Isiah Thomas 1990 or Steve Nash 2006, who was better?

[Doctor MJ]

Defense wins championships.

And what does that mean in this conversation where both are considered stars because of their offense?

[Brenice]

[
League average:

'89-90 53.7% TS, 108.1 team ORtg
'95-96 53.6% TS, 106.2 team ORtg

It's really important to understand precisely when changes happened. Isiah didn't peak in an era dominated by defense, that was the NEXT era. 80s NBA is actually known for offensive ease, and ridiculous assist numbers. It was the 90s where hand checking started to get really abused, which eventually resulted in the last of many clarifications. (Hand checking was never supposed to allow you to impede the offensive player, the league kept trying to crack down to make sure that players didn't use it as such until they finally snapped and had the epiphany "Wait a minute, the main reason anybody hand checks is to impede, let's just cut that out altogether)

The bottom line is that Isiah was never a guy who made shots with strong efficiency. Isiah tends to hover around the 50th percentile on that front, while Nash is at about the 99th despite uping his volume significantly when the game is on the line.

So Isiah played in an era where you couldn't put a hand on the man facing you up? I wonder what Dennis Johnson was doing in Boston. I clearly remember Michael Cooper hand-checking too. Magic had to put a hand on you, he had no choice.

Those players would have had to hand-check Nash cause they sure couldn't keep him out the lane otherwise. I just think those efficiency numbers would drop some for Nash. I don't know how much, and it doesn't mean he is not a great player. Danny Ainge was another one. He grabbed all the time. Sidney Moncrief was a physical defender. There were others too. Not to say Ainge or Moncrief defended Zeke at the point, but think about this, was Dumars hand-checking MJ? They were handchecking back then.

[Jimmy76]

Nash still had about 60 ts% during the handchecking era while Isiah shot relatively bad percentages during the peak of nba fg%

You can't really excuse your way out of a 15 ts% difference

And before pace get brought up Isiah spent most of his career playing at a higher pace than Nash

[Doctor MJ]

[
League average:

'89-90 53.7% TS, 108.1 team ORtg
'95-96 53.6% TS, 106.2 team ORtg

It's really important to understand precisely when changes happened. Isiah didn't peak in an era dominated by defense, that was the NEXT era. 80s NBA is actually known for offensive ease, and ridiculous assist numbers. It was the 90s where hand checking started to get really abused, which eventually resulted in the last of many clarifications. (Hand checking was never supposed to allow you to impede the offensive player, the league kept trying to crack down to make sure that players didn't use it as such until they finally snapped and had the epiphany "Wait a minute, the main reason anybody hand checks is to impede, let's just cut that out altogether)

The bottom line is that Isiah was never a guy who made shots with strong efficiency. Isiah tends to hover around the 50th percentile on that front, while Nash is at about the 99th despite uping his volume significantly when the game is on the line.

So Isiah played in an era where you couldn't put a hand on the man facing you up? I wonder what Dennis Johnson was doing in Boston. I clearly remember Michael Cooper hand-checking too. Magic had to put a hand on you, he had no choice.

No that's not what I said. I'll try again:

Hand checking abuse didn't start in the 80s, it was around in the 70s at the very least. The key point is that that amount of abuse wasn't a constant thing.

The very first rule clarification came in '78-79:

Clarification added to prohibit hand-checking through “rigid enforcement” of rule allowing a defensive player to retain contact with his opponent so long as he does not impede his opponent’s progress.

Note that this is called a "clarification" not a "change". No one ever thought "Defenders should be able to shove the guy with the ball as he drives". Hand checks simply allowed it to happen because it was tough for the refs to tell when the guy was doing the legal hand check, and when he was pushing his man. So, in '78 the league made clear to the league people were abusing things, and put them on alert that the refs were going to be looking for this specific issue.

So what we have is a situation where the NBA decides a particular rule violation is getting abused, the refs crack down, and players stop abusing it for a while, and then gradually do it more and more as the refs crack down on other things.

Isiah's peak was not the time of greatest abuse, the early 2000s before the last rule change/clarification/whatever you want to call it was the time when it was worst.

And as Jimmy76 pointed out, Nash was still shooting 60+% TS in that time period.

