Isiah Thomas vs Chris Paul

[flow]

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.

A superhero? How about the winning narrative to make him look like even an all-star? Forget about winning a championship. He's never made the Finals. Forget about the finals, he's only gotten out of the 2nd round one time in his career.

But yeah, he's no worse a leader than anyone else. The Bad Boys would have accomplished just as much with him as they did with Zeke. Indiana U would have too. Keep on hating Isiah and rolling with your delusions.

[VanWest82]

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.

Those guys do get credit though. Where are the people suggesting that Isiah was the only reason they won?

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

Pistons had the #7 offense in 89. Yes they were great because of their defense. Isiah wasn't the key to that but he also had 2-3x as many steals as anyone else on the team in 89 & 90. He wasn't exactly someone they were hiding.

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.

The championship teams were designed so that Isiah wouldn't make all nba. They consciously made that change when they brought in Dantley and then Aquirre, and changed the identity to being a rugged defensive team with Rodman/Dumars.

It's fair say his titles as best player don't mean as much as Bird's or Magic's, but there has to be a middle ground because however you want to slice it Isiah was the most important guy on those teams (although not until the end in 90).

Let's consider Nash and Lowry as alternate barometers. They both had similar short 2-3 year peaks, Nash as a top 5 player and Lowry as a top 10 player, but didn't win. Then they had opportunities to win later in their careers with better squads, Nash in 2010 and Lowry in 2019. Nash couldn't pull it off. Lowry did but he contributed less than Isiah did in 89 or 90. Nash has two MVPs. Isiah has one FMVP. Would Nash have won his MVPs in 84-86 over Magic and Bird when Isiah was a star?

I just think we've swayed the pendulum too far away from giving Isiah credit over the last 30 years. He was still the man on those championship teams even if he wasn't a superstar like we traditionally see in that role.

[Owly]

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.

Assuming we're talking playoffs, yes? If so ...

Then you're thinking of the first title.

And "like crap" is a serious exaggeration bordering on just wrong (though maybe not relative to expectations if you're genuinely into that 80's Rushmore, "right there with" and "beat" Bird, Magic, MJ ... stuff).

He is, though, bad in the first round due to bad shooting (.423 TS%) on a relatively low load (20.5 usage) and the Piston's comfortably whip the Celtics anyway [because (1) Isiah's goodness and importance (though this is greater due to pg being weakest position for backup on paper and forcing someone out of position in reality) is overestimated by some, (2) the Celtic's they have to go through at this point are a shell of their former selves, this version, sans Bird especially so]. His slump carries on to the first game of the ECSF versus the Bucks (.267 TS%, 10 points, 5 assists) and the Pistons again win, regardless.

Thereafter he's at least fine (good, even, depending on your mental benchmark - I'm thinking for a typical player in the playoffs more than a notional best player on a champ), though rarely exceptional (best games, numerically, may be G4 VS Bulls [driven primarily by 12 assists in 32 minutes with only 2 turnovers] or G3 vs Bucks [with an efficient 26 points] or perhaps G1 vs Lakers [24pts, 9 assists, 2 turnovers in 32 mins) and perhaps somewhat uneven (vs Bulls has two further strong showings in G5, G6 two very bad ones in G1, G3).

Overall, whilst it isn't, imo, the best performance on that team playoff run (if forced to pick one I'd be looking at guys whose boxscore undersold their D, given minutes load probably Dumars, though really this is an ensemble) "choked and played like crap" seems unhelpful and inaccurate.

[prophet_of_rage]

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.

Chris Paul does play for stats. He plays for efficiency. And if you're saying Isiah had better stats then you agree he is the better player because better stats and better team results, right?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

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.

Every team wins through a collective effort. The goalposts just shift depending on how popular a player is.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Lost92Bricks]

Every team wins through a collective effort. The goalposts just shift depending on how popular a player is.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Not the way the Pistons did. Most championship teams have an MVP-level player who they rely on.

[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.

Chris Paul does play for stats. He plays for efficiency. And if you're saying Isiah had better stats then you agree he is the better player because better stats and better team results, right?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Chris Paul is the best mid range shooter in the league - which is the hardest shots to take. Most of his shots he creates for himself and most of his shots are contested. Do you believe mid-range shots are the most efficient shot in the NBA - if so, why and how come DeMar DeRozan is so inefficient?

