RealGM Top 100 List #25

[Texas Chuck]

Run-off Vote: John Stockton

Both all-time great PG's. Both with good longevity(Stockton obv great longevity)

I know people like to downplay assists as having no value on this forum but when you lap the field both in this stat and in steals, well we should take note of it. Especially since no one could ever accuse Stockton of stat-padding and other than Magic the guys immediately behind him on the list all played forever too.

Stockton was a tough defender. Not the best PG defender ever, but a very very good one for a long long time.

Some of the edges for Nash--scoring and team offense have been broken down well by guys on both sides of the debate and its clear to me that while Nash does have an advantage as a scorer, a lot of that should be attributed to the vast difference in defensive attention these 2 guys received. And again we see John Stockton consistently running top 10 offenses himself.

He played every freaking game every year but 2 of his career and only missed more than 4 in the year he was 35, but less you think age caught up with him he closed out his career with 5 more years of playing every single game. This is absurd.

You like efficiency? 61%TS for his career
You care about ortg or dtrg 121/104 for his career--not his peak or his prime--his career
Assist to turnover ratio well over 4 to 1 during his prime. 4 to 1. On heavy volume. Are you kidding?
You like win shares? How about 14 times in the top 8 of the league?

Took his team to the playoffs every single year of his 2 decade long career.

I could go on and on with amazing John Stockton stats, but of course it goes beyond that. He was a tremendous player and I think he deserves to go in ahead of Nash

[Ryoga Hibiki]

No I'm just pointing out that the 2 times in the playoffs his team especially needed him to use this scoring skill that is a huge part of his argument over John he failed to come through for his team. And that in both cases his team(without that best big man or two) was still in position to win the game. Is Nash not responsible for his poor play because the circumstances were tough?

If that was all Nash did in the playoffs I would agree, but in other occasions he dominated in a way his opponent in this runoff never did.
If Nash had been able to overcome them and win rings most likely we wouldn't have been discussing him for the #25 but 10-15 positions earlier.

[Texas Chuck]

No I'm just pointing out that the 2 times in the playoffs his team especially needed him to use this scoring skill that is a huge part of his argument over John he failed to come through for his team. And that in both cases his team(without that best big man or two) was still in position to win the game. Is Nash not responsible for his poor play because the circumstances were tough?

If that was all Nash did in the playoffs I would agree, but in other occasions he dominated in a way his opponent in this runoff never did.
If Nash had been able to overcome them and win rings most likely we wouldn't have been discussing him for the #25 but 10-15 positions earlier.

I wouldnt be considering Nash as a top 15 player if he had won titles in 03 and 07.

Look I'm the first to admit that Nash has some great playoff moments. I personally posted an homage to what he did in the 2005 playoffs. Overall he's a good offensive player in the PS.

But, and its kinda a big but for me, so much has been made of Nash's advantage over Stockton in his ability to rise up and score in volume when the situation calls for it and the 2 biggest moments of his career where this was called for, he didn't deliver. And he didn't deliver in what were very very winnable games. If you are going to claim he would deserve to be higher with some rings, then you have to acknowledge that part of why he doesn't have those rings is because of his own failings. Because Dirk was coming back for game 7 in 2003 and Amare and Marion were back for game 6 in 2007. But Nash's performance in game 6 in 03 is a big part of why they never got to game 7 and his performance in game 5 in 07 didn't give them a chance to get to a 7th game in 07.

I'm not saying Nash is a poor playoff performer overall, but I feel like the above is at least worth mentioning.

[Quotatious]

Okay, my run-off vote goes to Steve Nash.

