RealGM

Who is better at basketball, and why?

Isiah is flashier and got a lot more publicity. He even has a defensive advantage over Reggie. But his big number years don't coincide with his big team success years.

Reggie is more of a one trick pony but as we've seen with Curry in the modern era, it's one heck of a trick and one that was clearly underestimated by most observers in his day. Indiana was ahead of the curve in doing so even then.

Pretty sure we just did this thread. Both are very overrated players, but Reggie is the less overrated. While his skillset won't translate as well today as say Ray Allen, due to his lack of ability to create his own shot or explode to the basket, he fits on every team. His 3pt shooting has great value.

Thomas was overrated even in his own era, and tgat's saying alot if you check out his all-nba and MVP voting. The guy was an inefficient guard with defensive liabilities, who won titles as one member of an ensemble cast of other great players. The Pistons won with their D, which he contributed next to nothing to.
viewtopic.php?t=2315139

Isiah Thomas gets less respect and more hate on RealGM than:

Bernie Sanders, Thomas Sowell and Nelson Mandela at a Clan rally.
Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan at a Communist rally


Its irrational....

They are very different players. Reggie is undoubtedly a much better scorer, in fact probably one of the best 20 or so scorers ever. Isiah was a bit inefficient but Isiah was a floor general for his team and a superior defensive player to Reggie.

It's definitely close but I'd go with Isiah as the higher peak. He took a step back and started putting up lesser numbers as the team improved in the late 80's. In the middle of that decade, Isiah showed that he can put up truly elite numbers and made three consecutive 1st Team All-NBA, a level that Reggie never reached.

Djoker wrote:They are very different players. Reggie is undoubtedly a much better scorer, in fact probably one of the best 20 or so scorers ever. Isiah was a bit inefficient but Isiah was a floor general for his team and a superior defensive player to Reggie.

It's definitely close but I'd go with Isiah as the higher peak. He took a step back and started putting up lesser numbers as the team improved in the late 80's. In the middle of that decade, Isiah showed that he can put up truly elite numbers and made three consecutive 1st Team All-NBA, a level that Reggie never reached.

I don't want to get too deep in an Isiah debate but I have often heard it (or some variation thereof) said that Isiah "took a step back" ... wherein I think the implication is a voluntary reduction in primacy and statistics.

I'm rarely clear on what people mean by that. If the All-NBA 84-86 are the "truly elite numbers" (and how "truly" true that interpretation of the numbers is is ... perhaps not a given) that he "showed he could" do ... his step back over the next four years is ...

penbeast0 wrote:Isiah is flashier and got a lot more publicity. He even has a defensive advantage over Reggie. But his big number years don't coincide with his big team success years.

Reggie is more of a one trick pony but as we've seen with Curry in the modern era, it's one heck of a trick and one that was clearly underestimated by most observers in his day. Indiana was ahead of the curve in doing so even then.

What makes Isiah better defensively than Reggie, I don't see it

Djoker wrote:They are very different players. Reggie is undoubtedly a much better scorer, in fact probably one of the best 20 or so scorers ever. Isiah was a bit inefficient but Isiah was a floor general for his team and a superior defensive player to Reggie.

It's definitely close but I'd go with Isiah as the higher peak. He took a step back and started putting up lesser numbers as the team improved in the late 80's. In the middle of that decade, Isiah showed that he can put up truly elite numbers and made three consecutive 1st Team All-NBA, a level that Reggie never reached.

Reggie Miller is one of the biggest playoff risers in NBA History. Given your wealth of post-season focus on the current project focusing on post-season level-of-play, I am surprised to see you siding with someone less productive in the post-season.

I'm going to save any discourse between these two for the next 25-year slot in the project, but I fully expect to be discussing Reggie Miller before I give Isiah serious consideration.

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

Djoker wrote:They are very different players. Reggie is undoubtedly a much better scorer, in fact probably one of the best 20 or so scorers ever. Isiah was a bit inefficient but Isiah was a floor general for his team and a superior defensive player to Reggie.

It's definitely close but I'd go with Isiah as the higher peak. He took a step back and started putting up lesser numbers as the team improved in the late 80's. In the middle of that decade, Isiah showed that he can put up truly elite numbers and made three consecutive 1st Team All-NBA, a level that Reggie never reached.

Reggie Miller is one of the biggest playoff risers in NBA History. Given your wealth of post-season focus on the current project focusing on post-season level-of-play, I am surprised to see you siding with someone less productive in the post-season.

I'm going to save any discourse between these two for the next 25-year slot in the project, but I fully expect to be discussing Reggie Miller before I give Isiah serious consideration.

Isiah isn't less productive in the PS though. He's putting up like 24/10 in the middle of the 80's with tendency to show up huge in big games.

