RealGM Top 100 List: #21

[pandrade83]

Epic post, JM.
I'm not generally one to put a ton of stock in narrative-based arguments (it's sometimes easy to get swept away by a good spin doctor, so I'm always cautious). That said, this post went a long way toward convincing me I'm underrating Isiah presently. And I sincerely appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into making these kinds of grand opus posts. Well done.

I did, however, want to pick one nit wrt this:

Overall - Isiah gets the edge 5-2-1-1 head-to-head and when it became personal he completely dominated Stockton.

I feel like there was one or two games you awarded your grade on this "Isiah_Even_Stockton" scale with somewhat homer-colored glasses.

In particular, the 2nd meeting (graded "Even") jumped out to me (and if doing these types of comps, I like being more complete in the box data presented): Stockton had 25 pts, 3 reb, 11 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 4 to's @ 65.9% TS. Isiah had 20 pts, 3 reb, 8 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 59.7% TS.

To me, that's clearly an edge to Stockton: he had one more turnover, but was also +1 in steals (cancel each other out, imo); was otherwise then +5 pts (on better shooting efficiency) and +3 ast, while being even in rebounds. Going strictly on the boxscore, I cannot see that game as even.


There was also the 4th meeting of 3/29/89 (graded "Edge: Isiah").
Stockton had 18 pts, 3 reb, 12 ast, 2 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 60.2% TS
Isiah had 25 pts, 5 reb, 8 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 54.7% TS
So Isiah was +7 pts and +2 reb, but was also -4 ast, - 2 stl, and had lesser shooting efficiency. To me, that looks basically "even".


Also, if doing all meetings from '88-'93 (which I admit should favor Stockton, as it's more firmly in his prime), why did you omit the 11th meeting (of 3/17/93)? fwiw (as far as noting the final tally), it's a meeting that goes to Stockton by a pretty sizable margin:
Stockton had 16 pts, 7 reb, 12 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 2 to's @ 58.1% TS (Jazz won, too, btw); Isiah had 14 pts, 2 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 4 to's @ 47.4% TS.

So overall in these years, I would grade it 4-4-2 with 1 game invalidated by cheap shot.
jsia....

Good questions, I think I can explain myself and you'll see it my way.

RE: Game #2 3/9/88

The Pistons controlled the entire game. I wasn't able to get film, but the Pistons dominated the game. Isiah scored 16 of his 20 in the first half per the Detroit Free Press and the Jazz only cut the lead to single digits late. Stockton played more minutes and presumably added to his totals as the Jazz outscored the Pistons in the third and fourth after being down by nearly twenty. So I called it even since Stockton had better numbers, but Isiah started hot and his team won the game.

RE: Game #4 3/29/89

That was actually the last time the Pistons would win in Utah until 2003. For me Isiah gets the edge in a great back and forth battle. Stockton sent the game to overtime with a three at the buzzer. Isiah tied it up with 32 seconds to go in the first overtime and then missed a shot at the buzzer that would have won it. In the second overtime, Isiah fouled Stockton out on a crossover drive and in total scored 4 points and assisted on Detroit's other two field goals in the period. So I gave Zeke the edge.

The real dagger for me were the games after the Dream Team snub and after the Malone cheap shot. He wanted to prove something and it wasn't about disrespecting Stockton. It was about others disrespecting him. Again, crappy personality trait, unless you're a pro athlete.

RE: Last 1993 meeting

You caught me in a bias here. In excluded it because it was after Isiah's prime and unlike the previous game in 1993, he wasn't out for blood. This game was a meaningless game for a Pistons team in turmoil. The Pistons got annihilated and Isiah didn't play much. 1992-93 was the end. Laimbeer and Aguirre fell off a cliff, we're basically unplayable. Daly was gone and Rodman was becoming a problem. It shows more bias on my part to include the earlier 1993 game, but I felt it was important as Isiah has spoke about how much that game meant to him.

Thanks for the thoughts and thoughtful challenges.

JM - In the discussions we've had on this, you're placing a lot of emphasis on their H2H matchups. But they never played in the playoffs AND it represents < 1% of Stockton's REGULAR season games. Can you help me understand why you place such a premium on this vs. the other mountains of evidence that we have that Stockton was overall more impactful?

I think you made a lot of great points for sure. I just don't understand the emphasis on thhis.

[JoeMalburg]

Epic post, JM.
I'm not generally one to put a ton of stock in narrative-based arguments (it's sometimes easy to get swept away by a good spin doctor, so I'm always cautious). That said, this post went a long way toward convincing me I'm underrating Isiah presently. And I sincerely appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into making these kinds of grand opus posts. Well done.

I did, however, want to pick one nit wrt this:


I feel like there was one or two games you awarded your grade on this "Isiah_Even_Stockton" scale with somewhat homer-colored glasses.

In particular, the 2nd meeting (graded "Even") jumped out to me (and if doing these types of comps, I like being more complete in the box data presented): Stockton had 25 pts, 3 reb, 11 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 4 to's @ 65.9% TS. Isiah had 20 pts, 3 reb, 8 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 59.7% TS.

To me, that's clearly an edge to Stockton: he had one more turnover, but was also +1 in steals (cancel each other out, imo); was otherwise then +5 pts (on better shooting efficiency) and +3 ast, while being even in rebounds. Going strictly on the boxscore, I cannot see that game as even.


