Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[LakerLegend]

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'.

[bastillon]

what Isiah's supporters completely dismiss:
-Rodman holding prime Bird to ~15 ppg 35% FG
-Dumars being equally rated among contemporaries
-Laimbeer being top5 center in the league
-best depth of all-time

I've never seen it mentioned, as if Isiah was playing with bunch of scrubs and led them to a title. Pistons were STACKED regardless of Isiah.

the main argument for Nash is still his huge impact: top5 greatest SRS improvements when he joined the team, leading top2 offenses pretty much all his life, huge in/out scores. the main argument against Nash is lack of finals appearances and titles. counterargument is there's no lost series for which you could blame Nash as Suns offense usually improved in the playoffs and empirically speaking they lost because of poor defensive rebounding and interior defense.

so if you ever want to move on with this discussion consider that damn counterargument. NBA history tells you the most important factors in terms of winning a championship are 1) interior defense 2) defensive rebounding. Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Walt Frazier, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Stockton, Kobe all had those contributions from their teammates. freakin Golden State '75 won on the basis of their rebounding. extremely intruiging fact: no perimeter player in NBA history won a title without these two qualities.

wanna disregard Nash's impact because of the postseason play ? that's fine. wanna label Nash as the only MVP to never make the finals ? okay. just consider why those differences occured. think about players who could overcome those shortcomings. picture what Nash would actually have to do more.

so I guess what I would like to say here is these guys aren't magicians. they are limited in many ways. team strength depends on a lot of factors. Suns didn't succeed because they lacked things of high significance that were OUTSIDE of Nash's role. criticize Nash all you want, but at least be reasonable and don't blame him for things he wasn't responsible for. you think you're saying he lacked playoff success, but what you're really saying is he's responsible for their failures, which means that you're blaming Nash for Suns inability to gather defensive rebounds and hire decent post defenders. either you're unaware of the mechanisms that created Suns shortcomings, or you're ignorant enough to think Nash was responsible for getting those rebounds and guarding the paint.

or let me picture this on a simple scheme:
no rebounds/interior defense -> Suns lose in the playoffs -> Nash doesn't get to the finals -> posters on realGM criticizing Nash's postseason play based on lack of finals appearances. don't you see how absurd this is ?

you have absolutely every right to be sceptical of Nash's impact etc., but don't ignore empirical data in your thought process. otherwise it leads to idiotic conclusions such as this one right here. if I would want to criticize Nash, I would try to prove that his impact in the playoffs was poor and that it was the reason for Suns failures. that would be critique of Nash's INVIDIDUAL PERFORMANCE and not of Suns shortcomings (since, as we're already established, rebounding and interior defense aren't exactly the things you expect out of your superstar point guard). well, I don't know how you would do that anyway, because Nash's APM numbers are even higher in the postseason and Suns offense improves as well... but if proven that'd be a valid point in this ongoing debate. for now, we're at the point where Nash supporters already responded to most of your arguments million times, and guys like JB will still ignore all the answers and bring up stuff like Amare's 37 ppg, despite the fact that I already posted a video where it's obvious all he had to do was dunk off of spoon-feeding. ignorance for the win ?

[Ballings7]

Team defense and rebounding > HCA and individual scoring

For both players

[sheba021]

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.

Isiah used to generate negative press with his on-court and/or off-court actions almost every single night, Jordan, Magic and Bird did not. The Pistons used to generate negative press with their style of play, which many thought was not how the game should be played. They were never a respected team. So how high would you expect him to be rated on the hype poll? Guys with less than 3 career All-Star appearances were beating him in the MVP voting for crying out loud. Yeah, I am sure Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, New York or Philly-based "experts" for instance were racing each other to throw votes at him, give me a break. Especially after the whole Bird incident which was a major deal back then. That is not narrative, that is common sense.

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.

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.

How highly does initiating the meeting that changed the course and the history of the franchise (gave birth to the Bad Boys), begging the owners to stick with the coach when he was on the verge of getting fired, sacrificing your individual stats, production and star cred in order to lead your teams transition from being one of the best offensive teams in the league to being arguably one of the best defensive teams in the history of basketball in just 2-3 seasons and eventually win the title that way by beating 3 out of the top 5-6 players of all time along the way, rate on the "meaningful basketball analysis that is all about finding the smaller things that players are actually doing to help their team win" scale?