I think his offensive impact was simply higher than Stockton's, comparing their absolute primes, and he's better suited to be the best player on a contender because of that. I know that Stockton never had a chance to be the #1 player on his team, but I think that his assists were "empty" to a certain degree - don't get me wrong, he's still one of the very best pure orchestrator PGs of all-time, but Nash is IMO better in this role, considering that Stockton had Karl Malone his entire prime and they had the best offense in the league just once...Stockton was certainly a much better defender, but it's not the primary (or even secondary) concern for a PG. Honestly, I think a bit more highly of Nash's capabilities as a scorer, too. Sure, Stock also has a pretty significant longevity edge, but Nash's career wasn't really short, and it's not like he was chopped liver in Dallas...He was a top 3 level PG in the league even between 2002 and 2004. Also, peak/prime Nash (especially his 2005-07 stretch, but also 2008-10), to me is a more impressive prime than any stretch of Stockton's career.
Nash was more or less in his prime for 12 seasons, between 2001 and 2012, almost 31000 RS minutes, and over 4000 PS minutes - 35000 minutes on all-star/superstar level is a pretty significant body of work.

For quite a long time now, I've thought that I probably used to overrate two-way players a bit, at least when it comes to point guards, or guards in general (bad defense is definitely a bigger problem with bigs), and players who were really super elite on one side (for PG's, it's obviously offense). This is obviously not to say that PG defense is irrelevant, no, Stockton's defense certainly was a factor, and his impact is definitely more balanced between offense and defense, but I'm not sure if it's really a good thing here, because what it really seems to be is an euphemism for saying that he wasn't as impactful offensively.

My post absolutely shouldn't be perceived as an attempt to discredit Stockton, no, he's actually going to be my vote very soon, but here, I'm going with Nash.

[Quotatious]

Runoff Vote: Nash



A top-5 player (arguably top-3) player for three years, with back-to-back MVPs, Nash's 2005-07 peak is in a tier above Stockton.

Instant impact on 2004-05 Suns, boosting them from 29 wins to 62 wins.

Clear leader on a team that had three other stars (Stoudamire, Marion, Joe Johnson). Stockton was 1b to Karl Malone during his career.

Great passer: 5x assist leader

Great shooter: four of the ten 5-40-90 seasons in NBA history belong to Nash

That's a great pic.

I didn't expect you to vote for Nash over Stockton...

[Jim Naismith]

That's a great pic.

I didn't expect you to vote for Nash over Stockton...

I'm put a lot of emphasis on playoff success, peak, and team leadership.

I believe Isiah has an edge over Nash along these axes, but Nash still beats Stockton.

Similarly, I've argued Moses > Karl, so Nash > Stockton isn't that surprising.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I wouldnt be considering Nash as a top 15 player if he had won titles in 03 and 07.

If he managed to won in 2007 game 5, the series and then the title, playing the way he was playing, I would have considered him at least at the level of Oscar and West, so in the #11/#15 range.
That would have been an absolutely epic run, silencing any detractor (and then some would fans would argue him for like #5.... )

[Texas Chuck]

Hey, I'm with you that Steve Nash had some tough luck with injuries/suspensions that hurt his chances to win championships. As a Mavs fan I was crushed when Nellie chose to put Dirk's career first(tho in retrospect he may well have been right and I certainly respect the heck out of Nellie for doing so) and as a basketball fan I was irate at the league's discipline decisions after the cheap shot by Horry.

But its hard to use that as an excuse for Nash too much when you see how he personally struggled in games his undermanned team still played well enough to win. That's all. Now if Nash had played like a beast and his team lost then what you are saying makes a lot more sense to me. Then I think his "bad luck" makes playing what if games more compelling.

Great great player tho and an absolute joy to watch offensively. I can't quite get their with Colts18 that he's the best offensive player ever(Mike,KAJ, Shaq make that impossible for me), but if someone wanted to argue he's a better offensive player than Magic Johnson(and thus all other PG's) I think its close enough to be reasonable.

But unlike my man Q-- I value more than just pure offense in my PG's. I think both sides of the ball have impact that carries over to the other end. This isnt 1950's Iowa girls high school basketball where you have 3 players who only play offense and 3 who only play defense. I actually think Nash's relentless offensive pressure has the potential to help his team defenses, but sadly his individual defense is mediocre at best and he was also a very poor transition defender which hurts since his teams often turn games into track meet affairs. As the leader of the team in both Dallas and Phoenix he also set the tone for his teams that defense wasn't a priority which shouldn't go overlooked either.

