2019-20 NBA Season Discussion

[HeartBreakKid]

You can't talk about the history of the NBA without mentioning those Pistons. Jordan's Bulls are one of the most famous teams in all of sports, you can't tell their story without going into the story of those Pistons.

And you can't tell the story of those Pistons without featuring Isiah front and center. It was his team, he was the leader on and off the court and the team that was built around him block by block since the year he was drafted.

Attempts to discredit IT are ridiculous; yes Detroit had a lot of great talent for sure; Dumars was an all-star SG, Laimbeer was a very underrated player, way ahead of his time... they had excellent depth and no weak links on defense. But Isiah was the one who made everything go. Plus it's not like the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls weren't loaded with talent themselves.

Ultimately Isiah's legacy suffers because he kept beating Bird, Magic and Jordan, who are perhaps the 3 most popular NBA players ever. Everyone loved the Bulls, Lakers and Celtics and hated Detroit. But his achievements are undeniable: he turned a franchise around from terrible to dynastic, he's the only small guard to be the clear cut best player of a dynasty team. How many players have ever led a team to the sort of sustained success the Pistons had without at least 1 top 10/15 level teammate alongside them?

Almost every pro Isiah Thomas argument revolves around him beating those guys - so I would say no, him beating Jordan/Magic/Bird does not hurt him, it helped his reputation tremendously so much that every thread with Thomas has that exact sentence mentioned. You think when people here argue against Isiah Thomas it's because they're bitter he "beat" Magic, Bird and Jordan like 30 years ago?

Anyway, you already mentioned in the same post that he had a stacked team. I don't know if he ever had the 15th best player on his team but he did have at least 3 all-star caliber players as his teammates for a few years in a row, which is much more rare and much more impactful than having a top 15 guy as your Robin. And yes, Rodman and Laimbeer had all-star impact, they just did not get the rec because they're defensive players, they are at the very least as impactful as Joe Dumars and probably more so. Mark Aguirre who was a 3x All-Star was the 5th best player on the team - how many teams in NBA history do you think had a 5th guy as good as that? Mark Aguirre was still in his prime also. The year before he had Aguirre he had Adrian Dantley, who was one of the best scorers in the league - and a better scorer than even Isiah Thomas.


So again, the only way to really bolster Isiah is to make up relatively arbitrary things like "he was the leader of his team" - okay, sure, he might have been the best player because every team has to have a best player technically but he had 4 other guys who were essentially stars. It was an ensemble cast so being the best player is a technicality, same way Ben Wallace was the best player on a championship team (and while we're here, the mid 2000s Pistons answered your hypothetical question at the end of your post, they never had two top 10 guys and probably never even had a single top ten guy, and they were good for quite a few years).


Why is it relevant that the Bulls, Lakers and Celtics were loaded? Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were better than Isiah Thomas in nearly every way - them winning isn't proof of that, it's just something that coincidentally happened. They would be consider better than Isiah even if they did not win, so their teams stackness is not relevant which brings me to my next point

- The Chicago Bulls were not stacked when the Pistons beat them.

- The Celtics were not stacked when the Pistons beat them.

- The Lakers were not stacked when the Pistons beat them.

The Pistons beat the Celtics and Lakers when those teams were at the end of their runs and they beat the Bulls before they were in their prime. So Isiah Thomas just beat Bird, Magic and Jordan because his teammates were better - for the most part. He was a good playoff player, but the idea that he was the 4th best player in the 80s is basically based on him beating Jordan, Magic and Bird and the fact that he was 22 in 1984 so his entire prime coincided with the 80s.

If we go through different point in the 80s, there aren't many seasons where Isiah Thomas was a top 3 player.

- Bernard King was better than Isiah Thomas.

- Kareem Abdul Jabar was better

- Hakeem Olajuwon was better

- Charles Barkley was better

- Sidney Moncrief was arguably better

- Karl Malone was better

- John Stockton was better (though I guess people who are pro Isiah Thomas would not buy that argument)

- Dr.J was better

- Moses Malone was better

- Kevin McHale was better

- Clyde Drexler was arguably better (I don't think I'd agree, but some people could argue it)

- Patrick Ewing was better


All of these guys were better than Isiah Thomas at some point in the 80s bar 1 or 2 guys, or they had seasons in the first half of the 80s that were better than any season Isiah had. A lot of them are just written off as 90s or 70s guys, even if they had all-nba seasons in the 80s.

The way people phrase Isiah Thomas arguments makes it seem like he was the 4th best player every year in the 80s. Isiah Thomas just happened to be born the right year and was healthy - but impact wise, he was never the 4th best peak player, but I feel like people make it seem like his dominance was only surpassed by Jordan/Magic/Bird. He won a ring in 1990 - but was he really better than a perennial "loser" like Patrick Ewing that same year?




I guess what I am trying to say is....you have to specific what you mean by "Isiah Thomas was great". How great are we talking exactly? Most of the players he is compared too on these boards are top 100 players of all time. If people are not impressed by ring counting then he needs other arguments in his favor. Is saying he might be worse than Steve Nash a discredit? Or is saying that actually discrediting Steve Nash?

[Bergmaniac]

The only time the Pistons beat the Lakers in the playoffs during Isiah's years was in 1989 when Magic missed most of the series with an injury.

And he beat prime Bird in the playoffs only once. The second time when the Pistons eliminated the Celtics in the playoffs was in 1991 when both Isiah and Bird were far from their best and Isiah averaged 8.5 PPG on horrendous efficiency (39.1 TS%).

So "he kept beating Bird, Magic and Jordan" overstates the case significantly.

This obsession with ranking players based on how good the star of the team they beat in the playoffs is pretty silly anyway. Basketball is a team sport and Detroit had a stacked roster in the late 80s. In 1989 they had a pretty ridiculous bench (Rodman, Vinnie Johnson, John Salley, Mark Edwards) plus three all-star level players in the starting lineup (Isiah, Dumars and Aguirre). They could afford to play most of their starters less than 30 MPG in the playoffs, something quite rare back then.

[Bad Gatorade]

Excellent post.

One of the primary issues I have when discussing Isiah's ranking all time (and I've done it a bit recently) is that even those that are critical of him still generally view him quite well - a borderline top 10 PG, top 40-50 player of all time. This is already fairly distinct from what the box score statistics/composites say, and the argument that's often thrown as a retort is, "you have to watch the games!" Most of the stat-orientated guys are already giving Isiah a very large (arguably the biggest) boost in NBA history relative to the recorded evidence on him. Stats, All NBA teams, MVP voting etc all imply he's far worse than, say, top 20 of all time (which is where many have him) and ranking him notably higher than this would already infer that there's been an attempt to watch him play, to try and ascertain his skillset and tendencies, and so forth.

