who got the most IMPACT, Ewing or Chuck or IT?

[ShaqAttac]

After Dream MJ and Magic these guys prob the most talked about so whose impact the highest

[Redmoon]

Barkley for sure

[tsherkin]

I'd say Ewing. He was the best defender of the bunch and better on O than Chuck was on D. And Isiah is largely overrated to begin with.

Chuck was phenomenal on O, of course, but Pat was the centerpiece for Riles' ATG Knicks defenses. And shouldering the offensive burden with BLERGH surrounding him.

[Special_Puppy]

100% Barkley

[Cavsfansince84]

86-89 Barkley, 90 Ewing barely over Barkley probably, 91 on Ewing(though Barkley has an argument some years). I think Isiah's impact was pretty high for a few years when he was truly the centerpiece of the offense but he wasn't on the other two's level.

[penbeast0]

On court:
Ewing, Barkley, Isiah

Off court:
Barkley, Isiah, Ewing

[One_and_Done]

Chuck



Ewing

Thomas

[MiamiBulls]

Ewing 1990.

Barkley as quiet as its kept is an atrocious defender and a mismatch liability at Power Forward outside of guarding an Offensive Player in the Post.

Isiah Thomas was at no point ever an MVP-level impact player in his career.

[Cavsfansince84]

Ewing 1990.

Barkley as quiet as its kept is an atrocious defender and a mismatch liability at Power Forward outside of guarding an Offensive Player in the Post.

Isiah Thomas was at no point ever an MVP-level impact player in his career.

I think he was close to that in 84 when the Pistons had the #1 offense in the league(borderline 85-87) with Isiah also their co#1 scorer. If the argument works for Nash then it almost has to work for Isiah. Granted Isiah was never the efficient scorer Nash was but sometimes you gotta give credit where it is due. The Pistons also had the 5th best record in the league that year.

[One_and_Done]

Ewing 1990.

Barkley as quiet as its kept is an atrocious defender and a mismatch liability at Power Forward outside of guarding an Offensive Player in the Post.

Isiah Thomas was at no point ever an MVP-level impact player in his career.

I think he was close to that in 84 when the Pistons had the #1 offense in the league(borderline 85-87) with Isiah also their co#1 scorer. If the argument works for Nash then it almost has to work for Isiah. Granted Isiah was never the efficient scorer Nash was but sometimes you gotta give credit where it is due. The Pistons also had the 5th best record in the league that year.

Thomas was grossly inefficient. Nash was not. Nash was leading high octane offenses, and in today's league he could do the same. Thomas could not. Suns were a genuine 60 win contender team, the 84 Pistons won 49 in a far worse league.

The Pistons offense was ranked 9th or 7th the three years after 1984, so that looks like the anomaly. Thomas teams, when they became contenders, did so with D. He was part of an ensemble cast of other all-NBA type guys.

This is Barkley by a mile, with Thomas in last place by a huge amount. In today's league I doubt Thomas is even an all-star.

[penbeast0]

Ewing 1990.

Barkley as quiet as its kept is an atrocious defender and a mismatch liability at Power Forward outside of guarding an Offensive Player in the Post.

Isiah Thomas was at no point ever an MVP-level impact player in his career.

I think he was close to that in 84 when the Pistons had the #1 offense in the league(borderline 85-87) with Isiah also their co#1 scorer. If the argument works for Nash then it almost has to work for Isiah. Granted Isiah was never the efficient scorer Nash was but sometimes you gotta give credit where it is due. The Pistons also had the 5th best record in the league that year.

Thomas was grossly inefficient. Nash was not. Nash was leading high octane offenses, and in today's league he could do the same. Thomas could not. Suns were a genuine 60 win contender team, the 84 Pistons won 49 in a far worse league.

The Pistons offense was ranked 9th or 7th the three years after 1984, so that looks like the anomaly. Thomas teams, when they became contenders, did so with D. He was part of an ensemble cast of other all-NBA type guys.

This is Barkley by a mile, with Thomas in last place by a huge amount. In today's league I doubt Thomas is even an all-star.

What does how he would do today have to do with whether he was a legit MVP candidate in 84?

(a) He's competing against players of that era, not Nash. The argument was that if Nash is MVP for leading a #1 offense, Isiah could be too.
(b) The award only covers one year, not multiple year so an outlier year can still be an MVP.

Not saying he should have been MVP in 84, I didn't have him in my top group, for Cavsfan:

(a) A lot of players have led #1 offenses who weren't MVPs or even top 3 candidates.
(b) 85-87 Detroit's offense finished 9th, 7th, and 9th in team Ortg so not sure why that makes Isiah borderline MVP in those years.

