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

[Laimbeer]

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.

You've gone from trotting out a stat (Otrg) that rates Nash above Magic to making a comment that's just well, questionable. But go and explain how you reached your conclusion, please.

[Laimbeer]

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.

The MVP comment seemed like a slippery rhetorical trick, but you've got enough smarts and cred up to this point you deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[Chicago76]

I get the fact that "intangibles" may suggest that Thomas was a better player than his stat lines would indicate, but what I have a problem with is the amount of credit given to Thomas rather than his team, which, by just about any measure, limited to the competition in the two years they won the title, was stacked.

Center: Laimbeer is about as underrated as they come. He was probably the 6th best big in the league.

SG: Dumars hadn't fully come into his own yet, which actually came after the title teams, but he was still a top 6 shooting guard.

PG: Zeke was no worse than the 6th best PG in the league (giving him very little credit here), and was probably the second or third best at this time.

SF: This was a loaded roster spot in this era, one year of healthy Bird, Wilkins, Worthy, King (back from injury), Mullin, English, Dantley/Aguirre. There wasn't much difference between Dantley/Aguirre and #3 on this list no matter who you think that player was.

PF: probably the only position where the Pistons didn't have one guy you could say was in the top quarter of starters in the league, BUT interior help by committee of Mahorn/Rodman/Salley was as deep as any frontcourt in 1988/89 and 89/90.

Bench Scoring: if you want offense from the bench, the Microwave was no worse than 4th in the league, perhaps behind Pierce, Eddie Johnson, and Schrempf.

This was probably on of the most stacked teams since the ABA merger. They just get overlooked because they didn't have that one or guys that people could label the franchise like Erving/Malone, Kareem/Magic, Bird, Jordan/Pippen, Kobe/Shaq, etc.

Bottom line: Thomas was an excellent PG, but he had a ton of help. There wasn't an elite top 5 guy on the league on the club, so the most veteran and known guy on the roster (Thomas) probably gets overcredited by most. Toss aside Magic and Oscar and name other top 8 post-shot clock PGs: Frazier, Payton, Nash, Kidd, Stockton. They all win a couple of titles with that roster if they're close to their career peak. KJ and Price might too.

Some will say that Thomas still set the tone on those teams defensively through his leadership. If he set the tone so well with his toughness, then why were the Pistons no better than an averagish defensive team until his 6th year in the league? How much of that improvement was Thomas setting the tone vs. personnel improvement? In 1986-87: Mahorn was fully integrated in his second year with the club. Dumars had his rookie season behind him. Dantley and Sidney Green were both upgrades over what the Pistons traded to Utah. Rodman and Salley were playing roles as energy guys as rookies. Thomas was on the marquee, but the defensive transformation of that team had more to do with Mahorn mentoring Salley and Rodman and Dumars getting mentored by Dantley.

There is just nothing to these "intangibles" to suggest that Thomas was any better than a slew of PGs behind Robertson and Magic, Nash included.

[HomoSapien]

I don't know why this thread has to be either Isiah is overrated or Nash is soft. Why are those the only two options? Both were fantastic players. I don't see how you can be overrated if you're the best player on a team that won two championships, just like I can't imagine how someone who is soft could be a two time MVP.

Soft and overrated simply aren't words that describe either of these players.

As to who was better ... well, that beats me. I was too young to see Isiah play, but I can't help but think that his legend has been forgotten because of the embarrassing life he's lead since retiring. Kind of sad really.

[bastillon]

I get the fact that "intangibles" may suggest that Thomas was a better player than his stat lines would indicate, but what I have a problem with is the amount of credit given to Thomas rather than his team, which, by just about any measure, limited to the competition in the two years they won the title, was stacked.

Center: Laimbeer is about as underrated as they come. He was probably the 6th best big in the league.

SG: Dumars hadn't fully come into his own yet, which actually came after the title teams, but he was still a top 6 shooting guard.

PG: Zeke was no worse than the 6th best PG in the league (giving him very little credit here), and was probably the second or third best at this time.

SF: This was a loaded roster spot in this era, one year of healthy Bird, Wilkins, Worthy, King (back from injury), Mullin, English, Dantley/Aguirre. There wasn't much difference between Dantley/Aguirre and #3 on this list no matter who you think that player was.

PF: probably the only position where the Pistons didn't have one guy you could say was in the top quarter of starters in the league, BUT interior help by committee of Mahorn/Rodman/Salley was as deep as any frontcourt in 1988/89 and 89/90.

