Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[GodDamnRobin]

"Come back when you can prove it"

[bastillon]

Bottom line, I know 2 absolutes. Isiah won with the bad boys. But I'm reasonably confident Nash wouldn't have because they wouldn't be the bad boys, playing under those rules. Damn, it took how many years and how many changes of scenery to find a fit for Nash?

I also know Nash didn't win with phoenix for a number of reasons that are not his fault. But I'm confident zeke could have done a near equal job in phoenix in place of Nash though the offense would look different. I don't know if zeke could win with Nash's Phoenix, but they would be as good, with zeke getting the benefit of today's rules.

it took the ball the find a fit for him.

[Brenice]

"Come back when you can prove it"

This debate is 26 pages so far and nobody has proven or can prove anything with certainty. Funny thing is, the Nash side brings all the immature sarcasm or disrespect. I wonder why?

[sheba021]

"Come back when you can prove it"

Is this a courtroom? If so then where is proof for a bunch of of speculations you made in order to counter a bunch of speculations made by another member a few posts above?

[sheba021]

But I'm confident zeke could have done a near equal job in phoenix in place of Nash though the offense would look different. I don't know if zeke could win with Nash's Phoenix, but they would be as good, with zeke getting the benefit of today's rules.

What makes you so confident? It was a team made with Nash's abilities in mind, Isiah is not a similar type of a player. As good as a leader Isiah was, I doubt his impact would equal that of Nash, even with his ability to completely alter his game if necessary. A much more likely scenario would be that he would have most of that team wrapped in the shiny D'Antoni paper and shipped out of Phoenix.

[Doctor MJ]

Bottom line, I know 2 absolutes. Isiah won with the bad boys. But I'm reasonably confident Nash wouldn't have because they wouldn't be the bad boys, playing under those rules.

An understandable opinion. Pretty debatable.

Damn, it took how many years and how many changes of scenery to find a fit for Nash?

Not a reasonable statement. It took until '04-05 for Nash to emerge as a top tier superstar because Phoenix was the first team to hand him the ball and let him do his thing. That it took so long has everything to do with Nash's skills being hard to grasp and properly rate in the hypothetical. One could have done the same thing to Shaq, but it's so obvious what Shaq is, no one would screw that up.

There's also the matter that it only took 2 changes of scenery, that the first team had Kidd & KJ, and that the second team had Dirk. If Nash got drafted on to a team that actually needed a point guard, we'd have seen him emerge to all-star status more quickly. Had he been drafted #2 overall like Isiah was (which he clearly should have), and been groomed to be the team superstar from day one, he'd have emerged on that level far more quickly.

I also know Nash didn't win with phoenix for a number of reasons that are not his fault. But I'm confident zeke could have done a near equal job in phoenix in place of Nash though the offense would look different. I don't know if zeke could win with Nash's Phoenix, but they would be as good, with zeke getting the benefit of today's rules.

Well, I would say that's an understandable opinion as well, but here I very much disagree. It's crucial to understand that when Nash came to Phoenix, he wasn't replacing crap point guards. He was replacing Marbury who replaced Kidd. Kidd is undeniably one of the best point guards in the league, and Marbury is actually underrated nowadays but was a legit all-star.

Here's how the team offensive rating look from Kidd's last through Marbury to Nash's first:

'00-01 100.3 (22nd in league)
'01-02 103.3 (19th)
'02-03 103.7 (20th)
'03-04 101.4 (21st)
'04-05 114.5 (1st)

You seeing what I'm seeing here? Phoenix replace very good point guards with Nash, and the result was the biggest offensive year-to-year improvement of any any team in NBA history. THAT is how big the gap is. THAT is the kind of talent Nash is.

Now, you want to bring up other factors (D'Antoni & Amare) but you need to understand that the improvement is so massive it doesn't leave room to say "Well maybe Nash wasn't any better on offense than Marbury or Kidd".

And for comparison, the cumulative offensive improvement over the 3 years from Isiah to D'Antoni + Amare? 6.2. Good, less than half of the overnight Phoenix improvement, and the offense still isn't anything like elite.

So no, I don't simply assume that Isiah is capable of being in the ballpark of Nash there when other all-stars are so incredibly far behind Nash.

