Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[bastillon]

^ good work up there, nailed it, "right between the eyes".

[GodDamnRobin]

Now all I need to do is convince you that advanced metrics like APM and winshares aren't useful, and my work in this thread will be done.

[bastillon]

Now all I need to do is convince you that advanced metrics like APM and winshares aren't useful, and my work in this thread will be done.

start here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... l=en#gid=0

[GodDamnRobin]

You don't endorse all those results, so there's no real need to continue the discussion further. Let's imagine Bird had a lower APM number than Jamario Moon did. That wouldn't matter, because we'd look at the huge difference in impact we could see, like Bird coming to the Celtics with few other changes or factors of relevance, and the Celtics improving over 30 games in the win column.

Whenever I see APM, it seems to be dished out (inconsistently) to claim [player who all other evidence suggests didn't have a superior impact] was really better than [player who all other evidence suggests did]. KG seems to be a common one (not that I underrate KG, I think he was a top 15ish player of all time, but it seems to be used to try and bump him over guys who were plainly more impactful than him, like Lebron or Duncan, which is ridiculous]. Oh well, at least nobody is using PER much these days.

[bastillon]

You don't endorse all those results, so there's no real need to continue the discussion further. Let's imagine Bird had a lower APM number than Jamario Moon did. That wouldn't matter, because we'd look at the huge difference in impact we could see, like Bird coming to the Celtics with few other changes or factors of relevance, and the Celtics improving over 30 games in the win column.

Whenever I see APM, it seems to be dished out (inconsistently) to claim [player who all other evidence suggests didn't have a superior impact] was really better than [player who all other evidence suggests did]. KG seems to be a common one (not that I underrate KG, I think he was a top 15ish player of all time, but it seems to be used to try and bump him over guys who were plainly more impactful than him, like Lebron or Duncan, which is ridiculous]. Oh well, at least nobody is using PER much these days.

there was a small sample of Jamario Moon. learn how to interpret the results or otherwise it makes no sense to criticize them for wrong reasons. consider only the players who played a lot of mins in 03-09 period.

[GodDamnRobin]

I considered it. And you don't defend all the results, in which case it becomes difficult to understand why we should pay any heed to them. If 1 + 1 didn't always = 2, it would present huge difficulties for the application of maths. At least with points per game or whatever, we know what we're looking at, and we know it may not mean much at all in the scheme of things. Yet APM is thrown out like some kind of killer argument all the time; "yeh, his team played the same with and without him, but look at his APM! He must be awesome!"

[Rapcity_11]

Hey GodDamnRobin you should start a thread on the stats forum about the problems you have with APM.

I have a feeling you just don't understand it.

[GodDamnRobin]

Like you didn't understand the rule which caused the Suns players to be suspended in the 2007 playoffs?

[Rapcity_11]

Like you didn't understand the rule which caused the Suns players to be suspended in the 2007 playoffs?

Does this comment have a point?

And I understand that rule just fine. I just interpret it differently than you.

[GodDamnRobin]

You interpret in a way in which it has never been interpreted in the past, and which would lead to a wholly different rule to the one that actually exists. It's possible to read something in an obtuse way like that, much like I could read the "right to bear arms" as the right to own a pair of Bear arms, it'd just be ridiculous, and inconsistent with everything that came before it (they call this "precedent").

I interpret the data from APM differently as it happens, except my interpretation isn't internally inconsistent, since I think APM is never really helpful, and don't use it selectively depending on whether it suits my argument. Conversely, my way of reading the rule which led to the Suns players being suspended is consistent both in application, and in accord with all past precedent on the subject.

[Warspite]

the way I see it Warspite:
1.Isiah wasn't clear-cut best PG of the late 80s (Stockton, Price, KJ)
2.Nash was MVP caliber player in Phoenix, Isiah wasn't ever seriously considered MVP caliber player.
3.I'm picking Nash not because of his individual stats (they're not elite anyway), I'm picking him based on the impact he made on the Suns. they were awful without him (.250) and great with him (.650).

based on boxscore stats, Isiah is actually a better player. it's wins that shift the advantage into Nash's favor.