Bench Scoring: if you want offense from the bench, the Microwave was no worse than 4th in the league, perhaps behind Pierce, Eddie Johnson, and Schrempf.

This was probably on of the most stacked teams since the ABA merger. They just get overlooked because they didn't have that one or guys that people could label the franchise like Erving/Malone, Kareem/Magic, Bird, Jordan/Pippen, Kobe/Shaq, etc.

Bottom line: Thomas was an excellent PG, but he had a ton of help. There wasn't an elite top 5 guy on the league on the club, so the most veteran and known guy on the roster (Thomas) probably gets overcredited by most. Toss aside Magic and Oscar and name other top 8 post-shot clock PGs: Frazier, Payton, Nash, Kidd, Stockton. They all win a couple of titles with that roster if they're close to their career peak. KJ and Price might too.

Some will say that Thomas still set the tone on those teams defensively through his leadership. If he set the tone so well with his toughness, then why were the Pistons no better than an averagish defensive team until his 6th year in the league? How much of that improvement was Thomas setting the tone vs. personnel improvement? In 1986-87: Mahorn was fully integrated in his second year with the club. Dumars had his rookie season behind him. Dantley and Sidney Green were both upgrades over what the Pistons traded to Utah. Rodman and Salley were playing roles as energy guys as rookies. Thomas was on the marquee, but the defensive transformation of that team had more to do with Mahorn mentoring Salley and Rodman and Dumars getting mentored by Dantley.

There is just nothing to these "intangibles" to suggest that Thomas was any better than a slew of PGs behind Robertson and Magic, Nash included.

great post.

I don't know why this thread has to be either Isiah is overrated or Nash is soft. Why are those the only two options? Both were fantastic players. I don't see how you can be overrated if you're the best player on a team that won two championships, just like I can't imagine how someone who is soft could be a two time MVP.

Soft and overrated simply aren't words that describe either of these players.

As to who was better ... well, that beats me. I was too young to see Isiah play, but I can't help but think that his legend has been forgotten because of the embarrassing life he's lead since retiring. Kind of sad really.

Isiah was overrated because an average observer looks at his 2 championships in 89/90 and says he led them to these championships, doing something that vast majority of PGs couldn't. but what's overlooked is how much help he had and that he wasn't necessarily the best player on these rosters. Isiah should get as much credit for those championships as Billups gets for "leading" 2004 Pistons to their 'chip.

Isiah wasn't even considered an MVP candidate at the time...

You think Dirk could win an MVP over MJ? How about Bird or Magic? Moses? DrJ? KAJ in his prime? Im sorry but theres a differance between winning a MVP over Nash than Bird.

MVP Shares

1981-82 NBA 0.004 (17)
1982-83 NBA 0.005 (16)
1983-84 NBA 0.151 (5)
1984-85 NBA 0.081 (9)
1985-86 NBA 0.036 (9)
1986-87 NBA 0.022 (8)
1987-88 NBA 0.004 (12)
1988-89 NBA 0.001 (17)
1989-90 NBA 0.001 (13)
1990-91 NBA 0.011 (13)

Isiah peaked at TOP5, but generally was considered as TOP10-15 player, at level of Sidney Moncrief or John Stockton. during championship years he had 0.001 of MVP shares, so he was barely noticeable.

guys who finished higher than Isiah on MVP votings (among others):

82 - Robert Parish, Gus Williams, George Gervin, Sidney Moncrief, Jack Sikma, Dan Roundfield, Kelly Tripucka, Alex English, Bernard King, Adrian Dantley, Ray Williams
83 - Sidney Moncrief, Alex English, Buck Williams, Artis Gilmore, George Gervin, Jack Sikma, Jeff Ruland, Terry Cummings, Maurice Lucas, Alton Lister
84 - Bernard King, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
85 - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Terry Cummings, Bernard King, Sidney Moncrief
86 - Charles Barkley, Sidney Moncrief, Alex English, Dominique Wilkins
87 - Kevin McHale, Charles Barkley, Dominique Wilkins
88 - Clyde Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, Fat Lever, John Stockton, Alex English
89 - John Stockton, Kevin Johnson, Tom Chambers, Mark Price, Brad Daugherty, Robert Parish, Mark Eaton, Moses Malone, Chris Mullin, Larry Nance
90 - Tom Chambers, John Stockton, Buck Williams, Clyde Drexler
91 - Clyde Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, Terry Porter, John Stockton,

all-NBA teams:

81-82
1st G: George Gervin G: Gus Williams
2nd G: Magic Johnson G: Sidney Moncrief