How on earth is he playing for efficiency - did it ever dawn upon you that maybe he is perhaps an efficient player? I mean he barely has any turnovers while being leaders in both assist and hockey assist while usually anchoring elite offenses - how on earth is he "playing for stats"?

You are basically just making a blind argument. If Isiah Thomas scores the same amount of points and assist but is less efficient, how is he the one who is "not playing for stats"? Why is it not possible that Chris Paul has the same counting stats as Isiah Thomas while also being efficient because he is simply better - this isn't a sassy question, literally I want you to explain why this isn't possible.

And Chris Paul's most impressive stats are his impact stats - which are not something you can stat pad, especially when you are the primary star on your team.


Isiah Thomas team has better team results because his teams are literally better than Chris Paul's - this is the primary point, how are you piecing together that the Pistons do better because Isiah Thomas plays so much better? Where is the evidence of this?

For your stance to make sense you have to prove these two things

1) Isiah Thomas plays better than Chris Paul.

2) Isiah Thomas teammates play worse than Chris Paul's.

I don't believe it is logical for you to prove these two points simultaneously , it's pretty much impossible.

For extra points, can you explain how someone can "play for efficiency" by revolving his offense around mid-range shooting, so much to the point that they are the best mid range shooter in the league?


Notice how everyone who is pro Isiah is ducking point number two like the plague, so they have to deflect the argument to "Isiah was the best on his team - all else is irrelevant" because they, especially relative to their opponents the Pistons were more talented than Chris Paul's contending teams.

[Lost92Bricks]

But yeah, he's no worse a leader than anyone else. The Bad Boys would have accomplished just as much with him as they did with Zeke. Indiana U would have too. Keep on hating Isiah and rolling with your delusions.

The Pistons would've won a championship with any great PG. Put Kevin Johnson on those teams and they would still win.

Isiah was doing nothing special at that point in his career and KJ was better than him during those few years.

[HeartBreakKid]

But yeah, he's no worse a leader than anyone else. The Bad Boys would have accomplished just as much with him as they did with Zeke. Indiana U would have too. Keep on hating Isiah and rolling with your delusions.

The Pistons would've won a championship with any great PG. Put Kevin Johnson on those teams and they would still win.

Isiah was doing nothing special at that point in his career and KJ was better than him during those few years.

Exactly. What is Thomas argument against KJ (another guy who is supposed to be a "loser" and a bad leader [even though he was a Mayor of a major city while Thomas was the worst executive in the NBA and WNBA lol]) during those years? Like, any good all-star could have duplicated what Thomas did when the Pistons were at their most winningness.

How are guys who are arguing heavily in favor of Thomas not understanding how good the Bad Boy Pistons were? This is why it is so weird when people look at the "best player on a team" and shut their brain off about players #2, 3, 4, 5. The Bad Boy Pistons had five guys who were all-stars for years...that is insanity.

[prophet_of_rage]

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.

Chris Paul does play for stats. He plays for efficiency. And if you're saying Isiah had better stats then you agree he is the better player because better stats and better team results, right?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Chris Paul is the best mid range shooter in the league - which is the hardest shots to take. Most of his shots he creates for himself and most of his shots are contested. Do you believe mid-range shots are the most efficient shot in the NBA - if so, why and how come DeMar DeRozan is so inefficient?

How on earth is he playing for efficiency - did it ever dawn upon you that maybe he is perhaps an efficient player? I mean he barely has any turnovers while being leaders in both assist and hockey assist while usually anchoring elite offenses - how on earth is he "playing for stats"?

You are basically just making a blind argument. If Isiah Thomas scores the same amount of points and assist but is less efficient, how is he the one who is "not playing for stats"? Why is it not possible that Chris Paul has the same counting stats as Isiah Thomas while also being efficient because he is simply better - this isn't a sassy question, literally I want you to explain why this isn't possible.

And Chris Paul's most impressive stats are his impact stats - which are not something you can stat pad, especially when you are the primary star on your team.


Isiah Thomas team has better team results because his teams are literally better than Chris Paul's - this is the primary point, how are you piecing together that the Pistons do better because Isiah Thomas plays so much better? Where is the evidence of this?

For your stance to make sense you have to prove these two things

1) Isiah Thomas plays better than Chris Paul.

2) Isiah Thomas teammates play worse than Chris Paul's.

