Ranking Isiah Thomas

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Isiah is tough one to rank.

There isn't much statistically that makes him look particularly great.

His offensive efficiency is pretty brutal, both RS and PO. He only had a positive rTS once in 13 regular seasons and three times in 9 postseasons.

There seems to be a wide range of opinions about how good of a defender he really was(or wasn't), and the idea that his box defensive stats(2.5 steals per 100) and defensive reputation overstate what he really was as a defender isn't an uncommon notion.

The only box stats that really paint him in a positive light are a/t ratio - 12.4 assists to 5 turnovers per 100 in the regular season for a 2.48 ratio, and 12.1 assists to 4.5 turnovers per 100 in the playoffs for a 2.69 ratio. Those numbers are comparable - worse in the regular season, but comparable - to Steve Nash(2.94, 2.78) and Jason Kidd(3,00, 2.78), for example. He could run an offense pretty well even if he wasn't an efficient scorer himself.

There's also RAPM - Squared has three seasons of Isiah's career. Isiah doesn't look bad at all in these samples, but while he's in the Top 3 on his team in all three seasons, he's never #1 on his team. In three separate seasons, he's had Laimbeer, Sally, and Rodman top him. Elite number one options are usually in the Top 5-10 of the entire league in RAPM and Isiah only did that once out of three times, in 1991 when he was on the decline and sporting what looks to me like a D-RAPM outlier considering his DRAPM in the other years.

1984-85:
Laimbeer - #10 / 5.07 O / -0.41 D / 4.66
Isiah - #39 / 2.59 O / -0.53 D / 2.05
Tyler - #52 / -0.21 O / 1.97 D / 1.77
Tripucka - #85 / 1.86 O / -0.87 D / 0.99
Long - #122 / 3.68 O / -3.33 D / 0.35
Benson - #144 / -0.17 O / 0.16 D / -0.01
Thirdkill - #184 / -1.34 O / 0.83 D / -0.51
Vinnie - #197 / 0.42 O / -1.16 D / -0.74
Jones - #214 / -0.34 O / -0.72 D / -1.06
Roundfield - #254 / -2.62 O / 0.63 D / -2.00
Steppe - #255 / -3.20 O / 1.19 D / -2.01
Cureton - #281 / -0.57 O / -3.15 D / -3.72
Campbell - #292 / -2.48 O / -3.66 D / -6.14

1987-88
Sally - #7 / 2.89 O / 1.34 D / 4.23
Laimbeer - #16 / 2.17 O / 1.05 D / 3.21
Isiah - #22 / 2.96 O / -0.21 D / 2.75
Vinnie - #49 / 0.67 / 0.80 / 1.47
Dantley - #191 / -0.13 O / -0.30 D / -0.43
Dumars - #192 / 0.85 O / -1.30 D / -0.45
Mahorn - #245 / 1.60 O / -2.80 D / -1.20
Rodman - #250 / 0.40 O / -1.77 D / -1.37

1990-91
Rodman - #3 / 2.75 O / 2.14 D / 4.89
Isiah - #7 / 1.53 O / 2.68 D / 4.21
Laimbeer - #56 / 1.45 O / 0.40 D / 1.85
Dumars - #71 / 1.60 O / -0.15 D / 1.45
Sally - #77 / -1.22 O / 2.56 D / 1.34
Aguirre - #307 / 1.16 O / -2.85 D / -1.70
Vinnie - #323 / 0.63 O / -2.67 D / -2.03
Edwards - #362 / -2.07 O / -1.97 D / -4.04

But Isiah has a huge reputation. The thing about Isiah is that he's one of ten guys in NBA history who was, at least in perception, the best player on a back-to-back champion. In chronological order:

Mikan
Russell
Magic
Isiah
Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron
Steph(sorry KD fans, giving it to Steph)

Of those ten, eight have already been inducted in the Top 15 of the current Top 100 project, and it seems like Mikan might get in the next few rounds. Isiah probably won't get in until the 40s at the earliest.

And the Pistons were one controversial-to-this-day foul call away from winning the title in 1988, so Isiah was nearly one of five guys in NBA history who was, at least in perception, the best player on a three-peat champion.

He had iconic playoff scoring outbursts like this:

Watch on YouTube

and this:

Watch on YouTube

and it's those sorts of memories that people attach to him. (Though it's worth noting the Pistons lost both those games, the latter was a result of that controversial foul call.)

Isiah was one of the biggest names in the league from the mid-80s to the early 90s. I'm going to disagree with what OaD says here:

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.

Specifically the underlined parts. I don't think he was seen as a generational player in his own era, but I do think he was seen as a star player and, as I said, he was one of the biggest names in the game.

When you say there was no public outrage, you're leaving out the biggest instance where a lot of people felt Isiah got wronged - when he got left off the Dream Team. Outrage is not the right word, but it was a big deal when he was left off the team where he would've been the biggest name outside of MJ/Magic/Bird. I mean, Isiah had burned so many bridges by then and MJ specifically didn't want to play with him, but to people who didn't know that(and even some that did), the notion that Isiah could be left off the team was very, very surprising.

This was the media and fans; players within the league probably saw it differently. This passage from Jack McCallum's "Dream Team" certainly makes it seem like the big names knew Isiah wasn't on Jordan/Magic/Bird's level:

The extent to which Jordan, Magic, and Bird formed a subset within the universe of great players cannot be overestimated. Magic and Bird had been measured against each other for over a decade by that time, and Jordan had come along to join them; the three formed the golden tripod on which the NBA was standing strong. No one else could join this exclusive club. Some players, like Barkley, understood this and carved out a comfortable position outside the tripod but friend to all three. Others, like Malone, may have resented the primacy of Michael/Magic/Larry but remained on the outside, smoldering but seemingly unconcerned.

Isiah was different. It was an enduring frustration for him that he could not break into this select society, that, as great as he was, he was on the outside looking in. Had he been as tall as Magic or Larry, or even Michael, yes, perhaps it would've been a Big Four(Isiah would make that point, in typically ham-handed fashion, years later.) But at 6'1', he just couldn't dominate like the others, and it gnawed at him that he was, in his view, perpetually underappreciated.

I don't personally think Isiah should've been on the team - both because Stockton was a better player in 1992(maybe always) and because too many people on that team hated him - but it was a huge story that he wasn't on the team and, even to this day, you can hardly tell the story of the Dream Team without talking about the fact that a lot of people think Isiah was snubbed.

Isiah was ranked #43 in the last Top 100 and I think that's fair. His team accomplishments and reputation would have you think Top 15, and his statistical reality would have you think maybe #60 or worse, so #43 seems like a fair compromise.

[One_and_Done]

My position has been the same all the way through. There has not been any pivoting.

There's a tonne wrong with what you just wrote, but I want to zoom in on this gem:

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

Did you not read my post? How exactly are these guys supposed to get their usual numbers and make the all-star/all-nba team when they're forced to play a reduced role for the good of the team? That makes no sense. There's only so much ball to go around. Which of these guys are you trying to claim wasn't in their prime in 89 or 90? You've already been shown to be wrong about Aguirre being old and past his prime. Who's next?

