Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[ronnymac2]

Shaq and Amare were on that team and Nash didn't really guard Parker most of the time. Parker wasn't even that good, Ginobili was more of a killer.

Who did Nash guard?

[bastillon]

partly Parker, partly Bowen. but despite Parker/Ginobili numbers, perimeter players actually played decent D...Amare and Shaq on the other hand couldn't help out in the pick and roll situations one bit. Spurs had really tough time, then Popovich would tell them to start playing more pick and rolls and Suns defense was being DESTROYED. Parker scored mostly easy pts, but Ginobili was killing it, because he scored on great efficiency regardless of defensive presence...

[sheba021]

Isiah Thomas and it's not even CLOSE

[Brenice]

Shaq and Amare were on that team and Nash didn't really guard Parker most of the time. Parker wasn't even that good, Ginobili was more of a killer.

Who did Nash guard?

I guess it doesn't matter since defense from the point guard doesn't matter. LOL

[sheba021]

I'd go with Nash, but it's close. Some of the arguments used against Thomas are pretty poor though.

Seriously, MVP voting? C'mon...

I dunno, the fact that Isiah wasn't taken seriously as an MVP candidate even when his team was the best in the league seems to be a pretty good indicator of how contemporary observers saw him. Let's remember that team success has pretty much always meant drastic overrating of players as MVP candidate. Unseld won an MVP, Jermaine O'Neal finished 3rd in MVP voting. Isiah couldn't even get that going for himself.

Whiny, dirty, megalomaniac leader of the most hated team in basketball history (with the exception of Joe Dumars) was never a candidate to win a popularity contest? Shocking!

[GodDamnRobin]

Clearly Nash. All the reasons for Nash have been given. Can't really see any reasons for Isiah that are based on how good Isiah was, as opposed to citing a bunch of accolades.

[Doctor MJ]

Whiny, dirty, megalomaniac leader of the most hated team in basketball history (with the exception of Joe Dumars) was never a candidate to win a popularity contest? Shocking!

Just a reminder folks: When Isiah was at his statistical peak, he got the MVP love you'd expect from someone at that level. The his stats got worse...and he got the lack of MVP love you'd expect from someone at that level.

Knowing nothing about the supposed hate-based narrative, Isiah go the attention you'd basically expect...unless you were simply assuming that anyone being the best player on a title winner should get Jordan/Magic/Bird attention.

[JordansBulls]

Clearly Nash. All the reasons for Nash have been given. Can't really see any reasons for Isiah that are based on how good Isiah was, as opposed to citing a bunch of accolades.

How about better playoff performer?

[Aeternus]

Clearly Nash. All the reasons for Nash have been given. Can't really see any reasons for Isiah that are based on how good Isiah was, as opposed to citing a bunch of accolades.

How about better playoff performer?

Given that Nash peaked at 24/5/11 on .600 TS in 15 games, and Isiah at 26/5.5/12 on .500 TS in 4, I'd say Isiah has little reason to claim the title.

[Frank Mulely]

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.

You realize they had Kurt Thomas right?

Yes, I realize this.

Kurt did give Duncan the toughest time that whole series in '07, whether he scored or not... he was the only one who could at all. Kurt was/is a crafty, quality defensive player. Still solid to this season, though can't play as many minutes over a season as he did, he could up it for the playoffs if needed.

But he obviously wasn't enough, nor could it be expected he be.

Kurt Thomas wasn't and never has been able to be a defensive anchor for a team. Because Kurt doesn't have the overall length (standing and wing-span) or agility needed for this responsibility as a defender. He's best as a positional and rotating defender, and using his smarts and strength. He's not a guy a team would or should rely on for their interior defense, primarily. He's not a guy you're going to put out there to "protect the basket", and can complement for the other big not being proficient in that area defensively.

Regardless, the Suns needed more than one player, be it Kurt Thomas or Samuel Dalembert or Emeka Okafor, or even Kevin Garnett, to change their defensive capability level. They needed it scattered all over the whole team, from a coaching standpoint to the existing players (not there), and from a couple more players on the team (who weren't on the team).

Going on my own point here, for example, KG/Marion or Amare is not a good interior defensive pairing. KG's not a center. Marion's not a PF and is outmatched most nights. Amare's a poor defender in general. Thus, KG can't be the only guy who can be effective defensively every game up front, and playing a bit undersized at center, with a lack of help from his other big man. He'd be having to do too much, defending and rebounding, trying to make up more than he should for the other big's lackings on playing around the paint.

Kurt Thomas didn't make the Suns a balanced team, because he wasn't capable of doing that. The Suns needed more than Kurt Thomas. A lot more.

