Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[MarJJMar]

They are exact opposites:

one is a shoot first, pass second
the other is a pass first, shoot second

one is hated
the other is loved

one is black
the other is white

one is underrated
the other is overrated

one is a winner
the other is a loser

and your are bitter and ignorant since you can't argue with facts.

[Brenice]

They are exact opposites:

one is a shoot first, pass second
the other is a pass first, shoot second

one is hated
the other is loved

one is black
the other is white

one is underrated
the other is overrated

one is a winner
the other is a loser

and your are bitter and ignorant since you can't argue with facts.

those are facts. the ignorant one is you. you must be disappointed that your boy didn't win nuffin.

[Doctor MJ]

Doctor MJ

I understand all that. All of it is true. But when people look at Isaih only during the 2 year championship season or 3 year championship appearances, that's all they focus on.

What Isiah was a scoring first point guard playing the point. Maybe not as score first as an AI or Arenas, but he was score first. Over the years he was probably one of the few who became adept at both, but still with a score first mentality. Zeke's threat offensively opened up shots for his teammates becuase of his scoring threat.

Nash has always been a pass first point guard. Ran the offense better, shot better, but he is not the scorer Zeke was. The threat of his passes, like a Rondo, open up shots for him.

They are both great, but different.

I just prefer Zeke because of the other areas of the game.

Fair enough, here's what I'll say:

Magic Johnson's peak in scoring was bigger than Isiah's. Did he become a score first point guard? Nope. No matter what Magic did, he always did it with extreme efficiency. He kept awareness on the full court, and didn't get tunnel vision focusing on just getting his. He simply became adept enough at scoring and distribution he could score more than Isiah while absolutely slaughtering his efficiency.

So now we've got the Lakers and the Pistsons, Magic is clearly a drastically superior player in really any measurable way, and he's got global awareness that puts Isiah to shame...and yet you praise Isiah to the heavens because "he" beat the Lakers, no? I mean, take out the titles, are we really having this conversation? Probably not since you only think about this stuff in terms of "winners" and "losers".

And yeah, by your thinking, Isiah's a classic loser if he doesn't get fortunate enough to player with the strongest collection of defensive talent put together on one team since Russell retired.

I also think it's worthwhile to consider. as we talk about score-first point guards simply being different than pass-first point guards, that pretty much whenever we have a score-first point guard with strong team success, it's because the defense is making the team successful. I mean, I'm literally drawing a blank trying to think of an exception to the rule.

Truly the rule on score-first point guard is this: If you've got a great collection of defensive talent and you don't want to waste their energy on offense, well then you might as well put a score-first guy in there. That way your defense isn't degraded, and after all, as we've seen in NBA basketball, you're going to score about half the time no matter who is in there, so the score-first point guard offense isn't hurting you that badly.

[Brenice]

Doctor MJ

And yeah, by your thinking, Isiah's a classic loser if he doesn't get fortunate enough to player with the strongest collection of defensive talent put together on one team since Russell retired.

I don't think that at all. Every player who wins a championship in team sports is a champion because of fortunate circumstances. Teammates, injuries, etc. But people want to give the team all the credit and Zeke none. He was their best player. More often than not, your best player should lead you. Everybody around here seems to think Zeke was not the leader of that team. Even if Zeke was a certified a-hole, he was the leader. Every last Piston followed him off that court without showing sportsmanship to Chicago. Zeke won on all levels, but if I'm to believe Realgm, he was Robert Horry. Was his team stacked, sure. But so was the Lakers. So was the Celtics. So was the Bulls. But Realgm only penalizes those Pistons.

What Isiah was, was one of the most fiery competitors to play his position. A great scorer, even if not efficient. He could be a dominant scorer at times too. His personality made those Pistons. Not anyone else.

He was part of one of the most dominant defenses. Were they the Celtics of Bill Russell? Were they the KG/Rondo Celtics? Were they the Wallace Pistons? Were they the Duncan Spurs? Were they the Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ Celtics? They were one of the best, but not the best.

They had limited post offense on offense. What they had was one of the best 6ft guards ever. Who had the desire to crawl, scratch, and do whatever it takes to get that last bit of food off the table.

And won.

[bastillon]

but what they had most importantly was amazing rebounding and team defense, and ultimately this was a deciding factor and not Isiah's play. Isiah was their best player - according to you. I think it was a case where the credit should be divided between so many great players (DPOY Rodman, all-NBA/all-defense Dumars, great rebounder/banger Laimbeer etc) that Isiah's share isn't comparable to that of a normal star.

