Isiah Thomas vs Chris Paul

[BIGJ1ER]

I'm honestly surprised to see how many votes IT has, when in my opinion he's not even really comparable to CP3.

The rings argument is so silly. Zeke played on a better team, and he wasn't even the best player on that team. Cp3 has him beat in peak, prime and longevity, so just using rings to rank Zeke higher makes no sense to me.

If Stephen A Smith read this he would probably say something along the lines of


"Wha-wha-wha-what!!!! How DARE you! Show the dis-RESPECT to a legend who put da team on his back, not once, TWO times." etc etc


Actually, I find it incredibly interesting how some people will have very powerful opinions that also seem to be the exact same as trolls like Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless - wouldn't that make you reconsider your line of thought? It's like when the KKK guys start saying how Trump is the best.

Your last point is definitely interesting to me. I've definitely noticed that when I've shared an opinion with people that I don't usually align my views with that I'll likely take a second look at my opinion and make sure I'm not missing some vital information, or that we just happen to share the same view on one particular point. I think these sports media 'influencers' have a lot more impact on the casual sports fan than we realise to be honest.

[BIGJ1ER]

I also think it's funny how people post things like "basketball is played on the court, not on a spreadsheet" and then start listing Isaiah's career accolades... so what you really mean is that 'basketball is played on a point-form list, not a spreadsheet'. Watching Chris Paul play, it's pretty clear he's one of the meanest, most well-rounded, most talented point guards to ever do it. I've rooted against Chris Paul for most of his career, but it's hard to look at his game and argue that almost any point guard was better than him at basketball.

I think the part I've bolded is a very good point, and not one that I realised was happening a lot of the time in anti/non statistical arguments. It seems like a method of shifting the goal posts or adjusting the frame to strengthen a particular argument, whether the person doing that is aware of what it is they're doing is another discussion (I'd wager most of the time in these particular scenario's that they are not, but it opens a real of can of worm's on judging one's intelligence level based on conversational traits and their overall views and how they present them).

[DNice68]

The IT hate is too strong here. Chris Paul hasn’t accomplished a lot, and will never win a championship. Even Jordan would put Zeke above Paul!

[prophet_of_rage]

Thomas plays for wind Paul plays for stats. I take Thomas.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

Watching Isiah it is clear he was a better player in his era than Paul is in his era. Accolades reflect that but they are also like statistics. They can be abused.

Thomas played for wins. That will kill your advanced stats because you take chances that often don't pay off but are huge if they do. That's how sports greatness used to be looked at.

Now in the advanced stat efficiency era people play differently. They don't risk lowering their field goal percentage making that three quarter court heave at the end of a quarter. They play the sport differently. So it is tough to compare across eras. So you have to look at what happened in their respective eras.

And for those who say so basketball is a point form list ... yes it is because the point of the game is to win battles. It is competition. Win a ring. Win MVP. Win a scoring title. Win the playoffs. Win rookie of the year, etc. So if someone is doing all that they are doing better than someone who isn't.

And the same accolades exist through the eras. Statistical relevance has changed mightily over time.


Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Hal14]

The IT hate is too strong here. Chris Paul hasn’t accomplished a lot, and will never win a championship. Even Jordan would put Zeke above Paul!

Yes, indeed Jordan does put Zeke over Paul. Jordan ranks Zeke no. 2 all-time point guard:

https://sports.yahoo.com/michael-jordan-isiah-thomas-second-190040435.html

[Hal14]

It's really hard to make one. I always had Zeke pencilled in lazily as a top 5 point guard. His career is so high profile as the poster boy of a team that was a worthy adversary to Bird, Magic AND Jordan. I was quite surprised to dig into his career and realize:
- How short his peak was as a player

Usually when people talk about "who had the best peak?" they're looking at the 2 or 3 best years in a row that the player was able to string together...Isiah had 4 years in a row averaging 20 PPG and 10 APG...during those 4 years he was all NBA 1st team in 83-84, he was all nba 1st team in 84-85, he was all nba 1st team in 85-86 and he was all NBA 2nd team in 86-7. These 4 years we're talking about (83-87) was arguably the toughest and best era in NBA history. Still think 4 years is too short? The year before that in 82-83 he averaged a career-high 22.9 PPG, 7.9 APG, 2.5 steals per game and the 2nd highest FG% of his career. He was 2nd team all-NBA that year.