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

Djoker wrote:They are very different players. Reggie is undoubtedly a much better scorer, in fact probably one of the best 20 or so scorers ever. Isiah was a bit inefficient but Isiah was a floor general for his team and a superior defensive player to Reggie.

It's definitely close but I'd go with Isiah as the higher peak. He took a step back and started putting up lesser numbers as the team improved in the late 80's. In the middle of that decade, Isiah showed that he can put up truly elite numbers and made three consecutive 1st Team All-NBA, a level that Reggie never reached.

Reggie Miller is one of the biggest playoff risers in NBA History. Given your wealth of post-season focus on the current project focusing on post-season level-of-play, I am surprised to see you siding with someone less productive in the post-season.

I'm going to save any discourse between these two for the next 25-year slot in the project, but I fully expect to be discussing Reggie Miller before I give Isiah serious consideration.

To be fair Isiah is also a substantial playoff riser over his career (at least by looking at career averages).
Now ...
How "real", sustainable such things are is up for grabs.
How much you want to adjust for opponent and how much opponents will play at average RS standard over a small sample (and how much influence matchups make) may vary.
This is looking at over a career but some players (such as Thomas) benefit from playing a lower proportion of their of their playoff career (versus RS career) in non-prime years, which can influence apparent rise. The optimal methodology to account for uneven proportions of people's samples being in prime is not a clear, settled matter (so far as I'm aware).
"Rise" as a measure (versus absolute playoff standard - to the extent playoffs is prioritized or the point of focus) actively penalizes strong regular season performance.
Perceptions of rise and fall will vary with metric(s) of choice and the perceived accuracy of a metric or component thereof.

Djoker wrote:

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

Djoker wrote:They are very different players. Reggie is undoubtedly a much better scorer, in fact probably one of the best 20 or so scorers ever. Isiah was a bit inefficient but Isiah was a floor general for his team and a superior defensive player to Reggie.

It's definitely close but I'd go with Isiah as the higher peak. He took a step back and started putting up lesser numbers as the team improved in the late 80's. In the middle of that decade, Isiah showed that he can put up truly elite numbers and made three consecutive 1st Team All-NBA, a level that Reggie never reached.

Reggie Miller is one of the biggest playoff risers in NBA History. Given your wealth of post-season focus on the current project focusing on post-season level-of-play, I am surprised to see you siding with someone less productive in the post-season.

I'm going to save any discourse between these two for the next 25-year slot in the project, but I fully expect to be discussing Reggie Miller before I give Isiah serious consideration.

Isiah isn't less productive in the PS though. He's putting up like 24/10 in the middle of the 80's with tendency to show up huge in big games.

Once we get higher-level analysis beyond points and assists, including defenses and opponents, your tune may change.

Until then, siding with the All-NBA accolades and points/assists may be your tune, justifiably so given the lack of deeper data from the 1980s and early 1990s.

Hard to see a pro-Isiah argument that isn't just "rings," IMO.

Top10alltime wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Isiah is flashier and got a lot more publicity. He even has a defensive advantage over Reggie. But his big number years don't coincide with his big team success years.

Reggie is more of a one trick pony but as we've seen with Curry in the modern era, it's one heck of a trick and one that was clearly underestimated by most observers in his day. Indiana was ahead of the curve in doing so even then.

What makes Isiah better defensively than Reggie, I don't see it

Watching them, Isiah seemed more focused and aggressive at that end. He was actually a pretty good defender though limited by size. He was also quite often more than a bit dirty out there, which, like with John Stockton, is an advantage if the refs aren't calling you for it.

Reggie put less energy in on that end from what I remember though he had excellent length for a 2 which gives him a physical advantage. Basically eye test from watching them back then, rather than rewatching video to break it down in detail.

tsherkin wrote:Hard to see a pro-Isiah argument that isn't just "rings," IMO.

Playmaking would be the key. I'm not saying I buy it because those Bad Boy Piston teams were not particularly good offensive squads. But like the arguments for other high usage, low efficiency offensive players, you can also try to make the case for Isiah's ability to create both for himself and others without as many screens and without other players doing as much playmaking might allow his team to play more defensively focused but offensively challenged players.

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

Djoker wrote:

ReggiesKnicks wrote:
Reggie Miller is one of the biggest playoff risers in NBA History. Given your wealth of post-season focus on the current project focusing on post-season level-of-play, I am surprised to see you siding with someone less productive in the post-season.

I'm going to save any discourse between these two for the next 25-year slot in the project, but I fully expect to be discussing Reggie Miller before I give Isiah serious consideration.

Isiah isn't less productive in the PS though. He's putting up like 24/10 in the middle of the 80's with tendency to show up huge in big games.

