Isiah Thomas vs Reggie Miller

[Ol Roy]

Hard to compare the two. One was a playmaker who couldn't shoot. The other was a shooter who couldn't play make. I'm generalizing here.

I think I'd view Joe Dumars and Terry Porter as midpoints; playmakers who could shoot. I like their archetype a little more than either of the extremes.

[Cavsfansince84]

One thing I'd bring up about Isiah is I think he gets downplayed a bit as a playmaker due to the rep the bad boys had as this slow paced defensive ensemble. I just want to bring up here are the ORtg's of the Pistons from before Isiah got drafted to the years immediately afterwards:

1980: 22nd out of 22 teams
1981: 23rd out of 23 teams
1982(Isiah's rookie year): 17th
1983: 11th
1984: 1st

Now it's true they also pick up Tripucka in 82 but its not like he set the world on fire(21.7ppg). So in short, the Pistons go from dead last in ORtg the year before Isiah gets there to 1st in a matter of 3 seasons with Isiah and Tripucka as their top 2 scoring options and with Isiah setting the apg record the following season. They were also top 7 in ORtg in 88&89 despite the rep as winning with defense. That's pretty damn impressive imo. There's a lot more to Isiah on offense than 'he was a bad shooter' on top of some great playoff series.

[Top10alltime]

Hard to compare the two. One was a playmaker who couldn't shoot. The other was a shooter who couldn't play make. I'm generalizing here.

I think I'd view Joe Dumars and Terry Porter as midpoints; playmakers who could shoot. I like their archetype a little more than either of the extremes.

Is Stephen Curry someone who couldn't playmake, despite being one of the greatest off-ball playmakers of all-time

Reggie Miller certainly could playmake, from his off-ball gravity alone. He was Stephen Curry before Stephen Curry. He is a great playmaker.

Not saying Isiah is worse at playmaking, but stop disrespecting Miller, he is vastly underrated

[Ol Roy]

Hard to compare the two. One was a playmaker who couldn't shoot. The other was a shooter who couldn't play make. I'm generalizing here.

I think I'd view Joe Dumars and Terry Porter as midpoints; playmakers who could shoot. I like their archetype a little more than either of the extremes.

Is Stephen Curry someone who couldn't playmake, despite being one of the greatest off-ball playmakers of all-time

Reggie Miller certainly could playmake, from his off-ball gravity alone. He was Stephen Curry before Stephen Curry. He is a great playmaker.

Not saying Isiah is worse at playmaking, but stop disrespecting Miller, he is vastly underrated

I realize some have a more expansive definition of playmaking than I do. I view gravity as more of a second-order benefit as opposed to playmaking, which I see as more directly involved. Gravity can lead to spacing and rim pressure, which might make more sense to include in playmaking. But whether you include gravity (or as Ben Taylor aptly described it in Miller's case, "tethering") in playmaking or not, overall, I don't think you could call him a great playmaker. The requisite ball handling and passing and just isn't there. Reggie's best attribute was efficient off-ball scoring. More often than not, the plays were being made for him.

Steph Curry is a hybrid on/off ball player. Mark Price would be more analogues. He was a great playmaker.

[f4p]

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

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

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

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

I would side with Reggie, but they are both some of the biggest playoff riders ever.

[migya]

Hard to compare the two. One was a playmaker who couldn't shoot. The other was a shooter who couldn't play make. I'm generalizing here.

I think I'd view Joe Dumars and Terry Porter as midpoints; playmakers who could shoot. I like their archetype a little more than either of the extremes.

Isiah was a better defender as well, pretty significant in this comparison. Reggie could score but as said before, he didn't score big often enough. He was never among the highest scorers.

[Cavsfansince84]

Hard to compare the two. One was a playmaker who couldn't shoot. The other was a shooter who couldn't play make. I'm generalizing here.

I think I'd view Joe Dumars and Terry Porter as midpoints; playmakers who could shoot. I like their archetype a little more than either of the extremes.

Isiah was a better defender as well, pretty significant in this comparison. Reggie could score but as said before, he didn't score big often enough. He was never among the highest scorers.

Yet at the same time he was a scorer who had over 190 ts add 11 times and over 300 twice and he was the leading scorer on offenses which ranked 7, 7, 6, 5, 11, 8, 6, 15, 4, 1, 1 from 1990-2000. His non stop movement on offense created a lot of openings for his teammates. Which makes up for his lack of playmaking I would say. Reggie basically operated as a finisher on the court.