They weren't the KD Warriors, the GOAT team, but they were certainly stacked relative to most contenders. How many guys of the Nuggets support team that just won could make multiple all-star/all-nba teams? Basically Murray and that's it. Isiah had 4 guys like that next to him!

[SilentA]

My position has been the same all the way through. There has not been any pivoting.

There's a tonne wrong with what you just wrote, but I want to zoom in on this gem:

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

Did you not read my post? How exactly are these guys supposed to get their usual numbers and make the all-star/all-nba team when they're forced to play a reduced role for the good of the team? That makes no sense. There's only so much ball to go around. Which of these guys are you trying to claim wasn't in their prime in 89 or 90? You've already been shown to be wrong about Aguirre being old and past his prime. Who's next?

They weren't the KD Warriors, the GOAT team, but they were certainly stacked relative to most contenders. How many guys of the Nuggets support team that just won could make multiple all-star/all-nba teams? Basically Murray and that's it. Isiah had 4 guys like that next to him!

No there isn't your final position is consistent, for sure, but you play fast and loose with reasoning to justify them.

Never said Aguirre was "old man", just "older" (exact wording) when he was in the Pistons, then no longer being an all star (also true). Let's not pretend I said he was some 37 year old retirement home player. And he was in the latter half of his career. If you think that he was the exact same player as he was in his best Mavs years and he deserved to be an all star (but was robbed due to his role on the team and being forced to take bad shots, because both his scoring TS% and volume both declined), you can try make that argument. They were talented players, yes, but no they were not all playing at their peak levels at the same time (or roles if that makes you feel better).

Are they stacked relative to most contenders, or champions? Careful now, because if we're talking about "contenders", most champions on average are "stacked relative to contenders" and that's not a very good criticism. Or do you think that Pistons team had more overall talent than:

- Either of the threepeat Jordan/Pippen Bulls
- Magic/Worthy/Kareem Lakers
- Bird/McHale/Parish Celtics
- Duncan/Ginobli/Parker Spurs
- Kobe/Shaq Lakers

The list goes on. I'm not one of those people that say "Zeke was the only all star, he had no talent around him" and equate that run to Hakeem's '94 Rockets job, but I think it's a stretch to say that Pistons team had more talent relative to most champions. To me, they are on par with those 5 above and many others, except they had a deeper bench and lower talent ceiling (so a "flatter but wider" distribution of talent, of which Zeke was the main guy).

I would say you also cannot use the Nuggets as an example. In your case with Rodman and Dumars, you are using their future all-star appearances post-first championship to justify the roster being stacked. The Nuggets simply resemble a typical championship team of having 2 major stars (Jokic being generational MVP level) and a bunch of other good role players, though I would say current Aaron Gordon is also a borderline all star.

[One_and_Done]

You described Aguirre as past his prime. He was 29 and coming off a 25ppg all-star season for a 53 win team. He was in his prime, just playing a lesser role to sacrifice for the team. That is the only reason he was 'no longer an all-star'. He was still just as good though, which gets back to the point; Isiah had 4 all-nba calibre guys next to him, plus 4 other great role players.

This bizarre idea you have that if a guy accepts a lesser role for the good of the team, that he is somehow a worse player, is silly. He'll post lower volume stats, but he'll be just as good.

You then list teams like Duncan's Spurs, which is incredibly ironic. Manu is exactly a guy who took a lesser role to help the team, but you will not hear me act like 2005-07 Manu wasn't an all-star calibre player just because he only ever made 2 all-star teams. And yes, the Pistons support cast is waaaay better than say the 07 Spurs. Take out Duncan and Thomas and the Spurs have 2 all-nba type guys, the Pistons have 4! Then add in thr other depth and the Pistons are way deeper. Weird rebuttal. A support cast is what's left AFTER you take out the 'star' player.

[Owly]

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.

I would argue with a model that promoted Thomas as a clear star level player separate from the "cast" in the championship years. Thomas was a high pick (unlike most of the other Pistons), he had been highly productive and all-NBA first team. He was certainly the "star" name. He was established in that position. But in the years in question Dumars is mainly about matching him or bettering him accolade voting (collaring a 3rd team nod in '90). And across RS and playoff, across the two seasons the only time he stands out by the Reference box-composites is the '90 playoffs (by PER and BPM). Even that may be a bit inflated (DBPM gives Thomas a 3.2, Rodman a 1.6, Dumars an 0.5 ... it's a small sample so maybe, but that isn't how I'd parse defensive credit between the 3.

I'm personally not sure how, within this window, he's a "clear star" (if this indicates level of play) separate from, for instance, Dumars.

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.

I don't think that's an "only". At least among those I think are trying to do it seriously. There are those who would invoke Magic and Bird and MJ and say he's somehow like them and have him top 20. I'm not saying it's crazy high (I don't know in detail where you have him), there are more smart people than I'd like that seem significantly higher than I am on him. Still, I don't think it's a "only".

But do the list.
Heck, say where do you think Baron Davis is? Any idea otoh?
Because RS box composites look similar. Davis has greater impact certainty at what I would call a better than boxscore level. Thomas does have a longevity/health advantage (35516mins to 28592).
Thomas does have a larger playoff sample though Davis's is also pretty sizable. Thomas I think has better luck in not playing in the playoffs in his worst years [so they're not dragging his numbers down]. Baron tends to rise more by the boxscore (taking a lead in WS/48 and to a smaller but not nothing degree PER - BPM is bullish on playoff Thomas and they're still about even) and again has greater certainty of impact, suggested at a better-than-box level, via a playoff on-off of +15.8.

There are others in the playoff improvement guard group (possibly regarded as 1s) Wanzer, Gus Williams. Is Thomas in their ballpark? Is there a reason he's regarded in a, I think, typically significantly higher one.

I may be wrong but I feel like Ringz; ringz in a high profile, romanticized era ("through" Jordan,Bird, Magic -never mind if they go through them healthy with good teammates); a nice narrative and perhaps aggressive promotion have set anchors too high on Thomas.

[SilentA]

You described Aguirre as past his prime. He was 29 and coming off a 25ppg all-star season for a 53 win team. He was in his prime, just playing a lesser role to sacrifice for the team. That is the only reason he was 'no longer an all-star'. He was still just as good though, which gets back to the point; Isiah had 4 all-nba calibre guys next to him, plus 4 other great role players.

This bizarre idea you have that if a guy accepts a lesser role for the good of the team, that he is somehow a worse player, is silly. He'll post lower volume stats, but he'll be just as good.

You then list teams like Duncan's Spurs, which is incredibly ironic. Manu is exactly a guy who took a lesser role to help the team, but you will not hear me act like 2005-07 Manu wasn't an all-star calibre player just because he only ever made 2 all-star teams. And yes, the Pistons support cast is waaaay better than say the 07 Spurs. Take out Duncan and Thomas and the Spurs have 2 all-nba type guys, the Pistons have 4! Then add in thr other depth and the Pistons are way deeper. Weird rebuttal. A support cast is what's left AFTER you take out the 'star' player.