[Brenice]

I agree marbury is underrated, and kidd being there before nash, but neither is zeke either. Kidd has the passion, but not the scoring ability. Marbury had it all but he was selfish and lacked the passion. Zeke had the passion, great scorer, unselfish, shared the ball, had the assists too.

[Brenice]

But I'm confident zeke could have done a near equal job in phoenix in place of Nash though the offense would look different. I don't know if zeke could win with Nash's Phoenix, but they would be as good, with zeke getting the benefit of today's rules.

What makes you so confident? It was a team made with Nash's abilities in mind, Isiah is not a similar type of a player. As good as a leader Isiah was, I doubt his impact would equal that of Nash, even with his ability to completely alter his game if necessary. A much more likely scenario would be that he would have most of that team wrapped in the shiny D'Antoni paper and shipped out of Phoenix.

I said the offense would be different, but effective, near nash level, with zeke playing under todays rules.

[GodDamnRobin]

One side has all the evidence behind them, and the other side just keeps making general statements like "I am just absolutely sure Isiah was that good". If you want to be taken seriously, you need an actual argument that explains your position. You don't have one, and your side has made some errors that have ranged from the amusing to the hilarious thus far (Michael Ray Richardson over Magic? Really? Giant Conspiracy Theory against Isiah by the then MVP and all-nba voters for stuff he did after his career? Really?).

[G35]

Not a reasonable statement. It took until '04-05 for Nash to emerge as a top tier superstar because Phoenix was the first team to hand him the ball and let him do his thing. That it took so long has everything to do with Nash's skills being hard to grasp and properly rate in the hypothetical. One could have done the same thing to Shaq, but it's so obvious what Shaq is, no one would screw that up.

There's also the matter that it only took 2 changes of scenery, that the first team had Kidd & KJ, and that the second team had Dirk. If Nash got drafted on to a team that actually needed a point guard, we'd have seen him emerge to all-star status more quickly. Had he been drafted #2 overall like Isiah was (which he clearly should have), and been groomed to be the team superstar from day one, he'd have emerged on that level far more quickly.

Doesn't it say something about Nash's skill set when it's not readily apparent how to utilize him? That you can't just drop him into any situation and let him flourish? That he needs a particular situation to excel; basically letting him do whatever he wants on the floor? Would he do well in the triangle? Would he do well with Phil Jackson, Larry Brown, Jerry Sloan, Pat Riley, Jeff Van Gundy, Mike Fratello, Greg Popovich? Defensive minded coaches, those that have specific system in place. Those coaches that like to slow things down and set up a play each time down the floor?

The 1996 draft included:
Iverson
Kobe
Marbury
Ray Allen
Jermaine O'Neil
Illgauskas
Abdur Rahim

Why should Nash be drafted 2nd like Isiah? Would a team that need a big man like Illgauskas or O'Neil really pick Nash over them? Does Nash guarantee titles with a premier big man on his team? Hasn't shown that so far. The problem with drafting Nash is that you have to tailor your team to fit Nash, Nash isn't going to fit on every team. It's almost similar to Iverson where you have to let him do whatever he wants on offense and put players that will support his deficiencies around him.

I don't think you want to build around Nash, he should be a supporting element in the creation of your team.....

[Doctor MJ]

Doesn't it say something about Nash's skill set when it's not readily apparent how to utilize him?

Does it say something? Absolutely. It says that basketball scouting isn't as good as we'd like it to be, just like any other kind of scouting.

It's funny - in football, everyone already knows this. I mean Aaron Rodgers couldn't even get a scholarship out of high school & Tom Brady hard to start out as a 7th stringer at Michigan because he had just barely gotten one of the final scholarshhip offers. This typically doesn't happen with, say, running back, because it's a far less mental position. Well, Nash plays the most mental of basketball positions, and the result is that his capabilities weren't fully recognized for quite a while.

But let's also note what "fully recognized" means. There are THOUSANDS of guys playing college basketball at any given time, and Nash did enough at a tiny podunk school to be the #16 draft pick. That's an indication of incredible success, and yet, as a #16 pick you still aren't expected to be a starter in this league. Very, very few players get the opportunity to play star in the NBA, and the vast majority of them are either guys drafted in the Top 5, or are younger high potential guys.

What Nash's eventual success tells us is not that he alone went underrecognized for his talents until later in his career, but that there are most definitely others who never get recognized.