[Basketballefan]

Runoff vote Stockton. Better longevity, better defender and had the higher career Ortg compared to Nash.

[Warspite]

Nash

I believe Nash did more in his career 2 time MVP and great regular season player. I wouldnt want either to be my PG as they both lack intangibles to be winners but with Nash you have more flexibility.

[Clyde Frazier]

Stockton in series clinchers during deep playoff runs:

92 vs. SEA - 18 PTS, 6 REB, 17 AST, 5 STL, 1 BLK, 3 TO, 52% TS, 132/100 OFF/DEF RTG

94 vs. SAS - 13 PTS, 18 AST, 3 STL, 1 BLK, 2 TO, 70% TS, 145/109 OFF/DEF RTG

96 vs. POR - 21 PTS, 4 REB, 11 AST, 2 STL, 4 TO, 80% TS, 137/78 OFF/DEF RTG

97 vs. LAL - 24 PTS, 1 REB, 10 AST, 1 STL, 4 TO, 70% TS, 138/114 OFF/DEF RTG

[E-Balla]

My runoff vote goes to Steve Nash. For all his negatives and lack of longevity compared to Stockton I still don't put the two on the same level prime for prime. I don't think Stockton could lead a team to a win as the best player and Nash could if he had a great defensive big along with the team they already had (add Ben Wallace to those teams to make them more balanced and I think they'd have won a ring in 05 or 07.

[Jim Naismith]

Nash

I believe Nash did more in his career 2 time MVP and great regular season player. I wouldnt want either to be my PG as they both lack intangibles to be winners but with Nash you have more flexibility.

You should have voted for Isiah!

[Texas Chuck]

Curious how John Stockton never played on a losing team in his life yet lacks the intangibles to be a winner?

Or Steve Nash whose teams in his prime won 50+ 7 years in a row with 2 of those teams over 60 wins.

Couple real losers with no intangible, these guys.

[tsherkin]

Nash

I believe Nash did more in his career 2 time MVP and great regular season player. I wouldnt want either to be my PG as they both lack intangibles to be winners but with Nash you have more flexibility.

What? "Lack the intangibles to be winners?"

What does that even mean? There's nothing lacking in Stockton from an intangibles perspective; his weaknesses are all fairly clearly defined, as are Nash's. Meantime, how many games per season did the Jazz win during his prime? How many playoff victories do they have from his playing career? Yeah, he didn't title and yeah, he's not a top 10 player of all-time, but that's a little bit harsh given his career achievements, IMO.

[Jim Naismith]

Runoff Vote: Nash

That's a great pic.

The photo is from 2006's Time 100 article on Steve Nash:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1975813_1975847_1976610,00.html

Heroes & Pioneers

Steve Nash

by Charles Barkley

I've been all over the world, and I always think people won't know who I am. They do. The way basketball has been embraced globally always amazes me. And I'm glad the world has got a chance to learn from a guy like Steve Nash.

What has he taught us? It pays to be selfless. You can be content just to make the players around you better. There are too many scoring point guards in the NBA today, and the game has suffered. People think that in order to be a great player, you have to lead the league in scoring. Forget that — despite averaging only 15.5 points a game, fourth best on his team, Nash was the MVP of the NBA last season, the first Canadian ever to win that honor. He deserved it: his 11.5 assists per game clinched it for him. And he's doing an even better job this season. To top it off, Nash, 32, is just a nice guy. He recently used endorsement money to help pay for a new pediatric cardiology ward in a Paraguayan hospital. That's beyond admirable. Over the past few years, his popularity has exploded. His ego could have swelled — everyone else's does. But he still just wants to pass the ball.