I don't believe it is logical for you to prove these two points simultaneously , it's pretty much impossible.

For extra points, can you explain how someone can "play for efficiency" by revolving his offense around mid-range shooting, so much to the point that they are the best mid range shooter in the league?


Notice how everyone who is pro Isiah is ducking point number two like the plague, so they have to deflect the argument to "Isiah was the best on his team - all else is irrelevant" because they, especially relative to their opponents the Pistons were more talented than Chris Paul's contending teams.

You take careful shots, you make careful passes, you don't take risks. Paul does not take risks. That's playing for efficiency. Derozan spams tough twos versus Paul's open 2s.

Yes Isiah had great teammates who knew their roles and played great basketball. And Isiah was the best player of the lot of them and drove them to champiinships and was their Finals.MVP. So he was the King of Kings on the Pistons and good enough to get two championships while getting numbers. Chris Paul cannot get wins and he had a great team with the Lob City Clippers and Houston. He only got to the conference finals once. It is what it is. Thomas is better.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Lost92Bricks]

You take careful shots, you make careful passes, you don't take risks. Paul does not take risks. That's playing for efficiency. Derozan spams tough twos versus Paul's open 2s.

Yes Isiah had great teammates who knew their roles and played great basketball. And Isiah was the best player of the lot of them and drove them to champiinships and was their Finals.MVP. So he was the King of Kings on the Pistons and good enough to get two championships while getting numbers. Chris Paul cannot get wins and he had a great team with the Lob City Clippers and Houston. He only got to the conference finals once. It is what it is. Thomas is better.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

You don't watch Chris Paul play. He's one of the best isolation players in the league and creates the majority of his points off the dribble. Alot of times he hits shots over bigs. Like this...

Watch on YouTube

He's so much more efficient than Isiah because he's a better shooter and a better ballhandler.

[Lost92Bricks]

This was the last game Chris played in. I see exactly one open "safe" shot in the video on a fastbreak. Most of it is pull up jumpers over defenders.

Watch on YouTube

[HeartBreakKid]

Chris Paul is 5'11 and not fast - the idea that he is scoring only on wide open shots is completely illogical. I mean there are literally highlight videos of every point Chris Paul ever scored, and it is obvious he creates his own shot (who else would for him?) and hits mid range pull up jumpers, which are the least safe shot in the game.


Maybe having incredible handles, high basketball IQ and good shooting touch would lead to him being incredibly efficient - that sounds pretty logical to me - or we could just say he is a stat padder, with zero basis behind that statement. And even if CP3 was a statpadder, why on earth wouldn't he stat pad his points and assist?

Those would have gotten him way more media recognition and the average dumb fan loves that stuff, he's going to stat pad his +/- , turnovers and TS%? Now I have heard everything.


A 5'11 player who is ball dominant, that scores a larger percentage of his shots off of 2 point jumpers than anyone else, who averages less than 20 points every season of his career except two - is a stat padder. Chris Paul doesn't even have the option of getting put backs, transition dunks, or someone to lob to him because of his size and lack of athleticism. If anything one of his bigger criticisms is that he is overly reliant on half court play, and doesn't like to play fast which might lead to easy buckets. This is among the crazier arguments I've heard recently.

[prophet_of_rage]

You lot keep shifting the goalposts and the arguments to suit your impossible narrative. Isiah is the better player. He won more as the focal point of his team and had better numbers.

Paul supporters said you couldn't use the championsjips because Isiah had a better team.

Paul supporters said he was more efficient than Thomas which made him better. I said Paul plays for his efficiency stats ... not stat padding. I said he was careful with his shots and passing.

Then it was raised if he was so concerned about efficiency why did he take mid range shots. The answer is he is shooting within his range and is making on balance and open 2s.

The last poster said his percentages showed he was a better shooter and ballhandler and admitted he was criticised for playing slow in the half court and left easy scoring chances on the table.

So if this guy is a better shooter and handler than Isiah and has al worse team why doesn't he shoot more in an effort to win? This indicates he either a) doesn't care about winning, b) can't perform any better, or c) could do more if he sacrificed efficiency for results. All how it shows that Isiah was better in his era than Paul in his and is the better player in a sport where the goal is winning.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[HeartBreakKid]

Wow, your logical conclusion is "If this guy is a better shooter and handler, then why doesn't he shoot more to win"

For one, in the playoffs, Chris Paul does score more.