There was also the 4th meeting of 3/29/89 (graded "Edge: Isiah").
Stockton had 18 pts, 3 reb, 12 ast, 2 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 60.2% TS
Isiah had 25 pts, 5 reb, 8 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 3 to's @ 54.7% TS
So Isiah was +7 pts and +2 reb, but was also -4 ast, - 2 stl, and had lesser shooting efficiency. To me, that looks basically "even".


Also, if doing all meetings from '88-'93 (which I admit should favor Stockton, as it's more firmly in his prime), why did you omit the 11th meeting (of 3/17/93)? fwiw (as far as noting the final tally), it's a meeting that goes to Stockton by a pretty sizable margin:
Stockton had 16 pts, 7 reb, 12 ast, 1 stl, 0 blk, 2 to's @ 58.1% TS (Jazz won, too, btw); Isiah had 14 pts, 2 reb, 4 ast, 0 stl, 0 blk, 4 to's @ 47.4% TS.

So overall in these years, I would grade it 4-4-2 with 1 game invalidated by cheap shot.
jsia....

Good questions, I think I can explain myself and you'll see it my way.

RE: Game #2 3/9/88

The Pistons controlled the entire game. I wasn't able to get film, but the Pistons dominated the game. Isiah scored 16 of his 20 in the first half per the Detroit Free Press and the Jazz only cut the lead to single digits late. Stockton played more minutes and presumably added to his totals as the Jazz outscored the Pistons in the third and fourth after being down by nearly twenty. So I called it even since Stockton had better numbers, but Isiah started hot and his team won the game.

RE: Game #4 3/29/89

That was actually the last time the Pistons would win in Utah until 2003. For me Isiah gets the edge in a great back and forth battle. Stockton sent the game to overtime with a three at the buzzer. Isiah tied it up with 32 seconds to go in the first overtime and then missed a shot at the buzzer that would have won it. In the second overtime, Isiah fouled Stockton out on a crossover drive and in total scored 4 points and assisted on Detroit's other two field goals in the period. So I gave Zeke the edge.

The real dagger for me were the games after the Dream Team snub and after the Malone cheap shot. He wanted to prove something and it wasn't about disrespecting Stockton. It was about others disrespecting him. Again, crappy personality trait, unless you're a pro athlete.

RE: Last 1993 meeting

You caught me in a bias here. In excluded it because it was after Isiah's prime and unlike the previous game in 1993, he wasn't out for blood. This game was a meaningless game for a Pistons team in turmoil. The Pistons got annihilated and Isiah didn't play much. 1992-93 was the end. Laimbeer and Aguirre fell off a cliff, we're basically unplayable. Daly was gone and Rodman was becoming a problem. It shows more bias on my part to include the earlier 1993 game, but I felt it was important as Isiah has spoke about how much that game meant to him.

Thanks for the thoughts and thoughtful challenges.

JM - In the discussions we've had on this, you're placing a lot of emphasis on their H2H matchups. But they never played in the playoffs AND it represents < 1% of Stockton's REGULAR season games. Can you help me understand why you place such a premium on this vs. the other mountains of evidence that we have that Stockton was overall more impactful?

I think you made a lot of great points for sure. I just don't understand the emphasis on thhis.

Good question.

I am trying to give a direct example of how competitive Isiah was and how personal he took challenges and presumed slights. I think it's a huge part of why he was such a dynamic force and why the Pistons won.

I'm not trying to suggest that ten games write the story. Just that there was a storyline that Isiah was previewed by peers as elite, but the media sort of challenged that by keeping him from any all-NBA honors. So when he played other guys who were occasionally written about as being better or on Isiahs level, Isiah went at them and really wanted his team to win.

It's why I agree with Simmons piece. Paul is a better version of Isiah in almost every way, but not the one that allowed Isiah to be the excretion to the small guard led team rule.

I need a killer, especially when they're a point guard.

[Senior]

Wanted to add some thoughts on Isiah, especially in comparison to his mirror, CP3

first of all, I believe that Isiah's track record of offenses is overstated - in the pre-Bad Boys era (82-85) when the Pistons were a "run run run and play no defense" the Pistons were 11th, 1st, 9th, and 7th. That's not as good as CP3's, but not terrible either - and that 1st place is impressive when Showtime is in the league. Isiah was doing the 20/10 thing those years, and those rosters carried guys like Kelly Tripucka who could put up points but played no defense at all. This era came to an end when they got wiped by Boston in the 85 ECSF - a series where Boston went +5.3 ORTG. I don't really mind Isiah's efficiency - he could get his shot whenever he wanted, picked his spots because his teams usually had decent offensive talent that needed a set-up man, and ate the bailout shots. He could shoot anywhere from about 18 feet in (and you could argue that CP3's superior range gives a major edge but only like 10 guys shot a lot of threes for the first 7 years of the 80s). He did what he needed to do for his teams.

After the 85 ECSF, the Pistons decided to slow the game down, bring in better defenders, and just beat their opponents down physically. They traded away guys like Kelly Tripucka, Kent Benson, and Dan Roundfield and brought in physical defenders like Rick Mahorn, Dumars, Salley, and Rodman. They went from one of the fastest teams in the league to about average by pace, they fouled the hell out of everyone because the refs can't call everything, and they became a title winner. Isiah took a step back to around 19/9 (from 87-90) which would probably be the ~22/11 statline he had on the faster teams.