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.

Their strength was psychological warfare and doing every dirty trick possible in order to throw people off their games, and he played a major role in that.

[JordansBulls]

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'.

How is it nonsense when you had opportunity to win and should have?

[GodDamnRobin]

Let's invent a team, and call them the St Louis Smiths. The Smiths have Magic, Shaq and Bird all on the team. But all 3 are hurt for the first half of the season. In the half of the season they are healthy, the team goes 39-2. In the remainder of the season the Smiths go 16-25. At the end of the season the Smiths have a 55 win record. Magic, Shaq and Bird are all healthy again for the playoffs, where they match up against a 60 win team, who they sweep.

Should the star of the team they swept seriously be judged negatively because he lost with HCA? That seems beyond ridiculous. That's one of the reasons what you say is nonsense.

As to the other guy, why does Isiah only get credit when a player improved? Why doesn't his narrative get damaged by failing to improve a player (like Dantley for instance)? Isn't it ridiculous to argue he was teaching the big men how to play D, rather than the big man defenders he already had who were among the best in the NBA at this? Isn't it strange he wasn't able to inspire his earlier teams to more success? You look at a guy like Isiah, and the causation is obvious... Isiah gets granted one of the deepest teams in the NBA, the team becomes a contender. Those guys were good before Isiah, and good after Isiah. The rest is just a made up narrative by fans.

[rrravenred]

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'.

How is it nonsense when you had opportunity to win and should have?

Because there's only so much one player can do, and to assume that the star player's performance is the automatic determining factor in a game FULL of different pressures, probabilities and variances is reductionist bunk.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Isiah used to generate negative press with his on-court and/or off-court actions almost every single night, Jordan, Magic and Bird did not. The Pistons used to generate negative press with their style of play, which many thought was not how the game should be played. They were never a respected team. So how high would you expect him to be rated on the hype poll? Guys with less than 3 career All-Star appearances were beating him in the MVP voting for crying out loud. Yeah, I am sure Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, New York or Philly-based "experts" for instance were racing each other to throw votes at him, give me a break. Especially after the whole Bird incident which was a major deal back then. That is not narrative, that is common sense.

lol, well clearly we see things pretty differently. I have a lot of respect for the MVP, and when MVP voting matches up with the stats, it just seems to me that arguing press bias is missing the point. I mean, I guess I'll just say - arguing bias on those who disagree with you, and especially those who have infinitely more cred than a voice on the internet, should always be the tool of last resort just strategically, because nothing screams "I'm a homer!" like saying "They're all haters!"

To me the thing you've got to do is simply focus on why you voice-on-the-internet have insight missed by many who knew the game well at the time all this took place. And no "they all bought into the hype" is not an answer. The answer would probably be a really great piece demonstrating Isiah's intangible impact, ideally by doing more than giving an anecdote.

I'll also say this whole notion that voters don't vote for guys they don't like is just not backed up by history. No one likes Kareem. He's stunningly unlikeable which is why he got get a gig worth a damn in coaching or management, whereas Isiah's gotten opportunity after opportunity. Didn't stop Kareem from winning 6 MVPs.

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.

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.

How highly does initiating the meeting that changed the course and the history of the franchise (gave birth to the Bad Boys), begging the owners to stick with the coach when he was on the verge of getting fired, sacrificing your individual stats, production and star cred in order to lead your teams transition from being one of the best offensive teams in the league to being arguably one of the best defensive teams in the history of basketball in just 2-3 seasons and eventually win the title that way by beating 3 out of the top 5-6 players of all time along the way, rate on the "meaningful basketball analysis that is all about finding the smaller things that players are actually doing to help their team win" scale?

Jeez dude. You're the one who just implied that anything short of a title meant nothing, and now you're jumping down to the "he organized a meeting" level of details to favor your guy. I mean it's a good thing to bring up generally, but Nash was the catalyst behind the greatest offensive turnaround in NBA history by a wide margin and you dismissed that. Stop moving the goal post. I won't forget what we were talking about, and there's no audience to play to who will decide which of us is right.

Sigh, but some of the stuff you bring up is quite good for the conversation. Any articles you'd like to link to?

