Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[RandomKnight]

[/quote]mpact 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.[/quote]

You made two separate statements. Not being disrespectful, I respect you as a poster here, but they are both inaccurate.

First one. "Impact is all that should matter for GOAT lists."

In one sense, what you're saying here has an element of truth. But you're failing to see the distinction I am trying to make here. The GOAT list has a generally accepted list of criteria. For example Stats, accolades, rings etc.

Now, when a player steps on to the court, they have an impact on the outcome of the game. Is accolades really the same thing as that impact they have on a given game or group of games? No. Are they a measure of impact? Sort of, but they are not directly a measure of impact in the sense that adjusted plus minus is. That is a direct specific metric of on court impact.

Another more nuanced example of the same point is the comparison between box score stats and the fact/stat that Nash ran nine of the top twenty offenses ever. Especially given that no one else even comes close.

You can find players not even listed in the top one hundred list, that averaged for a given season very similar box score stats to prime Nash's averages. But would you say that those guys had any where near Nash's impact on those games they accumulated those stats in. No, not close.

Nash ups the whole offense to a degree that those guys don't. Eye test aside we can know this by impact based stats like nine out of the top twenty offenses and adjusted plus minus offense. Then all of a sudden those guys pale by comparison. But box score stats still play a huge role in GOAT listing.

Goat is a comparison of resumes based on a wide array of criteria, and rightly so. All of these "resume criteria" have something to do with on court impact in at least some sense but do not necessarily measure it very well. For this reason, some players have higher goat list rankings than players that actually had more actual on court impact.

Look at impact stats and facts and Nash is clearly dominant. Of the guys you mentioned above, only Duncan comes close enough to make an argument for against Nash. That's because he has freaky high impact stats and facts that blow away most other high ranking GOAT listers.

I guess I just kind of answered your second point right there. I know I did not substantiate my points with detailed stats. But then I am really just trying to get you to see my distinction about on court impact. Anyway, those stats are in my head, but for accuracy sake I would have to go look them up and I'm too lazy and don't care enough to.

All of this is not to mention eye test game watching and team mate/competition comparisons and the like like further bolster Nash's case considerably. You should know, you list them all the time in your posts.


If I haven't convinced you at all, that's cool. I still like your posts. When it comes to Nash threads, they are like an island of sanity in a sea of confusion.

[bastillon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N5FAwrVca4
so much for Nash not being able to produce in the playoffs...

[bastillon]

JB, here's your Amare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHYez3i6IIs
the guy is getting free dunks from Nash

[Rapcity_11]

JB, here's your Amare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHYez3i6IIs
the guy is getting free dunks from Nash

AND Duncan isn't even guarding Amare on most of the possessions shown.

[rrravenred]

JB, here's your Amare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHYez3i6IIs
the guy is getting free dunks from Nash

AND Duncan isn't even guarding Amare on most of the possessions shown.

Obviously - like Nash - Duncan can't play defense so they're hiding him on that end of the floor...

[JordansBulls]

JB, here's your Amare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHYez3i6IIs
the guy is getting free dunks from Nash

That's against the Mavs. We were talking about against the Spurs were Amare averaged 37 ppg on Prime Tim Duncan.

I loaded up Game 1 already

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVRRETxJG6U]2005 West Finals Game 1 - Spurs (121) @ Suns (114) - 1st Half[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfOVGbq5ArE]2005 West Finals Game 1 - Spurs (121) @ Suns (114) - 2nd Half[/youtube]

Game 2 was loaded but had to take it down.

[Paul Lord]

Nash didn't shine until the hand checking rules came in place. Isiah shined in the toughest era of all time.

The answer is Isiah and it's not even close.

[bastillon]

I've just watched that game. same old story Nash is dominating offensively, but Spurs win the 4th quarter decisively, trapping Nash on pick and rolls (Nash passes to the open man and he can't do anything with the ball after rotation comes up - Popovich is a GENIUS). Spurs win the game offensively, killing Suns bigs on boards and pick and rolls. Amare plays horrible defense. his points mostly come off of Nash's passes, he rarely isolates, always being on the move. Spurs bench came up BIG (Barry and Horry) though Suns bench was terrific as well (Jackson and Hunter).

Popovich is the only one who could stop Nash. he used hard traps on every pick and roll. that bought the defense some time as passing lanes were blocked by two defenders and Nash find a way to get the ball out of there. Popovich knew too damn well Suns players other than Nash can't really create for themselves or pass well, so they couldn't take advantage of 3 vs 4, and Spurs defense was recovering super fast. I've always maintained Popovich is GOAT coach, having experienced his impact on my team...

[ronnymac2]

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

Interesting. I didn't know that.

[Rapcity_11]

JB, here's your Amare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHYez3i6IIs
the guy is getting free dunks from Nash

That's against the Mavs. We were talking about against the Spurs were Amare averaged 37 ppg on Prime Tim Duncan.

Uh, that video is almost entirely vs. the Spurs...

