Ranking Isiah Thomas

[One_and_Done]

Except his ball handling wasn't that great, it just seemed that way because of the weaker league he was in. Today there are tonnes of guys who can handle better than IT. Ja Morant is a vastly better player than Thomas for eg. Peak to peak guys like John Wall and Kyrie were likely better. It's a long list.

Again, a false equivalency between handling even as recently as the 80s/90s, and handling today where you can carry the ball consistently and not get called for it.

I had indeed forgotten Curry, Westbrook, and even Harden if he's considered a PG which should drop Isiah out of the top 10. Top 35 all time is a major reach as PG isn't even the most stacked position in the top 50 because of the greater importance of the center throughout most of NBA history.

Magic, Curry, West, Oscar, Stockton, Nash, Paul, Frazier, Westbrook, Kidd push him out of the top 10, even without Harden or other top PGs like Gary Payton, Bob Cousy, Damon Lilliard, etc. who might challenge him.

It's easier for a alpha to play down to a beta level than it is for a beta to reach an alpha level. Modern guys who are deadeye shooters or master dribblers can just adjust to shoot more 2s or dumb down their dribbling. What you won't see is a beta hit a level he was never at.

In today's game Isiah Thomas is a borderline all-star PG, whereas Kyrie is still Kyrie, Ja is still Ja and Peak John Wall is still peak John Wall. Those guys would have run circles around Thomas in today's era, and would have no problem playing down a level to the rules of Isiah's time; except they'd still be bigger/more athletic/better shooters etc.

[SHAQ32]

I would take him over Jason Kidd. Like KG, the stats really overrate Kidd. I mean, he was traded by the Mavs and the Suns, in his prime.

[trex_8063]

I'm probably an old head, watched NBA since the 60s, and Isiah was a very good player and better man defender than he gets credit for. That said, he's not close to Stockton's level offensively in terms of making his teammates better; the Bad Boys for example were one of the least efficient offensive (and greatest defensive) champions in history. Individually, he possesses an ability Stockton never showed of being able to score in bunches but generally at meh efficiency where Stockton was one of the most efficient scorers of his time. Defensively he isn't the help defender Stockton was.

Where does he rank all time? Below the top 2 tiers of PGS that includes Magic, West, Oscaqr, Stockton, Nash, Paul, and Frazier. Below the best of the next tier like Jason Kidd but in the mix with the next few guys depending on what you value. Probably close to top 10 point guard in history, probably not top 50 all positions included but in the mix reasonably shortly after that level.

Mostly agree. I think there is something to say for Isiah as an offensive engine. He did once [in '84] anchor the #1 offense in the league (with his best help on that end being Kelly Tripucka and Bill Laimbeer).
In '85 [same basic supporting cast] they were the 9th-rated offense, with Isiah going for a monstrous 21/14 (and only 3.7 topg). It's true his individual shooting efficiency is poor in both years.

I'll give him this: he was willing to shoot, and to leverage his scoring "pressure" (such as it can be called) to generate plays for others.

In the playoffs, when the defenses are locked in and game-planning has eliminated some of your usual offense, Isiah was willing to keep calling his own number, and his efficiency at least wouldn't get worse (because he generally wasn't taking easy or high-% shots in the first place). It's double-edged sword, to be sure: you're living or dying based on whether he has a hot hand on a given night.

otoh, as much as I love Stockton, he was far too passive [usually] in calling his own number. He would routinely pass up a WIDE open 18-21 footer to instead set the offense. Seriously, what % do you think Stockton hits on WIDE open ~20-footers? 58-60%? Maybe more? As much as I appreciate his unselfishness, that's a bad offensive decision (unless a teammate has an immediate lay-up available).
This is not me saying Isiah was better (I do not think he was). Just drawing the contrast (and the good and bad that comes with it).

Isiah occasionally had a knack for having timely "hot" games in the playoffs, too.

And it's well-documented based on anecdotal evidence (from teammates, etc) that he was the tone-setting team culture guy for those Bad Boy Piston teams.......for whatever that is worth.
And I agree, he was generally a better defender than he gets credit for (though still less than Stockton in this regard, imo).

I generally agree on your suggested placement overall: he's fringe top-50 at best for me these days.

[One_and_Done]

Watch on YouTube

Watch this footage of Wall, a guy we are probably not even putting in the top 100, then go back and watch some Isiah Thomas footage. It's not even debatable who is the better player from the eye test. The stats don't favour Thomas either. It's basically just nostalgia and marketing that makes you think Thomas might be in the same league.

[onedayattatime]

I have Isiah towards the bottom of the top 10 PGs and generally agree with posts here; my biggest mark against him is his poor longevity. Otherwise, while his mediocre efficiency might stand out, I don't mind that as much because his willingness to score was valuable given the rosters he played with, almost like a less extreme Allen Iverson. Great playmaking, positive defense and intangibles/leadership. I think that if he played today and had time to adjust he could still be an all-NBA player.

[Warspite]

I personally have a hard time seeing the big difference between Isiah Thomas and Chauncey Billups...beyond the fact that they both played for the Pistons. Billups was an extremely effective but not elite player who was the best offensive player on a team that won primarily with dominant defense. Played for a team that was truly a "team" in every sense of the word, basically part of an ensemble cast of very good but not great players that fit together like a glove.

Except Billups could play better D and score more efficiently. So a worse Billups basically.

Billups was the worst defender on the floor. He couldn't stay in front of any PGs and tried to take away one side and funneled players into Wallacex2. Isiah was guarding MJ in the 4th quarter.

Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT. If Billups had a mediocre floater or mid range game the Pistons would have won 70 games a year. A guy who relies on shooting FTs as teams try too purposefully extend the game so they can score 60 points on the GOAT defense is not a great offensive player.

Isiah was a ball hog who fell in love with long 2pt jumpers in the 1st half of almost every game. He also was the target of Bad Boy retaliation. You can watch old Bad Boys games and you will find that no player on the floor gets more incidental contact. In a game in which he took 4FTAs I counted 7 missed FGs in which he was fouled by todays standards. take away 25% of his misses and let him shoot FTs at 70% ( FT% which is indefensible for a superstar PG) and his adv stats become much more impressive.

If you judge players by stats then James Harden> Isiah Thomas but if you judge players by game results and performances then Isiah Thomas is historically underrated.

The fact that Thomas is judged as a lesser player because of his off the court/post playing career says more about others than himself.