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.

Their strength was psychological warfare and doing every dirty trick possible in order to throw people off their games, and he played a major role in that.

He played a role, but is there even reason to think he should be the first person we talk about along those lines? The Pistons people really hated most was Laimbeer, and it wasn't Isiah designing the possession-by-possession defensive chaos.

[GodDamnRobin]

I won't forget what we were talking about, and there's no audience to play to who will decide which of us is right.

Dr MJ is right.

[sheba021]

Why doesn't his narrative get damaged by failing to improve a player (like Dantley for instance)?

Failing to improve a declining All-Star NBA vet? In the end he didn't fit the system so Isiah had him traded for Aguirre.

Isn't it ridiculous to argue he was teaching the big men how to play D, rather than the big man defenders he already had who were among the best in the NBA at this?

Chuck Daly did that part, Isiah installed the Bad Boys attitude in them. Playing defense and playing defense Bad Boys style are 2 entirely separate things. Beating the crap out of someone and playing defense are 2 entirely separate things.

Isn't it strange he wasn't able to inspire his earlier teams to more success?

The Daly-Isiah meeting took place in 86 after they lost 13 out of 19 games. Some players don't even bother to step up at all.

You look at a guy like Isiah, and the causation is obvious... Isiah gets granted one of the deepest teams in the NBA, the team becomes a contender. Those guys were good before Isiah, and good after Isiah. The rest is just a made up narrative by fans.

Microwave was there, Laimbeer had a marginal run with Cleveland, Mahorn was a thug before and after Isiah, 21ppg Dantley (and later 14ppg Aguirre) instead of 20ppg Tripucka and the rest were rookies with absolutely no NBA impact whatsoever prior to joining Isiah...he was granted what exactly? James Edwards? John Long? One of GOAT thugs Scott Hastings? This is the same nonsense argument as "Bird won in 81 because he was "granted" 2 HoF-ers".

[bastillon]

failed to mention Dumars (who was ranked higher than Isiah in MVP votings and won finals MVP over him as well) and Rodman (a guy who could hold Bird to ~15 ppg on 35% and won couple DPOYs) and Laimbeer (top3-5 center in the league at the time). did you forget ?

[GodDamnRobin]

Failing to improve a declining All-Star NBA vet? In the end he didn't fit the system so Isiah had him traded for Aguirre.

Well firstly, "Isiah" didn't have him traded, the Pistons brass did. Secondly, it's far too convenient that Isiah fans are not only granting him great powers to improve his team mates, but that we should only measure those powers when they (supposedly) worked, and whenever they didn't work, it wasn't Isiah's fault. I mean, every leader/coach ever is a great coach under that test, because when the players were able to succeed it was because of him, and when they weren't it wasn't his fault. How convenient. Why didn't Isiah cause his team in the early 80's to play better, you know, before it was stacked with talent? Use Occam's Razor, the obvious causation here is not Isiah's leadership skills, it's a massive influx of talent that made the team a contender.

Chuck Daly did that part, Isiah installed the Bad Boys attitude in them. Playing defense and playing defense Bad Boys style are 2 entirely separate things. Beating the crap out of someone and playing defense are 2 entirely separate things.

But Isiah wasn't even a good defender! And these guys were usually good defenders before and after their time with Isiah, which suggests his presence really had no relevance.

Microwave was there, Laimbeer had a marginal run with Cleveland, Mahorn was a thug before and after Isiah, 21ppg Dantley (and later 14ppg Aguirre) instead of 20ppg Tripucka and the rest were rookies with absolutely no NBA impact whatsoever prior to joining Isiah...he was granted what exactly? James Edwards? John Long? One of GOAT thugs Scott Hastings? This is the same nonsense argument as "Bird won in 81 because he was "granted" 2 HoF-ers".

In 1979 the Celtics won 29 games. Bird came and took the same team with minimal talent to 61 wins as a rookie. The causation was extremely obvious, just like the causation was obvious with Lebron and the Cavs, or Duncan and the Spurs. You can see the impact those guys had. Isiah's early seasons with the Pistons yielded results of 39 wins, 37 wins, 49 wins, 46 wins and 46 wins. Then they turned the corner the next year, not because Isiah suddenly realised how to make his team mates tough, but because the team had become deeper and deeper until it was stacked with talent.