[Laimbeer]

To me, this is sort of like comparing one of Wilt's big statistical seasons to one of Russell's championship seasons. You can't argue with some of the numbers rolled up, but defense, leadership, and intangibles are, on the whole, a more driving force toward the ultimate goal of winning. Let's rememeber Isiah was very good defensively and Nash was a pigeon, so a lot of the statistical offensive advantage gets wiped out on the other end. I can't imagine Nash getting after a teammate for poor defense (how could he?) but I know Isiah would. When your captain and best player plays D and insists you do all the right stuff, that matters.

The Pistons of this era don't develop and perform the way they do unless their best player brings the attitude and will of Isiah. It's sort of like the influence Duncan had on the Spurs, Magic had on the Lakers, and Russ had on the Celtics. It can't be measured in stats, it's in the results and testimony of guys that played with and against him.

[Jimmy76]

except Russel had a lot more to do with the Celtics defense than Isiah had to do with the Pistons defense

If Isiah was anchoring the defense I'd change my mind

[Laimbeer]

except Russel had a lot more to do with the Celtics defense than Isiah had to do with the Pistons defense

If Isiah was anchoring the defense I'd change my mind

From a strategic standpoint, of course. But defense is as much about attitude and wanting to as being able. The team culture drives that, is what I'm saying. Talent wise, the Pistons had no business being that good a team.

[Jimmy76]

except Russel had a lot more to do with the Celtics defense than Isiah had to do with the Pistons defense

If Isiah was anchoring the defense I'd change my mind

From a strategic standpoint, of course. But defense is as much about attitude and wanting to as being able. The team culture drives that, is what I'm saying. Talent wise, the Pistons had no business being that good a team.

Maybe its just me but whenever I saw those Pistons rosters they looked loaded

When you can defend as well as they could they definitely had business being as good as they were

and roster evaluation shouldn't be based on starpower, you ask how good will the overall team shooting be, how well can they rebound, how turnover prone the team is, and how well can they draw FTS and then ask yourself how well their opponents will generally be in all those categories

[JordansBulls]

Well what did Nash do in any playoff that compared to anything Isiah did in the playoffs?

1. Playoff scoring record for a quarter, on a bad ankle to boot.
2. Finals MVP - Embarassed opposing guards who tried in vain to defend him(see Terry Porter), his eyes got big like Drexler's eyes when Jordan was embarassing him. Scored 22 in 1 quarter in Portland.
3. Finals average 27pts, 8 assists, 5 rebounds

Career Average:

Isiah - 20pts, 9.3 assists, 3.6 rebounds, 2.11 steals, 3.76 turnovers,
best year for assists was 13.9, with 21.2 pts, and 4.5 rebounds

Nash - 14.6pts, 8.3 assists, 3 rebounds, 0.8 steals, 2.79 turnovers
best year for assists was 11.6, with 18.6 pts, and 3.5 rebounds

Isiah in an embarassing landslide

What has Nash done in the playoffs? Well you're right he doesn't have a great finals performance, since he's never been there. Of course, nobody gets there with out their teammates.

Nash did have a 30/14 series that was pretty mind blowing though. Let's also consider these guys best playoff years statistically. I'll use PER just because a composite stat make that easier:

Best playoffs between these two:
1. Nash '05 23.4
2. Isiah '85 22.7
3. Isiah '87 22.6
4. Nash '10 22.5
5. Nash '07 21.9
6. Nash '06 21.3
7. Isiah '86 21.1
8. Isiah '90 21.0
9. Isiah '88 20.7
10. Isiah 84 20.6

Not saying Nash blows him out of the water here, but it's certainly not a landslide for Isiah.

Your mentioning of career stats seems strange. Generally I don't put much stock in career stats, but I understand if others do. Nash's stats are hurt by his first few years where he wasn't given a chance to play, and since he's not 36 and still going strong, he's clearly had enough time as a starter for us to at least only use that when trying to a career-ish stat comparison.

If you take their 10 best years:

Isiah 20.1 PPG on 52.2% TS with 9.7 APG
Nash 16.8 PPG on 61.3% TS with 9.6 APG

Who wins from that comparison? Debatable.

Don't forget the average player in the years Isiah was in the league was better than the average starter the years Nash has been in the league.

[Jimmy76]

Or that PER rewards chucking

[Warspite]

I certainly understand Jimmys POV what I dont get is the slimmy lawyering of DrMj. An absolute hachet job of ingoring the truth, facts and the video tape.

If the OP had stated who was the better scorer or shooter the Nash proponets are absolutely correct and nobody disagrees with them. They absolutely are right if they are allowed to hijack the thread and change the OPs post. We cant agree in this comparison because both sides cant agree what the OP is.