Personally, as a Pistons fan he drove me crazy with his timely FT misses his horrible inbounds pass in 87 and his hero ball ways that would cost the team a lead or make it hard to win. His historic performances vs the Knicks, Lakers, Nuggets and Blazers along with his leadership (admittedly thuggish and mobster like) which resulted in team success have been historically impressive. Watching his rivalry with Magic in all-star games and how they were able to create so many great plays that today can only be duplicated by turning the game into WWE scripted affair shows his generational talent.

[SilentA]

There's a lot of talk about Isiah's offense (particularly shooting) which is understandable, but I wonder if people forget his hustle and effort could change games. It's as if people think he was a worse shooting version of '22 Poole getting carried by a bunch of all-time defenders while racking up generic "system" assists.

Unlike a lot of offense-only guards who take possessions off and get hidden on defense these days, Isiah put a pretty consistent effort on the defensive end, particularly in important games. It's not like the game was over once he had a bad shooting night (can't say the same for Harden).

One classic example is Pistons vs Bullets 1988 game 5. This was one of his poorer shooting games where he shot 43.8% from the field, but had 6 rebounds, 11 assists (to 1 turnover), 1 block, and 5 steals. And a lot of those steals were from good defense and not random risky gambles or luck, with 4/5 ending in scoring thanks to Isiah:

Wrestles ball away from 7'6 Manute Bol on the rebound: https://youtu.be/x-gM9an5xxk?t=1410
1 on 1 fastbreak steal to outlet hockey assist in less than a second (this is a great highlight play): https://youtu.be/x-gM9an5xxk?t=2427
Clutch inbound steal to layup with 13s left on the clock: https://youtu.be/x-gM9an5xxk?t=3115
Smart rotation steal (good timing) to outlet pass, then drives and assists in the paint: https://youtu.be/x-gM9an5xxk?t=3718
Clutch on ball steal to layup with 8s left on the clock: https://youtu.be/x-gM9an5xxk?t=5046

Of course, there were times he disrupted the play without getting a steal (there are more than these below, such as diving for the ball, smart rotations, simply playing within the system properly, etc.), and he generally was at the right place at the right time:
Almost steal to a well-contested shot: https://youtu.be/x-gM9an5xxk?t=2276
Good pressure, forcing a bad shot (team effort but he did his job well): https://youtu.be/x-gM9an5xxk?t=2759

I'm posting these clips for people who are curious about his two way play and are seeking to understand more about the player with examples, and to get an example of why he was so respected. I already know bad faith people with agendas will just brush it off. Is this a "standard" playoff game from Isiah in terms of defensive impact? Not quite, it's one of his better ones for sure, though I wouldn't call it a super outlier either. But it is absolutely representative of his defensive effort and why he has a reputation among players and people who actually study the game (including Thinking Basketball) as a pesky and/or respected PG on defense. And if your smallest + highest offensive load player plays this hard, that will have an impact on the team's culture and performance as a team. Coaches and players talk about this all the time even today. The anecdotes about Isiah's leadership also stems from the way he actually played on the floor.

And before anyone claims the last part about players/coaches/commentators is an appeal to authority, it's peak Dunning-Kruger for random internet users without any real body of work to show for it to convince themselves that they are more knowledgeable than professionals. Like sure, even players and coaches have bad takes or biases, but their body of work still dwarfs most of yours. It's insufficient to say "the professional consensus is wrong, I know better and my opinions are fact because I pretend it is" when all you have as a track record is poorly substantiated and contrarian hot take forum posts.

[One_and_Done]

I personally have a hard time seeing the big difference between Isiah Thomas and Chauncey Billups...beyond the fact that they both played for the Pistons. Billups was an extremely effective but not elite player who was the best offensive player on a team that won primarily with dominant defense. Played for a team that was truly a "team" in every sense of the word, basically part of an ensemble cast of very good but not great players that fit together like a glove.

Except Billups could play better D and score more efficiently. So a worse Billups basically.

Billups was the worst defender on the floor. He couldn't stay in front of any PGs and tried to take away one side and funneled players into Wallacex2. Isiah was guarding MJ in the 4th quarter.

Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT. If Billups had a mediocre floater or mid range game the Pistons would have won 70 games a year. A guy who relies on shooting FTs as teams try too purposefully extend the game so they can score 60 points on the GOAT defense is not a great offensive player.

Isiah was a ball hog who fell in love with long 2pt jumpers in the 1st half of almost every game. He also was the target of Bad Boy retaliation. You can watch old Bad Boys games and you will find that no player on the floor gets more incidental contact. In a game in which he took 4FTAs I counted 7 missed FGs in which he was fouled by todays standards. take away 25% of his misses and let him shoot FTs at 70% ( FT% which is indefensible for a superstar PG) and his adv stats become much more impressive.

If you judge players by stats then James Harden> Isiah Thomas but if you judge players by game results and performances then Isiah Thomas is historically underrated.

The fact that Thomas is judged as a lesser player because of his off the court/post playing career says more about others than himself.

Personally, as a Pistons fan he drove me crazy with his timely FT misses his horrible inbounds pass in 87 and his hero ball ways that would cost the team a lead or make it hard to win. His historic performances vs the Knicks, Lakers, Nuggets and Blazers along with his leadership (admittedly thuggish and mobster like) which resulted in team success have been historically impressive. Watching his rivalry with Magic in all-star games and how they were able to create so many great plays that today can only be duplicated by turning the game into WWE scripted affair shows his generational talent.

Some of the above is so out there I feel it's basically self rebutting. Your description of Billups in bold above is particularly off base, to the point where I think even your fellow Pistons fans would want to disassociate from your views.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Except his ball handling wasn't that great, it just seemed that way because of the weaker league he was in. Today there are tonnes of guys who can handle better than IT. Ja Morant is a vastly better player than Thomas for eg. Peak to peak guys like John Wall and Kyrie were likely better. It's a long list.

Again, a false equivalency between handling even as recently as the 80s/90s, and handling today where you can carry the ball consistently and not get called for it.

I had indeed forgotten Curry, Westbrook, and even Harden if he's considered a PG which should drop Isiah out of the top 10. Top 35 all time is a major reach as PG isn't even the most stacked position in the top 50 because of the greater importance of the center throughout most of NBA history.

Magic, Curry, West, Oscar, Stockton, Nash, Paul, Frazier, Westbrook, Kidd push him out of the top 10, even without Harden or other top PGs like Gary Payton, Bob Cousy, Damon Lilliard, etc. who might challenge him.

It's easier for a alpha to play down to a beta level than it is for a beta to reach an alpha level. Modern guys who are deadeye shooters or master dribblers can just adjust to shoot more 2s or dumb down their dribbling. What you won't see is a beta hit a level he was never at.