And when was the last time you watched the Spurs/Suns 2005 series you posted? Watch how Amare gets his buckets. He's rarely covered by TD and when he is he's getting most of his shots off of feeds from Nash. Amare did almost no isolation work that series.

[Ballings7]

Amare was purposely given light coverage by the Spurs defense so they were able to hinder the Suns three pointers and easy lay-ups from their role players. Because Phoenix didn't have any other real primary creator aside from Nash to pay any consistent attention to. It became clear by the end of the series what was being done, and, D'Antoni himself, along with several analysts said the same thing.

[WestSideChamp]

bunch of young whipper snappers who were born after Isiah has picked Nash. If you had any brains, and seen them both play, you would know without a doubt that Isiah Thomas is better.

[Rapcity_11]

You made two separate statements. Not being disrespectful, I respect you as a poster here, but they are both inaccurate.

First one. "Impact is all that should matter for GOAT lists."

In one sense, what you're saying here has an element of truth. But you're failing to see the distinction I am trying to make here. The GOAT list has a generally accepted list of criteria. For example Stats, accolades, rings etc.

I couldn't care less what's "generally accepted". A lot of stupid things are generally accepted. Public opinion is often misguided and inaccurate. Ranking players based on their resumes is wrong.

Now, when a player steps on to the court, they have an impact on the outcome of the game. Is accolades really the same thing as that impact they have on a given game or group of games? No. Are they a measure of impact? Sort of, but they are not directly a measure of impact in the sense that adjusted plus minus is. That is a direct specific metric of on court impact.

Every year we see accolades handed out poorly yet in the future want to use them as proof of something? I don't get it...

Another more nuanced example of the same point is the comparison between box score stats and the fact/stat that Nash ran nine of the top twenty offenses ever. Especially given that no one else even comes close.

You can find players not even listed in the top one hundred list, that averaged for a given season very similar box score stats to prime Nash's averages. But would you say that those guys had any where near Nash's impact on those games they accumulated those stats in. No, not close.

Nash ups the whole offense to a degree that those guys don't. Eye test aside we can know this by impact based stats like nine out of the top twenty offenses and adjusted plus minus offense. Then all of a sudden those guys pale by comparison. But box score stats still play a huge role in GOAT listing.

Yeah, we both know I'm well aware of beyond the box-score impact.

Goat is a comparison of resumes based on a wide array of criteria, and rightly so. All of these "resume criteria" have something to do with on court impact in at least some sense but do not necessarily measure it very well.

So why use them?

For this reason, some players have higher goat list rankings than players that actually had more actual on court impact.

Which is ridiculous.

Look at impact stats and facts and Nash is clearly dominant. Of the guys you mentioned above, only Duncan comes close enough to make an argument for against Nash. That's because he has freaky high impact stats and facts that blow away most other high ranking GOAT listers.

Look closer. Nash does historically well, but so do the guys I mentioned. As high an impact as Nash the guys I mentioned have him beat.

I guess I just kind of answered your second point right there. I know I did not substantiate my points with detailed stats. But then I am really just trying to get you to see my distinction about on court impact. Anyway, those stats are in my head, but for accuracy sake I would have to go look them up and I'm too lazy and don't care enough to.

All of this is not to mention eye test game watching and team mate/competition comparisons and the like like further bolster Nash's case considerably. You should know, you list them all the time in your posts.

You really do need to go look things up. "In your head" doesn't cut it.

If I haven't convinced you at all, that's cool. I still like your posts. When it comes to Nash threads, they are like an island of sanity in a sea of confusion.

Haha, thanks!

[Rapcity_11]

bunch of young whipper snappers who were born after Isiah has picked Nash. If you had any brains, and seen them both play, you would know without a doubt that Isiah Thomas is better.

If you actually read the thread, you would see that the Nash supporters mostly use research and analysis whereas the Isiah supporters use nostalgia and narratives.

[Brenice]

How about they analyze what type of team Nash would win with? Being that it hasn't happened, it would be hypothetical, just as these stats being thrown out. I saw them both play. The fact is, Nash's teams never rose to championship level, during his WHOLE career. Yes, Steve Nash is the greatest point guard EVER when looking at their career starting at age 30. No doubt about it. Never won a thing, but age 30+, Steve's your man.

Nostalgia? We rank the Kobe's, Wade's along with the West's etc after Jordan. We rank and debate the centers of Kareem, Russell, Howard, Wilt, Olajuwon, etc(not in order) based on seeing them play. We look at a Bird and compare him to Nowitzki. We don't rank based on nostalgia, we look at their games, compare how they match up, their skills, their mental approaches, the rules of the game, the heart of champions, a lot of things. It goes beyond statistics. Way beyond statistics as defined by unique circumstances.

People want to look at statistics and say that this player did this and this player did that. So one is better than the other. But statistics lie, big-time.

Prime Mike Tyson was knocking out everybody. People were scared to fight him. But guess what, he never fought Joe Louis. He never fought Ali. He never fought Marciano. Hell, up until then, he had not fought Holyfield. You can use statistics. But I look at the fight. I look at Nash play. I looked at Zeke play. Turns out, Mike was fake.