Who was the better player??

I fully acknowledge that Nash is the better shooter/scorer. He might be the better player since Isiah is little past his prime and worn down from battles with Bird, Magic, MJ. What I dont know why Nash being the better scorer is that great of a good thing for a PG. If your best scorer is your PG your most likely a bad team and much easier to defend.
I realy like the leadership and intangibles. Lets not forget that 90 Isiah is the defending NBA champ and the man who has ended the career of Larry Bird, KAJ and sidetracked Magics. He also is responsible for the retardation of MJs. Hes a bad man and his leadership is very valuable. That might not help him in a 1on1 game with Nash but it might make your team win 5 more games in reg season and get HCA.

I can see a valid argument from Jimmy76 saying that Nash is the better player but that doesnt make him more valueable. In a 1on1 game Nash would most likely win.

[Jimmy76]

I see where the Isiah advocates are coming from and definitely understand ranking Isiah higher on an all time list. It really comes down to a difference in underlying philosophy which we can't really resolve by throwing opposing assumptions at each other.

But the Suns easy to defend warspite?

[Doctor MJ]

I certainly understand Jimmys POV what I dont get is the slimmy lawyering of DrMj. An absolute hachet job of ingoring the truth, facts and the video tape.

lol. Well, feel free to ask me for any points of clarification.

[mopper8]

I know, that's quite the line right there. Doctor MJ: Master of Sophistry.

[mopper8]

I can't get over "slimmy lawyering." I'm still chuckling to myself about it.

[lorak]

I fully acknowledge that Nash is the better shooter/scorer. He might be the better player since Isiah is little past his prime and worn down from battles with Bird, Magic, MJ. What I dont know why Nash being the better scorer is that great of a good thing for a PG.

But Nash is also better playmaker - and that's the most important thing for PG.
He also is probably (probably because it's hard to rate things like that) better leader.

[Brenice]

In a 1on1 game Nash would most likely win.

I have a hard time picturing Nash beating Isiah 1-on-1. Isiah would do a better job defending Nash than Nash would defending Isiah.

I do think Nash does a better job running an offense as a pure point guard. But Isiah's aggression on both ends of the court vs one end for Nash can't be ignored.

[DatWasNashty]

I missed Isiah's prime years including the one the topic is related to but I saw him play 1990/91 and on and it gave me a good grasp of his impact as a player. He was worned out due to fatigue and injuries but could still have huge nights on occasion. Isiah's two major problems were his inefficiency (high turnovers, low shooting numbers) and inconsistency. He had a big night here and there but would not follow up on a nightly basis.

That is why I considered Dumars to be the best player on the early 1990s versions. And Rodman probably had comparable impact when you factor in his major edge in defensive impact. Isiah, however, was the emotional leader and the team often feasted with Isiah playing at his best. He was a good playmaker, excellent at getting to the lane, terrific ball handler (could dribble effectively behind his back) with a tenacious and assertive demeanor. But, he was also critically flawed for the reasons mentioned earlier. A major reason for Detroit's success was their defense which had more to do with Chuck Daly and Detroit's stud defenders. Isiah was probably the worst defender in the starting line up.

Hence, I would take 2006 Nash over Thomas without much hesitation. Nash's contribution to team success is much greater plus I would say he was a more reliable, more efficient and effective offensive player than Thomas. Isiah does have a minimal edge on defense but it's not worth much. It's not exactly fair to say since I witnessed a watered down version of him but I can't imagine him having significantly more impact on both an individual and team level a few years earlier.

[JordansBulls]

In a 1on1 game Nash would most likely win.

I have a hard time picturing Nash beating Isiah 1-on-1. Isiah would do a better job defending Nash than Nash would defending Isiah.

I do think Nash does a better job running an offense as a pure point guard. But Isiah's aggression on both ends of the court vs one end for Nash can't be ignored.

Isiah is from Chicago he would rough up Nash in a one on one.

[DatWasNashty]

In a 1on1 game Nash would most likely win.

I have a hard time picturing Nash beating Isiah 1-on-1. Isiah would do a better job defending Nash than Nash would defending Isiah.

I do think Nash does a better job running an offense as a pure point guard. But Isiah's aggression on both ends of the court vs one end for Nash can't be ignored.

Isiah is from Chicago he would rough up Nash in a one on one.

Neither will be able to guard each other.