In today's game Isiah Thomas is a borderline all-star PG, whereas Kyrie is still Kyrie, Ja is still Ja and Peak John Wall is still peak John Wall. Those guys would have run circles around Thomas in today's era, and would have no problem playing down a level to the rules of Isiah's time; except they'd still be bigger/more athletic/better shooters etc.

I get where you’re coming from but even for me this is hating lol

[Owly]

I'm probably an old head, watched NBA since the 60s, and Isiah was a very good player and better man defender than he gets credit for. That said, he's not close to Stockton's level offensively in terms of making his teammates better; the Bad Boys for example were one of the least efficient offensive (and greatest defensive) champions in history. Individually, he possesses an ability Stockton never showed of being able to score in bunches but generally at meh efficiency where Stockton was one of the most efficient scorers of his time. Defensively he isn't the help defender Stockton was.

Where does he rank all time? Below the top 2 tiers of PGS that includes Magic, West, Oscaqr, Stockton, Nash, Paul, and Frazier. Below the best of the next tier like Jason Kidd but in the mix with the next few guys depending on what you value. Probably close to top 10 point guard in history, probably not top 50 all positions included but in the mix reasonably shortly after that level.

Mostly agree. I think there is something to say for Isiah as an offensive engine. He did once [in '84] anchor the #1 offense in the league (with his best help on that end being Kelly Tripucka and Bill Laimbeer).
In '85 [same basic supporting cast] they were the 9th-rated offense, with Isiah going for a monstrous 21/14 (and only 3.7 topg). It's true his individual shooting efficiency is poor in both years.

I'll give him this: he was willing to shoot, and to leverage his scoring "pressure" (such as it can be called) to generate plays for others.

In the playoffs, when the defenses are locked in and game-planning has eliminated some of your usual offense, Isiah was willing to keep calling his own number, and his efficiency at least wouldn't get worse (because he generally wasn't taking easy or high-% shots in the first place). It's double-edged sword, to be sure: you're living or dying based on whether he has a hot hand on a given night.

otoh, as much as I love Stockton, he was far too passive [usually] in calling his own number. He would routinely pass up a WIDE open 18-21 footer to instead set the offense. Seriously, what % do you think Stockton hits on WIDE open ~20-footers? 58-60%? Maybe more? As much as I appreciate his unselfishness, that's a bad offensive decision (unless a teammate has an immediate lay-up available).
This is not me saying Isiah was better (I do not think he was). Just drawing the contrast (and the good and bad that comes with it).

Isiah occasionally had a knack for having timely "hot" games in the playoffs, too.

And it's well-documented based on anecdotal evidence (from teammates, etc) that he was the tone-setting team culture guy for those Bad Boy Piston teams.......for whatever that is worth.
And I agree, he was generally a better defender than he gets credit for (though still less than Stockton in this regard, imo).

I generally agree on your suggested placement overall: he's fringe top-50 at best for me these days.

Regarding angles from both posters here

I think “willing to shoot” is key to that ability to go off. I think we look more at and romanticize the “successes” (in his case even in losses) and not so much … say … the likes of opening night 92-93. If you buy enough tickets you sometimes win.
Regarding “timely” … again you can get after fact team-results oriented and I’m not sure that’s my bag but if one is going down this route don’t his most notable bursts (Knicks ’84 , Lakers ’88) come in losses? And is the idea that the guy (conceptually whoever it may be) knows that it’s timely? “I can afford to shoot 35% from the field in the playoffs up through the third game of the conference finals [‘89] … I’ll store up my goodness for when it’s needed”? And there’s an element again of this timeliness coming back to the willing to shoot. If he goes for it enough, he gets some good looking nights. But in career I’ve definitely read at least one criticism of he tried to go it alone, hero-ball it. And I recall looking up Dumars and Thomas high shots (I think it was shots rather than points) games (in those title years) and team outcomes and it was Dumars that had them line up really well with team success.

“The tone-setting guy” … it depends what you mean and how much you think it means. Most of the ex-Pistons certainly speak well of him in that manner. But if the tone is defensive intensity … Laimbeer, Mahorn, Dumars, Rodman. I also think how much is this an – after the fact they won, (possible media angle: they don’t have a superstar, but they’re great) so the culture was great, “Why was the culture so great guys?” …. Daly in terms of getting a lot of volatile guys to play together … (including Thomas … he had a lot of fights on court, the stuff at the end with Laimbeer off it – a lot of post playing … controversy, “didn’t buy in to Ronnie Rothstein program” as HC – perhaps a a suggestion that he didn’t seem to play for Rothstein as HC and next year “decided not to pass [Sean Elliott] the ball”). Dantley’s contributions to the young guys professionalism …

Defender: I think the box (wrt box composites) credits him way too much versus other Pistons. He’s steal heavy (and a passer) whilst Rodman and Dumars are defensive box-score light. There’s limited evidence regarding impact but anecdotally he was regarded as bad early and solid, probably above average starter-y at the Pistons apex. Maybe you could go a bit higher? He doesn’t ever seem regarded as notably good and takes some hits and the start and at the end of his career. I don’t think he’s near Stockton with substantial evidence of clear lift, I think those two are in different conversations. This area is fuzzy and I wouldn’t claim to know well what the average read on him is.

I think what Stockton didn’t do is a different conversation to rating Thomas. I think with regard to not shooting … he got to high impact with what he did, but I think if one wanted to quibble … okay. But insofar as it matters to Thomas … I think his shot selection and decision making is (a) looks statistically worse [as far as this can be measured, granting we don’t see what’s passed up, we don’t see assist value etc], (b) more questioned at the time and I’ll venture (c) for me just is worse.


What I’ll give him is that he’s a great raiser over a relatively large sample (almost all playoff samples being small compared to RS)
-I do tend to think such things are quite likely to be noise (or sometimes RS effort related)
-He didn’t play in the playoffs in his worst years early and late. He didn’t play much in them in his other weaker years relatively late.
-He retired early.
-Such a measure penalizes RS goodness, rewards RS weakness.
-I think box-composites credit him too much for Detroit’s D

He’s not a Baron Davis, Wanzer tier raiser in terms of composite leap (though over a larger sample) more a Gus Williams, Johnny Moore (JM is smallish sample).
It depends on how you measure many different things but if one is big on “rising” (I'm not) I don’t, otoh, see why he shouldn’t be circa somewhere between Davis (who also has the impact stuff as confirmation) and Williams or else around that area.