I'm a lucky guy to be living in Phoenix. The sun. The golf. And I get to watch Nash act like a magician on the court. Can't top that. And who knows? Maybe he'll inspire a whole new generation of kids to pass out of double teams the way he does. Like Nash, maybe they'll be selfless off the court too. That would be even better.

[G35]

Okay, my run-off vote goes to Steve Nash.

I think his offensive impact was simply higher than Stockton's, comparing their absolute primes, and he's better suited to be the best player on a contender because of that.

I like your posts generally but I think this is a poor way to judge each player. Nash was the best player on a contender for what...4-5 years? Where did that end up?

How many PG's have been the best player on a championship team? Isiah (debatable but I'll go with Zeke), Magic (but he's the outlier PG) and that's it.

Gary Payton was the best player but it was neck and neck between him and Kemp on who was more valuable to the Sonics and they had a ton of talent.

Kevin Johnson would be right there with the best PG's if not for injuries and he couldn't get his team to the finals until Barkley, a better player, arrived.

CP3 has had a few chances to show he is the best player on a contender and he can't even get to the conference finals.

Frazier but he was not the best player, even though he may have had the best series in the finals, on those Knicks teams.

Jason Kidd took his team to two finals in a down Eastern Conference, and I really like Kidd, I would take him over Nash personally. But Kidd was never able to do that in the WC.

Oscar might be the best PG after Magic but he didn't have any team success in Cincinatti. Zilch, he would have retired ringless and not went to any finals if he didn't team up with Kareem.

I can't really think of any PG besides Magic that I would attempt to build my team around and make them a contender. Basketball is a game of height and a PG isn't going to help the team enough on offense to make them serious contenders. That was the fallacy of Phoenix when they tried to do that and they kept coming up short. They saw Nash was not enough and tried to bring in Shaq and change the system but that didn't work either. The excuse of running into better teams is not valid either, Wilt ran into better teams, Jerry West/Elgin Baylor ran into better teams, all the teams that ran into the 90's Bulls, and the teams that ran into the Lakers in the 80s/00s. You know who the best teams are at the beginning of a season. It's not a secret or surprise like in the NFL or MLB. Phoenix knew they had to get past the Spurs or Dallas, making Nash the player to build around was a mistake if winning a championship was the goal.

Now if you want a great offense, excitement, efficiency on offense, and you want one player dominating the ball go with Nash. If you want defense and a true shot at winning you should not build around either Stockton or Nash. But with Stockton you don't have to play at a tempo that hurts your defense and you can have another star player who can help impact your team because the ball does not just stay in one players hands. Stockton can shine and not have to dominate the balll.....

[G35]

Runoff Vote: Nash

That's a great pic.

The photo is from 2006's Time 100 article on Steve Nash:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1975813_1975847_1976610,00.html

Heroes & Pioneers

Steve Nash

by Charles Barkley

I've been all over the world, and I always think people won't know who I am. They do. The way basketball has been embraced globally always amazes me. And I'm glad the world has got a chance to learn from a guy like Steve Nash.

What has he taught us? It pays to be selfless. You can be content just to make the players around you better. There are too many scoring point guards in the NBA today, and the game has suffered. People think that in order to be a great player, you have to lead the league in scoring. Forget that — despite averaging only 15.5 points a game, fourth best on his team, Nash was the MVP of the NBA last season, the first Canadian ever to win that honor. He deserved it: his 11.5 assists per game clinched it for him. And he's doing an even better job this season. To top it off, Nash, 32, is just a nice guy. He recently used endorsement money to help pay for a new pediatric cardiology ward in a Paraguayan hospital. That's beyond admirable. Over the past few years, his popularity has exploded. His ego could have swelled — everyone else's does. But he still just wants to pass the ball.

I'm a lucky guy to be living in Phoenix. The sun. The golf. And I get to watch Nash act like a magician on the court. Can't top that. And who knows? Maybe he'll inspire a whole new generation of kids to pass out of double teams the way he does. Like Nash, maybe they'll be selfless off the court too. That would be even better.