That you can't just drop him into any situation and let him flourish? That he needs a particular situation to excel; basically letting him do whatever he wants on the floor?

This basically describes every NBA star in history. Every star has things you have to led them do in order to maximize impact, it's just that more obvious physical specimens tend to make it more clear to the coach how they should be used.

Let me also preemptively rebut "But others could still be good even when not in ideal situations" - Nash was a 2-time All-NBA player (i.e. Top 15 player in the entire world) BEFORE he was properly used. Think about that for a second. That's a phenomenal accomplishment, and it's crazy to look at it as something damning about Nash.

Would he do well in the triangle?

This is a loaded question firstly because the idea of the triangle is that if you've got several high BBIQ guys, they can each effectively act like partial point guards. If you've got such guys on your roster, then adding one more BBIQ guys (albeit the guy with the highest BBIQ in the entire league) is not going to be as impactful as adding him on a weaker BBIQ team.

So that's like the Lakers. What about on the T-Wolves last year? Big impact in their triangle...but you wouldn't want to use the triangle. Why? Because if the rest of your team is dumb, that's EXACTLY why you want to just let Nash make all the decisions for you.

Last, let's note that the whole notion of "how well would he do in the triangle" also implies a kind of superiority to what can be done in the triangle, but Nash's Sun offenses are BETTER than what the Triangle has typically been able to produce. So why even make the switch?

Would he do well with Phil Jackson, Larry Brown, Jerry Sloan, Pat Riley, Jeff Van Gundy, Mike Fratello, Greg Popovich? Defensive minded coaches, those that have specific system in place. Those coaches that like to slow things down and set up a play each time down the floor?

If you have a coach who refuses to let his team take advantage of the defense when its at its weakest this will hurt the offense. Simple as that. As has been seen, Nash in other systems still does great things, but if you refuse to let him do all he can, then he won't do all he can.

The 1996 draft included:
Iverson
Kobe
Marbury
Ray Allen
Jermaine O'Neil
Illgauskas
Abdur Rahim

Why should Nash be drafted 2nd like Isiah? Would a team that need a big man like Illgauskas or O'Neil really pick Nash over them? Does Nash guarantee titles with a premier big man on his team? Hasn't shown that so far. The problem with drafting Nash is that you have to tailor your team to fit Nash, Nash isn't going to fit on every team. It's almost similar to Iverson where you have to let him do whatever he wants on offense and put players that will support his deficiencies around him.

I don't think you want to build around Nash, he should be a supporting element in the creation of your team.....

You're really objecting to this? Wow.

Okay, so first off, you're objecting to a Nash as a #2 based on him not being the best fit for every possible situation, but the same thing holds true for every player ever.

Next, who actually had the 2nd pick of the 1996 draft? Toronto. Knowing what we know now about all the players involved in the draft and on the Raptors at the time...and the fact that Nash is a freaking Canadian, do you seriously think they are drafting anyone other than Kobe over him?

Re: "need to fit around Nash". Yup. You need to find guys who can hit open 3's, which is roughly every non-big in the NBA, and you need a front court, just like you'd need with any other star guard. Consider me suitably terrified.

Re: "similar to Iverson". No.

With Iverson you have to let Iverson do whatever he wants on offense, and be okay with that not resulting in good team offense.

With Nash you have to let Nash do whatever he wants on offense, and be okay with an all-time great offense.

[Brenice]

One side has all the evidence behind them, and the other side just keeps making general statements like "I am just absolutely sure Isiah was that good". If you want to be taken seriously, you need an actual argument that explains your position. You don't have one, and your side has made some errors that have ranged from the amusing to the hilarious thus far (Michael Ray Richardson over Magic? Really? Giant Conspiracy Theory against Isiah by the then MVP and all-nba voters for stuff he did after his career? Really?).

I gave my reasons I think zeke was better and it is based on what I saw. Neither side has evidence. You might want me to think advance stats are evidence, but they are not. Not when everything is different. Different era, different teammates, different opponents, and different rules.

The nash side would like you to think the no hand checking rule is insignificant, then why were they made. then allowing zones. What do you need against zones? Shooters. Nash is a shooter.