[Brenice]

but what they had most importantly was amazing rebounding and team defense, and ultimately this was a deciding factor and not Isiah's play. Isiah was their best player - according to you. I think it was a case where the credit should be divided between so many great players (DPOY Rodman, all-NBA/all-defense Dumars, great rebounder/banger Laimbeer etc) that Isiah's share isn't comparable to that of a normal star.

Do you penalize Bird the same way? Do you penalize Bill Russell? Do you penalize Magic? The other thing is, Isiah played in other years besides 88(Pistons runnerups), and 89 and 90(Pistons Champions). He came into the league in 81, but all people focus on is 89 and 90. They almost advanced in 87 if not for Isiah's pass being stolen by Bird.

He was an all-star 1982-1993, not just 87-90.

[bastillon]

penalize Bird, Magic and Russell ? I don't think you understood my point. I'm saying Isiah's contributions to Pistons winning a title weren't deciding. meanwhile, in the case of those three players:

Bird. 1979 Celtics end up with -4.8 SRS and 28-54. Bird shows up, Celtics skyrocket to 7.4 SRS and 60-22.
1988 Celtics 6.2 SRS and 56-26. Bird goes down next thing you know Celtics are average with SRS of 1.5 and expected W-L of 44-38. so clearly I can see Bird as their star. he was the reason why they were so dominant.

Magic anchored Lakers offense resulting in one of the biggest offensive dynasties of all time. when he was their centerpiece, without Magic team performed worse by 11 pts per 100 possessions. that's a huge loss.

Russell made Celtics the greatest defensive dynasty ever. Celtics were winning about 40-50 games with defense alone (as measured by their Team Defensive Win Shares) and only about 10-15 games with their offense. with Russell you have a +4 SRS when he joins and -7 SRS when he retires. during that period he won 11 titles in 13 years, and played with a plethora of players. he showcases the same kind of defensive dominance in college and during olympics. to give you an idea of how much Russell dominated, let me tell you that his olympic team, which featured only him and KC Jones, was more dominant than the one with Oscar, Jerry West, Walt Bellamy, Jerry Lucas and Bob Boozer, all of whom were all-stars or MVP candidates. Russell was that dominant.

so I know these guys were directly responsible for their teams' success. the problem I have with Isiah is that there's no data like that. as a matter of fact without Isiah in 1991 Pistons didn't really suffer a lot. why would that be ? well I don't know but it's consistent with remaining evidence we have, whether it be recognition among peers or boxscore data. there's simply no way to prove Isiah was way better than his teammates or that he was drastically better than guys like Tim Hardaway, Mark Price or Kevin Johnson.

[JordansBulls]

but what they had most importantly was amazing rebounding and team defense, and ultimately this was a deciding factor and not Isiah's play. Isiah was their best player - according to you. I think it was a case where the credit should be divided between so many great players (DPOY Rodman, all-NBA/all-defense Dumars, great rebounder/banger Laimbeer etc) that Isiah's share isn't comparable to that of a normal star.

Do you penalize Bird the same way? Do you penalize Bill Russell? Do you penalize Magic? The other thing is, Isiah played in other years besides 88(Pistons runnerups), and 89 and 90(Pistons Champions). He came into the league in 81, but all people focus on is 89 and 90. They almost advanced in 87 if not for Isiah's pass being stolen by Bird.

He was an all-star 1982-1993, not just 87-90.

[Brenice]

Bird showing up? Are you considering all circumstances surrounding that situation? Tim Duncan showed up and San Antonio and they grew by leaps and bounds. The fact of the matter is Bird showed up at 23(fifth year elible), Isiah showed up at 20(sophomore). I guess that doesn't matter because of 'stats'. Magic showed up and Kareem was there with others. Russell played with the most stacked teams in history.

I'm not saying Isiah is on their level, but I hate stats alone. Zeke walked onto a roster of who exactly? Look it up. Isiah's rookie roster was nothing special. Isiah came into a mature league when he was 20. Hardship cases were rare. Magic and Isiah were amongst the rare players to come into the league at that age. Most were playing thru their senior seasons. The league was more mature, less immature. That has nothing to do with Nash or anything, but that does put things in context. Something that is lost when all you want to look at is stats.

Bottom line, Isiah could ball. Teams were built around him as the centerpiece. He was the leader. The team had his personality and spirity. They won.

The Celtics were built with Bird as the centerpiece. He was the leader. The team had his personality and spirit. They won.

Showtime Lakers were built around Magic as the centerpiece. Showtime spirit and personality was Magic all the way. They won. Is there any question?

The Phoenix Suns were built around Steve Nash as the centerpiece. They had/have his spirit and personality. Is there any question about that? They lost. Deal with it.