What was Barkley saying about Nash and the Suns in 2009......

[tsherkin]

I like your posts generally but I think this is a poor way to judge each player. Nash was the best player on a contender for what...4-5 years? Where did that end up?

With some remarkable performances that ended with him being blocked primarily by Duncan or Kobe, or circumstances beyond his control. It's hard to ask for a lot better than what he provided, in context.

How many PG's have been the best player on a championship team? Isiah (debatable but I'll go with Zeke), Magic (but he's the outlier PG) and that's it.

This isn't really an effective way to make this argument. They were very close, and were ultimately blocked by a player universally regarded as superior to Nash, a top 10 all-time player. What else is there to say on the topic? Such players typically dominate a given decade, and Nash ran into a pair of them.

I can't really think of any PG besides Magic that I would attempt to build my team around and make them a contender. Basketball is a game of height and a PG isn't going to help the team enough on offense to make them serious contenders.

It's pretty clear that this is entirely false.

That was the fallacy of Phoenix when they tried to do that and they kept coming up short.

No, not really. They came up short because they couldn't defend the post against Duncan or Gasol, primarily, and because their team rebounding wasn't up to snuff... and that's aside from the injury to Joe Johnson, the hip check on Nash, the suspensions, Amare's injury and so forth. You have to ignore a LOT of historical fact to come to the conclusion that it was Phoenix's offense which was the root of their problems.

The excuse of running into better teams is not valid either, Wilt ran into better teams, Jerry West/Elgin Baylor ran into better teams, all the teams that ran into the 90's Bulls, and the teams that ran into the Lakers in the 80s/00s.

Right, and they are likewise penalized for not winning anything. West and Wilt didn't win when they weren't on exceedingly talented teams. Hell, West didn't win anything until he was WITH Wilt on the same team, and even that took a while.

Phoenix knew they had to get past the Spurs or Dallas, making Nash the player to build around was a mistake if winning a championship was the goal.

That doesn't follow logically, no, particularly not in context.

But with Stockton you don't have to play at a tempo that hurts your defense

This is another empty point, given that Stockton started his statistical dominance playing at paces FASTER than the SSOL Suns, and that Nash's bread-and-butter is the HC pick-and-roll play, which remained highly effective for him through the playoffs.

Stockton can shine and not have to dominate the balll.....

Narrative tripe. There's nothing about Stockton's offensive game that Nash couldn't do, rendering this point invalid.

[Owly]

Vote: Stockton

Would have voted him in the main ballot but had limited time. Anyway the reasoning for

- Crazy career added value (5th all-time in Win Shares, 1st in WARP, and being 31st in career PER, and 8th in career minutes so he'd be right up there in EWA too).

- Not a crazy peak but not bad for what's left on the board
Those with a better WS/48 peak season

Spoiler:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
LeBron James
Michael Jordan
David Robinson
Chris Paul
Kevin Durant
Shaquille O'Neal
Larry Foust
Oscar Robertson
Dirk Nowitzki
Kevin Garnett
Earvin "Magic" Johnson
Vern Mikkelsen
Charles Barkley
Chet Walker
George Mikan
Karl Malone
Dolph Schayes
Neil Johnston
Amare Stoudemire
Tracy McGrady
Paul Arizin
Jerry West
Chauncey Billups
Tim Duncan
Kenny Sears
Ed Macauley
Moses Malone
Bob Pettit
Emanuel Ginobili
Larry Bird
Bob McAdoo
Dwyane Wade
Bill Russell

He's 36th. The bolded are off the board, what's left tends to be either older era, didn't mantain the peak productivity or still active guys who (at least arguably) haven't had enough of a career.