The idea that we're simply looking at stats without trying to learn more about Isiah would mean that he's beneath a lot of guys that we actually rank beneath him, and so the argument automatically becomes somewhat frivolous. For example, many stat-based fans rank Isiah above Ray Allen, when looking purely at statistics would probably compel us to rank Ray clearly ahead. And it's many of these people that go, "he beat Magic/Bird/Jordan, will to win" and so on. Many of the stat people are actually putting in the extra effort to try to understand Isiah and his game, but it goes uncredited.

I'd also note that simply giving him credit for being the best player on an elite team not only ignores the quality of teammates, but ignores that say, the 73 Celtics won 68 games with Havlicek/Cowens as their best players (guys often ranked well beneath Isiah) and won titles in other years, Frazier/Reed are often ranked beneath him despite being multiple time champions, there's the whole 2004 Pistons thing (who were 1 game off being repeat champions), the 2014 Spurs didn't have an elite player at that point (as much as I love Duncan, that isn't prime Duncan) and they were 1 game off winning in 2013, the 96 Sonics didn't have a real MVP level player at the time they won 64 games and took the 72 win Bulls to 6 games... heck, the 2004 Pacers gave Detroit a bigger test than the Lakers did and won 61 games behind Ron Artest and Jermaine O'Neal. The late 70s may not have had the superteams of the 80s, but Gus Williams was arguably the best player on those Sonics that won a title, and played like a monster in the playoffs over his prime, and he is on nobody's radar that isn't 70sFan (and honestly, after 70sFan brought it to my attention, he probably should be). Heck, Jeff Teague became an All Star in the season the Hawks won 60 games, and it's because nobody believes a team led by Al Horford and Paul Millsap could be that good without having more all stars.

We've got plenty of examples of great teams that won a lot of games, sometimes won championships, but a lot of these leading players aren't anywhere on our radars. And even if Isiah is the best of them, the heights that he is perceived to be in is so far ahead of these guys that it borders on craziness.

Isiah is also an interesting case in terms of longevity - he played 13 seasons (starting throughout) but how many strong, All NBA level years did he have? A maximum of 8 IMO (83-90) and even that ignores that a lot of this is because of his playoff play, so this arguably cuts out years like 89 (where he was beneath his usual standard in the playoffs, and didn't have a fantastic regular season to boot).

Ranking him above a guy like John Stockton (whom some may contend is a worse player, but not by much, and played forever) AND above a guy like Steph Curry (slightly less longevity, but clearly a better player) makes it seem like an inconsistent standard is being applied to Isiah here too. We know how good Curry is, so if it's based on prime goodness, Curry should be ahead. If we're basing it on total basketball contribution, Stockton should be ahead. But Isiah's often ranked above both.

[limbo]

The funniest thing about this Isiah vs. Stockton debate is that when Isiah was winning titles with the Pistons in the late 80's, Stockton was very much in his prime and he was completely destroying Zeke in pretty much every single metric imaginable. It's not like we have to do some jumbled cross-era examinations here... Both were in their prime in the same era, and when Zeke was winning titles with the Pistons, Stockton was scoring the same amount of points on the Jazz, except he needed to take 4 less FGA to get there...

Stockton is completely lapping Isiah in terms of shooting efficiency. And i mean lapping, i'm talking about +10% advantage in any of FG, eFG, 2P, TS... He was just a much better finisher and shooter. Isiah really only scored slightly more because he took more shots. Stockton is also a significantly better playmaker. Isiah was a great playmaker in his own right, but Stockton is on the short list of GOAT playmakers. Dude was out there consistently operating on a 4.00 assist/turnover ratio, while Isiah peaked at 3.66 one season, but was usually at below 3.00 ratio... There's also plenty of reason to believe Stockton was a better defender by a strong margin throughout their careers.

The problem with Stockton in those years is that Utah had a completely abysmal supporting cast outside of himself and Malone when it came to the offense. Like huge negative off. players getting lots of minutes, it's quite remarkable that Stockton was still able to shoot/make plays at such an impressive rate with so many black holes on offense. Meanwhile, Isiah had Dumars, Dantley/Aguirre, Laimbeer, Vinnie Johnson, Rodman and Salley... And yes, Isiah led the #1 offense in the league before most of those guys got on board, but he still had a much better cast than Stockton did in the late 80's. Even getting some average players in there to replace the completely wretched ones made a huge difference post 1992.

[Doctor MJ]

Isiah Thomas is what happens when you're so invested in the counting rings and attributing team accomplishments to an individual approach...you force yourself to start overrating a good but not legendary player into mythic status because he was the leading scorer on championship teams that beat other great teams at the time (Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls). But there's a clear inconsistency in that logic, because nobody in their right mind actually puts Isiah in the same tier as Jordan/Magic/Bird.

I think Isiah Thomas vs Chauncey Billups is a very legitimate debate. Similar guys in my mind, both of them All-Star, top 5 level PGs during their primes, that were the best offensive players on championship teams that primarily won with defense. I think a clear difference though is that Billups was a little like Harden before Harden became a thing, a flopper who knew the value of spamming 3s and FTs. And it led to excellent offensive efficiency. Isiah was never that efficient.

So, I have to say I'm really impressed with the discussion here. (Some will say that that's because I'm an Isiah hater, but the casuality is backwards, and I don't hate him, I just know why people overrate him.)

I really like the connection with Billups and I think that's a debate to seriously have.

One thing I'll point out though:

Isiah was the the fulcrum of the offense in '83-84 when the Pistons had the best ORtg in the league which was actually slightly higher than the Billups Pistons ever achieved. The Pistons also did this with a low turnover rate as their key offensive advantage, which is something that's heavily influenced by the ball dominant player.

Where's no doubt that Billups and the Billups Pistons more modern offensive game would translate better to the current era, but I think I'd be inclined to still favor Isiah as the greater outlier during his best years, which seems like a solid basis for choosing Isiah.

Of course then there's the rub that Billups had a much longer career arc where he stayed excellent.

I'll note one other difference:

There's a phenomena I'd call "inertia" or "drag" that plays into both to legacy perception and sometimes team strategy where stars who get established before the apex of the way are given more weight than those who came on a bit later. Our tendency to see player importance in these terms is based on our sloppy-but-mostly-right intuition of causality.

The classic case of this mostly-right process being wrong was the fact that many insisted that Bob Cousy was the most important player on the Celtics, rather than Bill Russell, until Cousy retired and the team improved without him.

Another apparent case of it involved Willis Reed continuing to be seen as the clear cut star of the Knicks even after Walt Frazier really seemed to surpass him.