The only 6ft point I would consider over zeke is cp3. But until zeke plays without being handchecked, I will never be sure. I'll take zeke. I think nash and cp3 could play under the 80's rules though.

[Doctor MJ]

But until zeke plays without being handchecked, I will never be sure

Hand checking has gone through phases since the 70s. It's never been allowed, but when abuse got to be particularly bad, they cracked down. You know when the abuse got bad because offenses struggled. Isiah played during an era offenses did great, it was not anything close to the worst hand checking era - THAT was the early '00s. And during the early '00s, Nash's stats reached levels right up there with where they were after the rule change.

You're overreacting to the impact of these rules on distributors dude.

[sp6r=underrated]

This is a personal pet peeve. The mid to late 80s wasn't the era of heavy hand checking. Hand checking became a league wide phenomenon in the late 90s early 00s.

[bastillon]

I was watching game 3 of 95 NBA finals like 2 days ago and they said NBA changed its handchecking rules after they saw what Derek Harper was doing in 94 finals against Kenny Smith. after that NBA started to re-interpret that rule more harshly. so era of handchecking wasn't only in the early 00s, it was first introduced by the Knicks in the early 90s. but handchecking was a minor part of that defense, look at what they were doing to Olajuwon in the post in 94 finals. by today's rules that's FTA all game long.

[G35]

Does it say something? Absolutely. It says that basketball scouting isn't as good as we'd like it to be, just like any other kind of scouting.

So what makes Nash any different than the thousands and possibly millions of players that have been mismanaged, ill coached, improperly used? Nothing. So in my mind that's just part of the equation. You have to know going in that the coach makes the rules and the player has to work around it. But in the NBA, generally the players run things because it's the coach that's going to get fired unless you are a Phil, Greg, Pop. This is the problem I have with comparisons, for the favored son's on this board they will get every aspect analyzed to excuse their failings. But then we have become so heavily advanced stat influenced.

How can the two coincide when each player has such a variety of circumstances dictating his opportunities? Just like you said earlier that Nash might have flourished earlier if he didn't get drafted to a team that already had Nash/KJ. But then that changes Nash's entire timeline of going to Dallas and coming back to Phoenix. He never unites with D'Antoni and who knows how he develops. The only thing for certain you can judge is what ACTUALLY happens. Conjecture and projections become biases for an agenda.

This is a loaded question firstly because the idea of the triangle is that if you've got several high BBIQ guys, they can each effectively act like partial point guards. If you've got such guys on your roster, then adding one more BBIQ guys (albeit the guy with the highest BBIQ in the entire league) is not going to be as impactful as adding him on a weaker BBIQ team.

It's not a loaded question. Who was using the triangle effectively before Phil? No one that I knew of. Wasn't Jordan generally "handed the ball and allowed to do whatever he wanted" before Phil? Kevin Loughery and Doug Collins let Jordan handle the ball and he was a statistical beast. He was allowed to exploit his talents. However, just like at North Carolina but a lesser extent, Phil knew that playing within the framework of a team would give the Bulls a greater chance of success. He had to convince Mike to include his teammates and share the ball. It took the ball out of his hands and lowered his stats but the team performed better.

Anyone can say "Mike go score 33/7/6", it takes coaching to implement a system that incorporates his talents and the rest of the teams. Nash has been in various situations and his skills are not obvious at making the overall team effective (and not just on offense).

You're really objecting to this? Wow.

Okay, so first off, you're objecting to a Nash as a #2 based on him not being the best fit for every possible situation, but the same thing holds true for every player ever.

Next, who actually had the 2nd pick of the 1996 draft? Toronto. Knowing what we know now about all the players involved in the draft and on the Raptors at the time...and the fact that Nash is a freaking Canadian, do you seriously think they are drafting anyone other than Kobe over him?

Yes I can't believe you are so sure. I can see Kobe, Iverson, Illgauskas, O'Neil, and possibly Abdur-Rahim going over Nash. If we don't know how Nash turns out then I can see arguments for other players.

Now if you are going to stipulate because of the Canadian connection then yeah Nash would have a strong argument. But then that's not basketball decision now is it. It's a emotional, marketing decision. You could argue that Canadians would draft Nash over Vince and I don't agree with that since Vince was a beast when he first came in. The Raptors set attendance records acquiring Vince.