1. Isiah was injured for most of the late 80s. He clearly was not at his peak. I can agree with you that Isiah wasnt the clear cut best PG but Nash never plays in a allstar game in that time period. KJ was better than Nash, Price was a better player, Fat Lever destroys him, MRR, Porter, Harper, DJ have a good arguement and Stockton, Magic is a no brainer.

2. I dont see your point on this at all. Being an MVP caliber player in the Missouri Valley or Ivy league or Mid American or Big Sky Conference doesnt make you better than the 6th man at Duke which has 5 NBA players on its roster.

3. To believe Nash>Thomas because Barbosa< Dumars doesnt pass the smell test. Just because Isiah had a better backup PG, Coach, GM doesnt mean that Nash was a better player. I guess your going to tell me that Tim Tebow is a pro bowl QB because of the Broncos record with and w/o him.


The simple question is: Who is the better player?

IMHO that means who would you take in a pickup game? Who would you draft out of college? Who would you sign to a max deal? Who would you trade for?

[Rapcity_11]

I interpret the data from APM differently as it happens, except my interpretation isn't internally inconsistent, since I think APM is never really helpful, and don't use it selectively depending on whether it suits my argument. Conversely, my way of reading the rule which led to the Suns players being suspended is consistent both in application, and in accord with all past precedent on the subject.

Don't care about the suspension rule anymore.

Still curious about your APM comments. I think you should start a thread about it.

[Doctor MJ]

You don't endorse all those results, so there's no real need to continue the discussion further. Let's imagine Bird had a lower APM number than Jamario Moon did. That wouldn't matter, because we'd look at the huge difference in impact we could see, like Bird coming to the Celtics with few other changes or factors of relevance, and the Celtics improving over 30 games in the win column.

So your approach to evaluating metrics is:

1) Make up a damning hypothetical example.
2) Point out that the damning hypothetical example is damning.
3) Smile triumphantly.

So far as I can tell, it will work every time.

[GodDamnRobin]

1. Isiah was injured for most of the late 80s. He clearly was not at his peak.

Late 80's meaning what? The tail end of 1989? By that point Isiah has 8-9 seasons under his belt, and we knew who he was as a player. Who was that? A guy rated from 8-17th overall in the NBA pretty consistently. I don'd disagree after Isiah hurt his foot he had issues, but let's not act as though Isiah was being rated as a top 5 player every year, then all of a sudden he hurts his foot and is ranked as the 15th best. That's not the case at all.

I can agree with you that Isiah wasnt the clear cut best PG but Nash never plays in a allstar game in that time period.

Isiah fans here do themselves no favours with utterly ridiculous remarks like this. All-star guards from 82-89: John Paxson (twice), Kelly Tripuka (twice), Michael Ray Richardson (twice), Dennis Johnson (twice), Tiny Archibald, Norm Nixon (twice), and I only got to 1983 before I realised there was no point going further. What you've said is just out of touch with reality... unless you think John Pason could win 2 MVP awards (and almost 3) over the likes of Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, etc.

KJ was better than Nash, Price was a better player, Fat Lever destroys him, MRR, Porter, Harper, DJ have a good arguement and Stockton, Magic is a no brainer.

Could these guys have all won MVP awards over Shaq, Kobe, etc? This is just flatly absurd stuff, the fact you throw in guys like Harper and Fat Lever shows you're not to be take seriously. They were good players, but not MVP candidates.

2. I dont see your point on this at all. Being an MVP caliber player in the Missouri Valley or Ivy league or Mid American or Big Sky Conference doesnt make you better than the 6th man at Duke which has 5 NBA players on its roster.

The NBA in 2005-7 was not Missouri Valley...

IMHO that means who would you take in a pickup game? Who would you draft out of college? Who would you sign to a max deal? Who would you trade for?

I'm pretty sure Shaq would lose a street ball game to quite alot of nobodies, including E.Boykins and Smush... it really says nothing about who is the better/more impactful player in the NBA, and the answer to that question is Nash over Isiah quite comprehensively.

[GodDamnRobin]

You don't endorse all those results, so there's no real need to continue the discussion further. Let's imagine Bird had a lower APM number than Jamario Moon did. That wouldn't matter, because we'd look at the huge difference in impact we could see, like Bird coming to the Celtics with few other changes or factors of relevance, and the Celtics improving over 30 games in the win column.

