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

[fleet40]

Laimbeer was far better than ok. Great NBA teams always have some great or at least very good bigs on their teams. Laimbeer was the Pistons best big man, and was second fiddle in the leader role on those teams. Was a 4 time all-star, and totaled the most defensive rebounds for a near decade. He does no jump out at you, because his play was cemented to the floor. Nevertheless he was one of the top big men in the league throughout the 80's and into 91'.

Isiah had a stacked "team". Where nearly anyone on that team can go off and beat you. Where no one averaged over 20 points, but could go off for 20+ - Then all of them had a defensive mindset, where they were out to crush you, chew you up and spit you out. And opposing teams always tried to out "bad" the bad boys. The mental and physical torcher that was placed against them was immense. (of course they were the cause of that) and depsite blunders that would destroy franchises (Isiah pass to Bird) (Phantom Foul) they still managed to win 2 straight.

[Rapcity_11]

Funny that Isiah loses points for playing on a stacked squad, which in fact was overrating those pistons anyway. Rodman was not the Rodman of the Bulls. Mahorn? A one-dimensional center. Laimbeer? He was ok, but he doesn't make your squad "stacked". Stacked squads were the Lakers and Celtics of Isiah's era. That is the reason he has only 2 rings, just like Jordan was the reason, say Hakeem has only 2 rings. Isiah had to go thru Boston(Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ + others). Aguire was not the Aguire of the Dallas days. He was not as good as the guy he replaced, Dantley. Aguire was a bad fit. John Salley? Please. James Donaldson?

The best player on Isiah's teams was Isiah during his peak. Dumars was his Robin. They had a stacked backcourt. It was always Isiah's team.

Nash is a great player, no doubt. But he was not as good as Isiah. Isiah could take over offensively, running the offense and scoring. Nash is a good shooter, but he can't take over offensively. I'm waiting for him to take over an all-star game, since he is so great. Before that gets played down, a lot of the greats have done that too. Now Nash does make people on his team better, better than Isiah did, but you still got the defensive side of the ball too.

And ask the Mailman what he would rather have, a regular season MVP award or a Playoff MVP/Ring?

You're really going to use taking over an all-star game as an argument? The game where nobody plays defense or really seems to care too much who wins? That's just stupid.

Also if you replace Isiah with Nash the Pistons still win the title...

[bastillon]

Nash is a good shooter, but he can't take over offensively. I'm waiting for him to take over an all-star game, since he is so great.

go watch last year's ASG with Nash on the floor. he was dominant offensively. pretty much everythind was a basket.

and btw. rofl at Nash being a "good" shooter. you probably meant "goat".

[hasslinghoff]

i constantly see people connecting intangibles with winning a ring. out of curiousity, what do you guys think about someone like rick barry?

[Doctor MJ]

Funny that Isiah loses points for playing on a stacked squad, which in fact was overrating those pistons anyway. Rodman was not the Rodman of the Bulls. Mahorn? A one-dimensional center. Laimbeer? He was ok, but he doesn't make your squad "stacked". Stacked squads were the Lakers and Celtics of Isiah's era. That is the reason he has only 2 rings, just like Jordan was the reason, say Hakeem has only 2 rings. Isiah had to go thru Boston(Bird, McHale, Parish, DJ + others). Aguire was not the Aguire of the Dallas days. He was not as good as the guy he replaced, Dantley. Aguire was a bad fit. John Salley? Please. James Donaldson?

The best player on Isiah's teams was Isiah during his peak. Dumars was his Robin. They had a stacked backcourt. It was always Isiah's team.

Let's see:

First, when talking about how good the supporting cast is, I think you've got to think first and foremost about the team's strength: Defense. When you're not a defensive star, and defense is the star of your team, you've got a great supporting cast.

Re: "Aguire was not the Aguire of the Dallas days. He was not as good as the guy he replaced, Dantley. Aguire was a bad fit."

Huh. Aguirre was an all-star in Dallas the year before he joined the Pistons, so he wasn't far removed from his peak.

Not as good as Dantley? You're seriously trying to give Isiah credit for a worse supporting cast without acknowledging that the reason they traded the more talented guy is because Isiah couldn't work with him?

Not a good fit? This is the thing. Neither Dantley or Aguirre could play up to potential when they played Isiah, and you actually treat that like a handicap Isiah had to deal with - and don't see that the rest of the supporting cast DID play up to potential specifically because they weren't gaudy offensive guys. Isiah had the supporting cast he needed to get the job done. More offensive talent would have gone to waste, more defensive talent is a ridiculous thing to ask for because he had so much already.

