Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - the better player

[Brenice]

I tell you what, Nash fans will make a zillion excuses for why the Suns fell short every year. No defensive big. Suspensions. Injuries. The coach. The GM. Age. Depth. There is one constant and he is absolutely blameless. Nash. But here is one thing he is not, a champion. But it is everybody else fault. I will give him credit though for this:

Nash will man up himself and shoulder some of the blame, even if y'all want to make excuses.

[Brenice]

I tell you what, Nash fans will make a zillion excuses for why the Suns fell short every year. No defensive big. Suspensions. Injuries. The coach. The GM. Age. Depth. There is one constant and he is absolutely blameless. Nash. But here is one thing he is not, a champion. But it is everybody else fault. I will give him credit though for this:

Nash will man up himself and shoulder some of the blame, even if y'all want to make excuses.

[Sun Scorched]

I tell you what, Nash fans will make a zillion excuses for why the Suns fell short every year. No defensive big. Suspensions. Injuries. The coach. The GM. Age. Depth. There is one constant and he is absolutely blameless. Nash. But here is one thing he is not, a champion. But it is everybody else fault. I will give him credit though for this:

Nash will man up himself and shoulder some of the blame, even if y'all want to make excuses.

I don't need to make excuses in order to tell you that Nash unequivocally makes the players around him better - far better - than Isiah did.

[Brenice]

Players on offense, yes. But the team, NO.

[bastillon]

I'm not giving you excuses, I'm giving you reasons.

facts involving Nash's impact:
1) games like
27/17/3
48/5/5
34/12/13
39/12/9
29/13/4
29/15/5

2) Suns top offense in the playoffs

we don't blame Nash because Nash did his job as well as he could. oh well, I guess he could put up 50 points in that game, or get 2 triple-doubles instead of "just 39/12/9", but for the most part Nash very rarely failed to make big impact. so when I say that Suns lacked defensive rebounding or played under circumstances that could've been more favorable, I'm giving you reasons for their failure. I'm not talking about Nash, because Nash was amazing during those playoff runs. same way I'm not gonna punish Jordan in '90 or Olajuwon in '93. these guys weren't the reasons why their teams failed. they were reasons why they could compete at this level in the first place. it's the other guys that should be blamed. I can't accuse Nash either because I have nothing to accuse him of.

maybe tell me, Brenice, what did you actually want from Nash ? his job was to lead great offense. Suns were unstoppable offensively. his job wasn't to replace his C and avg double digit rebounds. right ? I mean what more could he have done ?

[Doctor MJ]

So you argee with me about Horry? It was a psychological play and the Suns/Nash failed it. Larry Bird steals an inbound and wins the game and the series and the Pistons come back the next yr and vanquish the Celtics. The Suns never recover and are no longer contenders.

Yeah, this is a ridiculous statement on multiple levels.

The Suns got in trouble for a typical "tough guy" issue: Coming off the bench with instinct toward helping a teammate. The whole argument behind Isiah here was that the Pistons played like tough guys because Isiah was tough. It's not like those Pistons didn't get in trouble for playing like tough guys, and yet somehow when the Suns do something similar, it's not only Nash's fault, but is supposed to be the embodiment of just how incapable Nash was of leading a team to a title.

The Suns didn't come back and win in subsequent years? Well the team got broken up for stupid reasons. Of course they didn't come back, the team ceased to exist in it's most potent form after the incident in question. To make some statement about that meaning something ubermeaningful about the psyches of everyone in question is simply absurd. Shawn Marion didn't get traded because afraid of Robert Horry for god's sake.

In the end, it's just the same thing over and over: Isiah was better because he won, and he won he was better. Countless attempts are made to show how and more nuanced look at the situation leads to different conclusions, and the response remains "but Isiah won".

Fact is, that with that type of thinking, you could basically stonewall any debate, One could do the same thing with Horry for example, since he won far more titles than Isiah. You aren't making an Isiah-specific argument except for the fact that it's really only Isiah supporters who choose to go this route, and frankly I find it fascinating.

Isiah supporters aren't the only ones stuck in their thinking of course. That's true of almost everyone. It's just amazing that it's quite clear that as good as Isiah was before his titles, the most common argument for him from here to eternity is that he was a winner, and how can people even think about putting him under losers?

[Brenice]

That's because the only thing Nash supporters think is important is offensive impact because point guards only have responsibility of running the offense, even if the point guard is the best player and leader of their team.