The Pistons were Isiah's team before they were great, no one was seriously argued to be a clearly better player on the team when they were great, and so all of the narrative love that goes to "the star" of a success flowed to him.

Chauncey Billups was only the 3rd major face associated with his Pistons core. Early on it was a story about Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. With Wallace the situation is understandable and I think we all understand the arguments for and against him are and it's a bit analogous to pointing out that Isiah wasn't the best defender on a team that won with defense.

Hamilton though is interesting because this wasn't the case of an older player inevitably being surpassed by a younger time, but a gradual recognition that despite Billups earlier career struggles - when they arrived in Detroit Hamilton was seen as a growing star while Billups was seen as a journeyman - the older Billups was actually a better Piston than the younger Hamilton.

[therealbig3]

Isiah Thomas is what happens when you're so invested in the counting rings and attributing team accomplishments to an individual approach...you force yourself to start overrating a good but not legendary player into mythic status because he was the leading scorer on championship teams that beat other great teams at the time (Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls). But there's a clear inconsistency in that logic, because nobody in their right mind actually puts Isiah in the same tier as Jordan/Magic/Bird.

I think Isiah Thomas vs Chauncey Billups is a very legitimate debate. Similar guys in my mind, both of them All-Star, top 5 level PGs during their primes, that were the best offensive players on championship teams that primarily won with defense. I think a clear difference though is that Billups was a little like Harden before Harden became a thing, a flopper who knew the value of spamming 3s and FTs. And it led to excellent offensive efficiency. Isiah was never that efficient.

So, I have to say I'm really impressed with the discussion here. (Some will say that that's because I'm an Isiah hater, but the casuality is backwards, and I don't hate him, I just know why people overrate him.)

I really like the connection with Billups and I think that's a debate to seriously have.

One thing I'll point out though:

Isiah was the the fulcrum of the offense in '83-84 when the Pistons had the best ORtg in the league which was actually slightly higher than the Billups Pistons ever achieved. The Pistons also did this with a low turnover rate as their key offensive advantage, which is something that's heavily influenced by the ball dominant player.

Where's no doubt that Billups and the Billups Pistons more modern offensive game would translate better to the current era, but I think I'd be inclined to still favor Isiah as the greater outlier during his best years, which seems like a solid basis for choosing Isiah.

Of course then there's the rub that Billups had a much longer career arc where he stayed excellent.

I'll note one other difference:

There's a phenomena I'd call "inertia" or "drag" that plays into both to legacy perception and sometimes team strategy where stars who get established before the apex of the way are given more weight than those who came on a bit later. Our tendency to see player importance in these terms is based on our sloppy-but-mostly-right intuition of causality.

The classic case of this mostly-right process being wrong was the fact that many insisted that Bob Cousy was the most important player on the Celtics, rather than Bill Russell, until Cousy retired and the team improved without him.

Another apparent case of it involved Willis Reed continuing to be seen as the clear cut star of the Knicks even after Walt Frazier really seemed to surpass him.

The Pistons were Isiah's team before they were great, no one was seriously argued to be a clearly better player on the team when they were great, and so all of the narrative love that goes to "the star" of a success flowed to him.

Chauncey Billups was only the 3rd major face associated with his Pistons core. Early on it was a story about Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton. With Wallace the situation is understandable and I think we all understand the arguments for and against him are and it's a bit analogous to pointing out that Isiah wasn't the best defender on a team that won with defense.

Hamilton though is interesting because this wasn't the case of an older player inevitably being surpassed by a younger time, but a gradual recognition that despite Billups earlier career struggles - when they arrived in Detroit Hamilton was seen as a growing star while Billups was seen as a journeyman - the older Billups was actually a better Piston than the younger Hamilton.

Not only that, what Billups did in Denver was extremely impressive as well.

[Joey Wheeler]

You can't talk about the history of the NBA without mentioning those Pistons. Jordan's Bulls are one of the most famous teams in all of sports, you can't tell their story without going into the story of those Pistons.

And you can't tell the story of those Pistons without featuring Isiah front and center. It was his team, he was the leader on and off the court and the team that was built around him block by block since the year he was drafted.

Attempts to discredit IT are ridiculous; yes Detroit had a lot of great talent for sure; Dumars was an all-star SG, Laimbeer was a very underrated player, way ahead of his time... they had excellent depth and no weak links on defense. But Isiah was the one who made everything go. Plus it's not like the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls weren't loaded with talent themselves.

Ultimately Isiah's legacy suffers because he kept beating Bird, Magic and Jordan, who are perhaps the 3 most popular NBA players ever. Everyone loved the Bulls, Lakers and Celtics and hated Detroit. But his achievements are undeniable: he turned a franchise around from terrible to dynastic, he's the only small guard to be the clear cut best player of a dynasty team. How many players have ever led a team to the sort of sustained success the Pistons had without at least 1 top 10/15 level teammate alongside them?

Almost every pro Isiah Thomas argument revolves around him beating those guys - so I would say no, him beating Jordan/Magic/Bird does not hurt him, it helped his reputation tremendously so much that every thread with Thomas has that exact sentence mentioned. You think when people here argue against Isiah Thomas it's because they're bitter he "beat" Magic, Bird and Jordan like 30 years ago?

Anyway, you already mentioned in the same post that he had a stacked team. I don't know if he ever had the 15th best player on his team but he did have at least 3 all-star caliber players as his teammates for a few years in a row, which is much more rare and much more impactful than having a top 15 guy as your Robin. And yes, Rodman and Laimbeer had all-star impact, they just did not get the rec because they're defensive players, they are at the very least as impactful as Joe Dumars and probably more so. Mark Aguirre who was a 3x All-Star was the 5th best player on the team - how many teams in NBA history do you think had a 5th guy as good as that? Mark Aguirre was still in his prime also. The year before he had Aguirre he had Adrian Dantley, who was one of the best scorers in the league - and a better scorer than even Isiah Thomas.


So again, the only way to really bolster Isiah is to make up relatively arbitrary things like "he was the leader of his team" - okay, sure, he might have been the best player because every team has to have a best player technically but he had 4 other guys who were essentially stars. It was an ensemble cast so being the best player is a technicality, same way Ben Wallace was the best player on a championship team (and while we're here, the mid 2000s Pistons answered your hypothetical question at the end of your post, they never had two top 10 guys and probably never even had a single top ten guy, and they were good for quite a few years).


Why is it relevant that the Bulls, Lakers and Celtics were loaded? Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were better than Isiah Thomas in nearly every way - them winning isn't proof of that, it's just something that coincidentally happened. They would be consider better than Isiah even if they did not win, so their teams stackness is not relevant which brings me to my next point

- The Chicago Bulls were not stacked when the Pistons beat them.