This myth that point guards don't play a role on defense is crap. You try being Amare when Nash is repeatedly getting beat for penetration. Bill Russell would have trouble covering for Nash getting beat. Keeping the point guard out of the lane is "FUNDAMENTAL" basketball.

[ElGee]

How about they analyze what type of team Nash would win with? Being that it hasn't happened, it would be hypothetical, just as these stats being thrown out. I saw them both play. The fact is, Nash's teams never rose to championship level, during his WHOLE career.

People really need to understand that this isn't how the world works. Sports are incredibly small sampled on this issue: most teams have a few shots at a title. Human performance varies. It is unarguably incorrect to state that they weren't a championship level team simple because they didn't WIN (or that they weren't capable of winning). This notion of a deterministic set of events in sports is baseless (or the notion that ex post facto there is only 1 championship level team each year).

For goodness sakes, human beings can't even perform consistently on typing tests. There are 10 on a court. And different officials. Different conditions for every game. Etc. Teams can't even perform the same way in practice against dummy defenses.

One of the reasons the Celtics won so many consecutive titles is they had a huge margin of error to avoid this kind of stuff (ie variance). Whereas the 04 Lakers-Spurs most likely swung on a miracle heave that couldn't be duplicated. To suggest that the Suns *team* wasn't championship material in 05 (arguable, but Johnson's injury hurt) or 07 (I thought they were the No. 1 team in the league) makes absolutely no sense just because they didn't win. It's like suggesting the 10 Celtics weren't championship material or the 84 Lakers.

And that is the TEAM. An individual player -- Nash in this case -- isn't the team. That Nash played so freaking well makes the conclusion all the more confusing...

And as someone who literally tracks defensive performance, your comment about "Nash is repeatedly getting beat for penetration" is totally off base. Lately (last 2 years at least), Kobe Bryant is getting beat more than Nash...somehow LA still has a good defense.

[Ballings7]

Phoenix didn't have the interior defense, or the offensive creativity expansion level, of abilities a team would need, to hold up to ultimately wn a title in 05 or 07 or '10.

Not Nash's fault... if the front office made some tweaks before 2007, for 2007 and after, it would of been more interesting.

Sometimes it is about luck, sometimes it's not.

When two teams are closely matched, it's gonna come down more to luck, but when there are certain, key disparities for one team and not the other? The more complete team is gonna win.

Phoenix wasn't legitimately close to being a balanced basketball team.

[Brenice]

Phoenix didn't have the interior defense, or the offensive creativity expansion level, of abilities a team would need, to hold up to ultimately wn a title in 05 or 07 or '10.

Not Nash's fault... if the front office made some tweaks before 2007, for 2007 and after, it would of been more interesting.

Sometimes it is about luck, sometimes it's not.

When two teams are closely matched, it's gonna come down more to luck, but when there are certain, key disparities for one team and not the other? The more complete team is gonna win.

Phoenix wasn't legitimately close to being a balanced basketball team.

Agreed and I am a Wizard fan. I said when the Wiz had their Big 3, too many pieces were good only on offense. Jamison and Arenas. Though they had a couple pieces that were opposite, decent defenders but no offense(Haywood, Jeffries or Stevenson). But neither Suns or Wizard teams had players that were great at one end but at least decent on the other end. Too many 1-way players.

[ahonui06]

Isiah Thomas

[Ballings7]

Phoenix didn't have the interior defense, or the offensive creativity expansion level, of abilities a team would need, to hold up to ultimately wn a title in 05 or 07 or '10.

Not Nash's fault... if the front office made some tweaks before 2007, for 2007 and after, it would of been more interesting.

Sometimes it is about luck, sometimes it's not.

When two teams are closely matched, it's gonna come down more to luck, but when there are certain, key disparities for one team and not the other? The more complete team is gonna win.

Phoenix wasn't legitimately close to being a balanced basketball team.

Agreed and I am a Wizard fan. I said when the Wiz had their Big 3, too many pieces were good only on offense. Jamison and Arenas. Though they had a couple pieces that were opposite, decent defenders but no offense(Haywood, Jeffries or Stevenson). But neither Suns or Wizard teams had players that were great at one end but at least decent on the other end. Too many 1-way players.

Well yeah, and I think the main thing there was Jamison being undersized at the 4 spot... the defensive disadvantage cancelled out his offensive advantage, basically. I think if they had a work-horse who could shoot the jumper, be able to score on basic post moves, and be pretty smart with the ball they would of been a better team. A guy like Paul Millsap (who since those Wizards days has become more than a hustler and defender) or Darrell Arthur or Landry or Haslem would of been a pretty nice fit. That kind of PF would of gave the team more structure on both sides of the ball.

Stevenson I actually liked on that team, gave them a toughness and a consistent energy, but he wasn't reeled in enough by the team's system, in reference to his shot selection wasn't disciplined enough. Whereas in Dallas, from what I gathered, he was a more controlled player. That comes from a self and coaching standpoint.