One thing I'm hearing now but already knew was the case is that the team's best player want to be included when management is discussing player acquisitions, hence Zeke preferring Aguire over Dantley. Nash people may dispute that this happens and I'm not saying Nash tried to exercise that power, but with the bigs he have on his team who can't defend or rebound, he damn sure should have been involved. Unless he did want those players like himself, offense only players to fit a system tailor made for Nash.

Which is it?

[GodDamnRobin]

You're throwing out alot of insanely crazy stuff here, so I'm going to limit my reply to one of them (for now anyway), RE: Dantley.

1) Isiah was not the GM of the Pistons. He did not make the decision to acquire Dantley,
2) The Pistons were awesome with Dantley. They did not win the title because Dantley was traded, they won the title because their competition gradually weakened.
3) You don't understand your reasoning for leadership is circular. You want to give Isiah credit for players who had good attitudes when they played with him, but you won't give him any negative points for his failure to motivate guys (like say Dantley). It's like me coaching 10 different soccer teams, and whenever my kids win I say "I taught them that", and whenever they lose I say "those kids were losers with bad attitudes who wouldn't listen to my wisdom". There's no empirical argument for what you're claiming, no test you'd accept, it's just another version of your "he won, so he must have been great" argument, and just as logically false.

[ElGee]

I've followed this thread for a while and one thing has absolutely blown my mind...no one has mentioned that Isiah Thomas' peak was BEFORE the Pistons won a championship. This makes it utterly nonsensical to champion any argument that has to do with team success when peak Thomas didn't play on a championship team. Now, if you think Thomas was at his best in 1989 and 1990, then you'd be going against all contemporary opinions/accolades/statistics and any reasonable eye test.

Furthermore, I always ask the Wins crowd to explain extremely simple inconsistencies, like what made Isiah a better player in 1989 than in 1988? Was it a missed halfcourt shot? The lack of a sprained ankle? How much did he suck in 1988 if they didn't win? What is the "blame" he shoulders and what kind of intangible failures did he exhibit because his team didn't win.

See, that's the thing that's so preposterous about all team-conflated analysis. Kobe didn't suck in 08 and then get awesome again in 09. People CLEARLY see this -- it's as plain as day while you watch a game -- but they can't or refuse to acknowledge it in points of analysis.

Isiah Thomas was on some not-so-great teams for many years. From 88-90 he was on ~5 SRS teams and 3 consecutive Conference winners. GDR is right about the competition weakening. Then what happened in 1991? Did he stink again? Maybe his poor leadership (displayed by sulking off the court against Chicago) was why they simply didn't have the mental toughness to hang with the younger Bulls when Chicago hit back. The team regressed on offense and team (even with Isiah in the lineup), probably because of age (that's what the people who watched them thought). I'm not sure how the Rings crowd reconciles that though. That was a +2.5 team in 1991 without Isiah, In 2007, we know the Suns were just about .500 w/out Steve Nash. We know from 05-07 they were ~.500 with him on the bench too.

In 1993, the Pistons managed to play +0.1 MOV ball with Dennis Rodman and Isiah in the lineup. Without Rodman and with Isiah, they were -6.1 (25-win pace). I have no idea how the wins crowd reconciles this and doesn't conclude that Isiah Thomas is a terrible loser with bad intangibles.

To boot, it appears (we don't have exact on/off for Isiah) that Phoenix was better with Nash in the game than Detoit was with Isiah in the game, and worse without Nash in the game than Detroit was without Isiah, and the Suns lost to better teams (7.8 SRS and 8.4 SRS dynastic Spurs) than the Pistons beat en route to 2 titles (no team over 6.5 SRS).

In short, Rings are always a horrible argument. In this case, it defies all logic.

[Brenice]

You're throwing out alot of insanely crazy stuff here, so I'm going to limit my reply to one of them (for now anyway), RE: Dantley.

1) Isiah was not the GM of the Pistons. He did not make the decision to acquire Dantley,
3) You don't understand your reasoning for leadership is circular. You want to give Isiah credit for players who had good attitudes when they played with him, but you won't give him any negative points for his failure to motivate guys (like say Dantley). It's like me coaching 10 different soccer teams, and whenever my kids win I say "I taught them that", and whenever they lose I say "those kids were losers with bad attitudes who wouldn't listen to my wisdom". There's no empirical argument for what you're claiming, no test you'd accept, it's just another version of your "he won, so he must have been great" argument, and just as logically false.