Now...

Don't Isiah's 82-85 years sound like CP3? Offensive teams that keep getting let down by garbage defense as more balanced teams take them apart. CP3 puts up the stats but because his teams around him are primarily offensive players that can't play defense, his Clippers have always been a step down from the Spurs and Warriors. Don't get me wrong, his ability to run a team is fantastic, he's probably a better player than Isiah, and his teammates generally suck without him. However, I feel that the situation that enables CP3 to put up the absurd numbers he does also prevents his team from truly becoming a contender. It's not really his "fault", but I believe that the numbers overstate the difference between the two. I could see CP3 following exactly the same career arc that Isiah did - and suffering the same numbers drop when his team shifted to a defense-first one.

It wasn't surprising to see Isiah's stats drop when his team became a title winner, because not only did his team slow down, he was willing to blend in/defer to the other players. Is this not something that should be praised?

One final thought - we gave credit to Duncan for instilling a purely professional culture on the Spurs. A team's culture is molded by its best player, and Isiah was a tough little bastard so the Pistons became a team of tough bastards that never gave up, never stopped fighting, and embodied "by any means necessary". An comparison of intangibles between CP3 and Isiah has to have Isiah ahead. The Clippers had kind of a shaky locker room and IIRC Reddick implied that they weren't even having fun playing ball any more. The last shaky locker room to win was probably the Shaqobe Lakers - and those teams had absurd top end talent that the Clippers don't compare to.

On the other hand...those Pistons would commit a homicide for Isiah. That team came back from two of the most crushing series losses in history - 87 vs Boston and 88 vs LA...and came back even stronger three straight years (88-90). That's not the mental strength I expect from the Clippers...and the quotes from the Clippers vs the Pistons could not be more different. The Pistons were always united, them against the world. The Clippers...were not.

I wouldn't mind betting on a CP3-led team to win. But I would hate to face the Isiah-led team.

[JordansBulls]

1st Vote: Dwyane Wade - 3x champ, led the franchise of the Heat to it's first title in historic fashion putting up one of the greatest finals ever. Led the league in scoring as well. A great defender and a player who plays both ends of the floor. A true player who can lead a franchise to the promised land of winning a title.

2nd Vote: Bob Pettit

[pandrade83]

I had gone back & looked at the elimination/closeout game data. I had made one dumb error on the TS% (TS% formula had a ) in the wrong space - oof.

Anyway - here's the revised #'s for Stockton/Paul/Thomas (only #'s that materially change are TS%).

Stud games defined as (pts * TS%) + reb + ast + stl + block - TO are 30 or greater
Dud games defined as the above at 18 or less

Stockton ('88-'97) 33 games: 16.5 pts, 11.8 ast, 3.6 reb, 2.0 stl, 0.4 block, 3.3 TO 58.2% TS. 10 stud games, 6 dud games.
Thomas ('84-'92) 30 games: 20.5 pts, 9.1 ast, 5.0 reb, 2.1 stl, 0.3 block, 3.1 TO 50.4% TS. 9 stud games, 9 dud games.
Paul (entire career) 21 games: 20.5 pts, 9.4 ast, 5.2 reb, 2.1 stl, 0.2 block, 2.6 TO 55.9% TS. 9 stud games, 3 dud games

Literally the only thing separating Thomas from the others is the shooting #'s. If his TS #'s were 5 points higher, he goes 10-15 spots higher on these rankings.

[theonlyclutch]

I need a killer, especially when they're a point guard.

Ok then, if that is the criteria, I would like to know why this guy isn't on your shortlist yet.

Clutch Stats (82games per 48 minutes)

2004-05: 33.7 pts, 62.6% TS (+1.7% over RS), +11.9 net rating on floor
2005-06: 39.3 pts, 65.2% TS (+5.0% over RS), +24.2 net rating on floor
2006-07: 34.6 pts, 60.7% TS (+1.6% over RS), +31.6 net rating on floor
2007-08: 38.5 pts, 67.2% TS (+5.3% over RS), +6.9 net rating on floor
2008-09: 32.1 pts, 57.4% TS (-1.8% under RS), +4.3 net rating on floor
2009-10: 37.7 pts, 63.6% TS (+3.5% over RS), +12.1 net rating on floor
2010-11 (DEN): 37.4 pts, 70.8% TS (+7.4% over RS), +1.8 net rating on floor
2010-11 (NYK): 32.9 pts, 60.6% TS (+2.4% over RS), +10.3 net rating on floor

Over 7 seasons of his prime, he has increased his volume and nearly always increased his efficiency (from an incredibly high baseline) when the game's on the line, with great net ratings from the team in the meantime, if that's not a "killer", then what is?

[penbeast0]

I had gone back & looked at the elimination/closeout game data. I had made one dumb error on the TS% (TS% formula had a ) in the wrong space - oof.

Anyway - here's the revised #'s for Stockton/Paul/Thomas (only #'s that materially change are TS%).

