Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[ElGee]

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.

See, here's the thing. Steve Nash's toughness can't be taught. And it inspires all of his team. When he smashed his nose and continued to valiantly, it was the reason why Phoenix won. His toughness was remarkable -- he could barely see out of 1 eye and scored 10 4th quarter points, taking over the game. That kind of toughness is why Phoenix won the championship.

[basic21]

Nash doesn't have the toughness and clutchness to win a championship, but Isiah does and he did it against MJ, Bird, and Magic.

Isiah can flat out take over a game when he wants to, Nash will always be too slow and relies on his jump shot way too much to take over games

[Doctor MJ]

Those last two posts. It's amazing how the former just bounces completely off the latter.

[rrravenred]

Sarcasm is a lost art on these boards sometimes, but its few remaining practitioners are giants in the field.

[easiestplayfts]

See, here's the thing. Steve Nash's toughness can't be taught. And it inspires all of his team. When he smashed his nose and continued to valiantly, it was the reason why Phoenix won. His toughness was remarkable -- he could barely see out of 1 eye and scored 10 4th quarter points, taking over the game. That kind of toughness is why Phoenix won the championship.

Dude too funny

[GodDamnRobin]

Making sarcastic remarks doesn't address anything I said. Isiah had an uber deep team, and that was the reason his team won titles in the lull after the winding down of the golden 80's, and before Jordan had enough help. That's very relevant.

[Doctor MJ]

Making sarcastic remarks doesn't address anything I said. Isiah had an uber deep team, and that was the reason his team won titles in the lull after the winding down of the golden 80's, and before Jordan had enough help. That's very relevant.

The dude with the sarcasm was basically agreeing with you.

[rrravenred]

Yeah right, as if he was AGREEING with him.

</slightly-too-meta-joke>

[GodDamnRobin]

You make a very good point, a valuable contribution to the thread.

[GodDamnRobin]

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.

Going to respond to my the post I made on the previous page directed at you? No, of course you're not...

[Brenice]

we are comparing what Zeke did at age 20 to 30 that led ultimately to success to what Nash did in his 30's that led inevitably to failure.

Then they penalize the pistons for winning between 3 dynasties of lakers, celtics, bulls while winning and losing to all 3 dynasties along the way. Then say the lakers or celtics were too old or the bulls were too young. Hypocrits. You can say the pistons were too young against the lakers or celtics or too old against the bulls. I guess Olajuwon should be penalized because Jordan was playing baseball or wearing a#45.

Then they say the pistons were the deepest team ever. In fact Magic's Lakers and Bird's Celtics were as deep but with better quality, but dismiss that fact.

Ya'll give no grace to Zeke and give it all to Nash cause of stats. You can have Nash and his stats. The best player is Zeke. I'll take him and his rings.

I would love to see how Nash would have done in place of Zeke and how Zeke of Nash, on each team, and era.

[GodDamnRobin]

It's simply false the Celtics and Lakers (particularly the version of the Celtics and Lakers who the Pistons finally beat) were deeper than the bad boys, because we're talking about the depth of the support cast. Remove the best player from both teams (eg Bird/Magic and Isiah), the Pistons have the best team that's left by a substantial margin (compared to the late 80's teams anyway).

[Brenice]

You are patently false in implying what I said. They all had deep teams when they were winning. Or are you saying magic and bird played on teams with no depth when they won?

[sheba021]

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?

Nailed! You forgot that Daly never won the Coach of the year award because he obviously wasn't that good a coach.

What I find hilarious about all of this is that Bad Boys apparently became a deep and talented team more then 20 years after they won 2 championships. They were, but nowhere near as much as some of you make it out to be. As the matter of fact at the time no one thought they were, not even the Bad Boys themselves. Back then they were Isiah, Joe and a bunch of thugs and roleplayers. The length that Isiah detractors are willing to go to overrate his supporting cast (slow, unathletic and skill-wise above-average Laimbeer being top 3-5 center of the league ), all with the goal of downplaying Isiah contribution and somehow point that the only reason he (them) won was because his supporting cast was "stacked", and then have the nerve to be smug about that fact, as though it had an inch of truth to it, is just mindboggling. No, they didn't win because they were "stacked", they won because their style of play and attitude, incidentally, the same style and attitude Isiah initiated along with Daly, BECAUSE they thought they weren't good enough to win any other way (and must likely correct about that assumption), took the league by surprise. I always thought at least that much was obvious.

[Doctor MJ]

we are comparing what Zeke did at age 20 to 30 that led ultimately to success to what Nash did in his 30's that led inevitably to failure.

No actually, what my side is doing is trying to explain to you that nothing is inevitable, and serial linkage of correlations toward assumed inevitable causation is the root problem with your thinking.

[Doctor MJ]

all with the goal of downplaying Isiah contribution and somehow point that the only reason he (them) won was because his supporting cast was "stacked", and then have the nerve to be smug about that fact, as though it had an inch of truth to it, is just mindboggling. No, they didn't win because they were "stacked", they won because their style of play and attitude, incidentally, the same style and attitude Isiah initiated along with Daly, BECAUSE they thought they weren't good enough to win any other way (and must likely correct about that assumption), took the league by surprise. I always thought at least that much was obvious.

