

He's underrated here because stats and people's unwillingless to see basketball (and most sports) as a dynamic sport than can't really be reduced to an Excel spreadsheet. This is so clear in this case; if we go by stats, the Pistons didn't have a single top 50 player all-time when they won 2 titles in a row, should have won 3 in a row really (robbed against the Lakers in 1988) and in the years before and after lost a razor tight CF to Bird's Celtics and another to Jordan's Bulls. This obviously doesn't add up; looking at the history of the NBA where elite talent wins the only explanation for the Pistons being this successful without any elite all-time players would be Chuck Daly being by far the GOAT coach or something.

The main reason Detroit won rings was because they were the best defensive team in the league anchored by Dumars/Rodman/Laimbeer/Mahorn/Salley. Isiah was like the 6th best defender on the team.

There have been other examples of teams winning without any major offensive stars...2004 Pistons and 2014 Spurs along with those late 80's Pistons teams.

That cast you cited would have no chance of winning anything without an offensive star to lead them. Dumars/Rodman/Laimbeer/Mahorn/Salley has all the making of one of the worst offensive teams in the league. Isiah not only led the offense but he could be effective in a way that allowed the Pistons to maximize their defense at the same time.

2014 Spurs had an amazing offensive system, with sharp shooters everywhere, they didn't particularly rely on any one player; that was definitely not the case with Detroit, where the offense was very reliant on Isiah, it's not like they had some great offensive system in place where anyone would thrive. Fair enough on the 2004 Pistons, though Billups is also underrated because of not putting up big stats, he's not as good as Isiah but better than most give him credit for.

[liamliam1234]

As Bidofo has covered, I think the speculation that Isiah’s style is uniquely suitable for the Pistons is logically baseless and excessively convenient at best. Those “observations” still have a built-in winning bias, i.e. the Pistons succeeded with that style so that style inherently suited them best. But the Pistons do not benefit from Isiah missing shots, or suffer from hypothetical replacements missing fewer shots. It is nonsense to act as if his brand of mediocre offence was somehow giving them this nebulous defensive boost. So the main argument has to be “leadership” — enormously subjective, and something most stars exhibit anyway — or defence — fine but nothing exemplary — or passing impact — respectable, but again, hardly irreplaceable at the top level. And talking about his role as an offensive initiator is similarly irrelevant when, again, basically every good team has that element. I love Kyle Lowry, but I am not going to give him a top hundred placement just because he successfully ran the offence on a championship team.

If an “observation” starts from the conclusion, i.e. the end result was sufficiently good so whatever process got there must itself be good in a vacuum, it is generally not going to be a valuable, or even accurate, “observation”.

[Joey Wheeler]

As Bidofo has covered, I think the speculation that Isiah’s style is uniquely suitable for the Pistons is logically baseless and excessively convenient at best. Those “observations” still have a built-in winning bias, i.e. the Pistons succeeded with that style so that style inherently suited them best. But the Pistons do not benefit from Isiah missing shots, or suffer from hypothetical replacements missing fewer shots. It is nonsense to act as if his brand of mediocre offence was somehow giving them this nebulous defensive boost. So the main argument has to be “leadership” — enormously subjective, and something most stars exhibit anyway — or defence — fine but nothing exemplary — or passing impact — respectable, but again, hardly irreplaceable at the top level. And talking about his role as an offensive initiator is similarly irrelevant when, again, basically every good team has that element. I love Kyle Lowry, but I am not going to give him a top hundred placement just because he successfully ran the offence on a championship team.

If an “observation” starts from the conclusion, i.e. the end result was sufficiently good so whatever process got there must itself be good in a vacuum, it is generally not going to be a valuable, or even accurate, “observation”.

I mean yeah, if a team wins then it's a good assumption that the process that led to the win is good. Especially if said team doesn't have the best talent and wins consistently ie their winning isn't a fluke. But if you believe that's not the case, do explain how those Pistons teams should have played to be even more successful given their personnel.

Also it is highly inaccurate to call Isiah's offense mediocre. When the Pistons won those titles, he led better playoff offenses, with worse offensive talent around him, than anything Curry did before Durant joined for instance. The Pistons had a very good playoff offense with Isiah being the only elite playmaker. If by "mediocre" offense you simply mean he didn't score efficiently on an individual level, why does that matter if he led his team, which lacked offensive talent, to a very good offense?