I've watched the Suns plenty enough, and when it's mattered most.... they've never been balanced enough on either side of the ball. Not dynamic enough offensively, the main thing there in having another multi-skilled creator aside from Nash to expand their offense, and help take the play-making load off for him. Also, while it was part of their style and intended to compensate for them not really having a sturdy half-court offense, they still took too many quick shots, which hurt their defensive floor balance. They just could of been a bit more selective with it. Defensively, they never had the combination of size, awareness, coaching and consistent effort on defense, which was in the mold of a contending team. They also never had a solid bench except in 2010. Even if the Lakers series in 2010 could of went 11 games, they still would of lost 6-5. They couldn't match the creativity and length on defense and offense the Lakers possessed.

That was their limit, good enough, talented enough, to get past the 1st round because of their explosive and relentless attack on the offensive side of the floor. But, Phoenix always met that one team who was just a 1/2 notch or more better, who could dictate the pace of the series, which included matching the Suns' offensive level of play. The difference being, balance.

Is it just me or does Kurt Thomas seem like he's been in the league FOREVER? If I looked up some footage of Artis Gilmore or something and saw him being defended by Kurt Thomas with a huge afro it wouldn't shock me at all

[Doctor MJ]

Is it just me or does Kurt Thomas seem like he's been in the league FOREVER? If I looked up some footage of Artis Gilmore or something and saw him being defended by Kurt Thomas with a huge afro it wouldn't shock me at all

Yeah, I love it when role players persist in the league at ages where many former stars are no longer good enough to make an NBA roster.

[Rapcity_11]

Clearly Nash. All the reasons for Nash have been given. Can't really see any reasons for Isiah that are based on how good Isiah was, as opposed to citing a bunch of accolades.

How about better playoff performer?

Uh, no...

[sheba021]

Clearly Nash. All the reasons for Nash have been given. Can't really see any reasons for Isiah that are based on how good Isiah was, as opposed to citing a bunch of accolades.

Yeah I know, right? Unquestionable, undeniable reasons. Heck, just imagine what would have happened if he had the fortune of being the floor general for Paul Westhead during his famous NBA run instead of Michael Adams, he would have been the GOAT undoubtedly. Right? I mean the lack of playoff success wouldn't really matter since it's the fault of everyone other than a star player (unless you win of course, in which case it miraculously becomes a team accomplishment).

Oh and 19.2, 9.3 > 14.6, 8.5; no accolades there.

[sheba021]

Clearly Nash. All the reasons for Nash have been given. Can't really see any reasons for Isiah that are based on how good Isiah was, as opposed to citing a bunch of accolades.

How about better playoff performer?

Uh, no...

Yeah, a guy who never won a conference finals is without a doubt a better playoff performer than someone who won a FMVP (and would have had another one if they won in 88). Good luck with that one.

[JordansBulls]

Clearly Nash. All the reasons for Nash have been given. Can't really see any reasons for Isiah that are based on how good Isiah was, as opposed to citing a bunch of accolades.

How about better playoff performer?

Uh, no...

Yes. Turned a losing organization into a winning one, only lost one series with HCA while Nash lost a few despite having a 37 ppg player on his team. He also had prime Dirk and couldn't even make the finals. Isiah never had anyone as good as Dirk on his team and still did more than Nash did.

[sheba021]

Yes. Turned a losing organization into a winning one, only lost one series with HCA while Nash lost a few despite having a 37 ppg player on his team. He also had prime Dirk and couldn't even make the finals. Isiah never had anyone as good as Dirk on his team and still did more than Nash did.

No matter how many times you repeat that nonsense it wont make it any more relevant, just sayin'.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah I know, right? Unquestionable, undeniable reasons. Heck, just imagine what would have happened if he had the fortune of being the floor general for Paul Westhead during his famous NBA run instead of Michael Adams, he would have been the GOAT undoubtedly. Right? I mean the lack of playoff success wouldn't really matter since it's the fault of everyone other than a star player (unless you win of course, in which case it miraculously becomes a team accomplishment).

Oh and 19.2, 9.3 > 14.6, 8.5; no accolades there.

It strikes me that perhaps a fundamental difference going on here is the perspective of blame distribution vs credit distribution.

The statement "The Suns didn't win, clearly all things being equal, had Nash been better, the team would have done better, therefore he deserves part of the blame." is of course true, but I think it's pretty misleading.

I look instead at credit distribution, and so this notion that Isiah deserves more credit than Nash simply because his team won is essentially saying it doesn't matter how the team won, the star gets the credit. Which is nuts, and nuts in Isiah's case in particular. The team won with defense. Isiah was not the star defensive player, so obviously Isiah had a good amount of help from other players.

Now, Isiah supporters can of course counter with a comparison of the relative values of each star's teammates and that's fine, but this extreme dismissal of Isiah's supporting cast to paint him as a Jordan/Magic/Bird kind of player is simply bizarre to me.

[GodDamnRobin]

Yes. Turned a losing organization into a winning one, only lost one series with HCA while Nash lost a few despite having a 37 ppg player on his team. He also had prime Dirk and couldn't even make the finals. Isiah never had anyone as good as Dirk on his team and still did more than Nash did.

No matter how many times you repeat that nonsense it wont make it any more relevant, just sayin'.

