Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[JordansBulls]

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.

Yes Russ had monster impact but let's not act like Boston was some scrub team. When Russ came the Celtics had the 2nd best record in the league before he arrived and his rookie year it was his teammate who won ROY and his other one that won league MVP. Isiah came in and Tripucka was already a stud but Isiah was the who was theconsistent star when Detroit won. And please if Nash impact was as good as Isiah he would have won. He couldn't win with guys who were arguably top 5 in the league in Dirk and Amare.

[prs]

and Isiah couldn't even get as far as Nash did with Tripucka and Laimbeer. Couldn't win with an even more stacked team that had Dantley. I thought he turned players around, made them amazing. Why didn't Dantley work out?

Individually everything points to Nash and it's not even really that close in all honesty. I only see a straw mans argument for Isiah.

[therealbig3]

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.

Yes Russ had monster impact but let's not act like Boston was some scrub team. When Russ came the Celtics had the 2nd best record in the league before he arrived and his rookie year it was his teammate who won ROY and his other one that won league MVP. Isiah came in and Tripucka was already a stud but Isiah was the who was theconsistent star when Detroit won. And please if Nash impact was as good as Isiah he would have won. He couldn't win with guys who were arguably top 5 in the league in Dirk and Amare.

You bring up these same exact points all the time, and literally every single one has been responded to convincingly, so I don't know why you keep rehashing them over and over...this is basically every debate between pro-Nash guys and anti-Nash guys:

Pro-Nash: Based on both objective evidence (+/-, team improvement, player improvement, playoff performance) and the eye test, Steve Nash is one of the best PGs of all time, and should be ranked ahead of other PGs that do not have evidence of having the same impact, such as Isiah, Stockton, and Kidd.

Anti-Nash: But...but...well he never won, so he can't go ahead of those guys (completely ignoring context and facts)


Which argument sounds more convincing? And people wonder why Nash is ranked so favorably by a lot of other people here...well, it's because there are a lot of facts in his favor, and a lot of conjecture and unfounded opinion in the other guys' favors.

[JordansBulls]

and Isiah couldn't even get as far as Nash did with Tripucka and Laimbeer. Couldn't win with an even more stacked team that had Dantley. I thought he turned players around, made them amazing. Why didn't Dantley work out?

Individually everything points to Nash and it's not even really that close in all honesty. I only see a straw mans argument for Isiah.

Isiah won 2 titles and won finals mvp as well. Not only that but lost only once with HCA. How many times did Nash lose with it?

[JordansBulls]

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.

Yes Russ had monster impact but let's not act like Boston was some scrub team. When Russ came the Celtics had the 2nd best record in the league before he arrived and his rookie year it was his teammate who won ROY and his other one that won league MVP. Isiah came in and Tripucka was already a stud but Isiah was the who was theconsistent star when Detroit won. And please if Nash impact was as good as Isiah he would have won. He couldn't win with guys who were arguably top 5 in the league in Dirk and Amare.

You bring up these same exact points all the time, and literally every single one has been responded to convincingly, so I don't know why you keep rehashing them over and over...this is basically every debate between pro-Nash guys and anti-Nash guys:

Pro-Nash: Based on both objective evidence (+/-, team improvement, player improvement, playoff performance) and the eye test, Steve Nash is one of the best PGs of all time, and should be ranked ahead of other PGs that do not have evidence of having the same impact, such as Isiah, Stockton, and Kidd.

Anti-Nash: But...but...well he never won, so he can't go ahead of those guys (completely ignoring context and facts)


Which argument sounds more convincing? And people wonder why Nash is ranked so favorably by a lot of other people here...well, it's because there are a lot of facts in his favor, and a lot of conjecture and unfounded opinion in the other guys' favors.

Then if you are bringing up the arguments that Nash has better stats than why not say Wilt was better than Russell than? Because that is essentially Nash's only argument. I can see if Nash never played on any good teams but the teams he has had in his career he should have won titles. Isiah generally speaking played against greater teams than he had when he lost that wasn't the case with Nash.

[rrravenred]

Breaking it down...

Isiah won 2 titles

Factually incorrect. The Pistons won two titles. Isiah was a leading player on that team.

and won finals mvp as well.

Absolutely. I don't think anyone has said that Isiah deserves that particular accolade. However, his team got him in the position where he could contend for it, which does need to be taken into account, along with the fact that Dumars also won one.

Not only that but lost only once with HCA. How many times did Nash lose with it?

That statistic means a lot more to you than it does to anyone else on the board is the only comment I'll make.

Anything else?

[Doctor MJ]

Then if you are bringing up the arguments that Nash has better stats than why not say Wilt was better than Russell than? Because that is essentially Nash's only argument.

Nash's argument is about his ability to lift his teams. Massive, massive APM kind of stuff.

I also believe that in a typical year, Russell would slaughter Wilt by that same metric.

[JordansBulls]

Then if you are bringing up the arguments that Nash has better stats than why not say Wilt was better than Russell than? Because that is essentially Nash's only argument.

Nash's argument is about his ability to lift his teams. Massive, massive APM kind of stuff.

I also believe that in a typical year, Russell would slaughter Wilt by that same metric.

How does Isiah not have that ability as well? Isiah and Nash neither of which led there teams in PER nor Win Shares, but one gets credit for lifting there teams and the other does not. How is that? Not to mention we know Isiah shows up on the biggest stage. How many stars would lose with HCA having a guy who averaged 37 ppg in the conference finals on their team?