Huh? You were the one talking about all-star and regular season award voting as the metric. Of course players can have excellent careers without ranking high in things like all NBA and MVP voting. Like Isiah. You agree with me then.

Aguirre was a great player, but by then he was a borderline all star. Even in his all star appearances at the end of his Mavs stint he was pretty much at the bottom of voting for those who got in for the West (as Forwards). Then his volume dropped at similar to worse efficiency. If you want to argue he was just as good and his output was being suppressed by their system, fine. But that's not how all star voting and basing people's careers off stats works, which looks at results (which you seem to pick and choose when you do for players to support your points).

Laimbeer, Aguirre, Rodman, and Dumars were all great players. But none of them were locks as all stars (all borderline, which it seems you now no longer dispute), and they didn't all peak at exactly the same time. This is not the same as teams like the Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, and the Jordan/Pippen all-time duo. Which gets to the crux of the matter. You latched onto the Spurs example due to a lack of other points (though to me they're pretty close, with Ginobli and Parker having a talent edge + a decent role player cast, especially with defenders like Bruce Bowen), so I take it you agree the Pistons are not clearly more stacked that the threepeat Bulls, Bird Celtics, and both iterations of the Lakers then. Do we need to go further down the list and add those one-offs in more recent years?

Don't get me wrong. There is certainly a case to having the Bad Boys Pistons as a strong supporting cast even compared to other champions, but I just don't see them hitting outlier status like you seem to be suggesting. They didn't have a strong #2 star (as much as I like Dumars), and made up for it in depth. On balance, that puts them about on par with a lot of other champions. Simple.

[Owly]

But Isiah has a huge reputation. The thing about Isiah is that he's one of ten guys in NBA history who was, at least in perception, the best player on a back-to-back champion. In chronological order:

Mikan
Russell
Magic
Isiah
Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron
Steph(sorry KD fans, giving it to Steph)

But as stated that's perception.

Of those ten, eight have already been inducted in the Top 15 of the current Top 100 project, and it seems like Mikan might get in the next few rounds. Isiah probably won't get in until the 40s at the earliest.

Because threshold stats are bad, this isn't a measure of players, the value of consecutiveness of titles is unclear and it's certainly not clear he was the best player on both those teams (briefly oversimplifying there's little statistically that suggest clear number 1 in any part of '89; Dumars is edging very slightly ahead in accolades; even at the time after the second title, after the stronger individual playoff run; sources that were giving him the "makes them when it counts", "he's a winner" type spin [not actual quotes] (one actual quote: explaining why he's ranked a lot better than his numbers "two rings explains it all" [argh!]) they rank him as the fourth best point behind Magic, Stockton and KJ [Barry and Cohn, '90]. Same source lists Dumars as 2nd among 2s. Now (after 1) pg is a tougher field so it's not some definitive thing but, for contemporary sources this is the best point to overrate Thomas and it's certainly not clear that he's thought of as better than Dumars. Other sources may differ.

This would just be either a reason why people overrate him or a bad case to anchor him to these guys.

And the Pistons were one controversial-to-this-day

"To this day" ... usually the implication is "from the time. And I think this was built up after. The commentators see no controversy at the time.
Lazenby's book about all NBA finals (from closer to the time ... first ed I think circa '90, revised after '96) mentions it .... with no comment (the generous view is "whistled for a foul" doesn't state that the whistle is accurate ... there's no focus on it whatsoever it's just mentioned as a passage of play among many others). I don't know but my impression is the heat came from Pistons whining after the fact.

And they're wrong to. Kareem goes up vertical. Laimbeer jumps into him. Call it soft, ticky-tack, whatever. He fouls him.

foul call away from winning the title in 1988

No. There's time on the clock (14 seconds) and Worthy is looking in the best position to get the rebound. And even if he didn't the Lakers are down by 1. So they'd be in a bad position but not dead.

so Isiah was nearly one of five guys in NBA history who was, at least in perception, the best player on a three-peat champion.

As covered a bad measure of players, arbitrary, not necessarily true for Isiah and in this case hypothetical if a call had been botched, Worthy hadn't got the rebound ... The Pistons outscored the Lakers ... I imagine there is a better call people could argue should be flipped, or just point to the points dif.

He had iconic playoff scoring outbursts like this:

Watch on YouTube

and this:

Watch on YouTube

and it's those sorts of memories that people attach to him. (Though it's worth noting the Pistons lost both those games, the latter was a result of that controversial foul call.)

But his spurtability has been covered (as a willingness to shoot teams in and out of games) and this just isn't a measure of player goodness.

Isiah was one of the biggest names in the league from the mid-80s to the early 90s. I'm going to disagree with what OaD says here:

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.

Specifically the underlined parts. I don't think he was seen as a generational player in his own era, but I do think he was seen as a star player and, as I said, he was one of the biggest names in the game.

When you say there was no public outrage, you're leaving out the biggest instance where a lot of people felt Isiah got wronged - when he got left off the Dream Team. Outrage is not the right word, but it was a big deal when he was left off the team where he would've been the biggest name outside of MJ/Magic/Bird. I mean, Isiah had burned so many bridges by then and MJ specifically didn't want to play with him, but to people who didn't know that(and even some that did), the notion that Isiah could be left off the team was very, very surprising.

This was the media and fans; players within the league probably saw it differently. This passage from Jack McCallum's "Dream Team" certainly makes it seem like the big names knew Isiah wasn't on Jordan/Magic/Bird's level:

The extent to which Jordan, Magic, and Bird formed a subset within the universe of great players cannot be overestimated. Magic and Bird had been measured against each other for over a decade by that time, and Jordan had come along to join them; the three formed the golden tripod on which the NBA was standing strong. No one else could join this exclusive club. Some players, like Barkley, understood this and carved out a comfortable position outside the tripod but friend to all three. Others, like Malone, may have resented the primacy of Michael/Magic/Larry but remained on the outside, smoldering but seemingly unconcerned.

Isiah was different. It was an enduring frustration for him that he could not break into this select society, that, as great as he was, he was on the outside looking in. Had he been as tall as Magic or Larry, or even Michael, yes, perhaps it would've been a Big Four(Isiah would make that point, in typically ham-handed fashion, years later.) But at 6'1', he just couldn't dominate like the others, and it gnawed at him that he was, in his view, perpetually underappreciated.

I don't personally think Isiah should've been on the team - both because Stockton was a better player in 1992(maybe always) and because too many people on that team hated him - but it was a huge story that he wasn't on the team and, even to this day, you can hardly tell the story of the Dream Team without talking about the fact that a lot of people think Isiah was snubbed.

Isiah was ranked #43 in the last Top 100 and I think that's fair. His team accomplishments and reputation would have you think Top 15, and his statistical reality would have you think maybe #60 or worse, so #43 seems like a fair compromise.

On star ... it depends what you mean. The MVP voting has been covered and he only ever got 1 first place vote, the same amount as Kelvin Ransey is a close time frame. He wasn't just getting bested by the big 3, but even in his best finish by Bernard King, Cummings would take the 5th spot next year, Nique would take 2nd in '86 ... it wasn't just the titans blocking his path).