[bastillon]

Bird showing up? Are you considering all circumstances surrounding that situation? Tim Duncan showed up and San Antonio and they grew by leaps and bounds. The fact of the matter is Bird showed up at 23(fifth year elible), Isiah showed up at 20(sophomore). I guess that doesn't matter because of 'stats'. Magic showed up and Kareem was there with others. Russell played with the most stacked teams in history.

what does that have to do with anything ? my point was that their teams were nothing special before they showed up and all of a sudden these players transfered their teams into contenders. so to illustrate my point better.

there's a Phoenix Suns 2020 team. bottom line, they suck, barely winning 20 games. now here comes a Brenice Hilton and makes immediate impact - suddenly that team is winning 60 games. this is what we're talking about when refering to Bird, Magic or Russell. we're not arguing on the basis of their success, but on the basis of their impact on that success. see the difference ?

FYI, Russell had less all-star teammates than HOFamers (unbelievable how that works, huh ?). bottom line he made them into (undeserved) Hall of Famers because they won so much. but it was Russell who was truly responsible.

I'm not saying Isiah is on their level, but I hate stats alone. Zeke walked onto a roster of who exactly? Look it up. Isiah's rookie roster was nothing special. Isiah came into a mature league when he was 20. Hardship cases were rare. Magic and Isiah were amongst the rare players to come into the league at that age. Most were playing thru their senior seasons. The league was more mature, less immature. That has nothing to do with Nash or anything, but that does put things in context. Something that is lost when all you want to look at is stats.

I don't understand your point. I'm discussing Isiah's impact, because the only thing I'm concerned about. I do know one thing though, Pistons were an amazing team regardless of Isiah's presence. I don't even care about Isiah's early years because according to your criteria he was a loser at the time. he became a winner at the age of about 27 years and I'm focusing on that period.

what makes me suspicious:
Isiah being rated among Mark Price, Kevin Johnson and Dale Ellis
Pistons consisting of at least 5 (past, present or future) all-stars: Dantley, Dumars, Laimbeer, Rodman, Isiah, Aguirre

so what I'm saying is that they were a loaded team and there's no evidence suggesting they would regress all the way to .500 level without Isiah.

Russell, Bird and Magic are different because there's a body of evidence proving their teams to be far worse without them. Celtics without Bird were a borderline playoff team. Lakers without Magic couldn't get out of the first round. Celtics without Russell didn't even make the playoffs after they had won a title with him just the year before.

Bottom line, Isiah could ball. Teams were built around him as the centerpiece. He was the leader. The team had his personality and spirity. They won.

so let me get this straight, Isiah's personality and spirit made Pistons dominant on the glass. sounds about right...

[Brenice]

so let me get this straight, Isiah's personality and spirit made Pistons dominant on the glass. sounds about right...

Know you understand. That is exactly what I'm saying. They got their hunger from Isiah. Their leader scratched, clawed, and fought. That was the personna of the team. When my Wizards under Gil were lackadaisical on defense and rebounding, GILBERT ARENAS got the blame. NOBODY ELSE. NOT JAMISON. NOT Haywood. Not Tough Juice. Not anybody. Hell, Arenas didn't even want leadership responsibility as the best player, probably because he didn't want to d-up or ree. That team took on his personality. So much so, that they had to break it up to get rid of the poison. When the leader plays 'balls-out', the team damn sure follows. That's where it started. Like Jordan, Isiah was known to confront teammates. He didn't play afraid to get hurt. He didn't play intimidated by bigger players. He played like he was fighting for his life.

He led by example and had the skill to back it up.

But you go on thinking what you want.

[bastillon]

so why did Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn rebound just as well or better without Isiah on their team ? was it some kind of a bonus forever ?

[Brenice]

so why did Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn rebound just as well or better without Isiah on their team ? was it some kind of a bonus forever ?

That was his impact on their games. That's how they were brought up.

[MarJJMar]

so why did Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn rebound just as well or better without Isiah on their team ? was it some kind of a bonus forever ?

That was his impact on their games. That's how they were brought up.

[JordansBulls]

One thing people forget is that both Isiah and Nash both went to organizations that never won anything prior to them there. However it was Isiah who actually led a team to be champions.

[bastillon]

so why did Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn rebound just as well or better without Isiah on their team ? was it some kind of a bonus forever ?

That was his impact on their games. That's how they were brought up.

I understand. and how did he bring up Laimbeer who was already rebounding a lot prior to Isiah's arrival ?

[RandomKnight]

Doctor MJ

I understand all that. All of it is true. But when people look at Isaih only during the 2 year championship season or 3 year championship appearances, that's all they focus on.