- The Celtics were not stacked when the Pistons beat them.

- The Lakers were not stacked when the Pistons beat them.

The Pistons beat the Celtics and Lakers when those teams were at the end of their runs and they beat the Bulls before they were in their prime. So Isiah Thomas just beat Bird, Magic and Jordan because his teammates were better - for the most part. He was a good playoff player, but the idea that he was the 4th best player in the 80s is basically based on him beating Jordan, Magic and Bird and the fact that he was 22 in 1984 so his entire prime coincided with the 80s.

If we go through different point in the 80s, there aren't many seasons where Isiah Thomas was a top 3 player.

- Bernard King was better than Isiah Thomas.

- Kareem Abdul Jabar was better

- Hakeem Olajuwon was better

- Charles Barkley was better

- Sidney Moncrief was arguably better

- Karl Malone was better

- John Stockton was better (though I guess people who are pro Isiah Thomas would not buy that argument)

- Dr.J was better

- Moses Malone was better

- Kevin McHale was better

- Clyde Drexler was arguably better (I don't think I'd agree, but some people could argue it)

- Patrick Ewing was better


All of these guys were better than Isiah Thomas at some point in the 80s bar 1 or 2 guys, or they had seasons in the first half of the 80s that were better than any season Isiah had. A lot of them are just written off as 90s or 70s guys, even if they had all-nba seasons in the 80s.

The way people phrase Isiah Thomas arguments makes it seem like he was the 4th best player every year in the 80s. Isiah Thomas just happened to be born the right year and was healthy - but impact wise, he was never the 4th best peak player, but I feel like people make it seem like his dominance was only surpassed by Jordan/Magic/Bird. He won a ring in 1990 - but was he really better than a perennial "loser" like Patrick Ewing that same year?




I guess what I am trying to say is....you have to specific what you mean by "Isiah Thomas was great". How great are we talking exactly? Most of the players he is compared too on these boards are top 100 players of all time. If people are not impressed by ring counting then he needs other arguments in his favor. Is saying he might be worse than Steve Nash a discredit? Or is saying that actually discrediting Steve Nash?

Billups was hardly the clear cut best player in the mid-2000 Pistons (Ben Wallace at least has a great argument) and those Pistons didn't have the same run of success as the Bad Boys: just 1 title, nowhere near as dominant (they struggled vs mediocre teams even in the year they won it all), didn't beat any historic teams. Isiah's Pistons overcame two of the greatest dynasties in NBA history, Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers and delayed the Bulls dynasty. They destroyed everyone in the playoffs when they won except for Jordan, the only one who gave them a bit of a fight. In the Finals, they swept the Lakers in 1989 and then backdoor swept a very good Portland team. The mid-2000 Pistons certainly do not compare at all, not to mention they don't have a clear cut best player like Isiah was for the Bad Boys.

His reputation is helped by the titles he won, but almost everyone outside of Detroit was rooting against the Pistons, the Bad Boys are the most disliked dynasty in history (which is made worse by the fact they were competing against and beating 3 of the most popular sports teams ever) and Isiah one of the most disliked stars who kept beating arguably the 3 most popular NBA players ever. I believe this led to people trying to ignore or explain away his achievements. Isiah would certainly be much more highly regarded if he had the same achievements but the Pistons played more "beautiful" basketball and were not seen as the team that roughed up Jordan and Bird.

The Pistons were "stacked" in the same way the Raptors were "stacked" last year. They had a lot of good players who could contribute, but they still relied on their superstar to get them over the top. Kawhi Leonard is a better talent than Isiah, but Isiah's value doesn't come just from his basketball ability but his status as the leader on and off the court. Anyway, the point is those teams aren't going anywhere without Isiah, especially since, much in the same way the Celtics and Lakers's identity reflected Bird and Magic's personality/identity, the Pistons reflected Isiah's. Isiah was not just the best player of an ensemble cast.

The Bulls would have won the title in 1989 and 1990 if not for the Pistons; the Lakers had swept the Western Conference prior to the 1989 Finals. The only reasons these teams aren't considered great is they lost to the Pistons. Saying the Lakers and Celtics were "at the end of their runs" is a circular argument; yes, their runs were at the end... because the Pistons ended them. Chicago's run hadn't started yet... because they kept losing to the Pistons. You can use your circular logic to discredit just about any great team in history; like you can say the Bulls only beat the Pistons because the latter were "at the end of their run" or that the Pistons beat the Lakers because they were "at the end of their run". Those runs ended/were delayed because of the emergence of Isiah and the Pistons, without them the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls would have won those titles (probably Bulls both years honestly) and no one would claim their runs were ending/not started yet.

Don't think you'll find anyone arguing against Jordan, Bird and Magic being superior to Isiah, those other players you list on the other hand... how many of those guys were clear cut best players and leaders on a dynastic-type team? How many of them have as many iconic playoff moments? It's easy to dismiss Isiah by going "Oh but his team was stacked"; but he wasn't just inserted into a good team, he was drafted into one of the worst teams in the league and he was the building block around which the team was built. So Isiah proved you can build a dynastic-type team around him... and you can do it without any real top tier talent. How many point guards can you say the same about, heck how many players? Don't say Billups; even if he was the best player (highly debatable at best) the team was certainly not built around him. People keep acting as if Isiah was just along for the ride rather the engine behind the Pistons run.

Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash. First thing I'll say about this is there's no way in hell the Pistons have their run if you swap Isiah for Nash, but that's alright, that was a team specifically built around Isiah. You can argue Nash is the better individual talent on offense for sure, but if you look from a prism of applying talent to achieve team success, there's little evidence that you can build a juggernaut like those Pistons around Nash. He certainly didn't lack talent around him throughout his career. Let's shift gears to Westbrook vs Isiah; Westbrook is the vastly superior athlete and a better basketball talent in almost every regard, but I'm still taking Isiah: a lot more goes into winning basketball games than just raw talent. What Isiah has over guys like Nash and Westbrook is the ability to adapt: he can thrive leading an elite fast paced offense or in a slow half-court crawl surrounded by defensive players lacking in playmaking skills. If you have a Nash or Westbrook or Curry, etc... you have to play a certain way to really get the best out of them; with Isiah, he can thrive in all sorts of situations. Even against the toughest playoff defenses, he can be an elite distributor or go on legendary scoring binges depending on what his team needs at a given time. The only other point guard who has shown this ability is non-coincidentally the only other PG to spearhead a dynasty: Magic, who was of course on a different level altogether as the arguable offensive GOAT.

[Joey Wheeler]

Excellent post.