Re: "The best player on Isiah's teams was Isiah during his peak. Dumars was his Robin. They had a stacked backcourt. It was always Isiah's team."

Isn't it amazing that with it being so clear that it was Isiah's team, Dumars got as many MVP votes as Isiah in both their title years, and Dumars won as many Finals MVPs as Isiah did? I'm stating this sincerely. I'm not arguing that people typically thought Dumars was the man. Just amazing that in spite of Isiah being the alpha who couldn't get any separation on those fronts.

Nash is a great player, no doubt. But he was not as good as Isiah. Isiah could take over offensively, running the offense and scoring. Nash is a good shooter, but he can't take over offensively. I'm waiting for him to take over an all-star game, since he is so great. Before that gets played down, a lot of the greats have done that too. Now Nash does make people on his team better, better than Isiah did, but you still got the defensive side of the ball too.

And ask the Mailman what he would rather have, a regular season MVP award or a Playoff MVP/Ring?

Wow. You're waiting for Nash to take over an all-star game? I guess no one ever told you that all-star games don't matter. They are exhibitions, where the goal is really more for everyone to get out there and strut their stuff rather than winning. Frankly, anyone who insists on taking all of their teams shots in an all-star game is being a total prick.

Nash can absolutely take over. Look, according to 82games in '09-10, in "clutch time", which they define as the last 5 minutes of close games, Nash averages 43.6 points per 48 minutes. 5th in the league.

Your last point's my favorite though: If you think Isiah should be ranked ahead of Malone, then we should have a Isiah vs Malone thread, because I'd say virtually everyone else on the planet has Malone over Isiah. And while I won't say it's because he won the MVPs while Isiah won Finals MVPs, I will say that Isiah didn't ever come close to MVPs because he wasn't as good as Malone.

[Doctor MJ]

You're really going to use taking over an all-star game as an argument? The game where nobody plays defense or really seems to care too much who wins? That's just stupid.

Also if you replace Isiah with Nash the Pistons still win the title...

Yeah, the mentioning of the all-star game is sig-worthy silliness.

[Doctor MJ]

i constantly see people connecting intangibles with winning a ring. out of curiousity, what do you guys think about someone like rick barry?

Well, there are a few dimensions to intangibles.

High BBIQ? Barry's way up there.

Hard worker? Barry's got that.

Alpha male? Yup.

Where Barry falls down is that he tends to get in pissing matches with those in power, and alienate his sidekicks. Those are negatives which absolutely keep him from being a GOAT intangible guy, but in terms of his winning a title, his intangibles were a part of it.

[Brenice]

I never said or implied Isiah was better than Malone. I said which award you would rather have and which was more important. Don't twist things just to be twisting things.

I know the all-star game is a no defense, exhibition. But the fact is Nash hasn't won 1 MVP, no matter how meaningless it is. So what you really are saying, no matter how trivial the award, or significant the award/accomplishment, Nash is better than Isiah based on calculations. My team is better than your team, individually and collectively.

I use my eyes. I watched them play. They both are great. Isiah punished Stockton. He would do the same to Nash, bottom line. 1990 was not Zeke's peak individually, though it was teamwise. 2006 is Nash's peak individually, and teamwise. Throw all those numbers out there if you want, but Nash peak is going down now and he will be ring-less unless he finds a way to run the point for Wade, Bosh, and LeBron.

Isiah could have better numbers if he needed to score more. But he was being the good point guard. The only team that won the ring during Zeke's career is Showtime Lakers, Birdston, and fo fo fo-philly. You had 2 dynasties going on at once. Chicago developed into a dynasty as Detroit faded. Philly did a 1 and done with Moses and Doc. But Nash and Phoenix, they have had to deal with the Lakers dynasties, Kobe and Shaq/Kobe and Gasol, and San Antonio. They couldn't even get out of the West one time. Damn, even Dirk and Dallas made it out once in the same period of time.
Nash and Phoenix were built for the regular season, read that offense only.

[Brenice]

Why does Nash not have an NBA Finals MVP?

A lot of people hate on Isiah. And I know he can be an ass. Because that is the only reason he was not on the original Dream Team over choir boy Stockton. But the players knew the deal. The GOAT player 6ft and under. Nash was the GOAT point 6ft and under. Aint too many players won the NCAA and NBA. Nash ain't won shi*. And I aint talking about a watered down NCAA era.

So talk winners and losers between the 2.

[hasslinghoff]

i constantly see people connecting intangibles with winning a ring. out of curiousity, what do you guys think about someone like rick barry?