Kyle Lowry was nowhere near the best player or the best offensive player on the Raptors, so that comparison is a non-starter. Though he's another player who's better than most give him credit for and who has shown a big impact on winning over the years. I actually think you could make a very good argument for top 100 for him

[liamliam1234]

I mean yeah, if a team wins then it's a good assumption that the process that led to the win is good. Especially if said team doesn't have the best talent and wins consistently ie their winning isn't a fluke. But if you believe that's not the case, do explain how those Pistons teams should have played to be even more successful given their personnel.

The question is not whether the process worked, the question is whether it would have worked better under a better player. There are zero indications Isiah in any way carried that team, and despite your assertions, it demonstrably was not short on talent during their run of relevance.

Also it is highly inaccurate to call Isiah's offense mediocre. When the Pistons won those titles, he led better playoff offenses, with worse offensive talent around him, than anything Curry did before Durant joined for instance.

What? The Warriors had the sixth-best playoff offence in 2014, the top playoff offence in 2015, the fourth-best playoff offence in 2016, and were by far the most successful offensive team against the historically excellent Raptors defence this past year. The Pistons had the eighth best playoff offence in 1990, when he won Finals MVP and was at his “best”. The year before they were fourth, and the year before that they were eleventh. They were nothing special. If I look at elgee’s spreadsheet of relative playoff offences, the 1989 Pistons are hovering around #150 all-time on offence, the 1990 Pistons are just shy of #350, and the 1988 Pistons are around #450. If we want to base this off team offensive performance, I could make a half-decent case Isiah was not even on the level of Sidney Moncrief, let alone Frazier or Paul or Nash.

The Pistons had a very good playoff offense with Isiah being the only elite playmaker. If by "mediocre" offense you simply mean he didn't score efficiently on an individual level, why does that matter if he led his team, which lacked offensive talent, to a very good offense?

Again, it was good — very good would be a stretch — in the year he failed to win Finals MVP. The years bookending it were exceedingly mediocre. Again, there is zero indication he was offering anything on offence any other top ten point guard (or similarly peaking point guard) could not have replicated.

[Joey Wheeler]

I mean yeah, if a team wins then it's a good assumption that the process that led to the win is good. Especially if said team doesn't have the best talent and wins consistently ie their winning isn't a fluke. But if you believe that's not the case, do explain how those Pistons teams should have played to be even more successful given their personnel.

The question is not whether the process worked, the question is whether it would have worked better under a better player. There are zero indications Isiah in any way carried that team, and despite your assertions, it demonstrably was not short on talent during their run of relevance.

Also it is highly inaccurate to call Isiah's offense mediocre. When the Pistons won those titles, he led better playoff offenses, with worse offensive talent around him, than anything Curry did before Durant joined for instance.

What? The Warriors had the sixth-best playoff offence in 2014, the top playoff offence in 2015, the fourth-best playoff offence in 2016, and were by far the most successful offensive team against the historically excellent Raptors defence this past year. The Pistons had the eighth best playoff offence in 1990, when he won Finals MVP and was at his “best”. The year before they were fourth, and the year before that they were eleventh. They were nothing special. If I look at elgee’s spreadsheet of relative playoff offences, the 1989 Pistons are hovering around #150 all-time on offence, the 1990 Pistons are just shy of #350, and the 1988 Pistons are around #450. If we want to base this off team offensive performance, I could make a half-decent case Isiah was not even on the level of Sidney Moncrief, let alone Frazier or Paul or Nash or Miller.

The Pistons had a very good playoff offense with Isiah being the only elite playmaker. If by "mediocre" offense you simply mean he didn't score efficiently on an individual level, why does that matter if he led his team, which lacked offensive talent, to a very good offense?

Again, it was good — very good would be a stretch — in the year he failed to win Finals MVP. The years bookending it were exceedingly mediocre. Again, there is zero indication he was offering anything on offence any other top ten point guard (or similarly peaking point guard) could not have replicated.

The Warriors were the #1 offense in 2015, but with a much lower offensive rating than what the Pistons achieved when they were 4th in 1989 and lower than in 1990 too. 2015 was simply not a year of strong playoff offenses, it's not like the Warriors offensive rating was brought them by facing exceptional defensive teams, they simply weren't that good of an offensive team/not as good as the Isiah's Pistons in their title years. It was an off year for offense in general across the league, the rating the Warriors posted in those playoffs wouldn't be enough for top 5 in either 2014 or 2016...