How his peak as a player didn't align with Detroit's success. He peaks as a player in the mid 80s in his early 20s, and doesn't start going on deep playoff runs until 3 years later.

1) hmm, not sure if that's accurate. You seem to be reaching here to try and make Isiah look bad. As I just pointed out, his peak was 83-87. The year he "started making deep playoff runs" was 86-87. So there is direct overlap between his peak and his team making deep playoff runs. In 87 the Pistons fell in 7 games in the eastern conference finals to the 87 Celtics - one of the best teams of all-time to not win the title, a Celtics team just 1 year removed from 86 Celtics which many consider the greatest team of all time. If not for Bird making a heroic play to steal the ball in game 5, the Pistons would have won the series and it would have been 4 straight trips to the finals. Based on your logic Isiah's peak ended in 83-84..since 3 years later was the 86-87 season. If that's the case, you're somehow not considering 84-85 to be part of Isiah's peak, even though he averaged 21.2 PPG and a career high 13.9 APG, those are insane numbers! You'd also be leaving out the 85-86 season, when Isiah had the highest FG% of his career...

2) You might want to study up on Wilt Chamberlain. Early in Wilt's career he was putting up better stats but not winning. Then he learned how to adjust his game...he was scoring less, but winning more. So one could actually argue that although Isiah's best years for stats was from 83-87, his peak was actually 87-90, because even though his numbers dropped off a little bit, he was sacrificing those numbers because it was better for the TEAM, and as a result they won...a lot.

Isiah Thomas was the best player on an awesome team. But the gap between him and the next best player(s) is a historical outlier for teams this good.

Hmm, why do we use this argument to discredit Isiah but we don't use this argument to discredit anyone else? You say the gap wasn't that big between Isiah and Dumars. Ok, so what? What about the gap between Shaq and Kobe when they won 3 titles in a row? Not that big, but people don't use that to discredit those guys. What about the gap between Curry and Durant when they won titles? Not that big, right? What about the gap between Magic and Kareem when they won their first 3 titles? Not that big, yet they're both consensus top 5 guys of all-time. What about the gap between Reed and Frazier when they won titles? Not that big, right? Yet no one uses that to discredit those guys. Unseld and Hayes is the same thing, the list goes on...

There were many lengthy spans of time where Dumars, Dantley and even Laimbeer were driving team success.

What exactly is this statement saying? Are you saying that there were MANY LENGTHY spans of time where Bill Laimbeer was the Piston's best player? If so, that's ridiculous.

If all you're saying is these 3 guys had many lengthy times when they helped the Pistons win basketball games...well then, sure I agree but I don't know how that can be used to discredit Isiah. Ok, so Isiah played with three good players. So what? Moses played with Dr J, Bobby Jones and Mo Cheeks on the Sixers, no one discredits him for that. Bird played with McHale, Parish and Dennis John on the Celtics, no one discredits him for that. Frazier played with Reed, Monroe and DeBusschere, no one discredits him for that. The list goes on...

Funny thing about you name dropping Laimbeer, Dumars and Dantley. You make it seem like all 3 of them peaked at the same time and that's the only reason why Isiah won titles. Hmm, let's see here. Laimbeer's prime was 82-87. Dantley only played 2 prime years on the Pistons, 86-88 and Dumars didn't hit his prime until 88-89 season. So Dumars didn't hit his prime until after Dantley got traded....AND Laimbeer was no longer in his prime by then. There was never a time when all 3 of these guys were in their prime and on the same team at the same time. There was only 1 season (86-87) where more than 1 of these guys was in their prime at the same time and on the same team, with Laimbeer and Dantley. That season (86-87) there was only 1 Piston who made the all-NBA team. That man was Isiah Thomas.

Not to mention this team went a legit 9 deep during their run

You're partly right. They went 9 deep in 89, but only 8 deep in 90 after Mahorn left.

with 6 of those guys all-stars or former/future all-stars.

hmm, does it really matter if they were a former/future all-star? lol I mean based on your logic, the Pistons could have had 8 dudes who were all-stars but 4 of them were all stars like 8 years ago and the other 4 guys didn't make the all-star team until 8 years later, I mean, seriously?

What really matters is if they were an all-star at the time. And the fact is, in 89, the Pistons only had 1 all-star. His name, was Isiah Thomas. In 90, the Pistons had 2 other all-stars in addition to Isiah - Rodman and Dumars. That's it. 1 all-star in 89 and 3 all-stars in 90....not 6 all-stars. You're exaggerating to try and make Isiah look bad.