[sheba021]

I look instead at credit distribution, and so this notion that Isiah deserves more credit than Nash simply because his team won is essentially saying it doesn't matter how the team won, the star gets the credit. Which is nuts, and nuts in Isiah's case in particular. The team won with defense. Isiah was not the star defensive player, so obviously Isiah had a good amount of help from other players.

The reason why was explained rather well by Brenice earlier actually, sadly it will most likely be ignored or dismissed as "narrative" by a contemporary NBA fan-type, too lazy or ignorant to see basketball as anything more than a bunch of numbers. It should be pretty clear, to everyone who watched them play at least, whom the Bad Boys drew the energy and got the attitude from, and it most certainly wasn't Chuck Daly. Not everything in basketball can be quantified, like mental influence a player can have in his teammates for instance. Can't say anything more on the subject without parroting what was already said.

Now, Isiah supporters can of course counter with a comparison of the relative values of each star's teammates and that's fine, but this extreme dismissal of Isiah's supporting cast to paint him as a Jordan/Magic/Bird kind of player is simply bizarre to me.

Yeah but isn't putting those 3 in the some sort of special category essentially doing the same thing? They didn't win on their own afterall. I believe I don't have to remind you who their teammates were. So why are we allowed to separate them from their teammates but not Isiah? What is the gap between Jordan/Magic/Bird and Isiah? A borderline meaningless poll that shows nothing more than media hype a player generated throughout the year? Doesn't sound convincing at all.
Now, I love Nash (much more so than Isiah to be honest), he is an extremely entertaining basketball player and quite frankly the only PG I actually give a damn about since Stockton retired, and also the only active player I am cheering for to win a ring before retirement (he deserved one more than anyone else I can think of), but regardless of that he is still a player that has not done anything relevant in his career so far, so to put him above a player that won while being the FMVP and also [narrative] shattered the prevailing conceptions of the era - that no team can win without a dominant big man [/narrative] ? I find that idea bizarre myself.

[Doctor MJ]

Now, Isiah supporters can of course counter with a comparison of the relative values of each star's teammates and that's fine, but this extreme dismissal of Isiah's supporting cast to paint him as a Jordan/Magic/Bird kind of player is simply bizarre to me.

Yeah but isn't putting those 3 in the some sort of special category essentially doing the same thing? They didn't win on their own afterall. I believe I don't have to remind you who their teammates were. So why are we allowed to separate them from their teammates but not Isiah? What is the gap between Jordan/Magic/Bird and Isiah? A borderline meaningless poll that shows nothing more than media hype a player generated throughout the year? Doesn't sound convincing at all.
Now, I love Nash (much more so than Isiah to be honest), he is an extremely entertaining basketball player and quite frankly the only PG I actually give a damn about since Stockton retired, and also the only active player I am cheering for to win a ring before retirement (he deserved one more than anyone else I can think of), but regardless of that he is still a player that has not done anything relevant in his career so far, so to put him above a player that won while being the FMVP and also [narrative] shattered the prevailing conceptions of the era - that no team can win without a dominant big man [/narrative] ? I find that idea bizarre myself.

I guess the first thing I feel compelled to say, is just to reiterate: I'm not the one revising history here. Jordan, Magic, and Bird were locks to be strong MVP candidates every year. Isiah was never anything close to that. You dismiss me as someone going strictly by numbers, but I'm the one who is actually agreeing with what contemporary experts said. The side doing the shift, is the one building Isiah into something more than he was, and doing with literally nothing but narrative at their backs.

And for the record, it's not that I'm against narrative - it's necessary to supply narrative, and anyone who thinks they aren't doing that is fooling themselves. Narrative though needs to be grounded in reality for it to make sense. The stats say Isiah wasn't an MVP level star. The contemporary experts say Isiah wasn't an MVP level star. The details say that the Pistons one based on strengths in area where Isiah was not strong. That makes it pretty rough to paint Isiah as being up there with those other guys.

As far as those other guys teammates, I certainly don't pretend anyone can win a title by themselves...which is why I'm the one in this debate who isn't a slave to "but he won a title" thinking.

Re: "nothing relevant in Nash's career". Again no one is good enough to win a title on their own. Meaningful basketball analysis is thus all about finding the smaller things that players are actually doing to help their team win. There's no shortage of meaningful success that Nash has had in his career.

Re: "Isiah shattered prevailing conceptions". That's pretty sketchy right there. What precisely do you think the conception was? I mean, big man is the easiest path to a title because of his impact on defense. The Pistons weren't even the first amazing defense to do their thing without an insanely good big man defender.

Had the Pistons won the title with offense, that would have shattered prevailing conceptions...if the Showtime Lakers hadn't already won titles with no superstar big man (Kareem in those last 2 titles was nothing like a superstar).

Instead, I suppose Isiah showed that you could win a title with your anointed star having very little to do with the team's strength, i.e. that you didn't need a star to win a title. Of course the '70s had already proven that, but not with the same pizzazz.