And the Pistons were clearly lacking in offensive talent, I don't see how that's debatable. What great offensive players did they have aside from Isiah exactly? He was their best scorer and playmaker...

[Lost92Bricks]

That cast you cited would have no chance of winning anything without an offensive star to lead them. Dumars/Rodman/Laimbeer/Mahorn/Salley has all the making of one of the worst offensive teams in the league. Isiah not only led the offense but he could be effective in a way that allowed the Pistons to maximize their defense at the same time.

2014 Spurs had an amazing offensive system, with sharp shooters everywhere, they didn't particularly rely on any one player; that was definitely not the case with Detroit, where the offense was very reliant on Isiah, it's not like they had some great offensive system in place where anyone would thrive. Fair enough on the 2004 Pistons, though Billups is also underrated because of not putting up big stats, he's not as good as Isiah but better than most give him credit for.

The offense was so reliant on Isiah that he could average 15 PPG on 37% shooting and the Pistons can go 8-2 in the first 10 games of a postseason. Please stop it.

Joe Dumars was the one guarding Jordan and outplaying him in multiple games. Isiah on the other hand scored 8 and 10 points in the first two games of the 1990 ECF. Yet the Pistons still took a 2-0 lead.

Isiah was having all these single digit point playoff games and the Pistons were still winning. Reliant my ass.

[liamliam1234]

[The Warriors were the #1 offense in 2015, but with a much lower offensive rating than what the Pistons achieved when they were 4th in 1989 and lower than in 1990 too. 2015 was simply not a year of strong playoff offenses, it's not like the Warriors offensive rating was brought them by facing exceptional defensive teams, they simply weren't that good of an offensive team/not as good as the Isiah's Pistons in their title years. It was an off year for offense in general across the league, the rating the Warriors posted in those playoffs wouldn't be enough for top 5 in either 2014 or 2016...

And the Pistons were clearly lacking in offensive talent, I don't see how that's debatable. What great offensive players did they have aside from Isiah exactly? He was their best scorer and playmaker...

Considering Dumars regularly outscored Isiah (with better efficiency), dishonest to claim he was all by himself in terms of scoring.

Also, that is why I gave you their relative offensive numbers. But are you seriously so bad at statistical analysis that you think regular postseason dips league-wide in what should be far and away the most offensively efficient era in league history is indicating some fundamental truth about the quality of the offences? You are honestly going to (figuratively) look at me with a straight face and say, “Yes, I think the 2015 Warriors, despite ostensibly facing no top-tier defensive teams, sincerely had a postseason offence which would have been considered middle-of-the-pack in the late 1980s?” The 2003 Mavericks had a +5 offensive rating over the second-best postseason offence that year, but whoops, I guess the combination of Steve Nash and Dirk was not enough to give them a better offence than the 1989 Suns. Relative rating goes both ways.

[Joey Wheeler]

[The Warriors were the #1 offense in 2015, but with a much lower offensive rating than what the Pistons achieved when they were 4th in 1989 and lower than in 1990 too. 2015 was simply not a year of strong playoff offenses, it's not like the Warriors offensive rating was brought them by facing exceptional defensive teams, they simply weren't that good of an offensive team/not as good as the Isiah's Pistons in their title years. It was an off year for offense in general across the league, the rating the Warriors posted in those playoffs wouldn't be enough for top 5 in either 2014 or 2016...

And the Pistons were clearly lacking in offensive talent, I don't see how that's debatable. What great offensive players did they have aside from Isiah exactly? He was their best scorer and playmaker...

Considering Dumars regularly outscored Isiah (with better efficiency), dishonest to claim he was all by himself in terms of scoring.

Also, that is why I gave you their relative offensive numbers. But are you seriously so bad at statistical analysis that you think regular postseason dips league-wide in what should be far and away the most offensively efficient era in league history is indicating some fundamental truth about the quality of the offences? You are honestly going to (figuratively) look at me with a straight face and say, “Yes, I think the 2015 Warriors, despite ostensibly facing no top-tier defensive teams, sincerely had a postseason offence which would have been considered middle-of-the-pack in the late 1980s?” The 2003 Mavericks had a +5 offensive rating over the second-best postseason offence that year, but whoops, I guess the combination of Steve Nash and Dirk was not enough to give them a better offence than the 1989 Suns. Relative rating goes both ways.