[Owly]

Unlike a lot of offense-only guards who take possessions off and get hidden on defense these days, Isiah put a pretty consistent effort on the defensive end

So you call him pesky and and note his steals and those are absolutely viable and I think accurate.

This quote though ... early on Bob Ryan names him to his all-sieve team saying he's just steals and nothing else (and he [and backcourt mate Long] are generally poorly regarded at that time on that end). After the second title at what should be the apex of that halo effect (with Thomas I think in reality it ends up later) the Defense section of the Barry Report begins (heck I'll quote it all)

Defensively, noted one coach, 'Thomas can be as good as he wants to." If he doesn't do it every night - he gets bored on occasion - he does it when he so desires and can be a dangerous defender, employing quick hands (1.7 steals a game), quick feet, and that characteristic Pistons nastiness. But he's vulnerable off the dribble and gambles a lot. Average defensive rebounder for his position.

After '93 it's pretty brutal (though it doesn't really match the grade, B on D,C,B,A,AA,AAA scale)

Close to a matador... Even now and then he'll play D... Quick hands leading to 1.6 steals per

[... is as it originally was]
After '92

Can shut you down when he has to do, but otherwise plays "D" on cruise control ... Some say his defense is slipping ... Detroit's inability to contain opposition 1s was evident last season ... Has quick hands and fast feet resulting in a team high 118 steals

Apart from remember Ryan, that's not picking and choosing I just grabbed what was to hand and wrote the full defense sections. And I think there's a trend that they contradict the quote above (and if the suggestion that his steals were not significantly contributed to by gambles was meant to be generalized and not only specific to that one game ... that would seem to take a hit too).

[Red Beast]

Mostly agree. I think there is something to say for Isiah as an offensive engine. He did once [in '84] anchor the #1 offense in the league (with his best help on that end being Kelly Tripucka and Bill Laimbeer).
In '85 [same basic supporting cast] they were the 9th-rated offense, with Isiah going for a monstrous 21/14 (and only 3.7 topg). It's true his individual shooting efficiency is poor in both years.

I'll give him this: he was willing to shoot, and to leverage his scoring "pressure" (such as it can be called) to generate plays for others.

In the playoffs, when the defenses are locked in and game-planning has eliminated some of your usual offense, Isiah was willing to keep calling his own number, and his efficiency at least wouldn't get worse (because he generally wasn't taking easy or high-% shots in the first place). It's double-edged sword, to be sure: you're living or dying based on whether he has a hot hand on a given night.

otoh, as much as I love Stockton, he was far too passive [usually] in calling his own number. He would routinely pass up a WIDE open 18-21 footer to instead set the offense. Seriously, what % do you think Stockton hits on WIDE open ~20-footers? 58-60%? Maybe more? As much as I appreciate his unselfishness, that's a bad offensive decision (unless a teammate has an immediate lay-up available).
This is not me saying Isiah was better (I do not think he was). Just drawing the contrast (and the good and bad that comes with it).

Isiah occasionally had a knack for having timely "hot" games in the playoffs, too.

And it's well-documented based on anecdotal evidence (from teammates, etc) that he was the tone-setting team culture guy for those Bad Boy Piston teams.......for whatever that is worth.
And I agree, he was generally a better defender than he gets credit for (though still less than Stockton in this regard, imo).

I generally agree on your suggested placement overall: he's fringe top-50 at best for me these days.[/quote]

I think you have a very good point. I have great issue with people that look at stats in complete isolation without consideration of context. Isiah, similarly to Iverson, was the primary offensive creator for a very defense minded team. Dumars started to pick up the offense load but, particularly earlier, was more of an off-ball player. Daly new the best chance of success was to go all in on defense. The Piston front line was Laimbeer, Mahorn, Rodman, Edwards and Aguirre. Aguirre was the only one that was close to all star level offensively (Edwards had a decent turnaround J and not much else). This meant that on many occasions it was up to Isiah to create something out of nothing at the end of the shot clock.

While I don't think he was close to Magic as a point guard, think of all the options Magic had? He could drop the ball to Kareem or Worthy in the post. He had Worthy, Scott and Cooper running the wings on the break. Bird had McHale, Parish and DJ who were all excellent offensive players. There are some revisionist theories put forward that are purely based on stats. I love stats, and utilise data analysis frequently in my professional life, but they are frequently used in very unsophisticated ways by many posters in this forum. While the league may have been weaker overall than today, those Pistons beat great teams to win those championships. Including Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls and Drexler's Blazers. They really were unfortunate to lose to a great Celtics team earlier. I remember watching the Pistons play at their peak. Isiah was no joke; he was a great player that LED his team to two championships. There would not be one of those Pistons who would not readily confirm that he was their best player and their leader.

[Owly]

Mostly agree. I think there is something to say for Isiah as an offensive engine. He did once [in '84] anchor the #1 offense in the league (with his best help on that end being Kelly Tripucka and Bill Laimbeer).
In '85 [same basic supporting cast] they were the 9th-rated offense, with Isiah going for a monstrous 21/14 (and only 3.7 topg). It's true his individual shooting efficiency is poor in both years.

I'll give him this: he was willing to shoot, and to leverage his scoring "pressure" (such as it can be called) to generate plays for others.

In the playoffs, when the defenses are locked in and game-planning has eliminated some of your usual offense, Isiah was willing to keep calling his own number, and his efficiency at least wouldn't get worse (because he generally wasn't taking easy or high-% shots in the first place). It's double-edged sword, to be sure: you're living or dying based on whether he has a hot hand on a given night.

otoh, as much as I love Stockton, he was far too passive [usually] in calling his own number. He would routinely pass up a WIDE open 18-21 footer to instead set the offense. Seriously, what % do you think Stockton hits on WIDE open ~20-footers? 58-60%? Maybe more? As much as I appreciate his unselfishness, that's a bad offensive decision (unless a teammate has an immediate lay-up available).
This is not me saying Isiah was better (I do not think he was). Just drawing the contrast (and the good and bad that comes with it).

Isiah occasionally had a knack for having timely "hot" games in the playoffs, too.

And it's well-documented based on anecdotal evidence (from teammates, etc) that he was the tone-setting team culture guy for those Bad Boy Piston teams.......for whatever that is worth.
And I agree, he was generally a better defender than he gets credit for (though still less than Stockton in this regard, imo).

I generally agree on your suggested placement overall: he's fringe top-50 at best for me these days.