Stud games defined as (pts * TS%) + reb + ast + stl + block - TO are 30 or greater
Dud games defined as the above at 18 or less

Stockton ('88-'97) 33 games: 16.5 pts, 11.8 ast, 3.6 reb, 2.0 stl, 0.4 block, 3.3 TO 58.2% TS. 10 stud games, 6 dud games.
Thomas ('84-'92) 30 games: 20.5 pts, 9.1 ast, 5.0 reb, 2.1 stl, 0.3 block, 3.1 TO 50.4% TS. 9 stud games, 9 dud games.
Paul (entire career) 21 games: 20.5 pts, 9.4 ast, 5.2 reb, 2.1 stl, 0.2 block, 2.6 TO 55.9% TS. 9 stud games, 3 dud games

Literally the only thing separating Thomas from the others is the shooting #'s. If his TS #'s were 5 points higher, he goes 10-15 spots higher on these rankings.

That tends to be true of scorers, if George Gervin were shooting over 60%ts for a decade rather than 55, he's not only have have averaged roughly 30ppg, but he'd be in the discussion for top 20 players of all time and may even have a ring. If you are a volume scorer, efficiency is extremely important.

[Bad Gatorade]

Interesting stat I just worked out on Isiah...

Isiah missed a bunch of games in 1990-91 (1 year after the back to back titles). So, what I did was calculate some stats with the 39 games he played (prior to injury), the 34 games he missed and ignored the 9 games after he returned from injury (I felt like this was fair - this was against his toughest opposition of the season too). This is the most consistent streak that goes beyond arbitrary single game samples in other seasons, so I thought I'd look at it a bit more.

Looked at Net ORTG and Net DRTG for when Isiah played and when Isiah didn't play. In other words, these are adjusted for opponent -

With Isiah:
27-12 record (22 of 39 games played at home)
Net ORTG: +0.2
Net DRTG: -4.3

Without Isiah:
19-15 record (14 of 34 games played at home)
Net ORTG: +1.0
Net DRTG: -1.1

Now, this reeks of small sample size theatre (39 and 34 games are not very much), but I found the results fascinating - there was literally zero drop off on offence - in fact, there was a slight increased facilitated by offensive rebounding. Rather, there was a notable improvement on defence. Net rating was +4.5 in Isiah games, and +2.1 in non-Isiah games.

So, the team was (again, in a limited sample) a bit better with Isiah, but the actual split of offence/defence was fascinating here.

Any explanations that can help me out?

a) Does this help provide credence to the idea that Isiah is positive for his team's culture if he's not known for his defence, but his team performed quite a bit better defensively with him?
b) Does Isiah's inefficiency (in the regular season anyway) actually hurt his teams more than we realise?
c) Is a lot of this simply due to replacements - was this Vinnie Johnson? Who replaced Vinnie Johnson off the bench?

See, I'm almost entirely happy to dismiss much of these movements as sample size, but it's also leading me to ponder whether or not a few of these hypotheses have some credence.

[pandrade83]

I had gone back & looked at the elimination/closeout game data. I had made one dumb error on the TS% (TS% formula had a ) in the wrong space - oof.

Anyway - here's the revised #'s for Stockton/Paul/Thomas (only #'s that materially change are TS%).

Stud games defined as (pts * TS%) + reb + ast + stl + block - TO are 30 or greater
Dud games defined as the above at 18 or less

Stockton ('88-'97) 33 games: 16.5 pts, 11.8 ast, 3.6 reb, 2.0 stl, 0.4 block, 3.3 TO 58.2% TS. 10 stud games, 6 dud games.
Thomas ('84-'92) 30 games: 20.5 pts, 9.1 ast, 5.0 reb, 2.1 stl, 0.3 block, 3.1 TO 50.4% TS. 9 stud games, 9 dud games.
Paul (entire career) 21 games: 20.5 pts, 9.4 ast, 5.2 reb, 2.1 stl, 0.2 block, 2.6 TO 55.9% TS. 9 stud games, 3 dud games

Literally the only thing separating Thomas from the others is the shooting #'s. If his TS #'s were 5 points higher, he goes 10-15 spots higher on these rankings.

That tends to be true of scorers, if George Gervin were shooting over 60%ts for a decade rather than 55, he's not only have have averaged roughly 30ppg, but he'd be in the discussion for top 20 players of all time and may even have a ring. If you are a volume scorer, efficiency is extremely important.

Agreed. If Gervin pulls that off, he's KD. If Isiah does it, he's Chris Paul. Stockton is a different animal - that wasn't how he created impact - his scoring was high efficiency, relatively low volume while setting up others.

For me, Chris Paul & Mikan are the two hardest players coming up to evaluate.

For Paul, I need to reconcile his highly robust impact stats that say he should be in sooner with the fact that he will probably be the only player in the Top 40 to not get out of the 2nd round (let alone Finals) and resolve that somehow.

For Mikan, I need to reconcile the fact that at peak, for his era his impact is as great as anyone's - but the era he played in might not be any better than if you merged the top half of the ACC/Big Ten.

[Senior]

Interesting stat I just worked out on Isiah...

Isiah missed a bunch of games in 1990-91 (1 year after the back to back titles). So, what I did was calculate some stats with the 39 games he played (prior to injury), the 34 games he missed and ignored the 9 games after he returned from injury (I felt like this was fair - this was against his toughest opposition of the season too). This is the most consistent streak that goes beyond arbitrary single game samples in other seasons, so I thought I'd look at it a bit more.