Star is fuzzy and not a measurement of player performance. I'd say he was a second tier "star".

On Dream Team ... was it a huge story at the time. It was a story. My impression is it's something Thomas sympathizers and perhaps Thomas bring up. I wonder if it's been inflated.
It doesn't matter though. It shouldn't be a controversy. By the time the team was selected it's clear that Stockton is better (and as implied it may not have been a recent surpassing, but it's clear at this point). He's also a better fit as a willing passer, spacer, defender. And fwiw, yes there's that he doesn't seem to have done things [I don't know about the truth of them] to burn bridges with each of the sports biggest three stars.

I think the "compromise" is a really bad angle. Even if it were valid ... lets look at that reputation
If I said there's a guy who's top 15 on "reputation" and you asked how many MVPs have they won?
"Oh, zero."
Probably a lot of podiums then, where is he in MVP shares?
"94th on NBA-ABA combined, between Jayson Tatum and Lenny Wilkens." *(caveats about this measure across eras, though he's on the 5 man ballot era, so otoh I think he benefits)
He was iconic at his position though?
"Well, never the best at it."
etc

Implicitly throughout this you seem to accept that the case for giving him the glory for things in obtuse ways ... well he might not actually qualify for these groups even if they were valid measures.

There are smart people who seem to disagree with me, people can have their own criteria etc, but I think 43 is substantially too high for Thomas.

[One_and_Done]

I think I understand part of where you're getting confused. You're assuming that Isiah Thomas, like the other guys on his team, was also sacrificing his stats and role to win. Unfortunately for your argument that was not the case. Isiah was allowed to take almost the same number of shots, and score almost the same number of points, minus a point or two. In fact per 100 his stats are basically identical; he just played a few minutes less due to there being more blowouts. Instead it was others who made those sacrifices, like Aguirre who was asked to take fewer shots (from 25ppg the year before to 15ppg on the Pistons in 89) and then the following year to come off the bench to help balance the team. Or Dantley who willingly scored 10 ppg less to help the team win. Laimbeer went from a 17-13 big from 84-86, to being relegated to a 13-10 big in 89 and 90. Dumars, when finally freed from Isiah's shot jacking tendancies, saw the same improvement. After Isiah's injury reduced him from 91 onwards Dumars went from a 17ppg guy in 89 and 90 to a 21ppg guy from 91-94. Basically everyone except Isiah had to make sacrifices.

Your argument still makes no sense. You assert they never all primed at the same time, but you have nothing to base that on. They were in their physical primes, and they didn't get hurt, so there's no reason they were worse. This has been explained. Your take that they were less deep than the 07 Spurs is pretty absurd. The Spurs had 2 all-nba calibre guys on the support cast, the Pistons had 4. The Spurs had Bowen and Horry, the Pistons had Mahorn, Salley, Vinnie and Edwards. It's not comparable.

And no, Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman and Dantley/Aguirre were not 'borderline all-stars. Borderline all-stars don't get MVP votes multiple years, or make multiple appearances, or get multiple all-nba selections. Borderline all-stars are guys like Dejounte Murray, who scraped in one time as an injury replacement and has never sniffed an all-nba selection. These guys had multiple selections/multiple MVP votes. Dumars and Rodman had top 10 MVP vote years. Laimbeer was 12th. Dantley was 6th, and even Aguirre got MVP votes 3 different years. There was nothing borderline about them.

[SilentA]

I think I understand part of where you're getting confused. You're assuming that Isiah Thomas, like the other guys on his team, was also sacrificing his stats and role to win. Unfortunately for your argument that was not the case. Isiah was allowed to take almost the same number of shots, and score almost the same number of points, minus a point or two. In fact per 100 his stats are basically identical; he just played a few minutes less due to there being more blowouts. Instead it was others who made those sacrifices, like Aguirre who was asked to take fewer shots (from 25ppg the year before to 15ppg on the Pistons in 89) and then the following year to come off the bench to help balance the team. Or Dantley who willingly scored 10 ppg less to help the team win. Laimbeer went from a 17-13 big from 84-86, to being relegated to a 13-10 big in 89 and 90. Dumars, when finally freed from Isiah's shot jacking tendancies, saw the same improvement. After Isiah's injury reduced him from 91 onwards Dumars went from a 17ppg guy in 89 and 90 to a 21ppg guy from 91-94. Basically everyone except Isiah had to make sacrifices.

Your argument still makes no sense. You assert they never all primed at the same time, but you have nothing to base that on. They were in their physical primes, and they didn't get hurt, so there's no reason they were worse. This has been explained. Your take that they were less deep than the 07 Spurs is pretty absurd. The Spurs had 2 all-nba calibre guys on the support cast, the Pistons had 4. The Spurs had Bowen and Horry, the Pistons had Mahorn, Salley, Vinnie and Edwards. It's not comparable.

And no, Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman and Dantley/Aguirre were not 'borderline all-stars. Borderline all-stars don't get MVP votes multiple years, or make multiple appearances, or get multiple all-nba selections. Borderline all-stars are guys like Dejounte Murray, who scraped in one time as an injury replacement and has never sniffed an all-nba selection. These guys had multiple selections/multiple MVP votes. Dumars and Rodman had top 10 MVP vote years. Laimbeer was 12th. Dantley was 6th, and even Aguirre got MVP votes 3 different years. There was nothing borderline about them.

Down to semantics now then I see. So being on the bottom end of all-star voting/barely making it across multiple years isn't borderline all star. Instead, you are defining all-star level consensus by receiving any MVP votes at all (???). This is mental gymnastics. You can be a borderline all star in multiple years by, you know, generally being on the high end of non-all stars or low end when you do qualify. That's kind of what borderline means. Which is exactly what those players were.

Also, are we moving to physical primes now? So you go from "HE WAS SURROUNDED BY ALL STARS/ALL NBA PLAYERS WHEN HE WON AND COULDNT DO ANYTHING OTHERWISE THEREFORE HE IS OVERRATED" (conveniently ignoring other impacts and similar cases for most stars, including funnily enough the fact that Jordan also couldn't get out of the first round until Pippen arrived) to "well, he had a bunch of players who sacrificed their roles, were not fully ageing/injured, and got all-star/occasional MVP votes in separate years despite usually not making the all-star team". Hmm... I mean Zeke was no Jordan, but a lot of the arguments used here just don't hold up.

Where did I say "less deep" than the Spurs? I said pretty close and/or on par. At the very least, the Spurs dynasty vs Bad Boys Pistons rosters is an interesting discussion. I can see the case going both ways depending how you look at it or categorize it, or which exact roster we focused on (Note: cognitive flexibility/having an open mind is a valuable thing to have, certainly compared to spouting terribly justified opinions 14 times a day as fact! Something to learn). Once again you're misrepresenting things because you're stuck on your own conclusion and playing fast and loose with argumentation to justify your preconceived opinions. You wish so bad that I said the things you claim I said because it's a lot easier to argue against (this is the point of strawmanning). At least I'm glad we agree on both threepeat Bulls/Bird Celtics/both Lakers.

[One_and_Done]

Your reply is just completely off kilter.

