Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[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.

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

Pistons had been in 0 finals and won 0 titles before Isiah arrived. That is why it matters.

[Rapcity_11]

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.

Pistons had been in 0 finals and won 0 titles before Isiah arrived. That is why it matters.

Which has everything to do with luck and circumstances out of Isiah's control...

[Bank Shot]

So if the Pistons won a ship in the 70s Isiah's 2 rings would be worth less. Gotcha.

[therealbig3]

So if the Pistons won a ship in the 70s Isiah's 2 rings would be worth less. Gotcha.

And you know what, the only reason he has that criterion is because Jordan led the Bulls to 6 titles, and they never won before he showed up. So it's simply a way to try and prop up Jordan...I don't see any other way someone could come up with such an arbitrary way to rank players.

[Rapcity_11]

So if the Pistons won a ship in the 70s Isiah's 2 rings would be worth less. Gotcha.

And you know what, the only reason he has that criterion is because Jordan led the Bulls to 6 titles, and they never won before he showed up. So it's simply a way to try and prop up Jordan...I don't see any other way someone could come up with such an arbitrary way to rank players.

If he could just focus on the impact the player makes when they show up, there's a point to be made. But, bringing up the events that are completely out of the player's control is just ridiculous.

[G35]

I understand JB's point about a player arriving to a organization that may be perennial losers or have never won a title. There is a difference between playing for the Lakers and playing for Charlotte. Between playing for the Brewers or playing for the Yankees. Playing for the Bengals and playing for the Cowboys.

When a player or coach comes to an organization and completely turns them around on a historical level you have to give them a little more dap. Jordan is a good example. Bill Belichik/Tom Brady.

It's one reason why Lebron is going to be looked at differently than Jordan. He left Cleveland and went to Miami. There is something to be said for loyalty. Now loyalty doesn't mean much on a PC board dominated by advanced stat talk. But to fans that have an allegiance to their team it means something. Isiah was the leader of the Pistons. When the Bulls finally beat them in 1991 and all the Pistons (except Dumars IIRC) walked off behind him because he was the captain.

I just can't get with stats being the end all for a lot of arguments. I get it that it's hard to argue black and white. Numbers don't lie (but they do spin an argument). There are some players that numbers don't tell all there is to know about a player....

[rrravenred]

It's one reason why Lebron is going to be looked at differently than Jordan. He left Cleveland and went to Miami. There is something to be said for loyalty. Now loyalty doesn't mean much on a PC board dominated by advanced stat talk. But to fans that have an allegiance to their team it means something. Isiah was the leader of the Pistons. When the Bulls finally beat them in 1991 and all the Pistons (except Dumars IIRC) walked off behind him because he was the captain.

Meh. Lebron is going to get a lot of bad press for "The Decision", but I think that the Cleveland management demonstrated that it wasn't able to build a team able to go over the top, which I think was partially validated by the appalling season mailed in by the Cavs this year. You can argue fairly strongly I believe, that the current and future situations of both Chicago and Detroit were better in the seventh year of Isiah and Michael's careers than they were in Lebron's. If Jordan had still been relying on an Antawn Jamison or Mo Williams as his second-best player in 91, I think there might have been upheavals the next year. Likewise, Isiah only had four sub-.500 teams during his tenure (his first two and last two years) and was the beneficiary of a pretty good infusion of talent to the Pistons organization.

It's easy to show loyalty to a winner, even easier to demonstrate loyalty to a contender.

Having said that, "what a player means to a team" doesn't always correlate directly to the best player. Wade's obviously has the most love and devotion from Heat fans, but it's hard to argue he's the best player on the team. Pierce is going to be most fan's favourite Celtic (another interesting "loyalty" player), but Rondo and Garnett are far more pivotal pieces. If you want to put affection as a big part of how you rank players, that's up to you, but don't expect others to follow your lead.

I just can't get with stats being the end all for a lot of arguments. I get it that it's hard to argue black and white. Numbers don't lie (but they do spin an argument). There are some players that numbers don't tell all there is to know about a player....

Absolutely. Russell is a great case in point. Despite the quite strong numerical and empirical arguments, his strongest argument for GOAT comes from contemporary accounts as to his ability to impact not just his own team, but his opposition, with all the distortions and selectivity that opinion-based analysis implies.

But one of the things that Isiah's supporters seem to commonly do is to use their own opinion as evidence for their analysis, which is a really circular way of argument. Non-stat arguments don't have to be without empirical support.

[therealbig3]

^Great post, but I disagree that Rondo is more pivotal than Pierce...Pierce is now probably the 2nd most, or even most important Celtic, with KG not being the same since 08.

I'd actually say that Rondo is still the least important member of the big 4.

[rrravenred]

Fair enough. I was using him to make a point. And I'd argue that KG's defensive impact is slightly more important than Pierce's all-around impact, especially since the departure of Perkins.