I didn't claim he was "all by himself in terms of scoring", I claimed he was the best scorer in the team, which he was even if Dumars outscored him sometimes. Being the best scorer is not the same as being the leading scorer in every single game.

The Pistons in 1989 scored 113.2 per 100 possessions; the Warriors in 2015 scored 108.7 per 100 possessions. These are simple facts.

It makes absolutely no sense to adjust to very volatile league levels. The Warriors 4.5 points worse offense isn't better simply because other offenses in that specific year were worse. Don't know if you you're into football, but here's an analogy: in 2007, Totti won the Golden Ball with 26 goals, 5 years later Messi won it with 50. In relative terms, I guess they are the same, both #1 scorers in a given season: #2 in 2007 was Van Nistelrooy with 25 goals (1 goal less), in 2012 it was Cristiano with 46 (4 goals less). Following your approach we could say Van Nistelrooy was a better scorer in 2007 than Ronaldo in 2012 because he was closer to the #1 of the year, which of course is a claim that doesn't pass the smell test. The guy who scored 46 is a better scorer than the guy who scored 25. The offense which scored 113.2 is also better than the offense that scored 108.7.

Of course there are other factors to have into consideration, though a 4.5 point gap is pretty conclusive. Were the Warriors playing in a tougher time for offense? By your own admission, they were playing in the most offensively efficient era in league history. Were the defenses they faced particularly noteworthy to the point where such a dip can be expected? Not really. It is perfectly possible that the #1 offense in a given year wouldn't be top 10 in another, each year is a different story and the quality of offense and defense ebbs and flows. Saying "Pistons were the #4 offense, Warriors were #1, therefore Warriors are better" is a terrible claim since the Pistons were #4 with a significantly superior rating than the Warriors at #1. You're basically boosting them because other offenses in that specific year were weaker than in 1989.

Also, the 2003 Mavericks had the third highest offensive rating in those playoffs, no idea what you're talking about there. And yes, if you're measuring offense by points per 100 possessions they were worse than the 1989 Suns, this is indisputable. If you want to bring in some more nuance that might explain why those numbers aren't painting an accurate picture, that's fair enough, but simply adjusting ratings to the level of the year they happened is just useless, as it doesn't account for offense/defense simply being stronger in some years than others, not to mention extremely lazy.

[liamliam1234]

I was actually looking at the 2002 Mavericks, although the general point stands. And actually, I can use that as instruction:

2002: Mavericks lead with 111 rating; second is 106
2003: Trail Blazers lead with 115 rating; second is 112
2004: Mavericks lead with 103 rating (in five games); second is 102

Now, if we wanted to be lazy about this, we could pretend everyone just forgot how to play offence in 2004 after doing a great job of it in 2003. Or, more sensibly, we could adjust, just as we do when comparing relative defences and offences and shooting splits and offensive loads.

You already acknowledge postseasons are variable, yet you want to hang your hat on the idea that variability does not require any contextual adjustment because doing so ostensibly supports Isiah. You talk about ebbs and flows while asserting that radical deviations year-to-year simply should stand as is. That is not honest. and your goal-scoring example is something we already do! The 1960s need adjustment because of the heavy possession load. The modern era meeds adjustment because of three-pointers inflating expected efficiency. The early 2000s require adjustment because it was a dead period in the league. Or do it with other sports. The 1980s NHL needs adjustment because of inflated scoring. Modern NFL assessments require adjustment because passing efficiency has exploded. And so on.

Isiah never led offences that were special in their era, and yet we need to pretend they stand above dominant league-leaders from other eras because “oh, it is variable”. Give me a break.

[Bidofo]

I've seen this said quite frequently now. What exactly points to Thomas being a good scorer? Assuming the eastern conference playoffs is a time when things matter most, why didn't he score at an elite level? He wasn't a GREAT mid range shooter or finisher, probably took too many 3s too, so...?

The word used was good, not great. He was a regular 20ppg scorer and could elevate his scoring when needed. He wasn't primarily a scorer, but he was clearly good enough to be the leading scorer in a championship team given his other qualities... as shown by the fact that he indeed was.

Well yes, I asked what pointed to him being a good, not great, scorer. And then I mentioned elite scorer because you said he turns it up when he needs to, but he didn't in the 1989 eastern conference playoffs.