Once we get higher-level analysis beyond points and assists, including defenses and opponents, your tune may change.

Until then, siding with the All-NBA accolades and points/assists may be your tune, justifiably so given the lack of deeper data from the 1980s and early 1990s.

Isiah faced terrific opponents. So many series against the Lakers and Celtics plus a bunch against the Bulls, Bucks, and Hawks that had great defenses. I don't think Reggie faced better opposition.

Also worth noting that there is no winning bias in Isiah's case. He was getting these accolades before the Pistons were winning. That said, I do believe Reggie was ahead of his time and his impact wasn't fully understood. Heck, I think he could have been used more optimally and at his best was a top 10 player and should have made some 2nd team selections and a whole bunch more 3rd Team/All-Star selections. But I also think Isiah is kind of underrated because all people look at is efficiency. He was the engine that made his team go with both playmaking and leadership.

penbeast0 wrote:

Top10alltime wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Isiah is flashier and got a lot more publicity. He even has a defensive advantage over Reggie. But his big number years don't coincide with his big team success years.

Reggie is more of a one trick pony but as we've seen with Curry in the modern era, it's one heck of a trick and one that was clearly underestimated by most observers in his day. Indiana was ahead of the curve in doing so even then.

What makes Isiah better defensively than Reggie, I don't see it

Watching them, Isiah seemed more focused and aggressive at that end. He was actually a pretty good defender though limited by size. He was also quite often more than a bit dirty out there, which, like with John Stockton, is an advantage if the refs aren't calling you for it.

Reggie put less energy in on that end from what I remember though he had excellent length for a 2 which gives him a physical advantage. Basically eye test from watching them back then, rather than rewatching video to break it down in detail.

tsherkin wrote:Hard to see a pro-Isiah argument that isn't just "rings," IMO.

Playmaking would be the key. I'm not saying I buy it because those Bad Boy Piston teams were not particularly good offensive squads. But like the arguments for other high usage, low efficiency offensive players, you can also try to make the case for Isiah's ability to create both for himself and others without as many screens and without other players doing as much playmaking might allow his team to play more defensively focused but offensively challenged players.

On defensive focus on a night to night basis I think both of them catch some heat for (in what I've read), at least at times, not bringing defensive intensity night-to-night.

Djoker wrote:

ReggiesKnicks wrote:

Djoker wrote:
Isiah isn't less productive in the PS though. He's putting up like 24/10 in the middle of the 80's with tendency to show up huge in big games.

Once we get higher-level analysis beyond points and assists, including defenses and opponents, your tune may change.

Until then, siding with the All-NBA accolades and points/assists may be your tune, justifiably so given the lack of deeper data from the 1980s and early 1990s.

Isiah faced terrific opponents. So many series against the Lakers and Celtics plus a bunch against the Bulls, Bucks, and Hawks that had great defenses. I don't think Reggie faced better opposition.

Also worth noting that there is no winning bias in Isiah's case. He was getting these accolades before the Pistons were winning. That said, I do believe Reggie was ahead of his time and his impact wasn't fully understood. Heck, I think he could have been used more optimally and at his best was a top 10 player and should have made some 2nd team selections and a whole bunch more 3rd Team/All-Star selections. But I also think Isiah is kind of underrated because all people look at is efficiency. He was the engine that made his team go with both playmaking and leadership.

I would question the (best case scenario) precision of the statement with regard to series opponents.

The "Thomas-era" Pistons played exactly one series against the Bucks. It's in 1989. They were, in the regular season, a 106.4 Drtg team in a 107.8 rtg norm league. Above average, but perhaps not noteworthy.

The team the Pistons faced was not at full strength.
Pressey is out.
Cummings is out (plays 17 minutes total)
Krystowiak is injured in series (plays 76 minutes)
Mokeski (already we're reaching the fringe of the normal rotation) was injured
Rickey Green missed the final game.
They only played and may only have dressed seven players for the final game of the series (certainly four of the above were in street clothes and the fifth in hospital, at least per contemporary reporting and Dumars noted them only playing "seven or eight guys" ... it was seven).

The Milwaukee team they played in a series, unlike Milwaukee teams earlier in the decade, were by no means a "great defense", they were quite some distance from that.


At the margins I would argue ...

Also worth noting that there is no winning bias in Isiah's case. He was getting these accolades before the Pistons were winning.

Is flawed as the latter doesn't preclude the former (which is given as a very absolute statement). It just says winning bias wasn't the cause of his All-NBA first team/ 5th, 9th, 9th MVP share finish era accolades.