82-83
1st G: Magic Johnson G: Sidney Moncrief
2nd G: George Gervin G: Isiah Thomas

83-84
1st G: Magic Johnson G: Isiah Thomas
2nd G: Sidney Moncrief G: Jim Paxson

84-85
1st G: Magic Johnson G: Isiah Thomas
2nd G: Michael Jordan G: Sidney Moncrief

85-86
1st G: Magic Johnson G: Isiah Thomas
2nd G: Sidney Moncrief G: Alvin Robertson

86-87
1st G: Magic Johnson G: Michael Jordan
2nd G: Fat Lever G: Isiah Thomas

87-88
1st G: Magic Johnson G: Michael Jordan
2nd G: Clyde Drexler G: John Stockton

88-89
1st G: Magic Johnson G: Michael Jordan
2nd G: Kevin Johnson G: John Stockton
3rd G: Dale Ellis G: Mark Price

89-90
1st G: Magic Johnson G: Michael Jordan
2nd G: Kevin Johnson G: John Stockton
3rd G: Clyde Drexler G: Joe Dumars

90-91
1st G: Magic Johnson G: Michael Jordan
2nd G: Clyde Drexler G: Kevin Johnson
3rd G: Joe Dumars G: John Stockton

in championship years Isiah was below, Magic, MJ, KJ, Stockton and in single years Dale Ellis, Mark Price, Drexler and Joe Dumars were ahead of him as well.

Isiah would have to go back to 50s to be considered as MVP candidate. he wouldn't win it over Nash, he wouldn't win it over Kobe, he wouldn't win it over anyone in the 00s. observers at the time didn't recognize Isiah's greatness, even when he was playing on very succesful teams. you could make a case that Rodman (DPOY), Laimbeer (great defender, rebounder and solid offensively) and Dumars (all-defense + very good offense and equal MVP finishes) were better than Isiah, so not only he wasn't even close to league's MVP, he wasn't even absolute best on his own team.

[Laimbeer]

I would fundamentally disagree about the supporting cast on the Pistons. When you compare the supporting casts of Jordan, Bird, and Magic to Isiah's, Isiah's are fourth. It's fine to say they had a lot of "good players" but the best of those guys may have been in the top half dozen at their position. There was no Pippen, McHale, Parish, Worthy or Kareem type of guy. Whoever you think was second, compare them to other second bananas on title teams - they won't stack up that well.

From a raw ability standpoint, some of Nash's teams with Dirk has just as much talent. Nobody that played with Isiah had Dirk's ability. They didn't seem as good or deep as the Pistons simply because they folded in the playoffs. I'm reminded of the Seattle, Portland, and Sacramento teams we hear about being so talented but not winning it all. The difference between those teams and the Pistons was Isiah.

[Jimmy76]

Nash wasn't MVP Nash with Dirk

I'm suggesting being on the better team doesn't make you the better player contrary to popular belief on realgm

Do you choose

Dumars/Vinne Johnson
Aguire/Rodman
Edwards/Rodman
Laimbeer/Salley

Or

Bell/Barbosa
James Jones/Tim Thomas
Marion/Tim Thomas
Diaw/Marion

Is it even close?

So which rotation do you choose laimbeer? We aren't comparing Isiah to Jordan (and I'd take this Piston supporting cast over Jordans first 3 peat cast pretty easily).

[oaktownwarriors87]

I would love too see Isiah play in todays game with these soft defensive rules on the perimiter, you touch the player and it's a foul. Out of all the players in the 90's and 80's I think Isaiah would benefit the most from todays game.

[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.

The MVP comment seemed like a slippery rhetorical trick, but you've got enough smarts and cred up to this point you deserve the benefit of the doubt.

I'm assuming you're talking about the "win a Finals MVP like Wade"? If so, I appreciate that you give me the benefit of the doubt, and you are right to do so. I've been having these debates for so long, not only is it basically a given that I know who won what award, but I essentially assume that everyone else does as well, and so unthinkingly use language that can be ambiguous for someone not coming in with that same point of view. In other words, no I would never try to con people into thinking Isiah didn't win a Finals MVP, regardless of my slimy-ness level, because I figure that knowing that type of information is a bit of a prerequisite for being in these discussions.

[DumbyTheWizard]

its funny to mention how good the spurs offense is when talking about Nash's numbers and forggeting that Nash is a passer and a shooter and isnt a slasher so the importent thing while guarding him is man defense and while the Spurs are great on D, Tony Parker... Not so much. I know he wasnt the only one guarding Nash but still, thats importent to remember.