Looked at Net ORTG and Net DRTG for when Isiah played and when Isiah didn't play. In other words, these are adjusted for opponent -

With Isiah:
27-12 record (22 of 39 games played at home)
Net ORTG: +0.2
Net DRTG: -4.3

Without Isiah:
19-15 record (14 of 34 games played at home)
Net ORTG: +1.0
Net DRTG: -1.1

Now, this reeks of small sample size theatre (39 and 34 games are not very much), but I found the results fascinating - there was literally zero drop off on offence - in fact, there was a slight increased facilitated by offensive rebounding. Rather, there was a notable improvement on defence. Net rating was +4.5 in Isiah games, and +2.1 in non-Isiah games.

So, the team was (again, in a limited sample) a bit better with Isiah, but the actual split of offence/defence was fascinating here.

Any explanations that can help me out?

a) Does this help provide credence to the idea that Isiah is positive for his team's culture if he's not known for his defence, but his team performed quite a bit better defensively with him?

Not sure if it's relevant - the culture thing was more of a big-picture improvement, not really season-to-season. By 1991 the Pistons were starting to show cracks - that was basically the only season in the Bad Boys era that any of their core missed significant time. I'd say Isiah was a solid defender, but not to the degree that those numbers show.

b) Does Isiah's inefficiency (in the regular season anyway) actually hurt his teams more than we realise?

Maybe game to game, but not overall. Isiah's value on offense to me comes from his ability to run a team/pick his spots/etc and explosive potential in the playoffs - not necessarily his volume scoring, especially in the RS.

c) Is a lot of this simply due to replacements - was this Vinnie Johnson? Who replaced Vinnie Johnson off the bench?

Vinnie replaced Isiah in the starting lineup. Aguirre was really the only offensively-capable player off the bench with Isiah out - they even started Gerald Henderson (only played 8 games after 1991) and moved Vinnie back for 10 games. Their other bench players were irrelevant. In terms of who could fill the instant-guard role off the bench like Vinnie, no one on that team replaced him.

You mentioned the offensive rebounding - Rodman averaged a full offensive rebound more after Isiah's injury on Game 39 (4.8 vs 3.8) and maintained that after Isiah returned. His scoring also increased from 7.5 to 8.9 which is about what you'd expect from an additional offensive rebound. MPG went from 31 to 36.

Could be other reasons, but that's the first idea I had.

[trex_8063]

He doesn't have any traction yet, but the Isiah discussion has been some of the best of the project so far. So I'm going to feed the fire just a little more, by simply copying part of a post I made during the LAST top 100 project (because it's at least a little bit applicable). Again, this is from the 2014 project, so any references to what posters have specifically been saying is NOT referring to statements made in this project.....


Boy, Isiah is a polarizing figure. We've basically got two camps in this debate: the one side saying Isiah is arguably the 2nd-best PG ever behind Magic (arguments largely narrative-based) and a fringe top 20 player all-time, and the other side implying he's not top 50 all-time (or even particularly close to it).

Needless to say, there's an awful lot of ground between those two viewpoints. A few posters do appear to occupy that middle-ground, though definitively closer to one side or the other.

The top 20(ish)/2nd-best PG ever argument is a pretty brittle (if not absurd, imo). And I suspect the extreme nature of this stance, and the at times "I know what I know, and I'll not be told otherwise" attitude with which all contradictory evidence is casually brushed aside creates the [at times overblown] push-back response from Isiah’s stat-informed critics…….somewhat nurturing this polarized environment.

But the stat-based crowd is not free of fault here either. This crowd endeavors to define and rank everything and everyone by the numbers, and generally has a deep confidence in what the numbers tell us ("numbers don't lie").
And perhaps with enough data and in-depth analysis, the numbers are indeed truthful. However, in Isiah's case (or anyone who played bulk of their career prior to ~2000 really) there's a lot of data missing. So in essence they're trying to definitively establish his proper place by the numerical data, even though the numerical data available is patently incomplete (the error therein should be pretty clear, no?).

And I will soapbox for a moment and state that we (i.e. stat-based guys here on the PC forum, which I admit I am frequently a member) are without a doubt often too efficiency-centric. Not that scoring efficiently isn't important, and ultimately the goal of a team offense; but too often many here single out mediocre individual shooting efficiency and immediately conclude they're not doing much good for their team ("high volume on poor TS%, need I say more? pedestrian WS/48, etc..."), and must at best be offensive neutrals.

But we have instances where the impact data (of which most of the stat-based crowd is very very fond) tells a story that is vastly different from what the box and advanced metrics are trying to tell us.

******(snip)*******

Suffice to say the data we have for Isiah (and certainly that which has been presented itt as far as I can tell) is incomplete; and the data which is missing may well paint a vastly different canvas regarding his career. Any stat-heavy critics of Isiah failing to recognize that is just as guilty of this behavior…..

Watch on YouTube

…..as those of his supporters who are dismissing all statistical evidence.

And fwiw, here is some with/without stuff of Zeke's career (rated HCA as worth 3 pts):

‘82: 36-36 (.500) with, 3-7 (.300) without
-0.25 SRS with, -3.40 SRS without

‘83: 37-44 (.457) with, 0-1 without
-0.13 SRS with, -3.80 SRS without

‘84: 49-33 (.598) with

‘85: 46-35 (.568) with, 0-1 without
+2.81 SRS with, -3.83 SRS without

‘86: 45-32 (.584) with, 1-4 (.200) without
+1.90 SRS with, -5.63 SRS without
108.83 ORtg with, 111.68 ORtg without
107.13 DRtg with, 119.72 DRtg without

‘87: 52-29 (.642) with, 0-1 without
+3.65 SRS with, -6.96 SRS without
109.2 ORtg with, 106.5 ORtg without
105.6 DRtg with, 120 DRtg without

***In his first six seasons the Pistons were: 265-209 (.559) +1.96 SRS with, 4-14 (.222) -4.26 SRS without.
Within a single season where he's only missing a single game, the with/without result could be quite flukey; even collectively 18 missed games isn't a huge sample size. But one would have to concede a pattern appears to be emerging, and it exceeds (dramatically) what would typically be expected of someone with a circa .125 WS/48 player.