I think you have a very good point. I have great issue with people that look at stats in complete isolation without consideration of context. Isiah, similarly to Iverson, was the primary offensive creator for a very defense minded team. Dumars started to pick up the offense load but, particularly earlier, was more of an off-ball player. Daly new the best chance of success was to go all in on defense. The Piston front line was Laimbeer, Mahorn, Rodman, Edwards and Aguirre. Aguirre was the only one that was close to all star level offensively (Edwards had a decent turnaround J and not much else). This meant that on many occasions it was up to Isiah to create something out of nothing at the end of the shot clock.

While I don't think he was close to Magic as a point guard, think of all the options Magic had? He could drop the ball to Kareem or Worthy in the post. He had Worthy, Scott and Cooper running the wings on the break. Bird had McHale, Parish and DJ who were all excellent offensive players. There are some revisionist theories put forward that are purely based on stats. I love stats, and utilise data analysis frequently in my professional life, but they are frequently used in very unsophisticated ways by many posters in this forum. While the league may have been weaker overall than today, those Pistons beat great teams to win those championships. Including Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls and Drexler's Blazers. They really were unfortunate to lose to a great Celtics team earlier. I remember watching the Pistons play at their peak. Isiah was no joke; he was a great player that LED his team to two championships. There would not be one of those Pistons who would not readily confirm that he was their best player and their leader.

The "Magic's Lakers" that he beat were with Magic missing or hurt for over half the series and no Scott for any of it. Granted the Pistons did outscore the Lakers in '88. And they were already in a good position.
The "Jordan's Bulls" that they beat were all in the 2-4 SRS range.
The Trail Blazers were genuinely great (though at a superficial level the cachet from invoking Drexler might be lesser).

Without greater evidential proof I'd be ... cautious ... on the assertion that Thomas was akin to Iverson with regard to a requirement for something out of nothing. Iverson had usage rate of 31.8 (career) and 33.2 (on that defensive team) whilst peaking at 37.8. Isiah had 25.3 peaking at 27 in his final year. Those numbers are closer to average (20) than to Iverson. They are a little above the likes of Tim Hardaway (career 24.3, peak 26.6) or Terrell Brandon (career 23.9, peak 28.3). More than was happening for Philly, Laimbeer especially but generally passable shooting and non-presence on the block (apart perhaps from the aforementioned options Aguirre, Edwards) opened up the paint (or the block) for Thomas and Pistons guards. And then even if one were to buy in ... Iverson was good but not some impact monster.

[Edited to fix botched quoting from original]

[Red Beast]

The "Magic's Lakers" that he beat were with Magic missing or hurt for over half the series and no Scott for any of it. Granted the Pistons did outscore the Lakers in '88. And they were already in a good position.
The "Jordan's Bulls" that they beat were all in the 2-4 SRS range.
The Trail Blazers were genuinely great (though at a superficial level the cachet from invoking Drexler might be lesser).

Without greater evidential proof I'd be ... cautious ... on the assertion that Thomas was akin to Iverson with regard to a requirement for something out of nothing. Iverson had usage rate of 31.8 (career) and 33.2 (on that defensive team) whilst peaking at 37.8. Isiah had 25.3 peaking at 27 in his final year. Those numbers are closer to average (20) than to Iverson. They are a little above the likes of Tim Hardaway (career 24.3, peak 26.6) or Terrell Brandon (career 23.9, peak 28.3). More than was happening for Philly, Laimbeer especially but generally passable shooting and non-presence on the block (apart perhaps from the aforementioned options Aguirre, Edwards) opened up the paint (or the block) for Thomas and Pistons guards. And then even if one were to buy in ... Iverson was good but not some impact monster.

[Edited to fix botched quoting from original]

Usage is not an indication for something out of nothing though, is it? My suggestion is not that he monopolized the offence, but that he was the player who had to make something happen when creation was required. Thomas was far more of a true point guard than Iverson. He was very happy to orchestrate the offence and spread the ball. However, he would take responsibility when he felt he needed to make things happen, or when there were little other options. A tool that many other point guards (Kidd, Stockton) didn't have in their toolbox.

I think that this is self-evident, if, you recognise that he was, by far, the most competent creator on the team and, most obviously, you watched the games, which I did. Look, I'm not saying that Thomas was a top ten player, or MVP level at the time, but I see many comments suggesting that he was carried by his teammates. This is nonsense. His ability to manufacture offence allowed Daly the luxury of loading up the rest of the team with brilliant defensive but limited offensive teammates.

[Owly]

The "Magic's Lakers" that he beat were with Magic missing or hurt for over half the series and no Scott for any of it. Granted the Pistons did outscore the Lakers in '88. And they were already in a good position.
The "Jordan's Bulls" that they beat were all in the 2-4 SRS range.
The Trail Blazers were genuinely great (though at a superficial level the cachet from invoking Drexler might be lesser).

Without greater evidential proof I'd be ... cautious ... on the assertion that Thomas was akin to Iverson with regard to a requirement for something out of nothing. Iverson had usage rate of 31.8 (career) and 33.2 (on that defensive team) whilst peaking at 37.8. Isiah had 25.3 peaking at 27 in his final year. Those numbers are closer to average (20) than to Iverson. They are a little above the likes of Tim Hardaway (career 24.3, peak 26.6) or Terrell Brandon (career 23.9, peak 28.3). More than was happening for Philly, Laimbeer especially but generally passable shooting and non-presence on the block (apart perhaps from the aforementioned options Aguirre, Edwards) opened up the paint (or the block) for Thomas and Pistons guards. And then even if one were to buy in ... Iverson was good but not some impact monster.

[Edited to fix botched quoting from original]

Usage is not an indication for something out of nothing though, is it? My suggestion is not that he monopolized the offence, but that he was the player who had to make something happen when creation was required. Thomas was far more of a true point guard than Iverson. He was very happy to orchestrate the offence and spread the ball. However, he would take responsibility when he felt he needed to make things happen, or when there were little other options. A tool that many other point guards (Kidd, Stockton) didn't have in their toolbox.

I think that this is self-evident, if, you recognise that he was, by far, the most competent creator on the team and, most obviously, you watched the games, which I did. Look, I'm not saying that Thomas was a top ten player, or MVP level at the time, but I see many comments suggesting that he was carried by his teammates. This is nonsense. His ability to manufacture offence allowed Daly the luxury of loading up the rest of the team with brilliant defensive but limited offensive teammates.

So no, isn't a direct measure for something out of nothing, but nor is one persons word.