One of the primary issues I have when discussing Isiah's ranking all time (and I've done it a bit recently) is that even those that are critical of him still generally view him quite well - a borderline top 10 PG, top 40-50 player of all time. This is already fairly distinct from what the box score statistics/composites say, and the argument that's often thrown as a retort is, "you have to watch the games!" Most of the stat-orientated guys are already giving Isiah a very large (arguably the biggest) boost in NBA history relative to the recorded evidence on him. Stats, All NBA teams, MVP voting etc all imply he's far worse than, say, top 20 of all time (which is where many have him) and ranking him notably higher than this would already infer that there's been an attempt to watch him play, to try and ascertain his skillset and tendencies, and so forth.

The idea that we're simply looking at stats without trying to learn more about Isiah would mean that he's beneath a lot of guys that we actually rank beneath him, and so the argument automatically becomes somewhat frivolous. For example, many stat-based fans rank Isiah above Ray Allen, when looking purely at statistics would probably compel us to rank Ray clearly ahead. And it's many of these people that go, "he beat Magic/Bird/Jordan, will to win" and so on. Many of the stat people are actually putting in the extra effort to try to understand Isiah and his game, but it goes uncredited.

I'd also note that simply giving him credit for being the best player on an elite team not only ignores the quality of teammates, but ignores that say, the 73 Celtics won 68 games with Havlicek/Cowens as their best players (guys often ranked well beneath Isiah) and won titles in other years, Frazier/Reed are often ranked beneath him despite being multiple time champions, there's the whole 2004 Pistons thing (who were 1 game off being repeat champions), the 2014 Spurs didn't have an elite player at that point (as much as I love Duncan, that isn't prime Duncan) and they were 1 game off winning in 2013, the 96 Sonics didn't have a real MVP level player at the time they won 64 games and took the 72 win Bulls to 6 games... heck, the 2004 Pacers gave Detroit a bigger test than the Lakers did and won 61 games behind Ron Artest and Jermaine O'Neal. The late 70s may not have had the superteams of the 80s, but Gus Williams was arguably the best player on those Sonics that won a title, and played like a monster in the playoffs over his prime, and he is on nobody's radar that isn't 70sFan (and honestly, after 70sFan brought it to my attention, he probably should be). Heck, Jeff Teague became an All Star in the season the Hawks won 60 games, and it's because nobody believes a team led by Al Horford and Paul Millsap could be that good without having more all stars.

We've got plenty of examples of great teams that won a lot of games, sometimes won championships, but a lot of these leading players aren't anywhere on our radars. And even if Isiah is the best of them, the heights that he is perceived to be in is so far ahead of these guys that it borders on craziness.

Isiah is also an interesting case in terms of longevity - he played 13 seasons (starting throughout) but how many strong, All NBA level years did he have? A maximum of 8 IMO (83-90) and even that ignores that a lot of this is because of his playoff play, so this arguably cuts out years like 89 (where he was beneath his usual standard in the playoffs, and didn't have a fantastic regular season to boot).

Ranking him above a guy like John Stockton (whom some may contend is a worse player, but not by much, and played forever) AND above a guy like Steph Curry (slightly less longevity, but clearly a better player) makes it seem like an inconsistent standard is being applied to Isiah here too. We know how good Curry is, so if it's based on prime goodness, Curry should be ahead. If we're basing it on total basketball contribution, Stockton should be ahead. But Isiah's often ranked above both.

First bolded. The Pistons were not "a great team that won a lot of games, sneaked in a title"; if they were not a dynasty, they were very close to it. Honestly, I'd call them a dynasty, there'd be no one questioning that if not for the phantom call on Kareem in the 88 Finals.

Second bolded. A lot of those perceived inconsistencies come from assumptions on your end. For instance you describe John Stockton "as maybe a worse player, but not by much" and categorically state Curry is "clearly a better player". People rating Isiah high probably do not share these views. If I thought Curry was the better player, why would I rank Isiah above him? Also, basketball is a dynamic team sport; someone might be the better individual talent but not really be better within a team context. More often than not, who's better might simply depend on the context ie depend on what the rest of the team is like. Throwing "Curry is clearly better" as a blanket statement will certainly change nobody's mind on Isiah's camp of this debate since that's obviously a view they do not hold.

[Joey Wheeler]

Just as I finished typing these replies, saw a tweet from Damian Lillard saying Isiah is a top 3 all-time point guard. Now, this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, it's just an opinion, everyone has one. I still found it interesting because Lillard is probably one of those point guards I guess the "Isiah is overrated" crowd would consider as good or better than Isiah and yet he himself seems to consider Isiah on a clearly higher level than himself.

[bondom34]

Yes and KD thinks Kobe is better than Lebron. Using a player's evaluation of talent isn't a good judge. And Oscar, Magic, Curry there's really no argument over in the least let alone a bunch of others.

But the appeal to authority there really doesn't work.

[Joey Wheeler]

Yes and KD thinks Kobe is better than Lebron. Using a player's evaluation of talent isn't a good judge. And Oscar, Magic, Curry there's really no argument over in the least let alone a bunch of others.

But the appeal to authority there really doesn't work.

I'm using appeal to authority. I'm not saying "Thomas is top 3 because Lillard said so". I just found it interesting because from what I can gather people here regard Lillard as a direct competitor for Isiah in player rankings and Lillard himself seems to think Isiah is well above him.

[bondom34]

Yes and KD thinks Kobe is better than Lebron. Using a player's evaluation of talent isn't a good judge. And Oscar, Magic, Curry there's really no argument over in the least let alone a bunch of others.

But the appeal to authority there really doesn't work.

I'm using appeal to authority. I'm not saying "Thomas is top 3 because Lillard said so". I just found it interesting because from what I can gather people here regard Lillard as a direct competitor for Isiah in player rankings and Lillard himself seems to think Isiah is well above him.

I mean in all time rankings Lillard hasn't retired, but the case is there in terms of on court ability and impact. Isiah has "ringz" going. But yeah he's not over those 3 or at least another like half dozen guys, even more if you don't ring count. In terms of pure career value added, yeah Lillard may not end up too far off. Curry, Nash, Paul, Kidd, Stockton, Westbrook, all really are ahead I'd say. TBH would put Payton there too but I struggle totally ignoring the playoff success but if I really analyze it he'd be there too.

[Bad Gatorade]

First bolded. The Pistons were not "a great team that won a lot of games, sneaked in a title"; if they were not a dynasty, they were very close to it. Honestly, I'd call them a dynasty, there'd be no one questioning that if not for the phantom call on Kareem in the 88 Finals.

They were a great team, but the fact is that we do have a precedent that it's possible to be a great team without having a top 5-ish player in the league - it's happened many times throughout league history. And even though not every example I provided is a "dynasty", or has multiple titles, I'd note that, for example, the other Pistons team was literally one game off having an almost identical profile (back to back wins, a 60+ win team, bunch of 50+ win teams in a row).