Watching Chris Paul play, it's pretty clear he's one of the meanest, most well-rounded, most talented point guards to ever do it.

He's mean all right. So mean that his teammates don't want to play with him:

Watch on YouTube

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/10/rondo-chris-paul-fight-horrible-teammate-comments-hollins-glen-davis-reaction-nba-players

Watch on YouTube

I've rooted against Chris Paul for most of his career, but it's hard to look at his game and argue that almost any point guard was better than him at basketball.

Major hyperbole here. Hold up, so you're essentially saying that "it's hard to argue that Magic Johnson was better at basketball than Chris Paul" you lost me here. No...just, no. Chris Paul cannot hold Magic Johnson's jock strap. To say that it's hard to argue Magic was better than Paul, I mean, I can't even really take the rest of the post seriously.

Might want to watch this:

Watch on YouTube

Also, in this video Isiah says, "The game today, it favors the point guards and the small players. The era that I won in, the rules were geared towards the bigger players."

Watch on YouTube

;feature=emb_logo

So sure, you might watch Paul and think he's amazing. But you have to consider the context and era he's playing in. With the wide open floor spacing, no hand checking, less physical play, defensive 3 seconds, etc. Then ask yourself, do you think Chris Paul would have been as good playing in the 80s? Nope. Would Isiah have dominated more playing in today's game which favors point guards? Yup.

I give big credit to Isiah Thomas for being able to be a scorer as a small guard in the 80s. That is ridiculously impressive and part of why people in his era speak of his greatness.

Well, at least we agree on that

[HeartBreakKid]

Watching Isiah it is clear he was a better player in his era than Paul is in his era. Accolades reflect that but they are also like statistics. They can be abused.

Thomas played for wins. That will kill your advanced stats because you take chances that often don't pay off but are huge if they do. That's how sports greatness used to be looked at.

Now in the advanced stat efficiency era people play differently. They don't risk lowering their field goal percentage making that three quarter court heave at the end of a quarter. They play the sport differently. So it is tough to compare across eras. So you have to look at what happened in their respective eras.

And for those who say so basketball is a point form list ... yes it is because the point of the game is to win battles. It is competition. Win a ring. Win MVP. Win a scoring title. Win the playoffs. Win rookie of the year, etc. So if someone is doing all that they are doing better than someone who isn't.

And the same accolades exist through the eras. Statistical relevance has changed mightily over time.


Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

How is it clear Thomas was better in his era? I feel like people can't name 80s players past Magic and Bird sometimes lol. Basically all of the great 90s players and many of the great 70s players shared seasons with Isiah Thomas in the 80s and were clearly better.

When you say Thomas is better in his era than Paul is - what do you mean by that, how good do you think Thomas is and how much of it based on him having rings? How can someone say that Isiah Thomas is better than say, Hakeem Olajuwon or Kareem Abdul Jabar who both played in his era?

[prophet_of_rage]

Watching Isiah it is clear he was a better player in his era than Paul is in his era. Accolades reflect that but they are also like statistics. They can be abused.

Thomas played for wins. That will kill your advanced stats because you take chances that often don't pay off but are huge if they do. That's how sports greatness used to be looked at.

Now in the advanced stat efficiency era people play differently. They don't risk lowering their field goal percentage making that three quarter court heave at the end of a quarter. They play the sport differently. So it is tough to compare across eras. So you have to look at what happened in their respective eras.

And for those who say so basketball is a point form list ... yes it is because the point of the game is to win battles. It is competition. Win a ring. Win MVP. Win a scoring title. Win the playoffs. Win rookie of the year, etc. So if someone is doing all that they are doing better than someone who isn't.

And the same accolades exist through the eras. Statistical relevance has changed mightily over time.


Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

How is it clear Thomas was better in his era? I feel like people can't name 80s players past Magic and Bird sometimes lol. Basically all of the great 90s players and many of the great 70s players shared seasons with Isiah Thomas in the 80s and were clearly better.

When you say Thomas is better in his era than Paul is - what do you mean by that, how good do you think Thomas is and how much of it based on him having rings? How can someone say that Isiah Thomas is better than say, Hakeem Olajuwon or Kareem Abdul Jabar who both played in his era?