And it is an indirect one in that it just seems odd that he would be the go to in the ordinary offense say 23% of the time (it has to be a little below because the hypothesis is that it's inflated by rare in absolute terms, "holding the bag plays" and then jumps up to, what say 35% or whatever proportion get him to this happening on "many occasions") if the option isn't just running an offense/play but is seeking a specific guy and telling that someone to create something for themselves ... that's normally more associated with people circa 30 or above usage.

I think if he was a "far" more competent creator than Dumars or VJ or whichever scoring small forward or my ideal choice ... running an offense with options (depends how late we're talking as to how viable this is) ... he's more of a point guard but that's creation for other and vision but if it's something for themselves ... if he was far more able then I think those offenses would probably stink. You can generate an advantage off ball (and the Pistons set some mean picks) but if nobody else could generate sufficient advantage to get anything that's not "far" worse than the shots than the type of advantage Isiah gets that pulls his shooting down ... that seems pretty bad.

I have seen a lot of Pistons games (not at the time) won't claim to have watched closely but contemporary reportage on Dumars (this after '90)

Manufacture his own shot? Like the other members of the vaunted Piston guard trio (Vinnie Johnson and Isiah Thomas), Dumars can break his man down of the dribble but is equally adept running off double screens for the open jumper.

Johnson's is about g5 versus Portland.
Not just 007 - described as "vintage Vinnie" - but 7 of their last 9 points to "carry the Pistons". And more generally notes that he "gets his own shot as well as anybody in the league - he's a superb ball handler for a 2".
All from the Barry Report.
Aguirre is thought to be "equally adept" in the post (where his repertoire is "varied") and on the perimeter.
I think those regarded, as you suggest, as experts at the time saw multiple shot creators. (Heck if you've got the ball entered, I don't think it's great offense, but you can get Edwards at least that drifting fadeaway).

I'm afraid I don't see the comments that he was, overall, "carried". I'm certain I'm on, quite significantly, the bearish side for Isiah. I don't like "carried" language anyway, a "cast" almost always or perhaps just always needs to at least be sufficient, playing at a sufficient level. Even with a GOAT level player at an absolute peak there are teams where that just doesn't matter and the team is going nowhere. But even accepting it's usage I can't imagine where it would make sense to say he was carried. I would suggest he's an important part of an ensemble.

Regarding feeling "responsibility to make things happen" per my posts above I wouldn't dispute, but from what I've read that's more "I'll shoot us into this or way out of it" and it's not necessarily a positive. An Abdul-Rauf would have the individually "make things happen" inclination too, more than Stockton (or Kidd), but it doesn't mean I'd want him to helm my offense (to be clear not to say Thomas is Abdul-Rauf level in terms of point guard instincts).

[tsherkin]

In today's game Isiah Thomas is a borderline all-star PG

This seems like hyperbole to me. We see a bunch of guys who are unremarkable shooters/scorers who have thrived in the 2005-2020-ish era. Maybe specifically today where we have such a flush of talent around and a far greater emphasis on 3pt shooting, Zeke ported directly into this era would struggle. But he was a fast guard with good mobility on the court and was a very good playmaker. Given his FT%, it seems likely he could manage at least around 33, 34% on reasonable 3pt volume with contemporary emphasis on the shot and reasonable volume. Doesn't project as elite in that regard, but if he isn't trying to score 25 ppg, he could lean 17-20 ppg on you coupled to 8-10 apg and be a positive offensive force with good spacing. I think he has the makings of a consistent AS guard in today's league when you consider the increase in FTr. In his heyday from 84-86, league average FTr was .336, .330 and .341. In 2023, it was .387. It was .399 in 2022 and .392 in 2021. The environment is a little more permissive in that regard, and the pace isn't super far off anymore either, we're back near that 100 possessions per game mark (98-99 the past 3 seasons). So that should be considered as well.

Billups was the worst defender on the floor. He couldn't stay in front of any PGs and tried to take away one side and funneled players into Wallacex2.

This is an odd take. Billups was an excellent defender. PoA defense is very difficult, most especially at the point where the fastest guys in the league tend to be.

Isiah was guarding MJ in the 4th quarter.

And that's supposed to a pro for Zeke? He had thugs smashing Jordan every time he got beat by MJ, how is this a positive?

Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.

This isn't really accurate. It's fair to say he didn't have a superbly dynamic off-dribble game, but he had a very effective post game and was an early example of 3s and FTs driving his efficiency on reasonable volume.

generational talent.

He wasn't a first-tier star in his own era, let alone a generational talent. Very good, for sure, but that's some hyperbole there, for sure.

[One_and_Done]

Perhaps the biggest disconnect between Isiah Thomas fans and reality is the myth that he was seen as a generational player in his day. This is not reflected at all in the awards voting of the time, no matter what Pistons fans like to think.

Here are his MVP rankings from 82 to 91; 17, 16, 5, 9, 9, 8, 12, 17, 13, 13. Hardly the rankings of a generational player. Nor did he get much recognition as such in the all-nba voting. He made 5 teams in his career, only 3 of them 1st teams (in very weak years for the guard spot), and he didn't make a single team after 1987. As the Pistons were winning, his role and award recognition actually decreased. Usually, when a big time star starts winning, it's the reverse.

And the public outrage to this was nil. Nobody complained loudly to the media that Isiah had been hard done by, because it was felt his rating way largely fair. The stats also back that up. As we've discussed, Isiah looks like a solidly vanilla all-star on the stats.

All of this fits with the other facts on the ground. The Pistons got nowhere with Isiah trying to carry them, and only rose to contender status once the team was loaded with all-star/all-nba/all-D type players. Exactly what you would expect from a guy who can't carry a team on his own because he's closer to being a run of the mill all-star than a genuine franchise player.

I mean have you had a look at those Pistons contenders? The rosters are insanely strong. Isiah wasn't challenging Jordan and Magic and Bird, his team was. An insanely good, deep team. People act like it was Isiah and some so-so players. Dumars made 6 all-star teams, 3 all-nba teams and was top 10 in MVP voting. Rodman made 2 all-star teams, 2 all-nba teams, was top 10 in MVP voting, was a 2 time DPOY and was named in the top 75 players of all-time list. Laimbeer is remembered for his thuggery, but was also a 4 time all-star big who was 12th in MVP voting one year. He was a very skilled player. Dantley made 6 all-star teams, 2 all-nba teams and was 7th in the MVP voting one year. They then traded him for 3 time all-star Aguirre, who had received MVP votes before too. Vinnie Johnson was a 6th man quality guard, and the team had other fantastic role players like the defensive dynamos of Mahorn and Salley, and solid bench 5 James Edwards. So Isiah basically had 4 other all-nba quality starters, 2 all-D quality players, a 6th man of the year candidate, and another starter quality 5 man. How many teams have ever been that stacked?