Now if we are going off hindsight we see that Nash didn't develop into a All Star for 6 years. Now you could say he would develop faster if he doesn't have to compete with Kidd/KJ but then we are mixing hindsight with projections and that's when the biases start coming in. Either we use hindsight and say that Nash develops on the same path or he has a multitude of possible futures. Who is to say he doesn't sustain a career threatening knee injury. Who is to say that the Raptors don't lose him to FA? What about if they toil in mediocrity for 6 years and the Raptors decide to trade him?

I mean the Raptors have actually drafted fairly well but haven't ever been able to get over the hump. Look at these draft picks:

Damon Stoudamire
Marcus Camby
Tracy McGrady
Antwan Jamison who they turned into Vince Carter
Tyson Wheeler was traded for Chauncey Billups


That right there is a strong starting 5 lineup for 10 years. Well what happened? Real life happened. Ego's, money, agenda's, coaching. Who is to say that the same thing wouldn't happen with Nash at the helm?

With Iverson you have to let Iverson do whatever he wants on offense, and be okay with that not resulting in good team offense.

With Nash you have to let Nash do whatever he wants on offense, and be okay with an all-time great offense

Does Nash take that same team to the finals and win a game against the juggernaut Lakers? And what's so great about an all time great offense? The Bulls didn't have an all time great offense, neither did the Pistons, Rockets, Kobe/Shaq Lakers, Spurs when they won the championship. But they did have some great defense.....

[ElGee]

There's too much misinformation in your post for it to go unchecked...

Tyson Wheeler, unarguably, is not a good draft pick. More importantly, he unarguably was not traded for Chauncey Billups.

As for the Chicago Bulls, they boasted 4 of the top 12 ORtg teams off all-time in their 6-year title run, with ORtgs of 114.6, 115.5 (2nd all-time), 113, 115.2 and 114.4 before dropping off in 98. The 1993 team that only posted the 113 dropped a 114 in the PS on +10 relative ORtg versus the defense. They were an offensive juggernaut.

[Alhazred]

As for the Chicago Bulls, they boasted 4 of the top 12 ORtg teams off all-time in their 6-year title run, with ORtgs of 114.6, 115.5 (2nd all-time), 113, 115.2 and 114.4 before dropping off in 98. The 1993 team that only posted the 113 dropped a 114 in the PS on +10 relative ORtg versus the defense. They were an offensive juggernaut.

The three-peat Lakers also never finished below 5th in ORtg from '00-'02, finishing 2nd in '01 and '02. They were also 21st in DRtg in '01, although I believe Doc mentioned in a previous thread how their defense improved significantly in the playoffs.

[Brenice]

This is a personal pet peeve. The mid to late 80s wasn't the era of heavy hand checking. Hand checking became a league wide phenomenon in the late 90s early 00s.

What I'm saying is that zeke didn't play under rules of no hand checking or zones were legal. We can't say how he would do under the offense friendly rules of the game which leads to this so called high efficiency of nash. It's as if nash is on roids(just joking).

It ain't like rule changes in both football and basketball haven't been made to help scoring at the expense of defense. When was these rules changed?

People also want to talk about 3pt shooting of nash and his teams. That's not american/naismith basketball. That's international. Zeke grew up playing 'go to the rim' basketball. Yes players of today are better at euroball. Zeke had to adjust his game for that too.

[therealbig3]

There's a misconception about offense, that it's not as important for winning championships as defense is.

But offense is just as important. Look up all the championship teams ever, and there's about the same amount of mediocre offensive teams as there are mediocre defensive teams: not too many. You pretty much have to be pretty competent at both in order to have a chance to win, so building around a great offensive PG who will anchor an all-time great offense and acting like that's something that's inherently flawed is pretty ridiculous. It gets you halfway to a championship. Unfortunately, Phoenix management didn't care about the other half.

I don't get why people don't understand how ridiculous some of the Nash criticisms are, a team is bad at rebounding and defense, so let's blame the PG? They're awesome at offense, so let's give credit to the big men who aren't close to as good as they were with that same PG? It's not that there are excuses for the Nash side, it's that he's not being credited properly for his contributions, and he's getting unfair blame for the failure of the team as a whole.

With the Pistons, the team wins with dominant defense, and this time, the PG is getting the lion's share of the credit? How does that work?