Well, there are a few dimensions to intangibles.

High BBIQ? Barry's way up there.

Hard worker? Barry's got that.

Alpha male? Yup.

Where Barry falls down is that he tends to get in pissing matches with those in power, and alienate his sidekicks. Those are negatives which absolutely keep him from being a GOAT intangible guy, but in terms of his winning a title, his intangibles were a part of it.

it just seems that a lot of players are denied of having "great intangibles" until they win it all ( nash ).
pretty much every player has some redeeming qualities. if iverson wins in 2001 he'll be called isiah 2.0 - tough, great leader, whatever - it just never happened.

[Doctor MJ]

I never said or implied Isiah was better than Malone. I said which award you would rather have and which was more important. Don't twist things just to be twisting things.

I know the all-star game is a no defense, exhibition. But the fact is Nash hasn't won 1 MVP, no matter how meaningless it is. So what you really are saying, no matter how trivial the award, or significant the award/accomplishment, Nash is better than Isiah based on calculations. My team is better than your team, individually and collectively.

I use my eyes. I watched them play. They both are great. Isiah punished Stockton. He would do the same to Nash, bottom line. 1990 was not Zeke's peak individually, though it was teamwise. 2006 is Nash's peak individually, and teamwise. Throw all those numbers out there if you want, but Nash peak is going down now and he will be ring-less unless he finds a way to run the point for Wade, Bosh, and LeBron.

Isiah could have better numbers if he needed to score more. But he was being the good point guard. The only team that won the ring during Zeke's career is Showtime Lakers, Birdston, and fo fo fo-philly. You had 2 dynasties going on at once. Chicago developed into a dynasty as Detroit faded. Philly did a 1 and done with Moses and Doc. But Nash and Phoenix, they have had to deal with the Lakers dynasties, Kobe and Shaq/Kobe and Gasol, and San Antonio. They couldn't even get out of the West one time. Damn, even Dirk and Dallas made it out once in the same period of time.
Nash and Phoenix were built for the regular season, read that offense only.

-I understand what you were saying with Malone, but my point is not twisting things. You're making a statement that implies in some way shape or form that it's better to have the Finals MVP - but the example you use just makes clear how backwards that point is when we actually talk about who was better.

-I'd just back away from the all-star point if I were you.

-Re: "Isiah could have better numbers if he needed to score more. But he was being the good point guard." Nah, you're not thinking this through. Isiah scored more than Nash - and that has a lot to do with why you like him. A guy with higher than normal scoring for a point guard who shoots inefficiently is not playing the classic "good point guard" role sacrificing his scoring for his team, and the promise that if needed he could score even more on even worse efficiency is odd. What I'd prefer to ask him is what it would take for him to actually shoot efficiently.

-Re: Phoenix built for the regular season. Maybe the most frustrating basketball meme in existence. People were saying that before the team ever played in the playoffs. 6 years later, and there's still no major evidence that the team disappoints in the playoffs. The most you can say is that they twice lost to the Spurs who had a worse record, but the Spurs won the regular season matchup with the Suns in both years, and it was well known that their W-L record didn't reflect how good they were.

Something I will say though, the Pistons did show a trend to improve in the post-season, and they deserve credit for that.

[Doctor MJ]

it just seems that a lot of players are denied of having "great intangibles" until they win it all ( nash ).
pretty much every player has some redeeming qualities. if iverson wins in 2001 he'll be called isiah 2.0 - tough, great leader, whatever - it just never happened.

A good point, and actually what you talk about with Iverson started happening that year. People started writing love letters about the guy.

I'd agree, you're not going to find anyone with better intangibles than Nash. Not saying he's better than everyone else on that front, but he's got it all, and that's why NBA GM's (in the yearly poll) have named him the best leader in the league many times.

[Rapcity_11]

I never said or implied Isiah was better than Malone. I said which award you would rather have and which was more important. Don't twist things just to be twisting things.

I know the all-star game is a no defense, exhibition. But the fact is Nash hasn't won 1 MVP, no matter how meaningless it is. So what you really are saying, no matter how trivial the award, or significant the award/accomplishment, Nash is better than Isiah based on calculations. My team is better than your team, individually and collectively.

I use my eyes. I watched them play. They both are great. Isiah punished Stockton. He would do the same to Nash, bottom line. 1990 was not Zeke's peak individually, though it was teamwise. 2006 is Nash's peak individually, and teamwise. Throw all those numbers out there if you want, but Nash peak is going down now and he will be ring-less unless he finds a way to run the point for Wade, Bosh, and LeBron.

