Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

Post #141 » by **rrravenred** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:57 am

I disagree, RandomKnight. It's absolutely a valid question. Both were amongst the best points of their generation, both had flashy below-the-rim games and casts which showed off their skillsets.

I plump for Nash, certainly, but it's not like Isiah's Stephon Marbury or something...

Laimbeer · Post #142 » by **Laimbeer** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:21 am

Aeternus wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:Right, just like talking about Russell's leadership diminishes Auerbach, Cousy and Hondo.

Completely different arguments.
I see no one try to argue that Russell is the reason Cousy developed his ballhandling skills, Havlicek his scoring, Auerbach his man management capabilities. When people talk about Russel's impact, they mention how his defensive skill is the main reason those Celtics teams won, backing that up with the big improvement Russell made on coming to Boston, and the worsening of the WL record on his retiring.

With Isiah I see people arguing that his "tenacity" and "leadership" formed the defensive and rebounding intensity and skills of players whose game was predicated upon them, basically saying that Isiah created them as NBA players. All this being not backed up by team records, pre/post Pistons career accomplishments of said players, and any stats. That's just ridiculous, undemonstrable, and straight disrespectful.

Careful to differentiate between basketball skill and things like leadership, tenacity, culture, desire, and other intangibles. Russell and Isiah didn't give them their natural abilities, but leadership can maximize how you apply those.

Guys like Rodman and Aguirre were cancers elsewhere but good team members with the Bad Boys. Nondescript players like Laimbeer, Mahorn, Edwards, and Johnson became more special. The culture was a major factor in team success. With this team as much as any, the total was greater than the sum of the parts.

RandomKnight · Post #143 » by **RandomKnight** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:21 am

rrravenred wrote:I disagree, RandomKnight. It's absolutely a valid question. Both were amongst the best points of their generation, both had flashy below-the-rim games and casts which showed off their skillsets.

I plump for Nash, certainly, but it's not like Isiah's Stephon Marbury or something...

Thank you for responding. I just wrote this for the thread comparing Kobe and Nash on offense. Honestly, no disrespect but this is how much I disagree back. (I am not attributing any of my stronger statements below to you either. They are general in nature.)

Kobe is my favorite player. But Nash is not only offensive goat, he's got the best argument for the highest impact player ever. Sorry but that is just a quantifiable fact. (Jordan and maybe two years of Hakeem are his only real challenges... I'll leave Russel to antiquity.)

I'm not a homer, I don't get emotional or fixate on personalities like so many here do. I am just stating the facts.

A few guys can see it.

Tsherkin is smart and knowledgeable enough but tends to be circumspect, so it will be while before he sees and says it, if ever. Doc MJ is even smarter and seems to be coming to the realization slowly.

Most will never see it unless it becomes commonly stated. Problem is, for most, truth is a popularity contest. Parrots parroting.

Most fans can only look at very few facts at once, like a few box score stats, and they can't even process those.

Doesn't matter, the truth is... what is. Who cares if minds rarely reflect it.

Heck, Mark Twain even laughed at this sad fact when he said, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

Steve Nash is by far the most underrated pro athlete of all time.

Just thought I'd vent for once.

Brenice · Post #144 » by **Brenice** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:08 pm

RandomKnight wrote:But Nash is not only offensive goat, he's got the best argument for the highest impact player ever. Sorry but that is just a quantifiable fact. (Jordan and maybe two years of Hakeem are his only real challenges... I'll leave Russel to antiquity.)

wow

Laimbeer · Post #145 » by **Laimbeer** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:26 pm

Brenice wrote:
RandomKnight wrote:But Nash is not only offensive goat, he's got the best argument for the highest impact player ever. Sorry but that is just a quantifiable fact. (Jordan and maybe two years of Hakeem are his only real challenges... I'll leave Russel to antiquity.)

wow

+wow

cpower · Post #146 » by **cpower** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:39 pm

Laimbeer wrote:
Brenice wrote:
RandomKnight wrote:But Nash is not only offensive goat, he's got the best argument for the highest impact player ever. Sorry but that is just a quantifiable fact. (Jordan and maybe two years of Hakeem are his only real challenges... I'll leave Russel to antiquity.)

wow

+wow

++++wow
dude is on crack...

JordansBulls · Post #147 » by **JordansBulls** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:09 pm

RandomKnight wrote:But Nash is not only offensive goat, he's got the best argument for the highest impact player ever. Sorry but that is just a quantifiable fact. (Jordan and maybe two years of Hakeem are his only real challenges... I'll leave Russel to antiquity.)

I'm not a homer, I don't get emotional or fixate on personalities like so many here do. I am just stating the facts.

A few guys can see it.