[SilentA]

Perhaps the biggest disconnect between Isiah Thomas fans and reality is the myth that he was seen as a generational player in his day. This is not reflected at all in the awards voting of the time, no matter what Pistons fans like to think.

Here are his MVP rankings from 82 to 91; 17, 16, 5, 9, 9, 8, 12, 17, 13, 13. Hardly the rankings of a generational player. Nor did he get much recognition as such in the all-nba voting. He made 5 teams in his career, only 3 of them 1st teams (in very weak years for the guard spot), and he didn't make a single team after 1987. As the Pistons were winning, his role and award recognition actually decreased. Usually, when a big time star starts winning, it's the reverse.

And the public outrage to this was nil. Nobody complained loudly to the media that Isiah had been hard done by, because it was felt his rating way largely fair. The stats also back that up. As we've discussed, Isiah looks like a solidly vanilla all-star on the stats.

All of this fits with the other facts on the ground. The Pistons got nowhere with Isiah trying to carry them, and only rose to contender status once the team was loaded with all-star/all-nba/all-D type players. Exactly what you would expect from a guy who can't carry a team on his own because he's closer to being a run of the mill all-star than a genuine franchise player.

I mean have you had a look at those Pistons contenders? The rosters are insanely strong. Isiah wasn't challenging Jordan and Magic and Bird, his team was. An insanely good, deep team. People act like it was Isiah and some so-so players. Dumars made 6 all-star teams, 3 all-nba teams and was top 10 in MVP voting. Rodman made 2 all-star teams, 2 all-nba teams, was top 10 in MVP voting, was a 2 time DPOY and was named in the top 75 players of all-time list. Laimbeer is remembered for his thuggery, but was also a 4 time all-star big who was 12th in MVP voting one year. He was a very skilled player. Dantley made 6 all-star teams, 2 all-nba teams and was 7th in the MVP voting one year. They then traded him for 3 time all-star Aguirre, who had received MVP votes before too. Vinnie Johnson was a 6th man quality guard, and the team had other fantastic role players like the defensive dynamos of Mahorn and Salley, and solid bench 5 James Edwards. So Isiah basically had 4 other all-nba quality starters, 2 all-D quality players, a 6th man of the year candidate, and another starter quality 5 man. How many teams have ever been that stacked?

"A guy who can't carry a team on his own" like who, Michael Jordan? That's an empty criticism. Also... Dumars and Rodman all-stars were 1990 and later. None of Dantley or Aguirre all-star appearances were on the Pistons (they were older during their Pistons stints). "So Isiah basically had 4 other all-nba quality starters, 2 all-D quality players, a 6th man of the year candidate, and another starter quality 5 man" is a misleading statement and framing it like he was on some super stacked team where all of those players were playing at all-star levels. They were a deep team, sure, but that's like saying the 08-09 Suns had an "MVP center" in Shaq when he was all NBA third team.

All-NBA/All Star/MVP voting (i.e. regular season awards) is not a good metric for players like Zeke. As an all-time playoff performer, his career is better looked at like a more successful version of Jamal Murray or Jimmy Butler (not in playstyle, but in their value as a player on a team). If you value regular season or career stats over playoff success then Zeke is always going to look underwhelming. But a lot of fans and players respect playoff success and series impact way more. I don't think this should be a hard thing to process.

Somehow voting/public consensus is valid in the 80s now because it benefits your argument, but now it's super overrated and you (a random forum user posting ~14 posts per day of poorly justified opinions and zero body of work) know better? When did that consensus shift? What about 1996 when he was voted in NBA top 50? Did blind nostalgia kick in around December 1993 or what?

Most reasonable people find the idea that Zeke "carried a bunch of mediocre players" to be nonsense. They were a deep team. That said, going the other extreme is disingenuous. Most championship teams have 2 (sometimes 3) clear stars and a bunch of average to decent role players. The interesting thing about Detroit at the time in their winning stretch was that they broke this mold and had only 1 clear star (Zeke), but a few borderline and fringe stars/very good role players (hence the depth). On balance, in terms of overall team quality, they're no more or less overpowered than most championship teams in history. It's simply the balance of talent that is more unique.

Funny I'm up here defending Isiah when I only have him on the low end of top 10 PGs. It's just the discourse against him is so bad that I have to chime in.

[One_and_Done]

"A guy who can't carry a team on his own" like who, Michael Jordan? That's an empty criticism. Also... Dumars and Rodman all-stars were 1990 and later. None of Dantley or Aguirre all-star appearances were on the Pistons (they were older during their Pistons stints). "So Isiah basically had 4 other all-nba quality starters, 2 all-D quality players, a 6th man of the year candidate, and another starter quality 5 man" is a misleading statement and framing it like he was on some super stacked team where all of those players were playing at all-star levels. They were a deep team, sure, but that's like saying the 08-09 Suns had an "MVP center" in Shaq when he was all NBA third team.

All-NBA/All Star/MVP voting (i.e. regular season awards) is not a good metric for players like Zeke. As an all-time playoff performer, his career is better looked at like a more successful version of Jamal Murray or Jimmy Butler (not in playstyle, but in their value as a player on a team). If you value regular season or career stats over playoff success then Zeke is always going to look underwhelming. But a lot of fans and players respect playoff success and series impact way more. I don't think this should be a hard thing to process.

Somehow voting/public consensus is valid in the 80s now because it benefits your argument, but now it's super overrated and you (a random forum user posting ~14 posts per day of poorly justified opinions and zero body of work) know better? When did that consensus shift? What about 1996 when he was voted in NBA top 50? Did blind nostalgia kick in around December 1993 or what?

Most reasonable people find the idea that Zeke "carried a bunch of mediocre players" to be nonsense. They were a deep team. That said, going the other extreme is disingenuous. Most championship teams have 2 (sometimes 3) clear stars and a bunch of average to decent role players. The interesting thing about Detroit at the time in their winning stretch was that they broke this mold and had only 1 clear star (Zeke), but a few borderline and fringe stars/very good role players (hence the depth). On balance, in terms of overall team quality, they're no more or less overpowered than most championship teams in history. It's simply the balance of talent that is more unique.

Funny I'm up here defending Isiah when I only have him on the low end of top 10 PGs. It's just the discourse against him is so bad that I have to chime in.