A borderline all-star is someone who makes like 1 team, and is in the edges of being considered a legit all-star. Dumars made 6 teams. Dantley made 6 teams. Laimbeer made 4 teams. Aguirre made 3 teams, right before coming to the Pistons and accepting a reduced role. Rodman made 2 all-star and 2 all-nba teams, and had 2 DPOYs. Nobody who makes multiple all-nba teams is likely to be a "borderline all-star". You could argue that these guys were borderline all-nba players, which is closer to my assessment, but even that is a bit of a stretch when they ranked as high as 6th, 10th, 10th and 12th in MVP, and mostly got MVP votes multiple years. What sort of borderline all-star gets MVP votes multiple years. It's just a silly position to hold.

Nothing has been misrepresented by me, I certainly didn't claim Aguirre was "past his prime" on the Pistons, which is certainly bogus. Isiah had 4 all-nba calibre guys on his team, plus 4 other fine role players who ranged from "defensive monster" to "6th man candidate" to "starter quality 5 man". That is a fantastically deep support cast, well above what the average star gets on a title run. Isiah needed it, because he wasn't a genuine superstar, franchise player sort. He was one all-nba player among many on the team, part of an ensemble cast, whose role was blown out of proportion for narrative/marketing reasons. He probably was the best player on the team still when they won, but it's not certain, and if he was it was barely.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

But Isiah has a huge reputation. The thing about Isiah is that he's one of ten guys in NBA history who was, at least in perception, the best player on a back-to-back champion. In chronological order:

Mikan
Russell
Magic
Isiah
Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron
Steph(sorry KD fans, giving it to Steph)

But as stated that's perception.

Of those ten, eight have already been inducted in the Top 15 of the current Top 100 project, and it seems like Mikan might get in the next few rounds. Isiah probably won't get in until the 40s at the earliest.

Because threshold stats are bad, this isn't a measure of players, the value of consecutiveness of titles is unclear and it's certainly not clear he was the best player on both those teams (briefly oversimplifying there's little statistically that suggest clear number 1 in any part of '89; Dumars is edging very slightly ahead in accolades; even at the time after the second title, after the stronger individual playoff run; sources that were giving him the "makes them when it counts", "he's a winner" type spin [not actual quotes] (one actual quote: explaining why he's ranked a lot better than his numbers "two rings explains it all" [argh!]) they rank him as the fourth best point behind Magic, Stockton and KJ [Barry and Cohn, '90]. Same source lists Dumars as 2nd among 2s. Now (after 1) pg is a tougher field so it's not some definitive thing but, for contemporary sources this is the best point to overrate Thomas and it's certainly not clear that he's thought of as better than Dumars. Other sources may differ.

This would just be either a reason why people overrate him or a bad case to anchor him to these guys.

And the Pistons were one controversial-to-this-day

"To this day" ... usually the implication is "from the time. And I think this was built up after. The commentators see no controversy at the time.
Lazenby's book about all NBA finals (from closer to the time ... first ed I think circa '90, revised after '96) mentions it .... with no comment (the generous view is "whistled for a foul" doesn't state that the whistle is accurate ... there's no focus on it whatsoever it's just mentioned as a passage of play among many others). I don't know but my impression is the heat came from Pistons whining after the fact.

And they're wrong to. Kareem goes up vertical. Laimbeer jumps into him. Call it soft, ticky-tack, whatever. He fouls him.

foul call away from winning the title in 1988

No. There's time on the clock (14 seconds) and Worthy is looking in the best position to get the rebound. And even if he didn't the Lakers are down by 1. So they'd be in a bad position but not dead.

so Isiah was nearly one of five guys in NBA history who was, at least in perception, the best player on a three-peat champion.

As covered a bad measure of players, arbitrary, not necessarily true for Isiah and in this case hypothetical if a call had been botched, Worthy hadn't got the rebound ... The Pistons outscored the Lakers ... I imagine there is a better call people could argue should be flipped, or just point to the points dif.

He had iconic playoff scoring outbursts like this:

Watch on YouTube

and this:

Watch on YouTube

and it's those sorts of memories that people attach to him. (Though it's worth noting the Pistons lost both those games, the latter was a result of that controversial foul call.)

But his spurtability has been covered (as a willingness to shoot teams in and out of games) and this just isn't a measure of player goodness.

Isiah was one of the biggest names in the league from the mid-80s to the early 90s. I'm going to disagree with what OaD says here:

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.

Specifically the underlined parts. I don't think he was seen as a generational player in his own era, but I do think he was seen as a star player and, as I said, he was one of the biggest names in the game.

When you say there was no public outrage, you're leaving out the biggest instance where a lot of people felt Isiah got wronged - when he got left off the Dream Team. Outrage is not the right word, but it was a big deal when he was left off the team where he would've been the biggest name outside of MJ/Magic/Bird. I mean, Isiah had burned so many bridges by then and MJ specifically didn't want to play with him, but to people who didn't know that(and even some that did), the notion that Isiah could be left off the team was very, very surprising.

This was the media and fans; players within the league probably saw it differently. This passage from Jack McCallum's "Dream Team" certainly makes it seem like the big names knew Isiah wasn't on Jordan/Magic/Bird's level:

The extent to which Jordan, Magic, and Bird formed a subset within the universe of great players cannot be overestimated. Magic and Bird had been measured against each other for over a decade by that time, and Jordan had come along to join them; the three formed the golden tripod on which the NBA was standing strong. No one else could join this exclusive club. Some players, like Barkley, understood this and carved out a comfortable position outside the tripod but friend to all three. Others, like Malone, may have resented the primacy of Michael/Magic/Larry but remained on the outside, smoldering but seemingly unconcerned.

Isiah was different. It was an enduring frustration for him that he could not break into this select society, that, as great as he was, he was on the outside looking in. Had he been as tall as Magic or Larry, or even Michael, yes, perhaps it would've been a Big Four(Isiah would make that point, in typically ham-handed fashion, years later.) But at 6'1', he just couldn't dominate like the others, and it gnawed at him that he was, in his view, perpetually underappreciated.

I don't personally think Isiah should've been on the team - both because Stockton was a better player in 1992(maybe always) and because too many people on that team hated him - but it was a huge story that he wasn't on the team and, even to this day, you can hardly tell the story of the Dream Team without talking about the fact that a lot of people think Isiah was snubbed.

Isiah was ranked #43 in the last Top 100 and I think that's fair. His team accomplishments and reputation would have you think Top 15, and his statistical reality would have you think maybe #60 or worse, so #43 seems like a fair compromise.

On star ... it depends what you mean. The MVP voting has been covered and he only ever got 1 first place vote, the same amount as Kelvin Ransey is a close time frame. He wasn't just getting bested by the big 3, but even in his best finish by Bernard King, Cummings would take the 5th spot next year, Nique would take 2nd in '86 ... it wasn't just the titans blocking his path).

Star is fuzzy and not a measurement of player performance. I'd say he was a second tier "star".