Sure, he was the leading scorer both championship years, but on the basis of taking more shots. Dumars is right there with him in volume, no more than a full point per game behind both years, and on much superior efficiency. The offense could have, dare I say, improved with Dumars taking more of a scoring load and Thomas playing more of a playmaking role. Of course team dynamic and role is not always in the hands of the players, but I can't help but think even people at the time were mistaking Thomas as a first-option worthy scorer when there was someone better on the team. Maybe with this shift, the Pistons can do better than "only" having the 7th and 11th best offenses those chip years. I say only because a PG supposedly better than ones like CP3 shouldn't really be leading only +3 and +1.8 offenses in the regular season during championship years.

Maybe his offensive game wasn't the most (I make this distinction because it IS excellent and HOF-worthy, but not at the top 20-30 all time level) conducive to winning, and was just masked by the outstanding Pistons defense?

a) and b) (Curry) so? He won with the deck firmly stacked in his favour, with much better talent than Isiah ever played with. He's also arguably not been either the best player in 2 of those titles (Durant) nor the leader of the team (Draymond). Winning when you have a clear talent advantage over the opposition is different in terms of how it should be weighted compared to leading an underdog team/strong ensemble cast lacking top end talent to titles.

Well I mention '15, '17, and '18 as a way of saying there just isn't too much of a sample to look at when concluding Curry has a pace-controlling flaw. He's just lost two playoff series in his MVP-level prime, neither of which exposed any type of flaw that you are indicating. The fact that he had the odds in his favor (in '17 and '18 anyway) is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with this flaw you purport he has.

I think the '15 Warriors actually count as an underdog/ensemble team. Their preseason odds were at +2800 and they played in a rather free-flowing system where the star player doesn't really need the ball too much of the time. The '89 and '90 Pistons were at +400 and +300. Yes these betting values don't necessarily indicate the best team, but they do show that people were more expected to put money on the Pistons than the '15 Warriors before their seasons began. By the time the Finals came around, they had almost the same situation. The Cavs and Magic both lose a key contributor before the Finals (Love and Scott), then the one piece they needed to at least still be even matchups for the series (Kyrie and Magic, basically).

And neither of those teams lacked talent. Very similar roster construction; offensive head with a two-way SG, and some defensive beasts. Warriors have 3 of the best 5 players between them, but the Pistons probably take the next few spots. You don't need top end talent when a deep cohesive team also gets the job done very well.

Also, that flaw in Curry's game was exposed as recently as these Finals. He scored 47 in game 4 on great efficiency, but even if he scored 60 they still would have been blown out, the impact of all that scoring was limited. The Warriors were at a clear talent disadvantage with Klay and Durant out and in basketball the way to beat more talented teams (aside from getting super hot shooting the ball) is to muck up the game, reduce the number of possessions making each possession worth more... the slower the game is, the more chance the team with less talent has to win. Curry did score 47 in that game and had an amazing individual performance, but it just played into Toronto's hands as in order to get all those points the Warriors had to play at the frantic pace Curry thrives in. What they needed to do to maximize their chances of winning was to muck up the game as much as possible, slow it down, focus on their defense... but since doing that would greatly negate their offensive star's impact they didn't have that option. Isiah otoh has a more complete skillset and is better able to control the tempo of the game; he doesn't get the same gaudy stats, but gaudy stats isn't what you need from the guy who has the ball in their hands most of the time and orchestrates your offense, you need that guy to be able to shape the game to your team's strengths and situational needs.

Firstly, not sure where you got that they played at a frantic pace, it was at 99.6 in that game 3 where he dropped 47 which is way below their team season average and below the league average. The reason they lost is because no one else in his starting lineup can shoot the damn ball. Secondly, Curry has shown that he can succeed in slow-paced scenarios. Game 5 that same series, the pace is 94.3, slower than Bad Boy Pistons team averages, and the Warriors win off a good offensive performance by Curry. 2015 second round against the Grizz, 91.5 pace and the Warriors still had a 107 ORTG, which is a +4.8 offense compared to the Grizzlies third-best RS DRTG. Curry puts up a good offensive series, especially the last three games (all slow, all wins). In the 2015 Finals, the pace was at 90.7, and Curry has a good offensive series. His last three games, all wins: 28 points, 6.3 assists, 64.5% TS, with game paces of 88.8, 89.7, and 96.9. It was not close once the Warriors figured out the game plan and realized that the pace did not matter. Of course if we transported that Curry to those Pistons teams, things might be a little awkward in terms of how they play. But give him a full season with the squad (really more, to build that chemistry) plus some coaching expertise from Daly, whatever way they play will lead to many wins. You're looking for a correlation between pace and winning that doesn't exist with these guys.