[Rapcity_11]

Yeah, add me to the Rondo as the 4th wheel bandwagon.

[Warspite]

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 ?

Laimbeer was playing in Italy and not considered more than a 12th man NBA big when Isiah arrived.

Rodman was Rodman. The guy that sabotaged the Spurs and destroyed the Pistons in 94 is the same guy that was drafted, grew up and became a DPOY. The only differance was Isiah was the leader of the teams he succeeded and Isiah retired just before his career was destroyed. It took a desperate Bulls GM one of the GOAT coaches and MJ to turn him around and he still was never the choir boy that he was under Isiah.

The biggest differance between the 2 is leadership. The leadership gap between them is as big as the Grand Canyon itself. One is a leader of men and the other isnt. Isiah could get any player to play defense while Nash cant get anyone to.

[bastillon]

better defense ? you mean 1 pt DRtg better (when Isiah missed 40 games in 91) ? I don't how naive you would have to be to believe that team consisting of Chuck Daly (one of the greatest defensive coaches who invented modern day defense), Rodman (DPOY, obviously), Dumars, Mahorn and Laimbeer needed Isiah to play great defense. it's truly ridiculous to believe Isiah had a great defensive impact on that team, but if you're right not only does that make Isiah better than Nash but also makes him the greatest defensive point guard of all time, as that would make him the only defensive PG who had global impact on his team and thus Isiah would be the defensive anchor of Detroit Pistons in the late 80s.

all I know is that the arguments of Isiah's supporters are so desperate that they actually invented some new basketball terms like "leadership to rebounds that improves your game for the rest of your career". hell, Isiah actually won at least 5 titles cuz there aint no way MJ's winning the 2nd threepeat without Isiah vastly contributing to Rodman's rebounding!

[bastillon]

oh, Rodman's 16 rpg in 38 mpg in '94 playoffs and 15 rpg in 33 mpg in 95 WCFs must have really hurt the Spurs. the guy didn't even get to 20 rebound mark that's pure sabotage

[F-Stop]

Give me Isiah -
Basketball is more than numbers.. The numbers game is nice and all but there are other factors to consider.. That leadership intangible can never be overlooked.. Prime Example right now is Tebow.. Like Isiah he is showing that he will scratch and claw with you and not just direct you. The players see these guys giving effort anyway they can (it is infectious) so they go all out too. You aren't going to always win but it is one of the ways that contribute to winning.
I'm not saying Nash is a loser.. I am saying that Nash has not done enough to win. Nash may not be vocal enough and the fact that he is seen not trying on defense leads to the same attitude by those he shares the court with. Defense wins championships and when Nash is on the floor the point of attack is not defensed.

[F-Stop]

by bastillon on Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:34 am

all I know is that the arguments of Isiah's supporters are so desperate that they actually invented some new basketball terms like "leadership to rebounds that improves your game for the rest of your career". hell, Isiah actually won at least 5 titles cuz there aint no way MJ's winning the 2nd threepeat without Isiah vastly contributing to Rodman's rebounding![/quote]

What posters are saying is that Isiah was also a motivator who gave his teammates inspiration and dedication to stick with the style of play because more often than not it will lead you to success. Some guys understood it and carried that way of thinking on with them after they left the Pistons or after Isiah retired. Isiah's influence is still being felt throughout basketball both positively and negatively. His antics haven't helped him but his style helped Dumars shape the Pistons for there last title.

[bastillon]

What posters are saying is that Isiah was also a motivator who gave his teammates inspiration and dedication to stick with the style of play because more often than not it will lead you to success. Some guys understood it and carried that way of thinking on with them after they left the Pistons or after Isiah retired. Isiah's influence is still being felt throughout basketball both positively and negatively. His antics haven't helped him but his style helped Dumars shape the Pistons for there last title.

and Im questioning that train of thought because I could say the same thing opposite way there'd be no way to prove Im wrong.

[F-Stop]

bastillion
and Im questioning that train of thought because I could say the same thing opposite way there'd be no way to prove Im wrong.[/quote]

Why question that train of thought ? It worked for Isiah and he was rewarded with 2 champioships.

Not to be sarcastic but please show me how you can spin it so that a 2x champion who led his team past multiple HOF level players who were playing high level basketball at the time is nt better than a 2x MVP who has not made it to the finals.

[bastillon]

I'm questioning that train of thought because I don't think Isiah was primary reason for their championships as it is evident they won their games with extraordinary rebounding and defense, with offense being a nice supplement.

[That Nicka]

I like Isiah..

[F-Stop]

I'm questioning that train of thought because I don't think Isiah was primary reason for their championships as it is evident they won their games with extraordinary rebounding and defense, with offense being a nice supplement.

Your absolutely correct in my estimation however, Isiah competed on the defensive end along with the rest of the defensive players. It is thought that this is where Nash takes his breaks. It is this lack of full court play which in my estimation is one of the reasons for his lack of success.