In his era Isiah was a 6 foot point guard who led a perennial contrnder through the mid 80s. His team matched up with the legendary Bird Celtics, the Malone,-Dr. J and Barkley Sixers, the upcoming Ewing Knicks, Magic Lakers.

He was the best little guard to play at a listed 6'1. He scored inside and out, dished and defended fiercely. He willed his team to deep playoff runs once he matured and beat the great players of his time.

BTW, Akeem Olajuwon was not a great player in the 80s. He was a selfish uncountable black hole until he figured it out in the 90s. So yes Isiah was better than him at the time.

Magic and Bird were the toast of the leagur. Dr. J was beloved and on his way out. Kareem was also still at the top of his game until about 86 or so and then Magic took over. Never mind that Michael guy.

Yet Isiah beat them all in the playoffs. Chris Paul has not been able to beat many of his contemporaries, especially deep in the playoffs.

Chris Paul is very close to Isiah as a player, but he is more controlled and fussy about the game. He can't improvise like Isiah.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Hal14]

Let's compare Thomas to Gus Williams instead.

This comment is ridiculous, you must be either joking or trolling.

The fact that 3 people actually and 1'd this post shows how so many people on this forum blindly hate Isiah.

Let's see here:

Isiah Thomas
2 NBA titles
1 NBA finals MVP
Won his titles during arguably the best, toughest era in league history, during the golden age
12 time NBA all-star
5 time all-NBA selection
Hall of Famer
Voted one of the 50 greatest players of all-time
19 PPG for his career
9.3 APG for his career
Averaged 8.4 APG or better for a season 8 times
Played 13 seasons
Played 48+ games, averaged 30+ MPG and averaged 14.8+ PPG in every single one of those 13 seasons
Showed loyalty by staying with the same team for his entire career
Michael Jordan (who hated Isiah) and Magic Johnson are both quoted as saying he's the 2nd best PG ever. Charles Barkley is quoted as saying he's a top 3 PG ever

Gus Williams
1 NBA title
0 Finals MVPs
Won his title in 78-79, which is considered a low point for the NBA, ratings were down, fan interest was down and the league needed Bird and Magic to save it
2 time NBA all-star
2 time All-NBA selection
Not a Hall of Famer and when discussions take place about best players to ever play who aren't in the hall, his name rarely comes up
You'd get laughed at for saying he might be one of the 50 greatest players of all-time
17 PPG for his career
5.6 APG for his career
Had just 1 season where he averaged 8.4 APG
Played 11 seasons
Only had 6 seasons where he played in 48+ games, averaged 14.8+ PPG and 30+ MPG in the same season
Bounced around from team to team, played for 4 different teams
While he was in the prime of his career, he sat out the entire 80-81 season due to a contract dispute, which shows he was a "me first" guy and not "team first"

[70sFan]

This comment is ridiculous, you must be either joking or trolling.

The fact that 3 people actually and 1'd this post shows how so many people on this forum blindly hate Isiah.

Or that some people understand how good Gus Williams really was.

Let's see here:

Isiah Thomas
2 NBA titles
1 NBA finals MVP
Won his titles during arguably the best, toughest era in league history, during the golden age

Based on what was that "golden age"? Pistons won their first title facing injured Celtics, one man army Bulls and injured Lakers. It's very poor competition, nothing to praise.

12 time NBA all-star

So all-star votings are now argument for who was better? Thomas last ASG selections are ridiculous, they were based only on his fame and nothing else.

5 time all-NBA selection
Hall of Famer
Voted one of the 50 greatest players of all-time
19 PPG for his career
9.3 APG for his career
Averaged 8.4 APG or better for a season 8 times
Played 13 seasons
Played 48+ games, averaged 30+ MPG and averaged 14.8+ PPG in every single one of those 13 seasons
Showed loyalty by staying with the same team for his entire career
Michael Jordan (who hated Isiah) and Magic Johnson are both quoted as saying he's the 2nd best PG ever. Charles Barkley is quoted as saying he's a top 3 PG ever

What are these arbitrary arguments?

Gus Williams
1 NBA title
0 Finals MVPs
Won his title in 78-79, which is considered a low point for the NBA, ratings were down, fan interest was down and the league needed Bird and Magic to save it

The league was doing just fine and Gus faced better competition than injured Lakers for sure.