[penbeast0]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons why one might conserve energy on D don't apply to this particular question which looks only at the defensive side of the ball. Energy is better than aggression because gambling for steals can be a lazy out on the defensive end (speaking from having done this at time, ) And while defensive IQ is important, it seems more important at the big man end of the scale. An awful lot of the great wing defenders in history also seem to be low in terms of (at least real world) IQ . . . Vernon Maxwell, Ron Artest/Meta World Peace, Dennis Rodman, etc. None are low energy.

All just anecdotal and eye test of course as these players are generally before analytics turned its numerical eye on individual defense outside of blocks and steals.

[Top10alltime]

Hard to compare the two. One was a playmaker who couldn't shoot. The other was a shooter who couldn't play make. I'm generalizing here.

I think I'd view Joe Dumars and Terry Porter as midpoints; playmakers who could shoot. I like their archetype a little more than either of the extremes.

Isiah was a better defender as well, pretty significant in this comparison. Reggie could score but as said before, he didn't score big often enough. He was never among the highest scorers.

Yet at the same time he was a scorer who had over 190 ts add 11 times and over 300 twice and who was the leading scorer on offenses which ranked 7, 7, 6, 5, 11, 8, 6, 15, 4, 1, 1 from 1990-2000. His non stop movement on offense created a lot of openings for his teammates. Which makes up for his lack of playmaking I would say. Reggie basically operated as a finisher on the court.

Reggie Miller playoffs offenses:
1990: +0.3 opp adj rORtg
1991: +10.3 opp adj rORtg
1992: +4.4 opp adj rORtg
1993: +11.5 opp adj rORtg
1994: +2.0 opp adj rORtg
1995: +6.9 opp adj rORtg
1998: +9.7 opp adj rORtg
1999: +7.4 opp adj rORtg
2000: +8.2 opp adj rORtg

Had one negative rORtg series in this stretch (-2.2 vs 1999-00 Milwaukee). And then in the finals, +15.4 opp adj rORtg against Shaq Lakers

Off-ball alone gives him a good value as a playmaker, and he is slightly lower if not higher than Isiah defensively.

[Owly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons why one might conserve energy on D don't apply to this particular question which looks only at the defensive side of the ball. Energy is better than aggression because gambling for steals can be a lazy out on the defensive end (speaking from having done this at time, ) And while defensive IQ is important, it seems more important at the big man end of the scale. An awful lot of the great wing defenders in history also seem to be low in terms of (at least real world) IQ . . . Vernon Maxwell, Ron Artest/Meta World Peace, Dennis Rodman, etc. None are low energy.

All just anecdotal and eye test of course as these players are generally before analytics turned its numerical eye on individual defense outside of blocks and steals.

On sentence one, I'm aware. In context I'm acknowledging it as a potential source of bias. One might assume that a player is giving less effort than they might because of greater assertions on the other end and bake in some upside, which (I would think) wouldn't be fair. Although, that said, it might be possible in the specific argument to suggest Miller's offensive motor physically exhausted rival SGs running routes through screens that indirectly hurt their offense. I don't know. In the end it can be argued the division between offense and defense is artificial.

On "real world IQ" ... two things. One I think in non-huge players especially, the concerted effort gets you noticed more. I think you're more likely to be heralded if you do "shorts hike", exaggerated stance, trash talk things. Whereas funneling a guy to the baseline or to your big is less likely to be noticed, but not necessarily less effective. Of course effort and concerted visual signals of apparent effort aren't necessarily the same thing. If I were trying to name more smart than effort defenders (especially if effort is tied to aggression and signalling effort) that were effective ... Battier? McKey? Prince? Deng? (at guard size Dumars? Cheeks? McMillan?) ... not that such players were low-effort, I don't know ... I think you need both.
And two, BBIQ and "IQ" and "common sense"/judgement are three different things. There may be some overlap but BBIQ and pattern recognition on the court might be reps and a very specific type of applied spatial mapping, pattern recognition and (mostly) visual memory.

It now seems we agree on the distinction between aggression and energy.

Fwiw, as stated it's hard to compare like with like and isolating such things might not even be possible in terms of how they interact with one another. And realistically I want both. I guess my thinking is low know-how messes up a scheme quicker, is more likely to show on every play, is harder to plan for among your other players but as I say, you need both, the factors interplay and it's probably arbitrary rather than something you can fairly compare (difficulty in measuring effort and BBIQ, lack of meaningful comparable scale, possible selection bias in who makes it to the league).