In subsequent years, the results appear more flukey/random, though should be noted that by '88, with the development of Dumars and Rodman, the Pistons had become a true contending unit, not overly-reliant on any one player. Other circumstances may apply, as will be detailed.....

'88: 53-28 (.654) with, 1-0 without
+5.22 SRS with, +25.02* SRS without (*played at home against a basement-level team who also happened to be missing TWO of their starters.....Pistons won by 35)

'89: 61-19 (.763) with, 2-0 without
+6.06 SRS with, +13.56 SRS without

'90: 59-22 (.728) with, 0-1 without
+5.62 SRS with, -11.55 SRS without

***So over his first nine seasons (including that anomalous single game result in '88) the Pistons were: 438-278 (.612) +3.20 SRS with, 7-15 (.318) -1.64 SRS without.
fwiw, although that's a smallish sample size, that with/without SRS difference is larger than that seen for '89-'97 (i.e. prime) Kevin Johnson (whose box-based advanced metrics look a lot better).

[Dr Positivity]

Thank you Joe for that post, it helped me appreciate some of Isiah's strengths more and why he's revered today.

However if Isiah took a step back to help the team, shouldn't it be reflected in his shooting attempts? Per 100 possessions, Isiah from 84-87 averaged 22.3 FGA, 20.9 FGA, 20.6 FGA, 21.3 FGA. From 88-90 he averages 22.4 FGA, 21.1 FGA, 22.5 FGA. So Isiah shoots just as much and passes less as his team gets better, and actually increases his attempts per minute after they get a 30ppg .63 player in Dantley.

Furthermore even mid 80s Isiah was the real version, it's still on the low end for peaks among players contending at this spot. From 84-87 he finishes 5th, 9th, 9th, 8th in MVP. He finishes 18th, 7th, 19th, 35th in WS and 8th, 4th, 11th and 16th in VORP. This is all very good but there is a better case for players like Paul and Nash being MVP caliber at their peak. Paul has both the better boxscore and MVP vote, Nash has MVP and RAPM support. The argument for them isn't just over late 80s Isiah but includes their peak over mid 80s Isiah as well. Isiah is a terrific playoff performer and has better intangibles than CP3 which is why I may vote for him first still.

[Senior]

Thank you Joe for that post, it helped me appreciate some of Isiah's strengths more and why he's revered today.

However if Isiah took a step back to help the team, shouldn't it be reflected in his shooting attempts? Per 100 possessions, Isiah from 84-87 averaged 22.3 FGA, 20.9 FGA, 20.6 FGA, 21.3 FGA. From 88-90 he averages 22.4 FGA, 21.1 FGA, 22.5 FGA. So Isiah shoots just as much and passes less as his team gets better, and actually increases his attempts per minute after they get a 30ppg .63 player in Dantley.

Not necessarily. Depending on the flow of the game and matchups, it's not uncommon for a floor general's FGA to vary significantly game to game. For example, in 1989 RS, there were 11 games Isiah took less than 10 FGA. Some of those games were early blowouts, and some were slugfests against the Bucks and Bulls. Even in the 89 playoffs, there were 5 games (out of 17) Isiah took less than 10 FGA. That's not something you'd expect from a volume scorer such as MJ or Kobe - if MJ or Kobe took 10 shots, someone got blown out. The average FGA can mask the variance in a floor general's FGA. There are no numbers that show well Isiah controlled a game - setting the tempo, setting guys up, scoring when the other team makes a run, calling the right plays, etc.

Furthermore, it's not just the amount of shots, it's the type of shots. The Bad Boys had a lot of players that couldn't create their own shots (Rodman, Salley, Mahorn) or low-post guys that need to be fed (Aguirre, Dantley, even James Edwards). Isiah settled for the garbage shots knowing he could get his shot at any time if he felt his team needed it.

It's not as simple as saying less assists = less passing because we don't know what every pass attempt led to. We can see every shot, but we can't see what the outcome of a pass was since we don't have PBP. You can't look at something like Isiah averaging 9 assists and Kevin Johnson averaging 11 and say that KJ passed more or ran his team better. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the Pistons would've gone to war for Isiah tells me that there were no issues with how Isiah ran the show - no one complained about anything except Dantley and he was kind of a malcontent to begin with (fought with Layden in Utah which is why he was traded for Tripucka).

In the end - Isiah obviously could've kept up his 22/11-whatever statline. But for the sake of his team and winning he let the other talent on his team flourish at the expense of his stats. That's not something to penalize.

[oldschooled]

Mikan, Pettit and Steph are the remaining guys which are multiple MVP winners and champions. Its hard for me to comment on Mikan because i don't want to penalize him on weak competition. The guy dominated his era. Plain and simple. You just play the hand you're dealt.

Vote : Mikan
Alt : Curry

Will try to explain more later.