[HomoSapien]

Isiah was overrated because an average observer looks at his 2 championships in 89/90 and says he led them to these championships, doing something that vast majority of PGs couldn't.

And that's factually correct. He won two championships while leading his team in points (once), assists, steals. That's leading a team to a championship, is it not? It doesn't matter that he had help. He's supposed to have help, and even if the point of your argument is that Dumars was really the more important player, I'm sure that even you wouldn't disagree that Thomas was at least a top two player on a championship team. That counts.

but what's overlooked is how much help he had and that he wasn't necessarily the best player on these rosters. Isiah should get as much credit for those championships as Billups gets for "leading" 2004 Pistons to their 'chip.

So what? No one is denying that he had help. Doesn't make him overrated.

Isiah wasn't even considered an MVP candidate at the time...

Doesn't change that he was a 12 time All-Star, selected as one of the 50 greatest players, and 5 time All-NBA selection.

[Doctor MJ]

Isiah was overrated because an average observer looks at his 2 championships in 89/90 and says he led them to these championships, doing something that vast majority of PGs couldn't.

And that's factually correct. He won two championships while leading his team in points (once), assists, steals. That's leading a team to a championship, is it not? It doesn't matter that he had help. He's supposed to have help, and even if the point of your argument is that Dumars was really the more important player, I'm sure that even you wouldn't disagree that Thomas was at least a top two player on a championship team. That counts.

but what's overlooked is how much help he had and that he wasn't necessarily the best player on these rosters. Isiah should get as much credit for those championships as Billups gets for "leading" 2004 Pistons to their 'chip.

So what? No one is denying that he had help. Doesn't make him overrated.

Isiah wasn't even considered an MVP candidate at the time...

Doesn't change that he was a 12 time All-Star, selected as one of the 50 greatest players, and 5 time All-NBA selection.

I'll add some clarification here. To the extent Isiah is overrated, it's because not all stars of title winning teams are equally important to those teams, and Isiah is someone who gets thought of by some as a classic superstar, when he actually wasn't.

Why does Isiah get though of that way when someone like Billups doesn't? 3 reasons come to mind:

1) He had some really big games. Reggie Miller has a similar phenomenon going.

2) His team didn't just win, they were a mini-dynasty beating some of the great teams in history just before or after their peak.

3) He was the established star, and something closer to a superstar-like dominator of the team earlier in his career.

[HomoSapien]

I don't think anyone is arguing that he's in the MJ-Bird-Magic-Kobe-Shaq tier of star talent. The fact that he did win twice, is pretty much the reason he's ahead of guys like Billups, Wilkens, Kevin Johnson, etc.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't think anyone is arguing that he's in the MJ-Bird-Magic-Kobe-Shaq tier of star talent. The fact that he did win twice, is pretty much the reason he's ahead of guys like Billups, Wilkens, Kevin Johnson, etc.

When people say Isiah is overrated, they aren't complaining about him being rated over the Billups of the world. They're talking about him being rated light years ahead of the Nashes and Dirks who got way more MVP-type love than Isiah.

[Warspite]

I don't think anyone is arguing that he's in the MJ-Bird-Magic-Kobe-Shaq tier of star talent. The fact that he did win twice, is pretty much the reason he's ahead of guys like Billups, Wilkens, Kevin Johnson, etc.

When people say Isiah is overrated, they aren't complaining about him being rated over the Billups of the world. They're talking about him being rated light years ahead of the Nashes and Dirks who got way more MVP-type love than Isiah.

Im constantly reading aboput how Isiah Thomas wasnt a star because he played on stacked teams. Theres more posters on RealGM who believe Dumars was a better player when the distance between them is as big as MJ and Pippen.

Im also constantly reading how the Bad Boys werent a very good title team because they didnt have any stars in there supporting cast.


Whats worse is that Bastllion will make the same 2 posts in the same thread. He will say that Isiah wasnt a star because he had such great teammates and that the team wasnt great because it had no great players in its supporting cast.

Im ok with either conclusion you want to draw

1. Isiah in a Hakeem type run took a collection of players and won a title without any allstar teammates.
2. The Bad Boys are one of the GOAT teams because they didnt have a superstar player and won anyway.

If you want to knock Isiah then knock him for losing to Birds Celtics in 87, getting injured in 88 and 91.If Isiah doesnt make that stupid pass the Pistons win the title in 87 and if hes not injured the Pistons win in 88 and 91 and have 5 titles. Its those 3 plays that seperate him from Magic, Bird and MJ. What would the detracters say then when Isiah has 5 rings Bird 3 Magic 3 and MJ 5??? The biggest differance between Isiah and Magic was that one could beat Bird and the other lost to him.