Also, those Pistons did beat a "historic" team - the 2004 Lakers, whom were only 2 years removed from a three-peat. And if they weren't at their peak, then neither were the 1989 Lakers with Magic injured.

Second bolded. A lot of those perceived inconsistencies come from assumptions on your end. For instance you describe John Stockton "as maybe a worse player, but not by much" and categorically state Curry is "clearly a better player". People rating Isiah high probably do not share these views. If I thought Curry was the better player, why would I rank Isiah above him? Also, basketball is a dynamic team sport; someone might be the better individual talent but not really be better within a team context. More often than not, who's better might simply depend on the context ie depend on what the rest of the team is like. Throwing "Curry is clearly better" as a blanket statement will certainly change nobody's mind on Isiah's camp of this debate since that's obviously a view they do not hold.

It's absolutely true that people that rank Isiah above both Stockton/Curry might not share these exact views. That being said, I have seen this sort of viewpoint pop up. And FWIW, the idea that Isiah is superior as a player (i.e. prime/general goodness as a player) to Curry is... baffling and kind of indefensible, IMO. And yet, I've seen it.

[Joey Wheeler]

First bolded. The Pistons were not "a great team that won a lot of games, sneaked in a title"; if they were not a dynasty, they were very close to it. Honestly, I'd call them a dynasty, there'd be no one questioning that if not for the phantom call on Kareem in the 88 Finals.

They were a great team, but the fact is that we do have a precedent that it's possible to be a great team without having a top 5-ish player in the league - it's happened many times throughout league history. And even though not every example I provided is a "dynasty", or has multiple titles, I'd note that, for example, the other Pistons team was literally one game off having an almost identical profile (back to back wins, a 60+ win team, bunch of 50+ win teams in a row).

Also, those Pistons did beat a "historic" team - the 2004 Lakers, whom were only 2 years removed from a three-peat. And if they weren't at their peak, then neither were the 1989 Lakers with Magic injured.

Second bolded. A lot of those perceived inconsistencies come from assumptions on your end. For instance you describe John Stockton "as maybe a worse player, but not by much" and categorically state Curry is "clearly a better player". People rating Isiah high probably do not share these views. If I thought Curry was the better player, why would I rank Isiah above him? Also, basketball is a dynamic team sport; someone might be the better individual talent but not really be better within a team context. More often than not, who's better might simply depend on the context ie depend on what the rest of the team is like. Throwing "Curry is clearly better" as a blanket statement will certainly change nobody's mind on Isiah's camp of this debate since that's obviously a view they do not hold.

It's absolutely true that people that rank Isiah above both Stockton/Curry might not share these exact views. That being said, I have seen this sort of viewpoint pop up. And FWIW, the idea that Isiah is superior as a player (i.e. prime/general goodness as a player) to Curry is... baffling and kind of indefensible, IMO. And yet, I've seen it.

On a very superficial level, yes the mid 2000 Pistons were close to having an identical profile. But the Bad Boys pretty much ran through their competition: in 1989, only Jordan took games off them; in 1990, again only Jordan put up any competition again, they came within an inch of sweeping the finals for the 2nd year in a row. Meanwhile the Pistons in the 2000s were struggling against mediocre Nets and Pacers teams and needed a Wade injury to barely squeak past the Heat in 2005. They were hardly dominant.

The Pistons beat the 2004 Lakers in the playoffs, that's a good win for sure; the Bad Boys ended the Celtics run in the East, swept a Lakers team in the Finals that had just swept their way through the Western Conference and delayed the Bulls ascension by at least 2 years. This seems like distinctly more impressive competition.

I don't see any precedent for a team as dominant as the Pistons were against such strong competition without a top 5ish player. Is it impossible that it was the case? No, but it's certainly extremely unlikely that the guy around whom such a juggernaut was built was actually not that good...

And yet you've seen it. More than that, you've seen multiple times I'm sure; it's not a fringe opinion at all, but one shared by a lot of people. There's too many people holding the opposite view for "Curry is clearly better" to be used as a blanket statement in this discussion. If people are ranking Isiah just behind Magic or Magic and Oscar, then Curry being better is part of what needs to be proved in order to refute that.

[Jaivl]

If you have a Nash or Westbrook or Curry, etc... you have to play a certain way to really get the best out of them; with Isiah, he can thrive in all sorts of situations. Even against the toughest playoff defenses, he can be an elite distributor or go on legendary scoring binges depending on what his team needs at a given time.

First of all, the first part is, well, plainly false.

Second, didn't the Pistons lose when Isiah went into "legendary scoring binges"? Didn't the Pistons lose when Isiah was an elite distributor? Maybe "what the team needed" from Isiah was him playing below expectations... that's how they won in 1989, after all.

Hell, even Isiah seems to know the difference himself. He RTd this yesterday:

Read on Twitter

[Bad Gatorade]

On a very superficial level, yes the mid 2000 Pistons were close to having an identical profile. But the Bad Boys pretty much ran through their competition: in 1989, only Jordan took games off them; in 1990, again only Jordan put up any competition again, they came within an inch of sweeping the finals for the 2nd year in a row. Meanwhile the Pistons in the 2000s were struggling against mediocre Nets and Pacers teams and needed a Wade injury to barely squeak past the Heat in 2005. They were hardly dominant.

Just feel like some of this needs a bit more clarification.

So, yes, the 1989/1990 Pistons (as well as the 1988 Pistons) were really strong teams.

However, I'd note that your ballparking of team value seems a tad misconstrued.

For example, the Pistons were struggling against "mediocre Nets and Pacers teams and needed a Wade injury to barely squeak past the Heat in 2005."

I would like to note that -

a) The Nets weren't an amazing team, but the Pistons w/Rasheed only played the Nets in 2004. They won 52 and 49 games the previous two seasons (with point differentials equivalent to a 53 and 56 win team respectively) and that's with Kenyon Martin and Jason Kidd missing a decent chunk of time each (and both were all stars that year). They were a low 50s level team with their full lineup.

b) The Pacers lost to the Pistons in 6 games when they won 61 games in 2004, and 2005 was kind of a mess for the Pacers thanks to the Malice fiasco. They lost Artest, but O'Neal, Jackson, Tinsley and Reggie all also missed a BIG chunk of time combined, and yet they still won 44 games. All these guys bar Artest played every game vs the Pistons in the playoffs. I don't know how to fully assess that season, but it's hardly a stretch to think they may have been better than a 44 win team by the playoffs when their entire starting lineup missed a crazy amount of time, and all of them bar Artest were back.

c) Saying they struggled against these teams, but talking up how the Pistons swept the Lakers in 89 after the Lakers swept their way through the West seems heavily flawed, because the Pistons won games 1 and 2 at home (game 2 barely, with Magic missing half the game) and then Magic played 5 minutes the remainder of the series... it's not a stretch to think that a freaking 63 win team could beat that team with an injured Magic at home, and even games 3 and 4 were pretty close without Magic. The Pistons in '05 played a 59 win team with Wade missing game 6 (and appropriately, they destroyed them) and then beat them again in game 7. It's not an apples to apples comparison at all, and yet, the Heat series is a disappointment from Wade's injury and THREE close wins with Magic being injured is heroic. This just absolutely does not compute. And to add to this, none of the teams they played en route to the Lakers won 50 games.