1) I don't think I said Isiah was the GM. I did not say he made the decision to acquire Dantley. I said he had influence in the building of the Pistons into champions. Just like the team leaders on todays team(other than Nash I guess) influence management into acquiring players. That is why the Pistons were molded in Zeke's image. What I said was either Nash didn't exert his influence in personnel, or he should have, either way, they did not lose. What I said was that all Nash trumpeters say is Nash only has influence on the offense. Either the Suns were built to Nash's strength (offense, no defense, no rebounding, example Channing Frye) only by management, which led to failure, or Nash wanted certain types of big men to play with which also led to failure. The example I used of Zeke exerting his influence was the trading of Dantley for Aguire, not how the team acquired Dantley. If Nash didn't use his influence, that's on him too, as the team leader. Nash to Steve Kerr "I need a big man to rebound and play some defense, not shoot 3's. I want to win, not just a bunch of assists."

3) First of all, I did say Zeke was the leader. So much so that he led them off the court in an unsporsman like manner after losing to Chicago. That team followed Zeke, not Dumars. As for Dantley, wh do you think Zeke had him traded, like it has been widely circulated? Dantley was self-motivated, and they got to the finals with him. There really was no difference between Dantley and Aguire, except Aguire was Zeke's friend and excepted a lesser role on the team. It was an example of Zeke using his influence, even if it was for the wrong reason. Nash chose to do nothing when they brought in offense only big men or old Shaq.

[Brenice]

I've followed this thread for a while and one thing has absolutely blown my mind...no one has mentioned that Isiah Thomas' peak was BEFORE the Pistons won a championship. This makes it utterly nonsensical to champion any argument that has to do with team success when peak Thomas didn't play on a championship team. Now, if you think Thomas was at his best in 1989 and 1990, then you'd be going against all contemporary opinions/accolades/statistics and any reasonable eye test.

Furthermore, I always ask the Wins crowd to explain extremely simple inconsistencies, like what made Isiah a better player in 1989 than in 1988? Was it a missed halfcourt shot? The lack of a sprained ankle? How much did he suck in 1988 if they didn't win? What is the "blame" he shoulders and what kind of intangible failures did he exhibit because his team didn't win.

See, that's the thing that's so preposterous about all team-conflated analysis. Kobe didn't suck in 08 and then get awesome again in 09. People CLEARLY see this -- it's as plain as day while you watch a game -- but they can't or refuse to acknowledge it in points of analysis.

Isiah Thomas was on some not-so-great teams for many years. From 88-90 he was on ~5 SRS teams and 3 consecutive Conference winners. GDR is right about the competition weakening. Then what happened in 1991? Did he stink again? Maybe his poor leadership (displayed by sulking off the court against Chicago) was why they simply didn't have the mental toughness to hang with the younger Bulls when Chicago hit back. The team regressed on offense and team (even with Isiah in the lineup), probably because of age (that's what the people who watched them thought). I'm not sure how the Rings crowd reconciles that though. That was a +2.5 team in 1991 without Isiah, In 2007, we know the Suns were just about .500 w/out Steve Nash. We know from 05-07 they were ~.500 with him on the bench too.

In 1993, the Pistons managed to play +0.1 MOV ball with Dennis Rodman and Isiah in the lineup. Without Rodman and with Isiah, they were -6.1 (25-win pace). I have no idea how the wins crowd reconciles this and doesn't conclude that Isiah Thomas is a terrible loser with bad intangibles.

To boot, it appears (we don't have exact on/off for Isiah) that Phoenix was better with Nash in the game than Detoit was with Isiah in the game, and worse without Nash in the game than Detroit was without Isiah, and the Suns lost to better teams (7.8 SRS and 8.4 SRS dynastic Spurs) than the Pistons beat en route to 2 titles (no team over 6.5 SRS).

In short, Rings are always a horrible argument. In this case, it defies all logic.

Did you read the whole thread? I’m sure we talked about how the roster surrounding Zeke in his early years were the typical lineup of a team earning the second pick of the draft. Unlike the Lakers, where Magic joined Kareem his rookie year and was joined by #1#1 Worthy very shortly thereafter. Im sure it was talked about how the Celtics stole Bird not with a #1#1 draft pick and promptly traded for McHale and Parrish. Zeke didn’t have those luxuries. Just like A KG in Minnesota, those early years were Zeke's peak years. Nobody is saying KG is the same KG in Boston as he was in Minny. Zeke's style certainly had an impact on his longevity.