[migya]

Hard to compare the two. One was a playmaker who couldn't shoot. The other was a shooter who couldn't play make. I'm generalizing here.

I think I'd view Joe Dumars and Terry Porter as midpoints; playmakers who could shoot. I like their archetype a little more than either of the extremes.

Isiah was a better defender as well, pretty significant in this comparison. Reggie could score but as said before, he didn't score big often enough. He was never among the highest scorers.

Yet at the same time he was a scorer who had over 190 ts add 11 times and over 300 twice and he was the leading scorer on offenses which ranked 7, 7, 6, 5, 11, 8, 6, 15, 4, 1, 1 from 1990-2000. His non stop movement on offense created a lot of openings for his teammates. Which makes up for his lack of playmaking I would say. Reggie basically operated as a finisher on the court.

Those aren't extraordinary results. He also had Mark Jackson, one of the best playmaking PGs that era and alltime, Smits, one of the best offensive Centers with good shooting, Schrempf and then McKey, two very good playmaking and generally offensive SFs, and the Davises, Antonio being better scorer and both being very good screen setters.

[Cavsfansince84]

Those aren't extraordinary results. He also had Mark Jackson, one of the best playmaking PGs that era and alltime, Smits, one of the best offensive Centers with good shooting, Schrempf and then McKey, two very good playmaking and generally offensive SFs, and the Davises, Antonio being better scorer and both being very good screen setters.

Well, I think it would make sense to have some bigs who can set good screens if a big part of the offense revolves around having a guy come off of them to get open shots. Of course they had offensive talent most years. You don't get the #1 ORtg in the league multiple times without it. So it's a question of how much you want to give credit to Reggie to some degree. It's not like I am really arguing Reggie over Isiah here either. Just making points for both guys really.

[One_and_Done]

Thomas would be a huge liability on D in today's game. He was passable to solid in his era of iso ball, but today other teams would be calling him up on every other play in the playoffs.

[penbeast0]

Isiah was a better defender as well, pretty significant in this comparison. Reggie could score but as said before, he didn't score big often enough. He was never among the highest scorers.

Yet at the same time he was a scorer who had over 190 ts add 11 times and over 300 twice and he was the leading scorer on offenses which ranked 7, 7, 6, 5, 11, 8, 6, 15, 4, 1, 1 from 1990-2000. His non stop movement on offense created a lot of openings for his teammates. Which makes up for his lack of playmaking I would say. Reggie basically operated as a finisher on the court.

Those aren't extraordinary results. He also had Mark Jackson, one of the best playmaking PGs that era and alltime, Smits, one of the best offensive Centers with good shooting, Schrempf and then McKey, two very good playmaking and generally offensive SFs, and the Davises, Antonio being better scorer and both being very good screen setters.

And are Curry's results not extraordinary either? He's a PG with one of the best playmaking bigs of all time and consistently excellent shooting around him together with a coach that designed an excellent high screening offense for 3 point shooters.

[penbeast0]

Thomas would be a huge liability on D in today's game. He was passable to solid in his era of iso ball, but today other teams would be calling him up on every other play in the playoffs.

What makes Isiah more vulnerable than, say, Chris Paul who is generally considered still an excellent defender in this era? You always claim to be talking about toolsets, what in Isiah's toolset makes him so vulnerable other than that he played in an era where you feel every player would be a scrub today except a few of your favorites.

[Owly]

Thomas would be a huge liability on D in today's game. He was passable to solid in his era of iso ball, but today other teams would be calling him up on every other play in the playoffs.

What makes Isiah more vulnerable than, say, Chris Paul who is generally considered still an excellent defender in this era? You always claim to be talking about toolsets, what in Isiah's toolset makes him so vulnerable other than that he played in an era where you feel every player would be a scrub today except a few of your favorites.

So ... I'm not going to interject on the 1-to-1 skillset discussion or claim to support the particular cross-era read. Maybe you'll get the real value you want in that discussion.

But on whether they are analogous beyond beyond being short guards ...

I will say Chris Paul has real statistical evidence, varying somewhat depending on source/tool of choice, to support him as a good defender.