2 time NBA all-star
2 time All-NBA selection
Not a Hall of Famer and when discussions take place about best players to ever play who aren't in the hall, his name rarely comes up

Wait, Gus is not in the HoF? Is this the biggest omission in NBA history?

You'd get laughed at for saying he might be one of the 50 greatest players of all-time

By you? Then sorry but I don't care.

17 PPG for his career
5.6 APG for his career
Had just 1 season where he averaged 8.4 APG
Played 11 seasons
Only had 6 seasons where he played in 48+ games, averaged 14.8+ PPG and 30+ MPG in the same season

So Gus didn't assist as much as Thomas, who cares? He was different type of player.

Bounced around from team to team, played for 4 different teams

Is this supposed to be argument against him? Seriously?

While he was in the prime of his career, he sat out the entire 80-81 season due to a contract dispute, which shows he was a "me first" guy and not "team first"

It's not thay easy, players are humans. Don't treat them like machines, it was a complicated problem and reading one line from wikipedia doesn't make you expert. Thomas did a lot of things that were not fair for his teammates, but you don't care about it because "he won in golden age".

Sorry, but I'm here for legitimate discussion. You probably haven't seen even one game with Gus Williams but you find this comparison ridiculous because Gus is less known than Thomas.

[Odinn21]

While he was in the prime of his career, he sat out the entire 80-81 season due to a contract dispute, which shows he was a "me first" guy and not "team first"

It's not thay easy, players are humans. Don't treat them like machines, it was a complicated problem and reading one line from wikipedia doesn't make you expert. Thomas did a lot of things that were not fair for his teammates, but you don't care about it because "he won in golden age".

Nah, man. Why would anyone want to read further than Wikipedia?..
https://vault.si.com/vault/1981/02/02/no-gus-no-glory-with-its-star-gus-williams-sidelined-by-a-contract-dispute-seattle-is-sub-sonic

The player was ready to sign a deal that was worse than the initial offer, but when he went to do that he found that the owner had a war waiting for him.

It's very easy to talk like the players, or the league as a whole, was like this and never changed for so many years.

[HeartBreakKid]

Have to love the same "Isiah Thomas won during the HARDEST age of NBA and beat the Celtics, Bulls and Lakers" - yeah guy...a lot of teams are beating the Zach Lavine Bulls and no one is bragging about it. The Bulls weren't in their prime which is why the Bulls eventually started to beat their ass lol.

Not even going to humor the Celtics and Lakers. Thomas won his titles at the end of Bird, Kareem, and Worthy's career (and Magic's technically, and basically all of the iconic players on those teams). Pretending like he went through the gauntlet and then saying things like "people need to look at the games and not just read the internet" is incredibly ironic.

Considering he had one of the best supporting cast of all time, many guys would have done what he did - especially in his second ring where he choked and played like crap, but won a ring in the end anyway so he's super mentally tough and can never faulter.


Also, someone said Chris Paul plays for stats when Isiah Thomas has higher PPG and often higher APG than CP3, and CP3 hasn't put up huge boxscore numbers for most of his prime lol. Can't make this stuff up.

[flow]

If I'm being honest, CP3 is the more talented and complete player.

That said, Zeke clearly has a large edge in intangibles, and I think I would pick him over CP3 for my franchise. Neither guy is going to carry your franchise to a title, and I prefer Zeke's leadership qualities as a #2 guy.

No, he really doesn’t. He wasn’t well liked and even clashed with teammates himself.

Paul had an ego spat with Griffin and known slackers and headcases.

Even the Harden thing was completely overblown. Tilman leaked false information about a feud to justify a trade.

Ignorant post.

Whether 'well-liked' or not is immaterial. Every player on those Pistons teams acknowledged Isiah as the unquestioned leader and heart & soul of the team. And the leader led.

When I hear Clippers say that about Paul, I'll let you know.

[HeartBreakKid]

If I'm being honest, CP3 is the more talented and complete player.

That said, Zeke clearly has a large edge in intangibles, and I think I would pick him over CP3 for my franchise. Neither guy is going to carry your franchise to a title, and I prefer Zeke's leadership qualities as a #2 guy.

No, he really doesn’t. He wasn’t well liked and even clashed with teammates himself.

Paul had an ego spat with Griffin and known slackers and headcases.

Even the Harden thing was completely overblown. Tilman leaked false information about a feud to justify a trade.