[Dr Positivity]

In the end - Isiah obviously could've kept up his 22/11-whatever statline.

He is what his PPG/APG would have looked like from 84-87 if you declined the the Pistons stats to a pace of 95.0 (They were at 95.5 in 89 and 94.4 in 90)

84: 19.4 pts, 10.1 asts
85: 19.2 pts, 12.5 asts
86: 19.1 pts, 9.8 asts
87: 19.4 pts, 9.4 asts

So I disagree that he could have just kept up his 21-22ppg cause he wanted to. Part of the decline was natural because of pace decline. Isiah got to the FT line less in his late 20s, was that because he changed his role on the late 80s teams, or was it because like a lot of players he was more explosive when he was younger?

[Winsome Gerbil]

Thank you Joe for that post, it helped me appreciate some of Isiah's strengths more and why he's revered today.

However if Isiah took a step back to help the team, shouldn't it be reflected in his shooting attempts? Per 100 possessions, Isiah from 84-87 averaged 22.3 FGA, 20.9 FGA, 20.6 FGA, 21.3 FGA. From 88-90 he averages 22.4 FGA, 21.1 FGA, 22.5 FGA. So Isiah shoots just as much and passes less as his team gets better, and actually increases his attempts per minute after they get a 30ppg .63 player in Dantley.

Furthermore even mid 80s Isiah was the real version, it's still on the low end for peaks among players contending at this spot. From 84-87 he finishes 5th, 9th, 9th, 8th in MVP. He finishes 18th, 7th, 19th, 35th in WS and 8th, 4th, 11th and 16th in VORP. This is all very good but there is a better case for players like Paul and Nash being MVP caliber at their peak. Paul has both the better boxscore and MVP vote, Nash has MVP and RAPM support. The argument for them isn't just over late 80s Isiah but includes their peak over mid 80s Isiah as well. Isiah is a terrific playoff performer and has better intangibles than CP3 which is why I may vote for him first still.

I'm not sure he is that revered today.

I'm old. Old enough to remember the Isiah moment in the league, and I remember the hype. I remember the debates about Isiah v. Stockton at the time. At the time, there was a major Isiah cult. And part of it, a MAJOR part of it, was this: he was called the "best little guy of all time". That was a big part of it. It was era specific. Little guards were not as valuable as bigger players and had a hard time being big scorers finishing inside against the giant shotblockers and flying elbows of the era. You only have to look at some tapes from the early 60s to see how much dribbling skills had improved in the 20+ years before Isiah came around, and so he was basically given pioneering credit as the best player of his size to have played in the league.

But the thing is, in the decades SINCE Isiah was around, high impact little guards have become completely standard. Guys like Timmy, KJ and Stockton were challenging Isiah on that front even during his later days, and then A.I. came around and largely stole Isiah's "best little man crown" -- and I know we're going to rate Iverson too low on this project because it's the norm on this board, but he was absolutely considered the best little man ever during his playing days. And today the league is flooded with twerpy guards taking advantage of the no handchecking and 3pt spamming nature of the current league (indeed the change in handchecking rules make a good argument for guys like Isiah and Iverson through the first half of his career playing through tougher conditions).

And so the big bonus that Isiah got, the "best little guy of all time" bonus, is long gone. And once you remove that narrative boost, the numbers really don't hold up well at all. There are intangible arguments to be made -- leadership, toughness (imo being a punk is more like it, but whatever), and he was a major clutch player that we don't talk about much today. But it's not there statistically, and the narrative bonus of being this unique fun best/first pioneering player has long been forgotten.

[trex_8063]

Current count (as of post #96):

John Stockton - 6
George Mikan - 5
Dwyane Wade - 4
Bob Pettit - 2
Chris Paul - 1

Will have thread open until sometime tomorrow afternoon.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[RCM88x]

1st Vote: John Stockton

Longevity is really all you have to say about Stockton. An elite player for ten years with many high level season around that. Ranks #5 all time in Win Shares which is an incredible feat for a PG with no outstanding physical attributes.

I think if when had the full suite of advanced stats we have available to us today he might look even better.

#2 Vote: Scottie Pippen

[Dr Spaceman]

Im gonna post my thoughts on a bunch of guys for consideration here, and hopefully this can be the start of me being more active in the project. As Trex said, this is probably the best part, so ill do my best to find time to contribute.

John Stockton/Steve Nash: To me his case is based on longevity. I think he was an awesome player for a long long time, and there's some evidence his defense pushed into the truly elite sphere, but at his best he simply wasn't on the level of those being considered. In particular, Nash, Curry, Wade, Durant, and to a lesser degree Paul all have 4 or 5 seasons better than the best we saw from Stockton. I wholly reject the idea that Stockton could have pulled off the offensive dynasty that Nash did in Phoenix, as I think the whole concept of Nash ball relied on forcing the defense into compromising situations, which isn't Stockton's strong suit. Ask Stockton to break down the defense with a screen every play, and he'd be good, but nothing like the heights Nash was reaching. He just didnt have the shooting ability nor the quickness/agility to make himself a scoring threat in the lane.

That said, Stock has his strengths. His defense, on the whole, is the best of this group, only really surpassed by two versions of Durant. It's can also be argued he's the only guy here who doesnt make it all about him; I think you could easily argue Nash and Mailman would not have worked so well, especially if Malone had to shelf his post playmaking game. I think his portability is near the top of this group as well.