I don't even understand how you think the points you just raised help your argument. There's no evidence Isiah was the catalyst for the team becoming a contender, rather the gradual and massive infusion of talent was the catalyst for that step. The Pistons had a front court of menacing players, including Laimbeer, a crafty 4 time all-star who was one of the top 5 or so C's in the NBA... he even finished 12th in the MVP vote one year (and that was before the Pistons were winning big). Rodman was an unbelievable defensive star. Mahorn was known as the human wall for his defensive prowess. Salley was known as "the spider" for a reason. Dumars was a great defender, as well as being a 6 time all-star, 3 time all-nba teamer, and ranking as high as 10th in the MVP vote. Dantley was an MVP candidate, and when they got rid of him they replaced him with an all-star. They were so deep, they could actually bring him off the bench. Vinnie Johnson was alot like a rich mans B.Jackson/Terry, a 6 man of the year player. Edwards was a good defender, heck even Tripucka made 2 all-star teams. Normal teams don't have all-stars coming off the bench. The Pistons had 2-3 guys good enough to be all-stars coming off their bench some of those years, including Aguirre, Rodman and Microwave. That's incredible.

[Brenice]

Yes, those Isiah's Pistons were more deep and talented than the Birds Celtics and Magic's Lakers. Who would have thought it. They had Dumars persona. Rodman was their best player. Zeke was just an average ball-player. He got lucky to play with that team. He is just like Derek Fisher. They won because of the players he played with.

Bird had nobody on his team for 3 years after he was drafted. His teams were great right from the start. He didn't have a Parish, McHale, Tiny, Cornbread Maxwell when he first did damage in the playoffs. His teams didn't get better when a Dennis Johnson joined them. Isiah's early year Pistons were better than Boston. They were better than Kareem's Lakers too. You know the team with the other Cornbread, Jamaal (Keith) Wilkes, on it. Norm Nixon was on that team. Oh yeah, that was Magic's Lakers, not Kareem's Lakers. My bad. Magic was the reason they won his rookie year. He was not the missing piece. Then Worthy was added.

Isiah didn't win all the Finals MVP's for the Pistons. Dumars was his equal becuase he won a Finals MVP as well. Magic and Worthy are equal too. Big Game James didn't deserve that nickname.

What was Isiah doing during his first 2 or 3 years? His Pistons were not a typical lottery team. They were the best team in the NBA the previous year. Magic joined the lottery team. Same for Bird. Oh wait, Bird was not even drafted his rookie year. He was drafted and was still in college for another year. Those Celtics drafted him with a first pick earned after losing 60 games that year.

For damn near his whole career, Magic played with another #1, #1(Worthy). Bird played with Mchale, a #3, #1 pick. Isiah played with Dantley. A great player past his peak. They traded him form Aguire, a great player, past his peak. Where was the Isiah's high lottery support during his early years?

John Stockton was a member of Dream Team 1 over Isiah because he was a better player than Isiah. Magic, Jordan, Karl Malone, and Bird all wanted Isiah on that team.

I pick Nash, who was drafted by Phoenix. Wasn't he drafted in 1998?

[Doctor MJ]

Yes, those Isiah's Pistons were more deep and talented than the Birds Celtics and Magic's Lakers. Who would have thought it. They had Dumars persona. Rodman was their best player. Zeke was just an average ball-player. He got lucky to play with that team. He is just like Derek Fisher. They won because of the players he played with.

[/quote]

Funny. Obviously I see what you're doing, but I'll stop here because of that last sentence.

Did Isiah only beat Jordan & Magic's teams because of the players he played with? OF COURSE. Anyone who disagrees with that should put that front and center of all their posts so everyone else knows to ignore them.

Doesn't mean Isiah wasn't the MVP of the Pistons, but the whole problem the rest of us have with Isiah supporters is that it just seems like they're saying Isiah beat Jordan, etc, and he clearly did not, and would not win without having supporting cast advantages like crazy.