[Cavsfansince84]

Thomas was grossly inefficient. Nash was not. Nash was leading high octane offenses, and in today's league he could do the same. Thomas could not. Suns were a genuine 60 win contender team, the 84 Pistons won 49 in a far worse league.

The Pistons offense was ranked 9th or 7th the three years after 1984, so that looks like the anomaly. Thomas teams, when they became contenders, did so with D. He was part of an ensemble cast of other all-NBA type guys.

This is Barkley by a mile, with Thomas in last place by a huge amount. In today's league I doubt Thomas is even an all-star.

First, we are mainly discussing 1984 here so let's stay focused. Second, whether you see that year as an anomaly or not its not relevant to how voters should vote or the impact he had in that season. Third, the question isn't whether he should have won mvp in 84(as Nash did in 05&06), its whether he had mvp or near that level of impact on a winning team(5th best record in the league in 1984). Lastly, the Pistons were 5th in pace and 3rd in scoring that year so they were indeed high octane and it makes absolutely no difference whether you think he could replicate that result today, 40 years later to this discussion imo. So ya I would say he was close to mvp level and its no coincidence he also broke the record for apg the following season. I don't think that saying the Pistons won with defense is some black mark on Isiah either since they also ranked 7,6,11 from 88-90 in ORtg with rosters mainly built for defense.

[Cavsfansince84]

What does how he would do today have to do with whether he was a legit MVP candidate in 84?

(a) He's competing against players of that era, not Nash. The argument was that if Nash is MVP for leading a #1 offense, Isiah could be too.
(b) The award only covers one year, not multiple year so an outlier year can still be an MVP.

Not saying he should have been MVP in 84, I didn't have him in my top group, for Cavsfan:

(a) A lot of players have led #1 offenses who weren't MVPs or even top 3 candidates.
(b) 85-87 Detroit's offense finished 9th, 7th, and 9th in team Ortg so not sure why that makes Isiah borderline MVP in those years.

I didn't say borderline mvp. I'm saying borderline in that group below the top guys which is basically top 10ish and he also finished top 10 in mvp voting most of those years. I'm not that high on Isiah.

[One_and_Done]

Not all guys who 'led a #1 offense' are created equal. Thomas was not doing anything remotely comparable to Nash, so invoking him as a comparison was misguided.

The 2 guys he is being compared to were serious MVP calibre guys (especially Barkley), Thomas was not.

FYI how they would play today is very relevant to ranking these 3 guys. Isiah would be the worst by far.

[Cavsfansince84]

Not all guys who 'led a #1 offense' are created equal. Thomas was not doing anything remotely comparable to Nash, so invoking him as a comparison was misguided.

The 2 guys he is being compared to were serious MVP calibre guys (especially Barkley), Thomas was not.

FYI how they would play today is very relevant to ranking these 3 guys. Isiah would be the worst by far.

I don't agree with much of what you're saying but have had enough so w/e. The whole idea of it mattering how good you think a player would be in today's league when discussing their impact level decades earlier makes absolutely no sense to me.

[One_and_Done]

Not all guys who 'led a #1 offense' are created equal. Thomas was not doing anything remotely comparable to Nash, so invoking him as a comparison was misguided.

The 2 guys he is being compared to were serious MVP calibre guys (especially Barkley), Thomas was not.

FYI how they would play today is very relevant to ranking these 3 guys. Isiah would be the worst by far.

I don't agree with much of what you're saying but have had enough so w/e. The whole idea of it mattering how good you think a player would be in today's league when discussing their impact level decades earlier makes absolutely no sense to me.

The OP asks only who was most impactful, he doesn't confine it to 'in era' only.

[penbeast0]

Impact is what OP asked about. For that you have to look at what actually happened including talent, health, the situation they landed in, fit etc. Potential impact in today's game if they were time travelers is completely irrelevant.

[Cavsfansince84]

The OP asks only who was most impactful, he doesn't confine it to 'in era' only.

Players only have impact in the era they played in. I don't see how this can be up for debate or construed into something else.

[One_and_Done]

The OP asks only who was most impactful, he doesn't confine it to 'in era' only.

Players only have impact in the era they played in. I don't see how this can be up for debate or construed into something else.

I'm more interested in objective ability to impact basketball, as I've discussed before extensively.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm more interested in objective ability to impact basketball, as I've discussed before extensively.

Which is fine but I don't think every thread that has to do with impact needs to be argued through that lens. I think you should be able to debate in era impact without feeling the need to use the 'would/would not be impactful in today's nba' angle as a point of discussion every time.