Ignorant post.

Whether 'well-liked' or not is immaterial. Every player on those Pistons teams acknowledged Isiah as the unquestioned leader and heart & soul of the team. And the leader led.

When I hear Clippers say that about Paul, I'll let you know.

Chris Paul was unquestionably the leader of the Clippers - who else was lol? Chris Paul got heat because he is a hard ass and some of the players on the Clippers are more into fun and games (hm...does that sound like the Bad Boy Pistons to you?).

Who has even said Chris Paul is a bad leader other than Baby Davis who is was out of the league in a second - and basically never became a good player because he was lazy (the same thing CP3 probably yelled at him about).

Chris Paul isn't any worse of a leader than any other hyper competitive player. He just doesn't have the winning narrative to make him look like a super hero.

[DaPessimist]

No, he really doesn’t. He wasn’t well liked and even clashed with teammates himself.

Paul had an ego spat with Griffin and known slackers and headcases.

Even the Harden thing was completely overblown. Tilman leaked false information about a feud to justify a trade.

Ignorant post.

Whether 'well-liked' or not is immaterial. Every player on those Pistons teams acknowledged Isiah as the unquestioned leader and heart & soul of the team. And the leader led.

When I hear Clippers say that about Paul, I'll let you know.

Chris Paul was unquestionably the leader of the Clippers - who else was lol? Chris Paul got heat because he is a hard ass and some of the players on the Clippers are more into fun and games (hm...does that sound like the Bad Boy Pistons to you?).

Who has even said Chris Paul is a bad leader other than Baby Davis who is was out of the league in a second - and basically never became a good player because he was lazy (the same thing CP3 probably yelled at him about).

Chris Paul isn't any worse of a leader than any other hyper competitive player. He just doesn't have the winning narrative to make him look like a super hero.

I've never heard a Chris Paul teammate speak positively about his leadership abilities. Conversely, I've heard Zeke's teammates rave about his leadership. Outside of testimonials from teammates, I'm not sure how else we're supposed grade leadership ability. CP3 dominating the ball on the court doesn't make him a great leader, it just makes him a great Point Guard.

I'm not so sure CP3 was the leader of that Clippers squad. In fact, I'm not sure they really had a leader. Real leaders are accountable for their mistakes. Fake leaders blame everyone else for their failures... and what I remember most about "Lob City" (outside of their alley-oop dunks), is their constant complaining and inability to take responsibility for their failures.

[VanWest82]

It's Paul and not even close. He has 10 top 5 level seasons. You an argue Isiah doesn't even have 1.

Slight exaggeration. 08-17 minus 2010 due to injury is 9 at most. And like 4-5 of those years he either missed playoff games or had significant injuries. 09, 12, 15 and 16 at least. Also 2014+2017 he missed 20+ games both seasons. I figured by now the idea of Paul being some iron man was debunked.

I don't mean he was top 5 all those years but he was certainly in the discussion. And I would count 2018 as well, he has a case for 5th despite the missed games (kind of a weak year tbf).

I have him as:

2008: 2nd behind Kobe
2009: 4th behind LeBron, Kobe, Wade
2010: irrelevant
2011: 5th behind Dirk, Wade, LeBron, Dwight
2012: 3rd behind LeBron, KD
2013: 3rd behind LeBron, KD
2014: 3rd behind LeBron, KD (even with the missed games, he was clearly better than the likes of Griffin, Parker, Curry or Duncan)
2015: 1st (controversial but that's where I have him)
2016: 6th (behind LeBron, Curry, Westbrook, Durant, Kawhi)
2017: 5th-7th (behind LeBron, Westbrook, Curry, Kawhi. He's in the argument with Harden and Durant)
2018: 5th-7th (behind LeBron, Harden, Davis and Giannis. He's in the argument with Durant and Oladipo. 2018 Durant only played 10 more games than Paul and got absolutely killed from an impact stats perspective)

So top 5 from 2008-2015 minus 2010, and the same caliber for 3 more years but the league got progressively more loaded so he had more competition.

I think you're on the high side by 2-3 spots in some of those years but this is the best case for CP in this thread. Isiah topped out at top 5 and was only in that group for three years. Chris Paul was in that group on and off for the better part of a decade. But winning in the playoffs still matters most and Isiah won when it counted, so for me it's still Isiah > Paul. If you're starting from scratch and you get either guy for their whole career I could easily see taking CP for the longevity.