[Brenice]

Doctor MJ

I agree. Those players contributed to the Pistons winning. No doubt about it. But Showtime Lakers was spirited by Magic. Bad Boys Pistons was spirited by Zeke. The spirit leading the Suns is Nash. Was it enough, really? It was if he had the right talent. You replace a Amare with a Tim Duncan. But Zeke didn't win with anyone as close to a Tim Duncan. He did what he had to do. They clawed and scratched. Who would you rather have? Laimbeer, Dumars, Vinny, young Rodman, Salley, James Edwards or McHale, Parish, Kareem, Worthy, Dennis Johnson, Maxwell, Nixon, Silk Wilkes, McAdoo, etc? They won because of the mentality.

Do you know the reason San Antonio won the year Suns players got suspended? San Antonio clawed and scratched. They hit first. We all know what happens. The person/team who responds gets called for the foul, while the instigator gets away with it. San Antonio resorted to 'any means necessary'. It wasn't about their defense. It was their attitude. Their attitude got into the heads of the Suns and the Suns paid the price. Was it the Bird/Magic documentary or a documentary on Larry Bird the other day that I was watching(don't remember which), but Bird came out and instigated something. He hit first basically. He brought the aggression. Why? He had to set a tone. He established it and the Celtics won the championship that year.

Nash does not have that in him.

Zeke didn't come into a team as the missing link/last piece of the puzzle. You can argue Magic was a final piece. There was reasons Zeke's early Piston teams weren't as successful as Magic or Bird.

Do you think if you replaced Zeke with Nash you would have the same spirit? Would you have the same success? I don't see it.

[ElGee]

Who would you rather have? Laimbeer, Dumars, Vinny, young Rodman, Salley, James Edwards or McHale, Parish, Kareem, Worthy, Dennis Johnson, Maxwell, Nixon, Silk Wilkes, McAdoo, etc?

In 1989 who would I rather have? The Pistons you mentioned (and Mark Aguirre), by a landslide (and especially as a cohesive unit).

Do you know the reason San Antonio won the year Suns players got suspended? San Antonio clawed and scratched. They hit first. We all know what happens. The person/team who responds gets called for the foul, while the instigator gets away with it. San Antonio resorted to 'any means necessary'. It wasn't about their defense. It was their attitude. Their attitude got into the heads of the Suns and the Suns paid the price. Was it the Bird/Magic documentary or a documentary on Larry Bird the other day that I was watching(don't remember which), but Bird came out and instigated something. He hit first basically. He brought the aggression. Why? He had to set a tone. He established it and the Celtics won the championship that year.

You really need to step back and think about OTHER examples. You have some kind of availability bias on overload here -- you're remembering these teams because they won.

Did the 94 Knicks win for taking it to the Rockets? They were the "new bad boys." They sure as hell took it to the Bulls too. (It was the Bulls who had to hit back.) The Heat at the end of the 90s took it to everyone. How'd that work out? There are many examples of "teams taking it to the other team first" (I assume you mean some kind of illegal bullying) and losing.

[JordansBulls]

failed to mention Dumars (who was ranked higher than Isiah in MVP votings and won finals MVP over him as well) and Rodman (a guy who could hold Bird to ~15 ppg on 35% and won couple DPOYs) and Laimbeer (top3-5 center in the league at the time). did you forget ?

No one said the Pistons weren't stacked, but the Suns were stacked as well. Not only that but neither player led there teams in PER nor Win Shares. The difference however is that Isiah with talent on his team won, while Nash with talent on his teams was not able to get over the hump and this with guys on his team outproducing him.

[rrravenred]

Do you know the reason San Antonio won the year Suns players got suspended? San Antonio clawed and scratched. They hit first. We all know what happens. The person/team who responds gets called for the foul, while the instigator gets away with it.

Horry actually got suspended for two games and Amare and Diaw were suspended, not for engaging in a fight, but for a pretty technical interpretation of the rule.

That's not "attitude", that's "luck". Rob Horry could not have predicted that a rough attempt to keep Nash from bringing the ball upcourt was going to (in a butterfly effect sort of way) hand San Antonio the series.

Desire is not destiny. Desire, plus performance, plus chance equals result, and results don't give a damn about how much of a "warrior" you are or how much you're revered by your players. I think we're conflating a lot of different things to retrospectively justify why certain series were won and lost.

[ahonui06]

Still Isiah.

[rrravenred]

Still Isiah.

Care to contribute, or just cheer for your man from the sidelines?