So this is offbase for the following reasons:
1) There's plenty of evidence Jordan can carry a team.
2) The argument 'such and such was only an all-star in the years he actually made it' doesn't work. By that logic Isiah was no longer an all-nba quality player when the Pistons win their titles, because his last team was in 1987. When you put a bunch of talented guys on the same team, some of them will have their stats artificially lowered because there are only so many points to go around. There are countless examples of this. Where Phoenix Shaq doesn't work as an analogy is that Shaq was very clearly past his prime by 2009. The Pistons on the other hand were in their physical primes, some of them just hadn't gotten recognition yet, while others were sacrificing stats for the team. I'm going to have a tough time believing Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman, Dantley and Aguirre weren't in their primes in 89-90 when they were aged 25, 31, 27 and 33/29 respectively. The oldest guy, Dantley, was traded by the playoffs and still posting strong numbers given the context. 'Old man Aguirre' was 29 and was a 25ppg all-star on a 53 win team just the year before.
3) Butler carried 2 meh teams to the finals. Zeke didn't do anything close to that before his team was stacked. I'd take the much more efficient Murray over him too peak to peak.
4) I haven't suggested award voting tells us everything, but it does to a large degree tell us how a player was perceived at the time; and that's true today as well as the late 80s.
5) The top 50 team was an attempt to honour guys across NBA history, not to provide a legitimate rating. It's a widely mocked list that was done with no transparency at all. It definitelt means little.
6) Again, the numbers don't agree they were a fringe team with 1 superstar and a handful of borderline all-stars. I literally quoted you the evidence of this above. How many fringe all-stars have the resumes I cited above. The 1989 Pistons had 4 guys who finished top 10 in the MVP vote, 3 if we take Dantley out (but his replacement was a 29 year old all-star who had received MVP votes 3 separate years), plus Laimbeer who finished as high as 12th and was a 4 time all-star at the most competetive position for making an all-star spot in the 80s. That's before you get to their other non-star role players like Mahorn, Salley, Vinnie & Edwards.

[SilentA]

So this is offbase for the following reasons:
1) There's plenty of evidence Jordan can carry a team.
2) The argument 'such and such was only an all-star in the years he actually made it' doesn't work. By that logic Isiah was no longer an all-nba quality player when the Pistons win their titles, because his last team was in 1987. When you put a bunch of talented guys on the same team, some of them will have their stats artificially lowered because there are only so many points to go around. There are countless examples of this. Where Phoenix Shaq doesn't work as an analogy is that Shaq was very clearly past his prime by 2009. The Pistons on the other hand were in their physical primes, some of them just hadn't gotten recognition yet, while others were sacrificing stats for the team. I'm going to have a tough time believing Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman, Dantley and Aguirre weren't in their primes in 89-90 when they were aged 25, 31, 27 and 33/29 respectively. The oldest guy, Dantley, was traded by the playoffs and still posting strong numbers given the context. 'Old man Aguirre' was 29 and was a 25ppg all-star on a 53 win team just the year before.
3) Butler carried 2 meh teams to the finals. Zeke didn't do anything close to that before his team was stacked. I'd take the much more efficient Murray over him too peak to peak.
4) I haven't suggested award voting tells us everything, but it does to a large degree tell us how a player was perceived at the time; and that's true today as well as the late 80s.
5) The top 50 team was an attempt to honour guys across NBA history, not to provide a legitimate rating. It's a widely mocked list that was done with no transparency at all. It definitelt means little.
6) Again, the numbers don't agree they were a fringe team with 1 superstar and a handful of borderline all-stars. I literally quoted you the evidence of this above. How many fringe all-stars have the resumes I cited above. The 1989 Pistons had 4 guys who finished top 10 in the MVP vote, 3 if we take Dantley out (but his replacement was a 29 year old all-star who had received MVP votes 3 separate years), plus Laimbeer who finished as high as 12th and was a 4 time all-star at the most competetive position for making an all-star spot in the 80s. That's before you get to their other non-star role players like Mahorn, Salley, Vinnie & Edwards.

Ah, pivoting to nuance now are we?

1. Pre-Pippen Jordan could probably carry the Bulls further than Zeke could carry the Pistons. No, I don't think they're the same level. But almost every team that finds post-season success has other stars on it, either via depth or having a second superstar-level player. Zeke needing talent on his team to find success is not a good criticism, unless you are specifically talking about floor-raising volume scoring, which is like... so? And there was a good point mentioned earlier about him anchoring a league-leading offense on a talent-dry roster in '84 (the team made the playoffs this year onwards)... Actually, let's see. Oh wait, Bulls never made it past the first round until Pippen arrived either.

2. I mean if you wanna forego nuance completely in the first post then go "uhm akshually that analogy isn't the same" then sure yes, the Suns Shaq analogy is hyperbolic. Age-wise those Pistons were closer to their primes. But the fact is there was no season where all of those Pistons played at an all-star peak level at the same time, so presenting "basically had 4 other all-nba quality starters, 2 all-D quality players, a 6th man of the year candidate, and another starter quality 5 man" as if Zeke was taking credit for winning on a KD Warriors level talented squad is disingenuous. They were good players and the Bad Boys Pistons were one of the deepest teams in history, but they lacked peak level star power. On balance, they were probably about equally as good as other championship level teams outside of a few anomalies.

3. Good pivot attempt, but seems like we acknowledge that all star/MVP/all NBA voting isn't necessarily an indicator of good players. Okay then. Zeke is more successful as of now, but I'll be interested to see how Butler and Murray's career look by the time they retire.

4. Sure. Zeke was an average all-star level regular season player. Does anyone here disagree with that? It's also not very useful for judging his entire career, especially as an all-time playoff improver. I'm not saying regular season awards have no value, but it's rather missing the point (and he made 12 all-stars anyway).

5. Is it? Plenty of players seemed to take it seriously. If "widely mocked" is a reason to discount something then, welp, goodbye to everything (including all star voting, all NBA, analysts, the media, player perspectives, this forum...). Maybe playoff performance had a part in career legacy too if that is what it's about. Hmm...

6. ??? they were not regular all stars around that time, occasionally making the cut across their careers on a few occasions (often outside of the Pistons) compared to Zeke making 12 in a row. That's what a borderline/fringe all star is, i.e. on the edge of making it/not making it most of the time. Is this just a semantics disagreement? Someone else tell me what the better terminology for these type of players is then. Why overcomplicate it and try twist things to argue a point?

I think you're better off just coming outright and saying you prefer to focus on full career/RS stats, and don't believe in era-adjustment with whatever alpha/beta comment you mentioned. It'd be much easier to just say "fair enough, you have your criteria and it doesn't favor Thomas" if you had a more honest case instead of watching all this pivoting and grasping.