PER he's lower

Spoiler:

Wilt Chamberlain
Michael Jordan
LeBron James
David Robinson
Shaquille O'Neal
Dwyane Wade
Tracy McGrady
Chris Paul
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Kevin Garnett
Charles Barkley
Karl Malone
George Mikan
Kevin Durant
Elgin Baylor
Bob Pettit
Dirk Nowitzki
Kobe Bryant
Larry Bird
Oscar Robertson
Amare Stoudemire
Hakeem Olajuwon
Tim Duncan
Earvin "Magic" Johnson
Moses Malone
Neil Johnston
Elton Brand
Yao Ming
Walt Bellamy
Dwight Howard
Julius Erving
Allen Iverson
Patrick Ewing
Bob McAdoo
Alonzo Mourning
Grant Hill
Paul Arizin
Dolph Schayes
Kevin Love
John Drew
Terrell Brandon
Bernard King
Robert Parish
Nate Archibald
Chris Bosh
Vince Carter
Jerry West
Bill Walton
Bob Lanier
Carmelo Anthony
Arvydas Sabonis
Brook Lopez
George Gervin
Chris Webber
Adrian Dantley
Dominique Wilkins
Anfernee Hardaway
Andrei Kirilenko
Ed Macauley
Emanuel Ginobili
Rick Barry
Harry Gallatin
Pau Gasol
Alex English
Carlos Boozer
Clyde Drexler
Brandon Roy
Gilbert Arenas
Kevin McHale
Marques Johnson
Russell Westbrook
Chris Gatling

73rd this time but it does seem to skew pro bigs and perhaps against PGs (certainly the pro scoring bias doesn't help Stock). The only points still on the board with a better PER peak are Paul (still active), Terrell Brandon (outlier peak), Nate Archibald (scoring pg, injuries), Penny Hardaway (outlier peak with injuries, scoring pg) and Gilbert Arenas (scoring pg, injuries, 2/3 year peak).

xRAPM (http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/1992.html ; http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/ratings/2001.html) and WARP (http://www.basketballprospectus.com/art ... cleid=1196 ; http://www.basketballprospectus.com/art ... mode=print) seem to like his peak too.

The boxscore might not fully capture his D either.

Given worse boxscore peak, less longevity in his prime, and worse D, I'd have to be buying very strongly into Nash as an offensive catalyst that would give him pretty substantial (overall) edge at peak, and whilst I'm not super confident on where Nash's (net) extended peak impact is, I'm reasonably sure it isn't enough to overturn the above.

On the arguments that Stockton wasn't ever clear cut the best at his position (though I'd be curious if anyone is in doubt he was the best at the position in '95; the only guy I could hazard a guess at is Penny and he played a lot with Brian Shaw so it's far from a given he's a pg but even then the metrics suggest calling Penny better would be a stretch), perhaps not but nor was say Ewing, who's in now. And post Magic ('92-'97) he's consistently leading all pg's in the metrics year on year (in '93 Price is better by the per minute metrics but behind in WS playing 483 less minutes and of course, he was a worse defender and sadly had a dissapointing playoffs; in '94 Price has a very slight edge in PER - but again minutes, D and playoffs are disadvantages; '96 Penny and Brandon have outlier years, both better in PER and WS/48; Penny is better in total WS, Brandon slightly worse in total WS due to less minutes, KJ better by PER but plays 908 less minutes; in '97 KJ better by PER but plays 238 less minutes). If it's not mention above then Stockton led. Most years Stockton was winning by most categories, when he wasn't it was most often in PER which skews more pro scorers, and he was often behind players who played less minutes and were worse defenders than he was. And then as noted by others those close to him in one year weren't close to him over a five or ten (or 15) year stretch or they'd be getting consideration here cf: http://bkref.com/tiny/FAOwo .

On the scoring volatility I've already said I'm not certain on that (in terms of whether that shows "when needed" scoring) and I think you'd also want to look at the flipside (e.g in '06, his most scoring minded season in Phoenix, in 7 RS games of 9 or less points for Nash they were outscored when he was on court by 52 points and he shot a ts% 0.31779661 (for 6ppg); now there's issues here, lower than usual minutes - because of garbage time, given more minutes shooting would regress to the mean and theres a selction bias because if he's making his shots then he won't have less then 10 points, and then if that were the case his teams wouldn't be being beaten by so much with him on the floor. Still in those games he's playing 29.95238095 mpg, getting 7.571428571 assists and accruing 3 turnovers per game.