Also, I don’t think anybody is saying Zeke was better than Jordan. Could it be that, just like Detroit overtook Boston as Boston aged (according to Nash trumpeters), Chicago overtook Detroit as the Pistons aged? All the Nash heralders say Detroit won only because the Lakers and Celtics were too old and Chicago was too young. They are full of crap. I do think Chicago also beat an old Laker team too, if that’s the case. None of the Nash backers will say Chicago beat Detroit with a Zeke returning from right wrist surgery to play. No, they gonna say Zeke was the same and the surgery had no affect on his shooting stroke. No, Nash is better because of advance stats. Injured wrist or not. He should have been playing at a high advance stat level either way.

As for 1993, what condition was Zeke in, in 93? Is it your assumption that Zeke was the same player after the surgery to his wrist?

[G35]

That's because the only thing Nash supporters think is important is offensive impact because point guards only have responsibility of running the offense, even if the point guard is the best player and leader of their team.

One thing I'm hearing now but already knew was the case is that the team's best player want to be included when management is discussing player acquisitions, hence Zeke preferring Aguire over Dantley. Nash people may dispute that this happens and I'm not saying Nash tried to exercise that power, but with the bigs he have on his team who can't defend or rebound, he damn sure should have been involved. Unless he did want those players like himself, offense only players to fit a system tailor made for Nash.

Which is it?

Perhaps this is why your best player shouldn't be a PG that isn't going to stress defense. It's going to affect the way the team is built and plays on the court.....

[GodDamnRobin]

Chicago overtook Detroit as the Pistons aged

Except:
a) that's very evidently not what happened, and
b) Isiah's team in the late 80's was deeper than Magic or Bird or Jordan's teams either way, period. If you take Isiah off his team, and Magic/Bird/MJ off their teams, the Pistons have the superior team afterwards. That's called a support cast, and the Pistons was better, before they won titles, and after.

1) I don't think I said Isiah was the GM. I did not say he made the decision to acquire Dantley. I said he had influence in the building of the Pistons into champions.

Do we take points away from Isiah for bad decisions the Pistons made? No? Ok, then STFU.

The narrative that the Pistons were "forged in Zeke's image" and the Suns weren't is just that, a narrative. It's totally false. The Pistons management didn't look at Isiah and say "this little guy isn't an especially good defender... let's surround him with good defensive players, most of whom are good on offense too". That's every teams plan! The Pistons management didn't upgrade their talent from the early 80's the to mid/late 80's because of Isiah, they upgraded it because it was a no brainer to do so. The Suns management wasn't as good, and their owner was cheap. That's hardly Nash's fault. I'm sure he wasn't telling them "trade JJ for Diaw and some picks" or "instead of drafting Iggy, trade that pick for nothing" or "don't resign Amare".

And would you please shut up about Dantley? The team was just as good with Dantley. It was the other teams who got worse, rather than you getting better, so the decision to get him for a 6th man (when both were getting older) was not some masterstroke.

[Brenice]

Chicago overtook Detroit as the Pistons aged

Except:
a) that's very evidently not what happened, and
b) Isiah's team in the late 80's was deeper than Magic or Bird or Jordan's teams either way, period. If you take Isiah off his team, and Magic/Bird/MJ off their teams, the Pistons have the superior team afterwards. That's called a support cast, and the Pistons was better, before they won titles, and after.

1) I don't think I said Isiah was the GM. I did not say he made the decision to acquire Dantley. I said he had influence in the building of the Pistons into champions.

Do we take points away from Isiah for bad decisions the Pistons made? No? Ok, then STFU.

The narrative that the Pistons were "forged in Zeke's image" and the Suns weren't is just that, a narrative. It's totally false. The Pistons management didn't look at Isiah and say "this little guy isn't an especially good defender... let's surround him with good defensive players, most of whom are good on offense too". That's every teams plan! The Pistons management didn't upgrade their talent from the early 80's the to mid/late 80's because of Isiah, they upgraded it because it was a no brainer to do so. The Suns management wasn't as good, and their owner was cheap. That's hardly Nash's fault. I'm sure he wasn't telling them "trade JJ for Diaw and some picks" or "instead of drafting Iggy, trade that pick for nothing" or "don't resign Amare".