Leadership ... mileage will vary. Skeptics might note post career conduct, late career conduct (apparent talking himself out of a job with the Pistons, role in Laimbeer's retirement, alleged freeze-out of Sean Elliott, alleged non-buy-in to Rothstein's program ...), on-court volatility, reports of mixed night-to-night defensive intensity (including in an era where that was the Pistons identity) and at least question the value of said leadership and the extent to which one wants to credit that with "ma[king] his team go."

penbeast0 wrote:Playmaking would be the key. I'm not saying I buy it because those Bad Boy Piston teams were not particularly good offensive squads. But like the arguments for other high usage, low efficiency offensive players, you can also try to make the case for Isiah's ability to self create without as many screens and without other players doing as much playmaking might allow his team to play more defensively focused but offensively challenged players.

Yeah, maybe. He was a good playmaker. He was a particularly good playmaker when Detroit was really working the ball through him. But apart from a 3-year peak, his actual offensive relevance was considerably lower than Reggie's despite that creation angle, and his impact went only so far.

Meantime, Reggie was able to create pretty effectively regardless of his roster. It doesn't take a lot to set a baseline screen or basic pin down, and it's not like his coaches were deploying coaching wizardry to get him going. And he still have the ability to move around inside whatever the offense was and then attack a close-out rooted in his gravity, etc. And he was a significant playoff riser.

Isiah was okay, but on a RS, he wasn't very impressive (relative to other star-level players) as a scoring threat or overall offensive force. And he certainly wasn't a defensive anchor. He was a good player, to be sure. I don't want my word choice to suggest that I think he wasn't that. But Detroit won more on the basis of defense and rebounding than anything else when they were winning. And they weren't generally a particularly impressive offensive team, and he wasn't generally that stunning in the playoffs... except in 1990, when he was fantastic.

Whereas by contrast, Reggie was a pretty excellent offensive player who was consistently very good in the postseason.

penbeast0 wrote:

Top10alltime wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Isiah is flashier and got a lot more publicity. He even has a defensive advantage over Reggie. But his big number years don't coincide with his big team success years.

Reggie is more of a one trick pony but as we've seen with Curry in the modern era, it's one heck of a trick and one that was clearly underestimated by most observers in his day. Indiana was ahead of the curve in doing so even then.

What makes Isiah better defensively than Reggie, I don't see it

Watching them, Isiah seemed more focused and aggressive at that end. He was actually a pretty good defender though limited by size. He was also quite often more than a bit dirty out there, which, like with John Stockton, is an advantage if the refs aren't calling you for it.

Reggie put less energy in on that end from what I remember though he had excellent length for a 2 which gives him a physical advantage. Basically eye test from watching them back then, rather than rewatching video to break it down in detail.

Aggressiveness isn't everything. If aggressiveness counts, Kobe would be a better defender than most big men. That just isn't true. How is Isiah > Reggie as a defender, again?

Aggressiveness isn't everything, but it's one factor. Putting energy in on the defensive end is probably the greatest factor in guard defense (not necessarily in big man defense which has different issues, especially in the pre pace and space era). BBIQ, seeing the court, playing within the defensive scheme, all are important but effort on that end is certainly one of the major factors in effective guard defense.

Let me ask you, other than being taller, what did Reggie do better than Isiah defensively?

(Hard to believe I'm arguing for Isiah over Reggie considering my history with this comparison but we are ONLY talking about defense here)

penbeast0 wrote:Aggressiveness isn't everything, but it's one factor. Putting energy in on the defensive end is probably the greatest factor in guard defense (not necessarily in big man defense which has different issues, especially in the pre pace and space era). BBIQ, seeing the court, playing within the defensive scheme, all are important but effort on that end is certainly one of the major factors in effective guard defense.

Let me ask you, other than being taller, what did Reggie do better than Isiah defensively?

(Hard to believe I'm arguing for Isiah over Reggie considering my history with this comparison but we are ONLY talking about defense here)

This is more towards the meta defensive question than the individuals in question.

I'm inclined to argue aggressiveness and "putting energy in" are not synonymous in this context. And perhaps to disagree with "energy in" as the greatest factor ... though tbh it's ultimately kind of arbitrary as it's not like we can compare adding or taking "one unit of effort" to "one unit of BBIQ/awareness".

Aggression could be something like gambling for steals in a manner that is dangerous to both teams, to which I would argue the opposite is conservatism rather than a lack of effort. Indeed whilst aggression may look like more effort it might be less than consistently, conservatively doing your job over a defensive possession.

And whilst, as I say, it's arbitrary because there's no real means of fair comparison (plus, related to the above all our impressions are shaped by players actually making it in the pro pool, which might tilt the sample towards more of one or another) I think I'd rather have a smart defender with a meh motor than a visibly effortful one with meh understanding of the game. Mind you one could also be biased by assumptions of why a player might conserve energy on D.