I sympathize with you here to a degree. I don't really like calling the Pistons "stacked" either because it kind of misses the point. It's not so much an issue of secret talent, although I don't know how you could look at Rodman and conclude he didn't have massive talent, but a matter that the Pistons were winning in a fundamentally different manner than the superstar-led approaches that normally work...and Isiah supporters want to champion him as if he were exactly one of those type of superstars.

With guys have all-time great basketball impact, you see team success in the area where they are all-time greats. Jordan, Magic, Bird, heck, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Erving, etc. It's just so easy to see that the team excelled where the superstar excelled. This isn't to say that any one player can do it all by themselves, but if you're going to treat a guy like he had outlier impact, it's hard to imagine that his strengths as a basketball player wouldn't mirror the team.

With the Pistons, this was a team that won with defense. Isiah was not considered the defensive MVP by any stretch of the imagination. How we explain that team success then, while it is a matter of debate, no one should think it obvious that we attach Isiah to a Jordan-like impact.

What you're doing, essentially giving outlier status based primarily on intangibles, I'm willing to listen to this. I have Russell as my GOAT, and that would not be possible if I were a slave to box score stats.

However, if you don't realize how hard it is to make that kind of an argument, you're silly. It's always hard to make a case if you don't have the data to fall back on it, and if the contemporary observers actually disagree with you it's all the more difficult because it's only reasonable to expect that the default position will be against you. When I argue for Russell, I always do so simply assuming that most will be against me for this reason.

And as such, it blows my mind your attitude. Here you are taking a position that is clearly not typical, refusing to give any credence to the other points of view, using inflammatory emoticons, and you accuse the other side of being smug? Chill dude. This disagreement you're having, you're going to keep having it with people forever as long as you talk to people without Pistons bias. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean you need to set your expectations appropriately, and either change your approach or suffer continual frustration.

[Brenice]

With guys have all-time great basketball impact, you see team success in the area where they are all-time greats. Jordan, Magic, Bird, heck, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Erving, etc.

But Nash supporters will include Nash in the above list. Then they want to look at the impact a Bird, Russell, Magic had coming into the league while dismissing the fact that Isiah's rookie team did not compare. Then, what was Steve Nash's impact when he came into the league? Zeke was the second pick of his draft for a reason. Detroit had the second pick for a reason.

Were they better players than Zeke? Yes, but inch for inch? No. Zeke was the greatest 6ft and under player to play ball. Notice, on your list you have nobody under 6'6".

The thing about it, Zeke came into the league as a scoring point guard. He was never the 'pure' point guard along the lines of a Nash, Stockton, Magic, CP3 etc. But, name 1 scoring point guard with more assists. Not Iverson, not, an Arenas, not a Parker. Could he have gunned like an Iverson his whole career, yes, but he didn't. He changed his game. He got the team involved. He instilled an aggressive, take no prisoners mentality to the team. And they won. Was he the best defender on Detroit. I have NEVER said he was. What I said was he was the fighter on that team. He was the heart and soul of that team. He was the leader. He did what was best for that team and they ended up winning. Did that mean he had to sacrifice his scoring, yes. When he needed to score, he was more than capable of taking absolutely over, ala Jordan, ala Wade. Maybe not in the same 'above the rim' fashion, but he certainly did take over when necessary, and in late round playoff games too. Something LeBron still has to prove.

Here is a question for you, why did the Mailman savagely elbow Zeke? The answer is because Zeke torched Stocked, a better defender than Nash, for 40 points, in the previous game between the two teams.

[Brenice]

we are comparing what Zeke did at age 20 to 30 that led ultimately to success to what Nash did in his 30's that led inevitably to failure.

No actually, what my side is doing is trying to explain to you that nothing is inevitable, and serial linkage of correlations toward assumed inevitable causation is the root problem with your thinking.

No. You play to win. The Pistons, led by Isiah, did what was best for them to put themselves into position to win. Guess what. It worked.

Again, if you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. Zeke was a part of the solution. He changed his game and helped change the mentality of the Pistons. Why, because he knew what it took and his ego was not in the way.

Yes, circumstances can happen, like with the Suns, that derail your plans. But at some point, you run out of excuses. Nash looks like he will go down in lore like Ewing, Mailman, Stockton, Barkley, Reggie Miller, Dominique Wilkins, etc. Maybe he can get lucky like a Jason Kidd and join SOMEBODY ELSE's team and win.

[JordansBulls]

So from 1987-1990 using Nash 2005-2008 in place of Isiah, how many titles do the Pistons win?

[Sun Scorched]

Again, if you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. Zeke was a part of the solution. He changed his game and helped change the mentality of the Pistons. Why, because he knew what it took and his ego was not in the way.

So Isiah is the solution and Nash the problem in this treat, I'm assuming? And Isiah was the solution becuase they won the championship, again - assuming?

So was Isiah a part of the problem the other 12 non-championships years he was in the league? Or was he still the solution somehow?

I mean, how many people would be classified as a part of the problem every year their team never wins the championship?

It's really flawed logic.