What Isiah was a scoring first point guard playing the point. Maybe not as score first as an AI or Arenas, but he was score first. Over the years he was probably one of the few who became adept at both, but still with a score first mentality. Zeke's threat offensively opened up shots for his teammates becuase of his scoring threat.

Nash has always been a pass first point guard. Ran the offense better, shot better, but he is not the scorer Zeke was. The threat of his passes, like a Rondo, open up shots for him.

They are both great, but different.

I just prefer Zeke because of the other areas of the game.

Fair enough, here's what I'll say:

Magic Johnson's peak in scoring was bigger than Isiah's. Did he become a score first point guard? Nope. No matter what Magic did, he always did it with extreme efficiency. He kept awareness on the full court, and didn't get tunnel vision focusing on just getting his. He simply became adept enough at scoring and distribution he could score more than Isiah while absolutely slaughtering his efficiency.

So now we've got the Lakers and the Pistsons, Magic is clearly a drastically superior player in really any measurable way, and he's got global awareness that puts Isiah to shame...and yet you praise Isiah to the heavens because "he" beat the Lakers, no? I mean, take out the titles, are we really having this conversation? Probably not since you only think about this stuff in terms of "winners" and "losers".

And yeah, by your thinking, Isiah's a classic loser if he doesn't get fortunate enough to player with the strongest collection of defensive talent put together on one team since Russell retired.

I also think it's worthwhile to consider. as we talk about score-first point guards simply being different than pass-first point guards, that pretty much whenever we have a score-first point guard with strong team success, it's because the defense is making the team successful. I mean, I'm literally drawing a blank trying to think of an exception to the rule.

Truly the rule on score-first point guard is this: If you've got a great collection of defensive talent and you don't want to waste their energy on offense, well then you might as well put a score-first guy in there. That way your defense isn't degraded, and after all, as we've seen in NBA basketball, you're going to score about half the time no matter who is in there, so the score-first point guard offense isn't hurting you that badly.

Great post. Keen insights. All true.

[MarJJMar]

so why did Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn rebound just as well or better without Isiah on their team ? was it some kind of a bonus forever ?

That was his impact on their games. That's how they were brought up.

I understand. and how did he bring up Laimbeer who was already rebounding a lot prior to Isiah's arrival ?

He inserted robotic devices and used a remote controller to make the best use of Laimbeer even before that, isn't that obvious?
Or maybe Laimbeer is one of Thomas unkown siblings and Isiah Thomas made him grow up to be a great player.

[RandomKnight]

penalize Bird, Magic and Russell ? I don't think you understood my point. I'm saying Isiah's contributions to Pistons winning a title weren't deciding. meanwhile, in the case of those three players:

Bird. 1979 Celtics end up with -4.8 SRS and 28-54. Bird shows up, Celtics skyrocket to 7.4 SRS and 60-22.
1988 Celtics 6.2 SRS and 56-26. Bird goes down next thing you know Celtics are average with SRS of 1.5 and expected W-L of 44-38. so clearly I can see Bird as their star. he was the reason why they were so dominant.

Magic anchored Lakers offense resulting in one of the biggest offensive dynasties of all time. when he was their centerpiece, without Magic team performed worse by 11 pts per 100 possessions. that's a huge loss.

Russell made Celtics the greatest defensive dynasty ever. Celtics were winning about 40-50 games with defense alone (as measured by their Team Defensive Win Shares) and only about 10-15 games with their offense. with Russell you have a +4 SRS when he joins and -7 SRS when he retires. during that period he won 11 titles in 13 years, and played with a plethora of players. he showcases the same kind of defensive dominance in college and during olympics. to give you an idea of how much Russell dominated, let me tell you that his olympic team, which featured only him and KC Jones, was more dominant than the one with Oscar, Jerry West, Walt Bellamy, Jerry Lucas and Bob Boozer, all of whom were all-stars or MVP candidates. Russell was that dominant.

so I know these guys were directly responsible for their teams' success. the problem I have with Isiah is that there's no data like that. as a matter of fact without Isiah in 1991 Pistons didn't really suffer a lot. why would that be ? well I don't know but it's consistent with remaining evidence we have, whether it be recognition among peers or boxscore data. there's simply no way to prove Isiah was way better than his teammates or that he was drastically better than guys like Tim Hardaway, Mark Price or Kevin Johnson.

Nice post. I'm really impressed. Other guy... owned.

[therealbig3]

One thing people forget is that both Isiah and Nash both went to organizations that never won anything prior to them there. However it was Isiah who actually led a team to be champions.

It's not that people forget, it's that they don't care...I have no idea why you think it means something.