Isiah could have better numbers if he needed to score more. But he was being the good point guard. The only team that won the ring during Zeke's career is Showtime Lakers, Birdston, and fo fo fo-philly. You had 2 dynasties going on at once. Chicago developed into a dynasty as Detroit faded. Philly did a 1 and done with Moses and Doc. But Nash and Phoenix, they have had to deal with the Lakers dynasties, Kobe and Shaq/Kobe and Gasol, and San Antonio. They couldn't even get out of the West one time. Damn, even Dirk and Dallas made it out once in the same period of time.
Nash and Phoenix were built for the regular season, read that offense only.

Wow can't believe you actually brought up the all-star game again. Have you watched it recently? The MVP goes to which douche wants to dominate the ball and piss off/ignore his teammates that takes home the MVP. (See the way Lebron plays every year) The fact that Nash played a fantastic game last year but chose not to dominate the ball and jack up shots is part of what makes him such a great leader and so well respected. All-Star game = spectacle for the fans and nothing more.

Also, as Doctor MJ just said, Phoenix was built fine for the playoffs. They beat teams inferior to them consistently and lost to teams that were probably better than them. (Spurs and 06 Mavs) Mind you they easily could have (maybe should have) won the 07 series with the Spurs...The "Offense only" approach had them do just about as well as the regular season.

I'd love a response...

[Brenice]

-Re: "Isiah could have better numbers if he needed to score more. But he was being the good point guard." Nah, you're not thinking this through. Isiah scored more than Nash - and that has a lot to do with why you like him.

No, I am not an Isiah fan. I am a Wizards fan. I respect Isiah for what he did more than I respect Nash for what he did. Both are great. The main reason I like Isiah is his mentality. He was a killer on the court. And during the NBA Finals, there has only been a handful of players who embarassed an opponent. You know, man-to-man, where you out there on an island on National TV, primetime trying to stop your man. Remember how Drexler's eyes grew big when checking Jordan? You don't have it as much now. Kobe is unstoppable and destroys. LeBron. Wade. Terry Porter was having a great playoff for Portland until he met up with Isiah in the Finals. Please don't underestimate Porter. He was an very good player. He went up against Isiah and ended up bug-eyed like Drexler. In the Finals. See Isiah scored a record amount of points in the quarter on 1 leg in playoff game, but that is only part of why I respect Zeke. In the 4th quarter of that all-star game, Zeke took over. He was unstoppable and in the 4th quarter, they were defending. Not to say it means anything, but that is another example of when Zeke wants to take over, he could. Nothing you could do about it but get bug-eyed. In those games, his team won.

Ask Doc Rivers about guarding Zeke. That was embarassing.

[Doctor MJ]

-Re: "Isiah could have better numbers if he needed to score more. But he was being the good point guard." Nah, you're not thinking this through. Isiah scored more than Nash - and that has a lot to do with why you like him.

No, I am not an Isiah fan. I am a Wizards fan. I respect Isiah for what he did more than I respect Nash for what he did. Both are great. The main reason I like Isiah is his mentality. He was a killer on the court. And during the NBA Finals, there has only been a handful of players who embarassed an opponent. You know, man-to-man, where you out there on an island on National TV, primetime trying to stop your man. Remember how Drexler's eyes grew big when checking Jordan? You don't have it as much now. Kobe is unstoppable and destroys. LeBron. Wade. Terry Porter was having a great playoff for Portland until he met up with Isiah in the Finals. Please don't underestimate Porter. He was an very good player. He went up against Isiah and ended up bug-eyed like Drexler. In the Finals. See Isiah scored a record amount of points in the quarter on 1 leg in playoff game, but that is only part of why I respect Zeke. In the 4th quarter of that all-star game, Zeke took over. He was unstoppable and in the 4th quarter, they were defending. Not to say it means anything, but that is another example of when Zeke wants to take over, he could. Nothing you could do about it but get bug-eyed. In those games, his team won.

Ask Doc Rivers about guarding Zeke. That was embarassing.

I'm not a Suns fan either. When I talk about you liking a guy because of something he does, I'm not trying to imply you have that opinion because you're a fan of that guy's team.

I'll just reiterate: When you talk about what you respect about Isiah, you talk about his scoring, which was what I was referring to.