Stockton's best (100 pos) scoring year is '90. He has 8 sub 10 point games.
We don't have plus minus but he's shooting 0.400874636 TS% (6.875 ppg); 32.875mpg; 13.25 apg, 2.625 tpg. I'd be very reluctant to draw any strong conclusions based on tiny samples different pace and era etc. But the suggestion would be that not only is Stockton probably less likely to stray significantly below his average (I haven't looked at SDs and in this instance Stockton has one more sub-10 game but it's from a lower scoring baseline 17.2ppg rather than 18.8) but he seems more able to maintain efficient playmaking when apparently not posing a scoring threat, whilst Nash becomes a pedestrian playmaker with a 2.5 a/t ratio (was he contigent on being a scoring threat to open up playmaking, was it an issue with that team ...)

As I say it's small samples, probably means nothing, but then to me I'm not sure a handful of 30+ppg games are a huge deal either.



Slightly off topic as its the runoff but as Isiah got more than one vote it might be time to make some of the anti-Isiah points. His case (anywhere near this high) is contigent on valuing the playoffs quite highly. Yet even then, just looking at point guards, I see a lot of guys who are some way from being selected who are in his ballpark in playoff productivity.

Firstly the accuracy of Isiah's DWS are somewhat sketchy. Unless you think he made more defensive impact than anyone else on the '90 Pistons.

So here's the playoffs career OWS/48 for a handful of 80s and 90s pgs

G Williams 0.138920086
Porter 0.104798172
A Hardaway 0.101818182
K Johnson 0.094044857
Cheeks 0.076237624
Thomas 0.062618596
Price 0.062448255
Strickland 0.060112711
Harper 0.058952812
T Parker 0.051153173
T Hardaway 0.021052632

It doesn't blow you away. Now Thomas is a pretty good rebounder for a guard, so maybe that's part of what's hurting him, but then his playoff defensive rebound % is worse than Kevin Johnsons so he's not way out ahead of the pack. His PER is a bit more positive

G Williams 0.138920086 - 20.37
Thomas 0.062618596 - 19.8
A Hardaway 0.101818182 - 19.76
K Johnson 0.094044857 - 19.08
T Parker 0.051153173 - 17.24
Strickland 0.060112711 - 17.23
Price 0.062448255 - 17.17
Porter 0.104798172 - 17
Cheeks 0.076237624 - 16.61
T Hardaway 0.021052632 - 15.7
Harper 0.058952812 - 14.21

Even so I think it's giving too much credit for steals when Thomas was a gambler (and considered a poor defender earlier in his career, perhaps around average maybe slightly above by this point) and skews against less scoring inclined points like Cheeks (and to a lesser degree, Porter, Strickland and Harper - all of these guys are better defenders too which PER ignores).

Then too Thomas has the advantage that his longest playoff runs come when he was playing well and his playoff absences coincide with the three worst years of his career.

Cast the net wider to the 70s and 2000s and you could throw in Baron Davis (who'd come out well ahead) and Calvin Murphy (ahead in OWS/48, behind in PER); cast it deeper (lower tier player and less minutes) and there's Johnny Moore (slightly behind in PER, comfortably ahead in OWS) who at least have similar ballpark playoff numbers.

As ever these metrics are imperfect, particularly in the playoffs and arguably with pgs. Still I don't think there's enough in the playoffs to suggest he's significantly better than a lot of this pack (indeed at all by comparison with Gus Williams, other than a longevity edge). He doesn't have the stats for most of this tier of pgs (Stockton, Nash, Frazier, Paul) or the D that makes others arguable (Payton, Kidd).