"Their defense gets worse, but their offense gets multiple levels better." - I'm afraid basketball isn't that simple; "Curry/Harden are better individual offensive players than Isiah, therefore the trade will make the Pistons offense better" is something that sounds legit on paper, but in reality basketball is a dynamic game, not to mention you can't really separate offense and defense like that. It's incredibly simplistic to think that because Curry and Harden put up better individual stats than Isiah the offense will be better for sure. The Pistons were a team built on a very specific style of basketball, they weren't the most talented but were the best at winning ugly, they were slow, methodical and turnover efficient on offense and minimized transition opportunities focusing on forcing their opponents to face their set defense on the half court. With Curry, it instantly becomes a different team with a totally different identity; you cannot play a slow grind-it-out game with Curry as your offensive star, they'd play faster and render most of the supporting cast useless and their trademark defense non-existent. In reality, if it was Curry instead of Isiah most of the roster would be traded and reconstructed to fit him.

I think Curry would improve the offense not because of individual stats, but because of how he actually improves an offense. Superior shooting abilities and gravity, better shot selection, still good but not Thomas level playmaking, etc. I do agree roster construction would differ with a completely different player, but again, I have trouble imagining any all-time level player struggling with a pace change. Harden has already played on slow teams, and Curry effortless fits into any offensive system. It is an assumption of mine, yes, but an assumption I'd be willing to bet money on!

Also no, great to good defenders are not rendered useless with a few more possessions per game.

Isiah was a capable scorer but he was primarily a great playmaker and orchestrator who got the best out of a ensemble cast with no real elite talent/definitely less talented than the other dynasties of the era. He was also a great defensive guard and a great leader. Why would we ignore all this and instead focus on the fact he didn't average 30 points on good efficiency? Basketball isn't about getting great individual stats (especially for a point guard) but about helping your team win.

The Pistons didn't have "real elite" talent in the sense that they didn't have a Magic and Kareem combo or Bird/Parish/McHale, sure, but that team is deep as hell. As in, one of the deepest teams of all time. The 89 Pistons went 9 deep in the playoffs with all 9 above 18mpg. The 2015 Warriors, a candidate for one of the deepest teams ever as well, went 9 deep maybe, and only 6 players above 18mpg (Livingston at 7th right below, 17.9 mpg). 2019 Raptors, 8 deep, 7 above 18mpg. There were not many teams in history like that Pistons team. Regardless, having a cast of Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer, and Aguirre is not that bad of a team to have lol. Also, having him as a "great" defensive guard is contentious as well, I wouldn't say he's any better than Frazier or Paul, let alone Payton and Kidd (all of whom have a very strong case for being above Thomas).

I'm not criticizing Thomas for not averaging 30. I'm criticizing him for not playing at the level that you want to place him at. I'm not really too crazed about individual stats either, but I'd like my all-time level point guard to at least shoot better than 39% from the field through the 89 EC. And yes helping your team win is the ultimate factor, but the fact that they won despite him playing relatively poorly does not mean he was helping your team win more than other guys who have won no championships. Basketball is, after all, a team game, and the Pistons mastered that.

[Jaivl]

Don't know if you you're into football, but here's an analogy: in 2007, Totti won the Golden Ball with 26 goals, 5 years later Messi won it with 50. In relative terms, I guess they are the same, both #1 scorers in a given season: #2 in 2007 was Van Nistelrooy with 25 goals (1 goal less), in 2012 it was Cristiano with 46 (4 goals less). Following your approach we could say Van Nistelrooy was a better scorer in 2007 than Ronaldo in 2012 because he was closer to the #1 of the year, which of course is a claim that doesn't pass the smell test. The guy who scored 46 is a better scorer than the guy who scored 25. The offense which scored 113.2 is also better than the offense that scored 108.7.

That's not, at all, how the adjustment is made. You adjust from the (not at all volatile, btw) league average, not from the #1. I mean, I thought that was widely known.

[Paddy Brosso]

I would say that he is the 30-35 range, with the likes of Drexler, Kidd, Payton, Iverson, among others. For me, he is in the top-10 of PG's: Magic Johnson, S.Curry, Oscar Robertson, J.Stockton, J.Kidd, S.Nash, C.Paul, G.Payton, B.Cousy and I.Thomas.