Now im normally not one to fawn over longevity. But in this case, what Stockton did is truly something special. He was an iron man in the truest sense of the word. The dude missed like 22 total games in 13 years. Being able to depend on a guy night-in, night-out; year-in-year out is a massive, massive deal. A lot of the guys were talking about right now are flawed, and especially flawed where health is concerned. I could easily see a longevity-based argument putting Stockton on top, especially as his prime lasted essentially 11 years.

Curry/Wade: I think people really overestimate Wade's career, basically just because he's been a fixture in peoples minds for so long. He's got 4 years of playing at a league-MVP level (06, 09-11), two more at an All-NBA level (05, 12) one more as a solid contributor to a title team (13), and the rest of his career he's either injured or too old to be a positive contributor. I dont think highly of the stretch from 14-17 in the slightest; in all of those years his team would play better without him, in some cases dramatically so. He burned hella bright for a few years and doesnt have much relevance outside that. Curry, to me, is clearly a better player at his peak. The rifts he generates with his glitchy shooting ability are just a much more sustainable way to construct an elite offense. I think there's one telling thing to look at in particular; we love to think of Wade as the guy who was "carrying his offense": that's completely true, and in terms of buoying a team full of limited scorers Wade comes close to the best in history. But the better Miami's team offenses got, the smaller a role Wade took. This isn't just during the lebron years either, in 2006 when his team was actively competing for titles his usage wasn't close to the 09/19 years. Wade's best individual performances do not coincide with his team's best performances.

The opposite is true for Curry. I cant tell people how to feel, but i hope everyone understands just how unprecedented what happened last season was. A team's offensive rating scaling up with the usage of one individual player is unheard of in NBA basketball, even for Michael Jordan. Curry had the GOAT regular season last year, his team had the GOAT regular season and the GOAT offensive performance, and if it weren't for the MCL sprain im quite sure id be arguing for him to be in the GOAT peak conversation. As it is, I thought his 2015 season comparable to the best we saw from Magic and Bird, and im okay with ranking his 2016 even over that. He's a special, special player who completely turned a bottom-dweller franchise into a dynasty and revolutionized offensive basketball as well know it. He's been the best or second best player in the world along with prime lebron for 3 years now, and even as Durant has joined his team its clear the team lives and dies by Curry's presence alone.

Durant, of course, is another name to consider. His scoring ability and two-way play could put him ahead of Stockton. I'd have to think more about this one.

Im not considering Chris Paul as a candidate yet. I penalize pretty harshly for missed playoff games, and Paul misses playoff games damn near every year. He's awesome, comparable to the rest at his best, but building around him essentially means crossing your fingers that he can stay healthy, and that's not sustainable. His personality issues all seem to be coming into play more and more as the years go by. There's enough here for me to see him lower than the tier being discussed.

[oldschooled]

Im gonna post my thoughts on a bunch of guys for consideration here, and hopefully this can be the start of me being more active in the project. As Trex said, this is probably the best part, so ill do my best to find time to contribute.

Curry/Wade: I think people really overestimate Wade's career, basically just because he's been a fixture in peoples minds for so long. He's got 4 years of playing at a league-MVP level (06, 09-11), two more at an All-NBA level (05, 12) one more as a solid contributor to a title team (13), and the rest of his career he's either injured or too old to be a positive contributor. I dont think highly of the stretch from 14-17 in the slightest; in all of those years his team would play better without him, in some cases dramatically so. He burned hella bright for a few years and doesnt have much relevance outside that. Curry, to me, is clearly a better player at his peak. The rifts he generates with his glitchy shooting ability are just a much more sustainable way to construct an elite offense. I think there's one telling thing to look at in particular; we love to think of Wade as the guy who was "carrying his offense": that's completely true, and in terms of buoying a team full of limited scorers Wade comes close to the best in history. But the better Miami's team offenses got, the smaller a role Wade took. This isn't just during the lebron years either, in 2006 when his team was actively competing for titles his usage wasn't close to the 09/19 years. Wade's best individual performances do not coincide with his team's best performances.

The opposite is true for Curry. I cant tell people how to feel, but i hope everyone understands just how unprecedented what happened last season was. A team's offensive rating scaling up with the usage of one individual player is unheard of in NBA basketball, even for Michael Jordan. Curry had the GOAT regular season last year, his team had the GOAT regular season and the GOAT offensive performance, and if it weren't for the MCL sprain im quite sure id be arguing for him to be in the GOAT peak conversation. As it is, I thought his 2015 season comparable to the best we saw from Magic and Bird, and im okay with ranking his 2016 even over that. He's a special, special player who completely turned a bottom-dweller franchise into a dynasty and revolutionized offensive basketball as well know it. He's been the best or second best player in the world along with prime lebron for 3 years now, and even as Durant has joined his team its clear the team lives and dies by Curry's presence alone.

Im not considering Chris Paul as a candidate yet. I penalize pretty harshly for missed playoff games, and Paul misses playoff games damn near every year. He's awesome, comparable to the rest at his best, but building around him essentially means crossing your fingers that he can stay healthy, and that's not sustainable. His personality issues all seem to be coming into play more and more as the years go by. There's enough here for me to see him lower than the tier being discussed.

Great post. As i stated previously, Curry should be gaining traction by now and it's well deserved. Only player remaining on the board with multiple MVP and championship (with Mikan of course).