So your approach to evaluating metrics is:

1) Make up a damning hypothetical example.
2) Point out that the damning hypothetical example is damning.
3) Smile triumphantly.

So far as I can tell, it will work every time.

If I can prove 1+ 1 isn't 2 all the time, then arithmetic is in trouble. With points per game we know what we're measuring, and sensible people know it may mean nothing because it's all contextual. You'll certainly never hear me say such and such is a better player because he scored more points per game.

With APM, it's proponents seem to think it does always mean something... unless it doesn't suit their argument, in which case it doesn't. That's not a valid metric, because a valid metric has to be able to apply consistently. Points per game is consistent, because when Shaq puts the ball in the basket from 5 feet, it's worth the same 2 points as when Smush Parker does. APM isn't a consistently applied metric, so it's basically useless.

[Doctor MJ]

With APM, it's proponents seem to think it does always mean something... unless it doesn't suit their argument, in which case it doesn't. That's not a valid metric, because a valid metric has to be able to apply consistently. Points per game is consistent, because when Shaq puts the ball in the basket from 5 feet, it's worth the same 2 points as when Smush Parker does. APM isn't a consistently applied metric, so it's basically useless.

Actually no, you aren't using "valid" correctly at all.



APM is actually the only all-in-one metric in basketball that has any claim to validity because it directly tied to the box score. It's problem is that it's low in reliability, which means we need a large sample size to have confidence in conclusions, which means that it's unwise to use APM as gospel.

Now, you say people don't apply it consistently, all I can say is that it's quite clear to me how I come to the conclusions I do. It's not simple, which is why I can't point to any one stat as a proxy for my thoughts. Ask me about specifics, and I'll tell you specifics.

[kabstah]

If I can prove 1+ 1 isn't 2 all the time, then arithmetic is in trouble.

Well if you're in base 2, 1 + 1 = 10.

More to the point: arithmetic is deterministic, meaning identical input will always give identical output. Statistical analysis isn't deterministic, however, so finding a counter example doesn't immediately debunk the model in question. For example, the fact that Yao Ming is taller than Dirk doesn't change the fact that Chinese people are on average shorter than Germans.

[rrravenred]

The eyes lie, especially the eyes of fans. I'm not saying you're being deliberately misleading or dishonest, just that you're human and have biases that you have to be aware of.

And Advance stats don't lie when comparing one player to another? They really are hypothetical.

No, they're as empirical as any eye test.

BUT (and yeah there's a big but) Advanced statistical measures suffer from assumptions and weaknesses as much as anything else. The difference is, however, that the limitations can be assumed with much more accuracy than the eye test and you can base an analysis on what they do tell you, whilst keeping in mind what they don't.

I strongly recommend Doctor MJ's take on APM for a great overview of how he came to love APM, as it covers a lot of how the eye test can disagree with bare stats. However, one of his key points (laid out in the comments) puts the USE of advanced stats in context:

This is why APM really needs to be used in a cocktail with more concrete method for optimal conclusions.

No one's saying throw out the box score, or even throw out the eye test. When an advanced stat says something that you feel is unequivocally wrong then you look at the circumstances, the assumptions built into the stat and the performance of contemporaries and peers by that same stat. What you don't do is dismiss the stat as useless because it conflicts with your opinions.

We cannot morph Zeke and put on those Phoenix rosters and play under the exact circumstances against the exact opponents with the same teammates. We can't do the same with Nash and teleport him back to play on the Bad Boys instead of Zeke.

But, the eye test says the Bad Boys would not be the Bad Boys with Nash. They would not have won with Nash.

The eye test says Zeke would put up some serious stats under the Phoenix system. Not saying they would have won though they would have been tougher. I know people don't like that 'tougher' description, and I apologize if it offends anyone.

Fair enough. I disagree with your views, and don't think that Zeke at his most inspirational would have turned Amare into Laimbeer or Johnson into Dumars. But at least you acknowledge that it's based on a subjective analysis rather than grasping at unarguables like "Isiah's will to win dominated his opponents" or "Nash doesn't know how to win".

[rrravenred]

If I can prove 1+ 1 isn't 2 all the time, then arithmetic is in trouble.