As a corollary to this, the Pistons beat a 38 win Wizards in 1988 in the series decider, whilst also winning game 2 by a solitary point. It's not implausible that they lose that series. I mean, I don't think this is a good assessment of teams/players myself, but they hardly dominated the Wizards (a 38 win team) and didn't really do much better against a team worse than the Nets/Pacers teams that you downplayed earlier.

The Pistons beat the 2004 Lakers in the playoffs, that's a good win for sure; the Bad Boys ended the Celtics run in the East, swept a Lakers team in the Finals that had just swept their way through the Western Conference and delayed the Bulls ascension by at least 2 years. This seems like distinctly more impressive competition.

The Bulls ascension was partially delayed because the Bulls weren't the same Bulls that they were in the 90s and they swept the Lakers in a bunch of close games in which Magic was injured. They beat the Celtics ONCE where Larry Bird had bone spurs and had the horror series of his life and that's not because of Isiah's rugged defence on Bird. This is the worst part about the Isiah narrative - not only because it blatantly assumes that beating a good team somehow "validates" the best player on that team, but because saying that he beat Bird, Magic and Jordan is an emphatic attempt at implying that he beat the Lakers, Celtics and Bulls at their best. The only one I'd even claim were remotely at their best was the Celtics in 1988.

But, under this assumption, where we assume that the Lakers/Celtics are "stacked" teams (and often, the Bulls are also considered to have been a stacked team, although I certainly wouldn't have argued them as elite support prior to 1991), what does Isiah's team winning even prove? That he's better than Magic/Bird? Because if that's not the conclusion we're trying to reach, then saying that Isiah's team beat a stacked team means absolutely nothing. There's no point in propping up Isiah by being the best player on a stacked team beating a stacked team (with Magic/Bird) and then not concluding that he's better than them, but then ignoring this same methodology when looking at other teams.

I don't see any precedent for a team as dominant as the Pistons were against such strong competition without a top 5ish player. Is it impossible that it was the case? No, but it's certainly extremely unlikely that the guy around whom such a juggernaut was built was actually not that good...

Does that mean that we should just assume Isiah is a super-elite, top 3 PG of all time? There's also no precedent for a player being ranked in the top 15-20 players ever whist having no case for being ranked this high in terms of box score stats, MVP voting or All-NBA voting.

Given that he had good offensive support, the Pistons were only a +3.6 relative ORTG team in the playoffs from 1988-1990 IIRC. For a championship team, that's surprisingly low across 12 series (bear in mind that ORTGs are often higher in the playoffs as a result of teams playing their best offensive players more). The team's offence obviously contributed, but to a far lesser degree than most other championship level teams, and defence was the primary driver. For example, in these three seasons, the Pistons ranked 11/16, 4/16 and 8/16 in playoff ORTG even though their average opponent was -0.4 on defence (i.e. basically league average, and one would expect the average playoff team to be above average on defence).

FWIW, given the quality of opposing defences (and that Pistons defence was magnificent) that's actually... oddly disappointing. For example, CP3 had a healthy, strong team in the playoffs three years (2008, 2014 and 2015) and in these 6 series, his team's relative ORTG was +8.5. In the worst of these series, he had +5.5 vs the Spurs in 2008. And in all 3 series in which he was eliminated, he was a net positive on the floor (+2.9, +10.7 and +5.5). All of these ratings were higher than the net ratings his team had in each series. And in the 3 series he won, he... had a net positive in all series too, and the team had worse scoring margins with him off the floor.

What I'm getting at here, is that Isiah is getting a bulk of credit because his team won, without even parsing out why the team won. Overall motivation? Sure, that works. Defence? His team was absolutely absurd on defence and yes, he contributed, but he was certainly far from the defensive anchor. Offensively? His team results aren't anything to write home about, and the only year his team was good offensively in the playoffs during that 3 year run (1989) he had a TS% of 48.1, which was 4.5% lower than the second worst on the team.

And automatically, when we actually parse out team impact into offence and defence, Isiah's case as an offensive mastermind comes into question. Dumars was an above average efficiency guy, an elite shooter, and a fairly good passer/playmaker in his own right. The team had consistently good offensive rebounding (one of their strengths) and they had a guy who is in contention with Moses Malone as the best offensive rebounder on that team. Bill Laimbeer was an efficient, lower volume guy and an excellent shooter for a big man (i.e. spaces the floor, helps create room for Isiah to drive). Vinnie Johnson... I think was kind of overrated so I won't prop him up. Aguirre was an all star in 1988 on the virtue of his elite scoring game, and even though he played fewer minutes, he was clearly a nice offensive piece. Is this team so far beneath what Chris Paul had even in his losing years (3 years in which his team outscored the opposing team with him on the floor, mind you)? DeAndre was leading the league in FG% and elite at offensive rebounds... that's exactly what Rodman did in 1989. Griffin and Redick are good offensive players, but is their combination so far ahead of what Laimbeer/Dumars/Aguirre were? Dumars and Griffin actually have a lot of analogues - both strong creators, both slightly above league average efficiency, but Dumars was a better shooter. Redick is a fantastic shooter, but I don't think his combined offensive product surpasses what Laimbeer and Aguirre combined to provide (bear in mind that after the top 4, the Clippers also played guys like Rivers/inefficient chucker Crawford etc notable minutes and the 5th guy simply not being a liability is also very helpful).

So, the statistics at the time for Isiah would imply that he's an elite shot creator for himself, an excellent passer, but an inefficient scorer on his own. And having a +3.6 playoff ORTG in 12 series (a decent sample) with a level of offensive support that on average, is probably quite similar to what CP3 had, would infer that at the very least, he should be coming up with comparable ORTGs. But, he didn't. And even if you're higher on Blake, he had an ORTG of +4.6 in the Jazz series in 2017 (where Gobert missed time, but Blake missed more time) and an ORTG of +8.0 when Blake was injured against Memphis in 2013. And vs the Jazz, yes, CP3 once again had a positive net rating, but his team had a negative net rating and lost the series vs the Jazz when he was off the court.