Either give Isiah his due or give credit to the Bad Boys as being one of the greatest teams of alltime.

[bastillon]

Whats worse is that Bastllion will make the same 2 posts in the same thread. He will say that Isiah wasnt a star because he had such great teammates and that the team wasnt great because it had no great players in its supporting cast.

you continue to puzzle me, Warspite. I've never said that Bad Boys are a bad team because they don't have a superstar. but if they won a title without one, that doesn't make them all-time great team either. or do I have to consider 2004 Pistons one of the best of all-time too ?

If you want to knock Isiah then knock him for losing to Birds Celtics in 87, getting injured in 88 and 91.If Isiah doesnt make that stupid pass the Pistons win the title in 87 and if hes not injured the Pistons win in 88 and 91 and have 5 titles. Its those 3 plays that seperate him from Magic, Bird and MJ. What would the detracters say then when Isiah has 5 rings Bird 3 Magic 3 and MJ 5??? The biggest differance between Isiah and Magic was that one could beat Bird and the other lost to him.

I'd rather say that Isiah was 2 rings from being considered Mark Price of the 80s. in fact, it doesn't really matter how many rings Isiah had, what matters is what he contributed to his team to win them. he was a very good (not even great) playmaker who happened to be most recognized on a super-stacked team. Isiah, as an individual, never dominated. he's had his great moments, but he couldn't sustain that level on a nightly basis. and THAT'S what really seperates him from being on par with Magic/Bird/MJ - the same thing that seperates Odom from being all-NBA player - consistency.

and that's why guys like Buck Williams could finish ahead of Isiah on MVP voting list. there was no conspiracy, people just didn't feel he was a top player.

[Laimbeer]

Why does Isiah get though of that way when someone like Billups doesn't? 3 reasons come to mind:

1) He had some really big games. Reggie Miller has a similar phenomenon going.

2) His team didn't just win, they were a mini-dynasty beating some of the great teams in history just before or after their peak.

3) He was the established star, and something closer to a superstar-like dominator of the team earlier in his career.

Those are all legitimate reasons for putting Isiah over Billups. In regard to point three, I believe part of the reason for the perceived decline in Isiah's performance in the championship years was simply him taking a different role as the team developed around him. He didn't have to be THAT Isiah, nor should he have been. Dare I say it was more of a Nash-like role because the teams in his earlt years were a bit more like the teams Nash has played on. There was a strategic change in his role, not simply a matter of his skills declining. He was still fairly young in the title years.

[Laimbeer]

Nash wasn't MVP Nash with Dirk

I'm suggesting being on the better team doesn't make you the better player contrary to popular belief on realgm

Do you choose

Dumars/Vinne Johnson
Aguire/Rodman
Edwards/Rodman
Laimbeer/Salley

Or

Bell/Barbosa
James Jones/Tim Thomas
Marion/Tim Thomas
Diaw/Marion

Is it even close?

So which rotation do you choose laimbeer? We aren't comparing Isiah to Jordan (and I'd take this Piston supporting cast over Jordans first 3 peat cast pretty easily).

Offensively they are pretty close. Overall, the Pistons were better, but let's remember Isiah got better results.

[bastillon]

Offensively they are pretty close. Overall, the Pistons were better, but let's remember Isiah got better results.

Diaw/Marion are pretty close to Aguirre/Laimbeer/Dumars/Vinnie ? this is outright insulting for Bad Boys. Diaw is a versatile tweener forward playing out of position and not a volume scorer. Marion is a finisher living off of his teammates' passes and can't create off the dribble to save his life. they're not even in the same stratosphere.

[Laimbeer]

Offensively they are pretty close. Overall, the Pistons were better, but let's remember Isiah got better results.

Diaw/Marion are pretty close to Aguirre/Laimbeer/Dumars/Vinnie ? this is outright insulting for Bad Boys. Diaw is a versatile tweener forward playing out of position and not a volume scorer. Marion is a finisher living off of his teammates' passes and can't create off the dribble to save his life. they're not even in the same stratosphere.

Who do you think is so special offensively among those Bad Boys? Laimbeer was a jump shooter, Vinnie a streak shooter that ran off screens, Dumars had a solid offensive game but didn't scare anybody with the ball in his hands. Aguirre is often overlooked but probably had the best offensive skill set of the bunch.