On Dream Team ... was it a huge story at the time. It was a story. My impression is it's something Thomas sympathizers and perhaps Thomas bring up. I wonder if it's been inflated.
It doesn't matter though. It shouldn't be a controversy. By the time the team was selected it's clear that Stockton is better (and as implied it may not have been a recent surpassing, but it's clear at this point). He's also a better fit as a willing passer, spacer, defender. And fwiw, yes there's that he doesn't seem to have done things [I don't know about the truth of them] to burn bridges with each of the sports biggest three stars.

I think the "compromise" is a really bad angle. Even if it were valid ... lets look at that reputation
If I said there's a guy who's top 15 on "reputation" and you asked how many MVPs have they won?
"Oh, zero."
Probably a lot of podiums then, where is he in MVP shares?
"94th on NBA-ABA combined, between Jayson Tatum and Lenny Wilkens." *(caveats about this measure across eras, though he's on the 5 man ballot era, so otoh I think he benefits)
He was iconic at his position though?
"Well, never the best at it."
etc

Implicitly throughout this you seem to accept that the case for giving him the glory for things in obtuse ways ... well he might not actually qualify for these groups even if they were valid measures.

There are smart people who seem to disagree with me, people can have their own criteria etc, but I think 43 is substantially too high for Thomas.

You're debating all of my points like you think I'm some big Isiah supporter. I'm not really. I agree with you(as evidenced by the parts of my post you didn't quote) that he's statistically not very impressive, and when I started listing those positives, they were largely a devil's advocate "this is the perception and this is why people might vote him higher" kind of thing - the B2B titles, the fact that he beat Bird/Magic/MJ(though, yes, Magic barely played when the Pistons won), the 1988 ankle sprain performance that was a staple of ESPN Classic and NBA TV for years and years before Youtube was a thing, the noise over the Dream Team omission(which, yes, I believe was a significant story at the time), etc. I'm just saying those are things that strong Isiah supporters would bring up.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I'm not as down on him as you and some others in this thread are, but I'm not some big proponent either.

I will say - and this is coming from a lifelong Bulls fan who should hate those teams - I do think the Bad Boys as a team are somewhat underappreciated - they were a deep, tough, smart team.

I think Jack McCloskey is one of the more underappreciated GMs ever for how he built that Pistons team throughout the 80s - he didn't luck into other teams' #1 overall picks like West(Magic, Worthy) and Auerbach(Barry Carroll->Mchale/Parish) did in that time period.

Isiah was the highest pick at #2 in 1981.
Dumars was #18 in 1985.
Sally was #11 in 1987, a pick acquired as compensation for Terry Tyler being signed away.
Rodman was a second round pick in 1986.
Traded 1979 #4 pick Greg Kelser for 1979 #7 pick Vinnie Johnson in 1981 - he swapped a guy who was out of the league by 1985 for a mainstay who would be the Pistons for a decade
Acquired Laimbeer in trade.
Swapped Kelly Tripucka(#12 pick in 1981) for Adrian Dantley, and then Dantley for Aguirre.
Swapped 1984 #8 pick and Cliff Levingston for Dan Roundfeld, who one year later was swapped for the second round pick used to draft Rick Mahorn
Swapped role player Sidney Green for the second round pick used on Ron Moore, who a year later was swapped for James Edwards

[Owly]

But Isiah has a huge reputation. The thing about Isiah is that he's one of ten guys in NBA history who was, at least in perception, the best player on a back-to-back champion. In chronological order:

Mikan
Russell
Magic
Isiah
Jordan
Hakeem
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron
Steph(sorry KD fans, giving it to Steph)

But as stated that's perception.

Of those ten, eight have already been inducted in the Top 15 of the current Top 100 project, and it seems like Mikan might get in the next few rounds. Isiah probably won't get in until the 40s at the earliest.

Because threshold stats are bad, this isn't a measure of players, the value of consecutiveness of titles is unclear and it's certainly not clear he was the best player on both those teams (briefly oversimplifying there's little statistically that suggest clear number 1 in any part of '89; Dumars is edging very slightly ahead in accolades; even at the time after the second title, after the stronger individual playoff run; sources that were giving him the "makes them when it counts", "he's a winner" type spin [not actual quotes] (one actual quote: explaining why he's ranked a lot better than his numbers "two rings explains it all" [argh!]) they rank him as the fourth best point behind Magic, Stockton and KJ [Barry and Cohn, '90]. Same source lists Dumars as 2nd among 2s. Now (after 1) pg is a tougher field so it's not some definitive thing but, for contemporary sources this is the best point to overrate Thomas and it's certainly not clear that he's thought of as better than Dumars. Other sources may differ.

This would just be either a reason why people overrate him or a bad case to anchor him to these guys.

And the Pistons were one controversial-to-this-day

"To this day" ... usually the implication is "from the time. And I think this was built up after. The commentators see no controversy at the time.
Lazenby's book about all NBA finals (from closer to the time ... first ed I think circa '90, revised after '96) mentions it .... with no comment (the generous view is "whistled for a foul" doesn't state that the whistle is accurate ... there's no focus on it whatsoever it's just mentioned as a passage of play among many others). I don't know but my impression is the heat came from Pistons whining after the fact.

And they're wrong to. Kareem goes up vertical. Laimbeer jumps into him. Call it soft, ticky-tack, whatever. He fouls him.

foul call away from winning the title in 1988

No. There's time on the clock (14 seconds) and Worthy is looking in the best position to get the rebound. And even if he didn't the Lakers are down by 1. So they'd be in a bad position but not dead.

so Isiah was nearly one of five guys in NBA history who was, at least in perception, the best player on a three-peat champion.

As covered a bad measure of players, arbitrary, not necessarily true for Isiah and in this case hypothetical if a call had been botched, Worthy hadn't got the rebound ... The Pistons outscored the Lakers ... I imagine there is a better call people could argue should be flipped, or just point to the points dif.

He had iconic playoff scoring outbursts like this:

Watch on YouTube

and this:

Watch on YouTube

and it's those sorts of memories that people attach to him. (Though it's worth noting the Pistons lost both those games, the latter was a result of that controversial foul call.)

But his spurtability has been covered (as a willingness to shoot teams in and out of games) and this just isn't a measure of player goodness.

Isiah was one of the biggest names in the league from the mid-80s to the early 90s. I'm going to disagree with what OaD says here:



Specifically the underlined parts. I don't think he was seen as a generational player in his own era, but I do think he was seen as a star player and, as I said, he was one of the biggest names in the game.

When you say there was no public outrage, you're leaving out the biggest instance where a lot of people felt Isiah got wronged - when he got left off the Dream Team. Outrage is not the right word, but it was a big deal when he was left off the team where he would've been the biggest name outside of MJ/Magic/Bird. I mean, Isiah had burned so many bridges by then and MJ specifically didn't want to play with him, but to people who didn't know that(and even some that did), the notion that Isiah could be left off the team was very, very surprising.

This was the media and fans; players within the league probably saw it differently. This passage from Jack McCallum's "Dream Team" certainly makes it seem like the big names knew Isiah wasn't on Jordan/Magic/Bird's level:



I don't personally think Isiah should've been on the team - both because Stockton was a better player in 1992(maybe always) and because too many people on that team hated him - but it was a huge story that he wasn't on the team and, even to this day, you can hardly tell the story of the Dream Team without talking about the fact that a lot of people think Isiah was snubbed.