This is an example of where the problem lies - yes, CP3 is injury prone, but with what is arguably comparable offensive support, he led playoff offences that blew away what Isiah led on his teams, and with clearly lesser support in certain years, there are hints that he could have led comparable offences.

By simply looking at overall team results and crediting Isiah as their offensive fulcrum, we're ignoring valuable information that actually assesses offensive team play with Isiah as an offensive fulcrum.

I'll add a bit more - In 1991 (which was similar to 1990 in terms of regular season efficacy), Isiah missed 34 games, but even in the 30 something games he played prior to injury, the Pistons ORTG was very slightly lower than in the following games - the team eFG% and TOV% remained roughly the same, free throw rate dropped (probably due to Isiah's creation) and ORB% skyrocketed (probably because a drive-heavy guard takes up room underneath the rim, and forces better rebounders out - Laimbeer's ORB% went from 5.5 to 9.5 in his absence as a result).

Once again, even though this isn't a definitive sample, and beneath Isiah at his peak, in a season with numbers almost identical to 1990, Isiah's creation is partially offset by the fact that he wasn't an efficient scorer himself. This story ties in perfectly with how I interpreted Isiah's play before even looking at the sample - he's an excellent shot creator for both himself and his teammates, but the downfall of creating shots for himself is that his own inefficiency tended to limit the actual offensive ceiling of his teams.

So, when we look at Isiah's team success, are we simply looking at team success and then saying, "Isiah is the biggest offensive piece and emotional leader, ergo, he is the xth best player ever?" A lot of this logic fails to consider that he wasn't the offensive fulcrum of an elite offensive team during this period, and this is necessary for this sort of discussion if we're using team play as a proxy for individual greatness.

And yet you've seen it. More than that, you've seen multiple times I'm sure; it's not a fringe opinion at all, but one shared by a lot of people. There's too many people holding the opposite view for "Curry is clearly better" to be used as a blanket statement in this discussion. If people are ranking Isiah just behind Magic or Magic and Oscar, then Curry being better is part of what needs to be proved in order to refute that.

Yes, and those people would be wrong. And it's not often that I say that - usually I'm fairly lax over people ranking one player over another, as long as a general range can reasonably be justified. But there is no reasonable justification for Isiah over Curry.

* Box score production? Curry blows Isiah away and it's not even worth bothering to post anything here.
* Impact stats? We don't have much in the realm of impact for Isiah, but Curry literally ranks #1 in 5 year RAPM in the 2015-2019 stretch and the 2016-2020 stretch (for which there's very little in 2020) and only LeBron and CP3 are close to him.
* Skillset - Isiah is a better defender, sure (although it's probably overblown, because Curry is a very smart team defender with exceptional hands). Curry is also an elite shot creator and the best shooter in NBA history.
* Team success? The Warriors won 67 games and a title in 2015, and 73 games (an NBA record) in 2016. They lost an incredibly close series to the Cavs, sure. But on the way, they beat an OKC team (a healthy SRS of +9.7) that beat a 67 win San Antonio team (healthy SRS of +11.7). It's a historically elite top 4 teams in the NBA that season and the Cavs are underrepresented in SRS because of Kyrie's injury and LeBron's regular season coasting. And even though they got Durant for the next couple of seasons, they won the title in both of those anyway.
* Accolades - Isiah peaked at 5th in MVP. Curry has two of those, and is the only unanimous MVP in award history.
* Arbitrarily beating other great players - Curry was 1st team All NBA in 2015, and beat the rest of the teams featuring 1st team All NBA players that year on the way (and yes, if people can say, "Isiah beat Magic", then I can say this).
* Being a leader - Curry's universally regarded as one of the most lovable and nice guys in the NBA. Isiah had problems with Dantley (whom was well liked in the Detroit locker room - Dumars has vocalised his disappointment here) and had problems with many other elite players in NBA history for various reasons, e.g. freezing Jordan out due to jealousy (not proven, but accused). Durant joined the Warriors after breaking the NBA win record partially BECAUSE of their style of play and tightly knit culture, of which Curry is the centrepiece.
* Sacrificing for the team - Curry sacrificed his touches in order to accommodate Durant.
* Versatility - Curry played primarily on-ball when winning his first title, and the previous year (on a very strong GS team in the ragtag west). He plays considerably off-ball now... and is probably the best off-ball offensive player in history (Larry Bird is the only one I'd even consider here).

Some of these, I don't even particularly care about, but Isiah still has no case. What possible argument does Isiah even have over Curry?

[colts18]

Billups and Isiah are very comparable. In fact, the Pistons of the 80s and 00s are similar too.

80s Pistons (87-91):
52 wins
54
63
59
50
55.6 win average

3 Finals Appearances
2 Titles
5 ECFs
15-3 Playoff record

00 Pistons (04-08):
54 wins
54
64
53
59
56.8 win average

2 Finals appearances
1 Title
5 ECF
13-5 Playoff record

I don't see much of a difference.

[NinjaSheppard]

I would buy the Isiah Thomas was actually way better argument if not for two things

1) the All NBA voting and MVP voting back then shows that the people covering the league didn't think he was that good when they were winning titles and that is also compounded by the fact that when a team flirts with 60 wins people go out of their way to reward those players

2) How terrible many members of the media are at actually evaluating point guards. Kyrie Irving and especially Rajon Rondo are two guys who absolutely did not pass the test as superstars and their success on title teams elevated them in the media's eyes until the inevitable car crash they experienced. Both are guys where the analytics group zagged while the media zigged and they were proven correct.

[Clyde Frazier]

Great discussion on Stockton vs Isiah here! I have to say, it's wild to me how many Isiah fans have this visceral reaction to the idea that Stockton was even *close* to the same level. Like even if I agreed Isiah had a clear edge, Stockton still had an incredible career and was objectively a star in his own right. It's as if you're attacking them personally by making such a claim

[E-Balla]

Isiah averaged 21.7/4.8/9.0/2.3 on 52.6 TS% with a 111 ORTG in the playoffs from 84-90 with a 20.9 PER, .161 WS/48, and 6.9 BPM.

Stockton averaged 16.5/3.4/12.8/2.3 on 58.2 TS% and a 117 ORTG in the playoffs from 88-94 (to have an equivalent 7 year prime) with a 20.6 PER, .160 WS/48, and 7.2 BPM.

It's odd to me this conversation is happening, and people are pretending that Isiah's legacy and wins shouldn't matter. Isiah won because he performed when it mattered most. His legacy and wins matter because you play to win rings, not to win the most regular season games. If Stockton played like him in the playoffs during his prime, he'd have a ring.