You gotta be kidding me here. How could a player have the highest impact ever when he never made the finals despite having stacked teams and his teammates led in PER and Win Shares in his MVP seasons?

prs · Post #148 » by **prs** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:28 pm

Can we give up on the Finals argument? Honestly if someone can't grasp the fact that being in the finals doesn't always mean you're a top2 team then they're not worth arguing with at all.

Not to mention injuries one year where his team was full of hot garbage because of them and the Spurs series fiasco.

Also stacked teams? :roll:

How many HOFers on those Suns teams again minus Nash? MAYBE Amar'e thats it. Not even close to most championship teams let alone a team like Isiah's Pistons or Magics Lakers.

Not to mention people like to pile up the players he played with names like they were all playing at the same time with him and all healthy. JJ played one playoff run with the suns when he was a solid player and was it for all the games? Iunno you tell me cause apparently people know the suns history well... :roll:

Then we have Amar'e who also wasn't always there. The only other offensive talent to keep up production without Nash. People like to rant and rave about Marion during those years but as we've seen hes not a player that produces on his own.

The offensive talent around him during the phoenix years is so overblown and never taken in the correct context.

btw did those top10 players with HoF talent on their teams make it to the finals every year? i need a reminder....

Isiah leader... sure showed it in NY.

k im done ranting.

WestSideChamp · Post #149 » by **WestSideChamp** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:34 pm

Isiah Thomas and it's not even CLOSE

Rapcity_11 · Post #150 » by **Rapcity_11** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:35 pm

WestSideChamp wrote:Isiah Thomas and it's not even CLOSE

Let me guess, 2 rings?

JordansBulls · Post #151 » by **JordansBulls** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:46 pm

Rapcity_11 wrote:
WestSideChamp wrote:Isiah Thomas and it's not even CLOSE

Let me guess, 2 rings?

No a flat out better player. Turned a losing organization into a winning one. Suns made the finals twice in 1976 and 1993, none were with Nash around. Not to mention had a prime Marion and Amare and still couldn't win. Had a prime Dirk and Finley and couldn't win either.

Post #152 » by **rrravenred** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:29 pm

JB, you're judging a hell of a lot of team (and organisation) based achievements as turning on the fulcrum of ONE PLAYER. So without Isiah Chuck Daly was a useless coach , Bill Laimbeer would never have led the NBA's rebounding once, with another four top-five finishes, Dennis Rodman would have been a middling defender at best, Tripucka and Dantley would never have scored jack without Isiah, Dumars would have passed obscurity as an end-of-the-bench player...

That doesn't strike you as reaching JUST A BIT? He's not the messiah, he's just a very accomplished point guard.

Players don't win championships, front offices do.

easiestplayfts · Post #153 » by **easiestplayfts** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:06 am

WestSideChamp wrote:Isiah Thomas and it's not even CLOSE

glenclose · Post #154 » by **glenclose** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:49 am

zeke. nash runs a more balanced team offense but if i need buckets in the 4th im taking isiah. i think that if u put the ball in nashs hands hes gonna find the best scoring opportunity which is great but it might be a midrange jumper by shawn marion or a three by jared dudley. however, i want to put the ball in the hands of my best player and urge him to get a bucket instead

Point forward · Post #155 » by **Point forward** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:27 am

I am slightly pro Nash (but I see why ppl would take Zeke), but slowly but surely all Nash discussions seem to take on an ideological nature.

Economy, gun control, global warming, abortion, Middle East, Steve Nash.

reiche · Post #156 » by **reiche** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:04 pm

WestSideChamp wrote:Isiah Thomas and it's not even CLOSE

.

Laimbeer · Post #157 » by **Laimbeer** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:07 pm

Glad to see this get kicked up. Any Zeke thread is worth at least a dozen page flame fest.

Laimbeer · Post #158 » by **Laimbeer** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:09 pm

rrravenred wrote:Players don't win championships, front offices do.

Well I guess our ranking of Russell needs a tweak. :wink:

Post #159 » by **rrravenred** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:40 pm

<grin> Fair point, Lambs.

But I certainly credit Auerbach pretty damn heavily for that 60s run, and for that matter Krause for the Bulls 90s success. Now players certainly can have an effect on Front Office decisions (Isiah knifing Dantley being an on-topic example), but a strong front-office makes decisions based on team goals, not just player opinions (Cartwright/Oakley being a great example of this).

therealbig3 · Post #160 » by **therealbig3** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:54 pm

Russell had monster impact, which elevated those Celtics above everyone else at the time. As a direct result of him being uber-amazing, the Celtics were able to win rings. That's what's important, his contribution to the Celtics, not the mere fact that he won 11 rings.

There's no evidence for Isiah having that kind of impact, in fact, there's no evidence for him having Nash-level impact.