Isiah was ranked #43 in the last Top 100 and I think that's fair. His team accomplishments and reputation would have you think Top 15, and his statistical reality would have you think maybe #60 or worse, so #43 seems like a fair compromise.

On star ... it depends what you mean. The MVP voting has been covered and he only ever got 1 first place vote, the same amount as Kelvin Ransey is a close time frame. He wasn't just getting bested by the big 3, but even in his best finish by Bernard King, Cummings would take the 5th spot next year, Nique would take 2nd in '86 ... it wasn't just the titans blocking his path).

Star is fuzzy and not a measurement of player performance. I'd say he was a second tier "star".

On Dream Team ... was it a huge story at the time. It was a story. My impression is it's something Thomas sympathizers and perhaps Thomas bring up. I wonder if it's been inflated.
It doesn't matter though. It shouldn't be a controversy. By the time the team was selected it's clear that Stockton is better (and as implied it may not have been a recent surpassing, but it's clear at this point). He's also a better fit as a willing passer, spacer, defender. And fwiw, yes there's that he doesn't seem to have done things [I don't know about the truth of them] to burn bridges with each of the sports biggest three stars.

I think the "compromise" is a really bad angle. Even if it were valid ... lets look at that reputation
If I said there's a guy who's top 15 on "reputation" and you asked how many MVPs have they won?
"Oh, zero."
Probably a lot of podiums then, where is he in MVP shares?
"94th on NBA-ABA combined, between Jayson Tatum and Lenny Wilkens." *(caveats about this measure across eras, though he's on the 5 man ballot era, so otoh I think he benefits)
He was iconic at his position though?
"Well, never the best at it."
etc

Implicitly throughout this you seem to accept that the case for giving him the glory for things in obtuse ways ... well he might not actually qualify for these groups even if they were valid measures.

There are smart people who seem to disagree with me, people can have their own criteria etc, but I think 43 is substantially too high for Thomas.

You're debating all of my points like you think I'm some big Isiah supporter. I'm not really. I agree with you(as evidenced by the parts of my post you didn't quote) that he's statistically not very impressive, and when I started listing those positives, they were largely a devil's advocate "this is the perception and this is why people might vote him higher" kind of thing - the B2B titles, the fact that he beat Bird/Magic/MJ(though, yes, Magic barely played when the Pistons won), the 1988 ankle sprain performance that was a staple of ESPN Classic and NBA TV for years and years before Youtube was a thing, the noise over the Dream Team omission(which, yes, I believe was a significant story at the time), etc. I'm just saying those are things that strong Isiah supporters would bring up.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I'm not as down on him as you and some others in this thread are, but I'm not some big proponent either.

I will say - and this is coming from a lifelong Bulls fan who should hate those teams - I do think the Bad Boys as a team are somewhat underappreciated - they were a deep, tough, smart team.

I think Jack McCloskey is one of the more underappreciated GMs ever for how he built that Pistons team throughout the 80s - he didn't luck into other teams' #1 overall picks like West(Magic, Worthy) and Auerbach(Barry Carroll->Mchale/Parish) did in that time period.

Isiah was the highest pick at #2 in 1981.
Dumars was #18 in 1985.
Sall[e]y was #11 in 1987, a pick acquired as compensation for Terry Tyler being signed away.
Rodman was a second round pick in 1986.
Traded 1979 #4 pick Greg Kelser for 1979 #7 pick Vinnie Johnson in 1981 - he swapped a guy who was out of the league by 1985 for a mainstay who would be the Pistons for a decade
Acquired Laimbeer in trade.
Swapped Kelly Tripucka(#12 pick in 1981) for Adrian Dantley, and then Dantley for Aguirre.
Swapped 1984 #8 pick and Cliff Levingston for Dan Roundfield, who one year later was swapped for the second round pick used to draft Rick Mahorn
Swapped role player Sidney Green for the second round pick used on Ron Moore, who a year later was swapped for James Edwards

So the thing is ... I see you giving all the caveats - he might not be the best guy etc.
You seem aware that many pro-Isiah arguments are contrived
and yet when it comes down to it you seem to say
"well lets just split the difference between these bad arguments and what actually makes sense evaluating him as a player." And that might be more ... more of a hook wanting to respond (I'm trying to ignore those who after a couple of exchanges seem like ... this isn't productive, you're entrenched [perhaps in a view I think might not be informed] or you're consistently a jerk or there's no common ground or whatever) when you see they must know scoring binges and maybe a three-peat if the rules weren't properly enforced (and I'll stand by my nit-picking there, even if the foul call was missed, Worthy was in the best position and even if he didn't get it or he missed quickly, LA can still foul (repeatedly if not in the penalty) and get the ball back at worst down 3) are bad arguments but you say well split the difference.

It's not that I think your stupid or some big smelly mark for Isiah Thomas. Its that there's a hat tip that these aren't good arguments but without going to the logical conclusion of ... "and of course these are not representative of player skill, are based on team level performance and do not justify a ranking in the vicinity of X-Y unless your ranking is very, very heavily weighted towards narrative." And I'd stand by all that I said.

I would say check youtube if you think the Pistons are underappreciated (actual suggestion - don't). I've been aware of two video series putting them on a short list of the greatest teams. And you see the Chicago Bulls '96 (makes sense); Golden State '17 (makes sense); Milwaukee Bucks '71 (makes sense) etc, actual dominant teams and then and the Detroit Pistons. They're 2 circa 6 SRS team iirc (maybe a smidge above on average - actually just checked a touch below - they do have some RS injuries in '89 - not huge but maybe mess with their rotation). '89 they have quite a lot of luck with opponent injuries in the playoffs but also do run through in a dominant manner. So smart, tough, deep ... absolutely. Underrated ... off what I see not so much.

If someone gives me a coherent reason to by my criteria I'll happily move. Being standard deviations out, or on an island or whatever on the downside for a guy isn't fun. Or if someone says "to me Isiah Thomas is the face of that team, that team won two titles, some great players were in the league at that time, that's what is important to me" I may not think it's a worthwhile or serious list, I may even say that but it could be internally coherent. But as I've note I think he's been aggressively pushed by some and it's set his anchors too high and if you took names and circumstances away and had to choose between him and Baron Davis ... I think I'd feel better taking Davis (better playoff numbers, better certainty of impact) ... maybe longevity makes it a push. Maybe he's a little ahead of Gus Williams but I wouldn't see a big gap there. But I don't think some people really care about the playoff rise or playoff absolute levels so much as the titles (though Gus has one) and "he beat these individual players in team sport ..." and narratives and their guys.

Jack ... had a good run. I'll say you missed acquiring William Bedford for a first. And whilst it would have been risky and you can't argue with the results as it happened to happen he walked into an expansion draft where you could protect 8 players with a 9 player rotation so perhaps could have looked consolidate assets (or if possible get them to promise to take someone else for future compensation [pick/picks] if possible but that's more a last minute thing and I think he did try to do that). But yeah a very good job putting together useful pieces from non-blue-chip assets.
Minnesota was less successful, I don't whether that was luck (don't think they had good draft position luck early on) or losing touch or what.