And would you please shut up about Dantley? The team was just as good with Dantley. It was the other teams who got worse, rather than you getting better, so the decision to get him for a 6th man (when both were getting older) was not some masterstroke.

Are you all in your feelings? Which Laker and Celtic team are you talking about as not being deep? Why did they age but the Pistons not? Laimbeer didn't age? James Edwards didn't age? Vinnie Johnson didn't age? All were over 33 in 1990 the year the Bulls defeated the Pistons. The same year Zeke had wrist surgery on his shooting arm.

I never said the Pistons management upgraded anything because of Zeke. I said Zeke had influence, just like a Magic, a Jordan, a Dwight Howard, a LeBron, a Steve Nash. That's what you want to avoid, Nash's influence or lack thereof.

And for me mentioning Dantley, maybe you should wipe the tears from your crying eyes so you can see what I said. I said Zeke influenced the Pistons to trade Dantley for his Chicago homeboy Aguire. whic is well known. I never said it was the best move or anything. I didn't think it was an upgrade, just an exampple of the influence stars have.

And Nash should have been saying "GET ME A BIG MAN TO REBOUND A DEFEND!", not a Channing Frye to shoot 3's with everbody else. Oh well, another blown opportunity. But things are looking up, they just re-signed Grant Hill. Your crying days are over.

[ahonui06]

Nash is essentially the product of a system. He wasn't as good in Dallas with Don Nelson's system focused more around Finley and DIRK.

Throw him into Phoenix and let him become ball dominant and his individual stats become greater, but the team results did not become greater. He reached the WCFs with Dallas in 2003 and has only reached the WCFs with Phoenix as well. He hasn't made the leap to the Finals.

This is why I rather have Isiah Thomas than Steve Nash.

[Brenice]

The narrative that the Pistons were "forged in Zeke's image" and the Suns weren't is just that, a narrative. It's totally false.

Ok, you said it. The Suns are not a high-octane offense built in the image of Steve Nash.

[G35]

I never said the Pistons management upgraded anything because of Zeke. I said Zeke had influence, just like a Magic, a Jordan, a Dwight Howard, a LeBron, a Steve Nash. That's what you want to avoid, Nash's influence or lack thereof.

And for me mentioning Dantley, maybe you should wipe the tears from your crying eyes so you can see what I said. I said Zeke influenced the Pistons to trade Dantley for his Chicago homeboy Aguire. whic is well known. I never said it was the best move or anything. I didn't think it was an upgrade, just an exampple of the influence stars have.

And Nash should have been saying "GET ME A BIG MAN TO REBOUND A DEFEND!", not a Channing Frye to shoot 3's with everbody else. Oh well, another blown opportunity. But things are looking up, they just re-signed Grant Hill. Your crying days are over.

This is what I have been saying forever. If Nash really was concerned about the lack of rebounding/defense he would have said something. Even if it was in private to the GM. There are always big men on the market that can be told to just defend and rebound. Dallas figured that out when they went they traded for Chandler. They even had a back up big man that all he was there for was to rebound/defend in Brendan Haywood.

But it tells me that management was either trying to make Nash happy by getting a three point shooting big man and playing him 30+ minutes in Channing Frye. So yeah Nash can get the ball out to someone like that but he can't do that with a Dalembert who is not even on the Suns radar.

You can say that the Pistons were a well built team that played great defense together but if you swap Nash out for Isiah something just doesn't look right. The teams identity changes from hard nosed defense to run run run/shoot shoot shoot/offense offense offense. That is all Nash......

[Krodis]

Are we really going to blame Nash for Phoenix's failure to surround him with good defensive players? It's not like Steve Nash can't play in the half-court, he's terrific at it.

The Suns are cheap and good defensive big men are expensive.

[rrravenred]

Isiah is essentially the product of a system. He wasn't as successful in Detroit with Scotty Robertson''s system focused more around Tripucka and LONG.

Throw Isiah into Phoenix and let him become ball dominant and his individual stats become greater, but the team results did not become greater. He reached the Eastern Semi Finals with Detroit in 1985 and only reached the Finals in 1988 when their talent improved and the Celtics depth declined. His team made the leap to the Finals.

Fixed.

[rrravenred]

Are we really going to blame Nash for Phoenix's failure to surround him with good defensive players?

Pick a page of this thread, any page. Yes, some people are.