Well if you're in base 2, 1 + 1 = 10.

There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't...

[Warspite]

1. Isiah was injured for most of the late 80s. He clearly was not at his peak.

Late 80's meaning what? The tail end of 1989? By that point Isiah has 8-9 seasons under his belt, and we knew who he was as a player. Who was that? A guy rated from 8-17th overall in the NBA pretty consistently. I don'd disagree after Isiah hurt his foot he had issues, but let's not act as though Isiah was being rated as a top 5 player every year, then all of a sudden he hurts his foot and is ranked as the 15th best. That's not the case at all.

I can agree with you that Isiah wasnt the clear cut best PG but Nash never plays in a allstar game in that time period.

Isiah fans here do themselves no favours with utterly ridiculous remarks like this. All-star guards from 82-89: John Paxson (twice), Kelly Tripuka (twice), Michael Ray Richardson (twice), Dennis Johnson (twice), Tiny Archibald, Norm Nixon (twice), and I only got to 1983 before I realised there was no point going further. What you've said is just out of touch with reality... unless you think John Pason could win 2 MVP awards (and almost 3) over the likes of Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, etc.

KJ was better than Nash, Price was a better player, Fat Lever destroys him, MRR, Porter, Harper, DJ have a good arguement and Stockton, Magic is a no brainer.

Could these guys have all won MVP awards over Shaq, Kobe, etc? This is just flatly absurd stuff, the fact you throw in guys like Harper and Fat Lever shows you're not to be take seriously. They were good players, but not MVP candidates.

2. I dont see your point on this at all. Being an MVP caliber player in the Missouri Valley or Ivy league or Mid American or Big Sky Conference doesnt make you better than the 6th man at Duke which has 5 NBA players on its roster.

The NBA in 2005-7 was not Missouri Valley...

IMHO that means who would you take in a pickup game? Who would you draft out of college? Who would you sign to a max deal? Who would you trade for?

I'm pretty sure Shaq would lose a street ball game to quite alot of nobodies, including E.Boykins and Smush... it really says nothing about who is the better/more impactful player in the NBA, and the answer to that question is Nash over Isiah quite comprehensively.

1. Thats Jim Paxson SF for the Blazers not John Paxson of the Kings and Bulls Kelly Tripuka SF Detroit Pistons. Tiny and DJ also prove my point. The Celtics PG is going to the allstar game and most likely beating out Nash. MRR was just as good as Magic because he was also the def PG in the NBA. Take a look at Allstar game rosters in the ECF and you will see that basicly everyone plays for 3 teams Celtics, Sixers, Pistons with the occasional Knick, Hawk, Buck. In the WC you see the Lakers dominate the team. K Malone lost his allstar spot to AC Green 1 yr. Put Nash in Kansas City or Seattle or San Diego and hes not making the allstar team.

2. We are talking about the late 80s not 81-83. Try to stay consistant you might sound believable.

3. Are you honestly saying that in a 5on5 pickup game at YMCA that you would take Boykins over Shaq? I cant think of anything more damning to Nash than to have your support. Its like getting Bill Clinton to nominate you for Faithfull Husband of the yr.

Im just having to conclude you never saw Isiah Thomas play.

I dont know how you can say Nash was a bigger impact player than Isiah Thomas unless your ignorant of NBA history.

84 Isiah Thomas is the only PG in the east to make the allstar game/Magic and Green in the west
85 Isiah and MRR (20ppg 8apg 5.6rpg 3 spg) are the east PGs Magic and Nixon (LA PGs) in the west
86 Isiah, Cheeks and Magic are the only PGs who make the allstar game
87 Isiah/Cheeks vs Magic and Floyd (18ppg 10apg) in his career yr.

So Nash would be looking at replacing another player most of the time. In the era of the SF your asking him to beat out 25-30ppg scorers. Thats compounded by the Lakers/Celtics sending 6-9 allstars a yr (many of them undeserving) and thus increasing the min requirments for making the team.

It gets harder as time moves on because of Drexler, KJ, Price, Stockton entering there prime and players having career yrs.


Would you honestly rather have Nash or MRR (if hes clean & sober)?? 20ppg 8apg 6rpg 3spg and being 1st all defense is pretty impressive. I think MRR might be a more complete player.