[HeartBreakKid]

Ignorant post.

Whether 'well-liked' or not is immaterial. Every player on those Pistons teams acknowledged Isiah as the unquestioned leader and heart & soul of the team. And the leader led.

When I hear Clippers say that about Paul, I'll let you know.

Chris Paul was unquestionably the leader of the Clippers - who else was lol? Chris Paul got heat because he is a hard ass and some of the players on the Clippers are more into fun and games (hm...does that sound like the Bad Boy Pistons to you?).

Who has even said Chris Paul is a bad leader other than Baby Davis who is was out of the league in a second - and basically never became a good player because he was lazy (the same thing CP3 probably yelled at him about).

Chris Paul isn't any worse of a leader than any other hyper competitive player. He just doesn't have the winning narrative to make him look like a super hero.

I've never heard a Chris Paul teammate speak positively about his leadership abilities. Conversely, I've heard Zeke's teammates rave about his leadership. Outside of testimonials from teammates, I'm not sure how else we're supposed grade leadership ability. CP3 dominating the ball on the court doesn't make him a great leader, it just makes him a great Point Guard.

I'm not so sure CP3 was the leader of that Clippers squad. In fact, I'm not sure they really had a leader. Real leaders are accountable for their mistakes. Fake leaders blame everyone else for their failures... and what I remember most about "Lob City" (outside of their alley-oop dunks), is their constant complaining and inability to take responsibility for their failures.

When was Isiah Thomas ever accountable for his mistakes? When he played bad he never said anything - and he also forced Adrian Dantley out of Detroit lol.




"Danilo Gallinari
Danilo Gallinari joins his OKC Thunder teammates who believe Chris Paul is the best leader in the NBA and best he's played with during his 12-year care"

https://thunderousintentions.com/2020/03/02/okc-thunder-gallinari-chris-paul-mvp-leadership/

Chris Paul is famous around the league for being a leader, even the announcers regularly say it. Thinking that because he had friction with DeAndre Jordan and Glen Davis (who proven to be immature or causing drama on other teams) sounds like you're just listening to the loudest and not the most common.


As for your statement on leaders take accountability

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/chris-paul-everything-that-happened-at-the-end-is-on-me/



Is this sufficient evidence? As for him constantly complaining about their teammates playing not up to their standard - so did Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan.

Like seriously, why is Big Baby Glen Davis such an authority on whether Chris Paul is a good leader or not - but David West isn't? Or Peja? Where are the complaints filed in from JJ Reddick? Is there any one on the Thunder going to talk serious crap about Chris Paul's lack of leadership?

Isiah Thomas broke his hand punching one of his HOF teammates and fought and got another HOF teammate traded off the team - this is somehow not an example of bad leadership, but Chris Paul yelling at his incredibly overweight and out of shape 9th man is damning.

[VanWest82]

Considering he had one of the best supporting cast of all time, many guys would have done what he did - especially in his second ring where he choked and played like crap, but won a ring in the end anyway so he's super mentally tough and can never faulter.

This is the kind of Isiah take I have trouble with. For starters, he didn't choke in 90. He slipped athletically that year and was on the downside of his career but still pulled it together vs. Knicks and Bulls, and won FMVP vs. Blazers.

He did have a great supporting cast and sacrificed his game starting in 87 to accommodate them. One of the reasons MJ is so revered is because he slipped when he came back in 95 but still won. Then he slipped again in 98 and still won. Why are we applying difference logic for Isiah? He proved that he was still the best Piston and an ATG winner even when he wasn't anymore. It takes heart and an advanced understanding of the game and whatever other intangibles you'd like to apply to pull that off. You can credit his teammates too -- they deserve it -- but you can't take away all the winning plays that Isiah made in those playoff games.

[Lost92Bricks]

You can credit his teammates too -- they deserve it -- but you can't take away all the winning plays that Isiah made in those playoff games.

This is the problem though. His teammates don't get credited in discussions about him. He played with two hall of fame players/defenders. One of them literally won DPOY. Twice.

And the Pistons were successful because of their defense which Isiah wasn't one of the primary reasons for.

Those championships shouldn't be enough to rank him above better players. I could understand if he was carrying the Pistons, but that wasn't how they won, they won as a team through a collective effort.

Isiah didn't even make an All-NBA team after 1987. Not even a 3rd team.