Thomas isn't in an era where impact data is really strong (though fwiw in the very limited samples I think Squared/Justin's RAPM data likes him. But other than that he's never out long enough in prime to even do WoWY type stuff and the one time he is ('91) ... the read gets contaminated by Salley's absence (my recollection is one of your fellow mods did have that as evidence of Thomas's defense specifically, my reading was that went away after controlling for Salley).

And on the qualitative side reporting is mixed on Thomas. Early on he takes heat (most notably from Bob Ryan's all-sieve team, but also part what was regarded as a weak defensive backcourt with Long) as a poor defender and gambler. Late on he's dubbed "close to a matador" (after '93 by Barry and Cohn, though curiously still enough for "B" grade) and his on raw on-off looks worse than rookie Lindsey Hunter in '94. That still leaves the clear bulk of his prime and his career value though. There my mental aggregation of what I've read suggests somewhere from (league) average (which would be below starter average) to quite (but I think not notably) good starter. Perhaps more at the upper end when locked in but that not being a given (something that, to me, jars somewhat with interpretations of his leadership being a driving force of the team's goodness and identity). "Dangerous" (though sometimes expressed a capacity e.g. "Can be ...") and a willing helper, distracting with active hands but someone who even at Detroit's apex was not thought of a as a shutdown defender but someone who could get beat off the dribble or lost on screens and prone to getting "bored".

Subjectively, as the only true point guard on a time that briefly went at least two deep at every other position (Dumars, Johnson; Rodman, Dantley/Aguirre; Mahorn, Salley; Laimbeer, Edwards - plus some versatility across the frontcourt) he had some (artificial?) contextual value overall in that whilst Dumars could play a conservative "spot" one, doing so in a more extended way (and pushing the guards minutes because none of the forwards can play guard) would take something from the team (perhaps including Dumars' defensive motor). It surely seems he wasn't really an obstacle to what was for a time good defense (regular season rDrt -3.1; -4.6; -3.3 between 89 and 91) I'm just not convinced (unlike some playoff boxscore aggregates - he did up his steals in the playoffs) that he's much of a positive driver either. Obviously there's uncertainty there and we're lacking on the data side.

[Owly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


At the margins I would argue ...

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

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

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

I decided to look at the other purportedly great defenses that the Hawks and Bulls had versus Detroit. Hawks first.

The teams played in '86, '87 and '91. The Hawks relative Drtgs those years
-1.6
-3.1
2.2
I think only one of those could plausibly fit within the band "great" ('87) and even that isn't a given.

Even if we throw out '91 as ... I don't know, not within the scope somehow ... and acknowledge "great" as a very high bar to hit ... at the margins it's arguable that Fratello was a better coach to eke out regular season wins than to sustain into the playoffs though that may only have been luck.

For the Bulls there's 88, 89, 90, 91 with respective relative Drtgs of
-2.5
-0.1
0.9
-2.7
Where honestly "great" seems a little strong for any of these and pretty far off the mark on their average quality (-1.1) and whilst not bad, not terribly notable for a playoff opponent.

[migya]

Yet at the same time he was a scorer who had over 190 ts add 11 times and over 300 twice and he was the leading scorer on offenses which ranked 7, 7, 6, 5, 11, 8, 6, 15, 4, 1, 1 from 1990-2000. His non stop movement on offense created a lot of openings for his teammates. Which makes up for his lack of playmaking I would say. Reggie basically operated as a finisher on the court.

Those aren't extraordinary results. He also had Mark Jackson, one of the best playmaking PGs that era and alltime, Smits, one of the best offensive Centers with good shooting, Schrempf and then McKey, two very good playmaking and generally offensive SFs, and the Davises, Antonio being better scorer and both being very good screen setters.

And are Curry's results not extraordinary either? He's a PG with one of the best playmaking bigs of all time and consistently excellent shooting around him together with a coach that designed an excellent high screening offense for 3 point shooters.

Curry is very good but definitely benefited from a well built team around him. He was maximised and didn't have anything else placed on him than to score, running off screens mostly. Other stars alltime look to have had more placed on them and in various facets than he did. One of the reasons why I don't have curry anywhere near the alltijme greats.

[GeorgeMarcus]

They were very different players, but 'in a vacuum' I'd say it's close. Leaning toward Reggie only because his skillset is easier to plug into any offensive system

[Top10alltime]

They were very different players, but 'in a vacuum' I'd say it's close. Leaning toward Reggie only because his skillset is easier to plug into any offensive system

How is it close, at all, outside of rings that Isiah wasn't even the best player on the team for?