[Doctor MJ]

How does Isiah not have that ability as well? Isiah and Nash neither of which led there teams in PER nor Win Shares, but one gets credit for lifting there teams and the other does not. How is that? Not to mention we know Isiah shows up on the biggest stage. How many stars would lose with HCA having a guy who averaged 37 ppg in the conference finals on their team?

How the heck am I suppose to deal with that argument JB? You think I just assume that people have that kind of impact? I've given dissertations worth of stuff explain why I've come to the conclusions I have.

As simple as I can state it:

Nash is a GOAT level distributor and a GOAT level shooter who has led the best offenses in history, who also have a recurring tendency to suck without him.
Isiah is not a GOAT level distributor and not a GOAT level shooter and has not led the best offenses in history, or even elite teams known for their offense.

For some reason, I don't give Isiah the nod simply because he happened to play on the best playoff defensive team of the last 40 years. I know, it's a mystery.

[bastillon]

Then if you are bringing up the arguments that Nash has better stats than why not say Wilt was better than Russell than? Because that is essentially Nash's only argument.

Nash's argument is about his ability to lift his teams. Massive, massive APM kind of stuff.

I also believe that in a typical year, Russell would slaughter Wilt by that same metric.

How does Isiah not have that ability as well? Isiah and Nash neither of which led there teams in PER nor Win Shares, but one gets credit for lifting there teams and the other does not. How is that? Not to mention we know Isiah shows up on the biggest stage. How many stars would lose with HCA having a guy who averaged 37 ppg in the conference finals on their team?

that 37 ppg crap again ? I think we've solved this debate the last time - Nash was responsible for Amare's explosion against the Spurs. Nash was the first option in that series, he was the one getting double teams and he was the one creating shots for Amare very often. it's pretty obvious Amare wasn't playing isolation basketball all the time given his low APG averages.

[JordansBulls]

that 37 ppg crap again ? I think we've solved this debate the last time - Nash was responsible for Amare's explosion against the Spurs. Nash was the first option in that series, he was the one getting double teams and he was the one creating shots for Amare very often. it's pretty obvious Amare wasn't playing isolation basketball all the time given his low APG averages.

That doesn't make sense, how the hell can you be responsible for getting someone 37 ppg average for an entire series? Might as well say Mo Williams was responsible for getting Lebron that vs Orlando.

[bastillon]

that 37 ppg crap again ? I think we've solved this debate the last time - Nash was responsible for Amare's explosion against the Spurs. Nash was the first option in that series, he was the one getting double teams and he was the one creating shots for Amare very often. it's pretty obvious Amare wasn't playing isolation basketball all the time given his low APG averages.

That doesn't make sense, how the hell can you be responsible for getting someone 37 ppg average for an entire series? Might as well say Mo Williams was responsible for getting Lebron that vs Orlando.

you might as well watch the series and realise it's true. LeBron James was averaging like 8 apg in that series - he the creator as well. Nash averaged like 11-12 apg as well and it was him who was getting double teamed, not Amare. you'd expect Amare's apg to be pretty high with that scoring number...Spurs must've doubled him all game long, right ? well, that was not the case. Amare was mostly a finisher and hence the low apg numbers.

[basic21]

Defense wins rings, the Mavs and Dirk and Kidd proved that last year.

Nash just doesn't have it in him.

[Rapcity_11]

Defense wins rings, the Mavs and Dirk and Kidd proved that last year.

Nash just doesn't have it in him.

Actually defense and offense are equally important for teams

At the PG position, offense is much more important. It's 70-80/20-30%

Those are facts.

[Rapcity_11]

That doesn't make sense, how the hell can you be responsible for getting someone 37 ppg average for an entire series? Might as well say Mo Williams was responsible for getting Lebron that vs Orlando.

That comparison is mind blowingly ridiculous man.

[RandomKnight]

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?

We are speaking of impact here. Rings is just one measure of impact, and one of the most important. But if you take into account the other measures of impact available to us, and analyze them (ringlessness not withstanding), it becocomes overwhelmingly obvious that Nash is top two in impact ever. Jordan is the other (hororable mention to peak Hakeem).

If you are speaking of GOAT, Nash is not top ten because impact is only one criterion for that resume driven measure of greatness.

But yes, for sheer on court impact, Nash is the man. Get the distinction bro?

[Rapcity_11]

Nash is top two in impact ever.

I'm a big Nash guy but WTF are you talking about?

[RandomKnight]

Nash is top two in impact ever.

I'm a big Nash guy but WTF are you talking about?

I've been enjoying reading your posts on these Nash threads. Rational, factual and just good.

Read my post above again and think about the distinction between impact and GOAT status.

Now take into account all of the impact related stats and facts like running nine out of the top twenty offenses, adjusted plus minus, efficiency etc.

Then tell me, who has more on court impact from game to game than prime Nash has?

It is clear and quantifiable... even more, definitional. It just isn't said much. But don't worry about that. Just think it through and you'll see it clear as day.

[Rapcity_11]

Nash is top two in impact ever.

I'm a big Nash guy but WTF are you talking about?

I have ben enjoying reading your posts on these Nash threads. Rational, factual and just good.

Read my post above again and think about the distinction between impact and GOAT status.

Now take into account all of the impact related stats and facts like running nine out of the top twenty offenses, adjusted plus minus, efficiency etc.

Then tell me, who has more on court impact from game to game than prime Nash has?

It is clear and quantifiable. It just isn't said much. But don't worry about that. Just think it through and you'll see it clear as day.

Impact is all that should matter for GOAT lists.

Just looking at modern (active) players, KG, Duncan, Dirk, Kobe, Wade and Lebron all rank ahead of Nash in impact stats.

[bastillon]

btw, Isiah Thomas was Steve Nash's idol growing up as a kid.