I wouldn't say teams lucked into getting those number 1s. There's some luck in the coin flip and we can't know exactly how teams thought of those assets but Boston and LA either made those moves ... or I don't know the process of free-agent compensation whether they were lucky or persuasive or what in the Goodrich case.

[McBubbles]

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.

1. It's not about physically being able to do something, it's about being able to do something whilst maintaining effectiveness. Dribbling wasn't "dumbed down" in older eras, it was restricted in older eras. It's dumbed down now. It's not unusual to see modern players routinely do crossovers with the ball being nearly in level with their chest! Usually after having just been underhand palming the ball for a few seconds before hand Could modern PG's dribble like players in the 60's if they needed to? Probably. Could modern PG's be just as effective if they did? **** no. It's not entirely a matter of talent evolution, the rules just make it easier for perimeter players to be better now.

2. Mid range shooting and 3 point shooting are entirely different skills A 3 point shooter couldn't "just" start jacking up mid-range shots and become a master mid-range shooter. Where is this coming from.

[penbeast0]

It's bad all the way down to middle school level. I have a student who routinely locks the ball to his hip and takes 2 or 3 steps when going to the hoop. He says they all do it and it's allowed in AAU ball. Fortunately I'm not coaching this year and don't HAVE to deal.

I think the lack of enforcement of dribbling and traveling rules have weakened the skill sets of perimeter player, not strengthened them. Heck, we used to routinely yell at LeBron in those Washington playoff losses for his picking up his dribble while still running and taking 3 or 4 steps when going to the hoop. Had a "LeTravel" sign to hold up and everything.

The other skill set that is weaker in today's game is post play. With most big guys either limited to defense and putbacks or going out to shoot 3's in a 5 out offense, post play is consistently neglected in teaching and developmental play and it carries over to the NBA.

What is much stronger today is long range shooting as everyone practices from 3 constantly, finishing at the rim by going around players rather than doing the Iverson/Harden trick of just jumping into them, and switching which is far more sophisticated than what I grew up with. I would say running plays off picks, particularly off ball picks, but another thing the refs aren't calling consistently is the moving screen which is illegal but common at every level.

[Djoker]

I have Isiah as the 5th best PG of all time. This is my sort of tentative top 10 list.

1. Magic
2. Curry
3. Oscar

4. Nash
5. Isiah
6. Paul
7. Frazier
8. Stockton
9. Kidd
10. Cousy

HM: Payton, Westbrook

Top 3 are pretty non-negotiable.

The next tier has a lot of guys including Nash, Paul, Isiah, Stockton, Cousy, Kidd...

Nash has super impressive impact numbers led monster offenses better than just about anyone. His lack of defense doesn't concern me because defense isn't that important for a PG. Offense is like 90% of the game for a PG.

Paul I think is a lesser player than his stats show due to so many bad playoff performances and playoff injuries. Those who value longevity probably have him at least #4 on this list but not me.

Frazier is the anti-CP3. His game got massively better in the playoffs. The only issue is even for a guy that doesn't value longevity his prime was way too short. In terms of pure value at his peak, he's probably #4 for me.

Stockton and Kidd just couldn't take games over with their scoring. Thomas gets criticized for his lack of scoring efficiency but he's still a way more capable scorer than Kidd and Stockton.

Cousy is literally an even less efficient Thomas. He's honestly Isiah of the 50's in terms of being a great floor general but inefficient volume scorer.

Payton is kind of a wild card. Honestly think I might be underrating him. He can go much higher. His issue is just way less achievements than others.

Westbrook could also make this list but I think his boneheaded play really hurts his impact. He's another guy I struggle to rank. Talent-wise he's right at the top but I probably wouldn't want him on my team over any of the top 10 in most situations.

All in all, Isiah is a really great floor general who plays good defense and scores at slightly below league efficiency. He raises his game a lot in the playoffs and finals. And that's something that matters a lot. He is maybe barely top 10 in terms of regular season only but when looking at the playoffs, his stock jumps considerably.

[Cavsfansince84]

I tend to put him in the 40's or thereabouts. Near or just below guys like Pierce. I am generally pretty high on Isiah's prime but I think you have to accept he had limitations and not so great longevity. His defense isn't bad or great. It's more like ok but he could turn it up I think. If you watch the Pistons/Bulls ecf's from 89-90 you can see how engaged he could be on traps and forcing turnovers. I don't think he was a clear #1 on those Pistons teams but I think he was the primary leader that the other guys followed(along with Daly). He knew who to feed and when he needed to provide offense and the results back this up. His teams were very gritty and mentally strong which sort of starts with Isiah. MJ hated him in part because they are very alike in how competitive they were and MJ hates losing.

[One_and_Done]

Watch some old NBA skill challenge. It's relatively easy for hyper skilled guys to adapt. Dribble with one hand? No problem. It's asking an amatuer dribbler to suddenly have Shamgod handles that's almost impossible.

[penbeast0]

You seriously underestimate the degree to which players, especially today, ingrain habits very early. It's the reason so many guys can hit the 3 while in the early ABA, the percentage the 1st year was .285. Players had been taught to get closer, closer, closer rather than shoot from out there. Now, every kid I know shoots and practices constantly from 3 point range, even the elementary kids who can barely throw the ball that far.

You get skills deeply ingrained into your muscle memory by doing them thousands and thousands of times. One reason why Oscar had better handles than West was that he grew up in a city environment and literally dribbled a basketball everywhere (to the annoyance of his parents and teachers) while West grew up in an area of West Virginia where the court were frequently dirt and so you were more rewarded for shooting from outside. Not the only reasons of course, but part of it, and years of NBA experience improved West's handles and Oscar's outside shot but not to the degree they matched the other. Same happens today.

[penbeast0]

...Stockton and Kidd just couldn't take games over with their scoring. Thomas gets criticized for his lack of scoring efficiency but he's still a way more capable scorer than Kidd and Stockton....

Again, this idea that Nash was a great volume scorer and Stockton was Don Buse is a false dichotomy. If you had said that Nash's scoring is more resilient in the playoffs, sure, it is. It's one of the main strengths of Nash over Stockton. But Stockton scored nearly as much as Nash, upped his scoring game more when Malone wasn't in the game than Nash did when Amare was out, and was slightly more efficient.

Stockton was a hyper-efficient scorer (ts% of .608 career, 2465.7 TS Add over his career with a peak just over 200!) who would scored a consistent 15+ ppg over the course of a decade. Isiah was an inefficient scorer who was generally below league average efficiency but was very willing to chuck in bunches (ts% of .516 career, with a career negative TS Add of -.731 and only one year at league average or better). He gives you 5 more points a game in his scoring prime and that prime is only half as long as Stocktons (both had several more years where they were very good players). And that doesn't even include Stockton's greater playmaking.

[One_and_Done]

Stockton was hyper efficient in a league that didn't even understand what TS% was. In today's game where defence is geared to take away easy points Stockton's effectiveness would be much reduced.