Now, clearly you believe that Isiah held himself back for the good of his team, and respect him for his ability to take over as needed. What I want to emphasize is that those anecdotes you describe is not something that Isiah could typically do, because if he could, he'd have done it regularly and been the GOAT. Typical Isiah is him shooting significantly more than a normal point guard, and doing so with weak efficiency. Clearly this is not a guy who in a normal game only looks to shoot if he's got a great shot. He's shooting a good amount, and if his shots are falling, he'll shoot a lot more - if they aren't falling, well he ends up with bad efficiency.

P.S. You just keep bringing up the all-star game. At this point you must know that everyone rolls their eyes whenever they see you say that, so more power to you - you are of course entitled to that opinion.

[bastillon]

i constantly see people connecting intangibles with winning a ring. out of curiousity, what do you guys think about someone like rick barry?

Well, there are a few dimensions to intangibles.

High BBIQ? Barry's way up there.

Hard worker? Barry's got that.

Alpha male? Yup.

Where Barry falls down is that he tends to get in pissing matches with those in power, and alienate his sidekicks. Those are negatives which absolutely keep him from being a GOAT intangible guy, but in terms of his winning a title, his intangibles were a part of it.

that's not intangibles. shot creation, leadership, defense, drawing double teams, spacing the floor for other guys, being clutch to some extent... that's intangibles (contributions not measured in the boxscore).

being a hardworker doesn't contribute anything. it causes you to gain some specific skills that most likely will be visible in the boxscore (typically hard workers are dirty guys-rebounders). same thing with the rest. I'm not sure if I understand intangibles as something different than anyone else.

[Doctor MJ]

i constantly see people connecting intangibles with winning a ring. out of curiousity, what do you guys think about someone like rick barry?

Well, there are a few dimensions to intangibles.

High BBIQ? Barry's way up there.

Hard worker? Barry's got that.

Alpha male? Yup.

Where Barry falls down is that he tends to get in pissing matches with those in power, and alienate his sidekicks. Those are negatives which absolutely keep him from being a GOAT intangible guy, but in terms of his winning a title, his intangibles were a part of it.

that's not intangibles. shot creation, leadership, defense, drawing double teams, spacing the floor for other guys, being clutch to some extent... that's intangibles (contributions not measured in the boxscore).

being a hardworker doesn't contribute anything. it causes you to gain some specific skills that most likely will be visible in the boxscore (typically hard workers are dirty guys-rebounders). same thing with the rest. I'm not sure if I understand intangibles as something different than anyone else.

I think you're being way too rigid about what intangibles are. For me, any positive attribute that helps the team that isn't adequately described with box score stats isn't "tangible", and thus is an intangible.

[bastillon]

BBIQ, hardworking and being alpha male not in the boxscore ? any examples ?

[Chicago76]

BBIQ, hardworking and being alpha male not in the boxscore ? any examples ?

Shane Battier would be one. There are some good articles interviewing Morey and the Rockets on the advanced stats and film study work they do that measure these things showing Battier's value.

[Brenice]

I'm not a Suns fan either. When I talk about you liking a guy because of something he does, I'm not trying to imply you have that opinion because you're a fan of that guy's team.

I'll just reiterate: When you talk about what you respect about Isiah, you talk about his scoring, which was what I was referring to.

Now, clearly you believe that Isiah held himself back for the good of his team, and respect him for his ability to take over as needed. What I want to emphasize is that those anecdotes you describe is not something that Isiah could typically do, because if he could, he'd have done it regularly and been the GOAT. Typical Isiah is him shooting significantly more than a normal point guard, and doing so with weak efficiency. Clearly this is not a guy who in a normal game only looks to shoot if he's got a great shot. He's shooting a good amount, and if his shots are falling, he'll shoot a lot more - if they aren't falling, well he ends up with bad efficiency.

P.S. You just keep bringing up the all-star game. At this point you must know that everyone rolls their eyes whenever they see you say that, so more power to you - you are of course entitled to that opinion.

You keep bringing up efficiency. Does efficiency translate into winning? How efficient is Nash defensively?

The bottom line is this: Magic, Bird, Isiah, Olajuwon, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq = multiple rings. It was their teams. Did Magic, Bird, or Duncan win every Finals MVP their teams participated in and won? The answer is Worthy, Cornbread Maxwell, and Tony Parker. Though these people won Finals MVP, it was still Magic, Bird, and Duncan's team. Isiah was Finals MVP. Dumars was the Finals MVP the next year for the Pistons. It was still Isiah's team. Or are you saying the Celtics was Cornbread Maxwells team?


Nash has needs to at least lead a team to the Finals to be in the discussion. And if he doesn't win a championship, he will be like Barkley, Mailman, Ewing, Stockton, Dominique and those guys. Not a winner on the NBA level.