Two, most of Chris Paul's teams have elite offenses - they are not losing because people are not shooting enough. This argument makes no sense, and you are basically just over simplifying basketball and saying ppg >.

Three, you still haven't explained why he is "stat padding" his efficiency. Because he takes shots that he makes...? That's called being a good shot creator and shooter - does Dirk and Steph Curry stat pad also? They are making shots within their range. Also, the whole "open 2" thing is totally baseless - there is literally a video posted where he is regularly shooting over double teams, much less contested shots.

Four, the real crux of your argument is that Isiah Thomas is better because his team won more. You are trying to pass some type of illogical fallacy that - if Chris Paul was better than Isiah Thomas then he has to have won more, as if you are unaware that basketball is not a team sport. No, Chris Paul does not have to play better to win. The argument that why doesn't Chris Paul do more to achieve similar success to Isiah Thomas makes literally no sense, even Kareem Abdul Jabar used to lose a ton - as there is only so much one player can do, that isn't proof that an inferior player who has won more was actually better in hindsight.

This is my last post on this particular sub argument - because anyone reading this with any shred of logic already sees how "Thomas is better because he plays to win and Chris Paul plays for stats" even though Chris Paul doesn't have any glory stats and his play style only works if you're incredibly good is a ridiculous assertion. You should look up what "confirmation bias" is - and ironically, when Isiah Thomas had his best stats his team did not win.

Maybe at best - I might come back and literally pick any random Chris Paul video where he is scoring and time stamp them for you (as you seemingly ignored the video of him playing against the Celtics, which isn't even his prime) - so you can explain to me how he is taking "open safe" shots.

[Lost92Bricks]

You lot keep shifting the goalposts and the arguments to suit your impossible narrative. Isiah is the better player. He won more as the focal point of his team and had better numbers.

Paul supporters said you couldn't use the championsjips because Isiah had a better team.

Paul supporters said he was more efficient than Thomas which made him better. I said Paul plays for his efficiency stats ... not stat padding. I said he was careful with his shots and passing.

Then it was raised if he was so concerned about efficiency why did he take mid range shots. The answer is he is shooting within his range and is making on balance and open 2s.

The last poster said his percentages showed he was a better shooter and ballhandler and admitted he was criticised for playing slow in the half court and left easy scoring chances on the table.

So if this guy is a better shooter and handler than Isiah and has al worse team why doesn't he shoot more in an effort to win? This indicates he either a) doesn't care about winning, b) can't perform any better, or c) could do more if he sacrificed efficiency for results. All how it shows that Isiah was better in his era than Paul in his and is the better player in a sport where the goal is winning.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

He scores more than Isiah in the playoffs.

Isiah in his first championship only scored 18 PPG on 41% shooting. Chris lost most of his playoff series averaging 23, 24, 25 PPG.

Their teams are totally different. Isiah didn't have to do that much to win, they weren't reliant on him.

[iggymcfrack]

You lot keep shifting the goalposts and the arguments to suit your impossible narrative. Isiah is the better player. He won more as the focal point of his team and had better numbers.

Paul supporters said you couldn't use the championsjips because Isiah had a better team.

Paul supporters said he was more efficient than Thomas which made him better. I said Paul plays for his efficiency stats ... not stat padding. I said he was careful with his shots and passing.

Then it was raised if he was so concerned about efficiency why did he take mid range shots. The answer is he is shooting within his range and is making on balance and open 2s.

The last poster said his percentages showed he was a better shooter and ballhandler and admitted he was criticised for playing slow in the half court and left easy scoring chances on the table.

So if this guy is a better shooter and handler than Isiah and has al worse team why doesn't he shoot more in an effort to win? This indicates he either a) doesn't care about winning, b) can't perform any better, or c) could do more if he sacrificed efficiency for results. All how it shows that Isiah was better in his era than Paul in his and is the better player in a sport where the goal is winning.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Per possession, Chris Paul scores more points on less shots, gets more rebounds, more assists, more steals, and has less turnovers. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Isiah has “better numbers”? The only category where he outperforms Paul is blocks and Paul’s a much, much better overall defender. Just because Isiah put up slightly better bulk numbers in an era with such high pace and weak defense that his team literally scored 186 points in an NBA game and barely won doesn’t mean he had “better numbers”.

[Hal14]

You lot keep shifting the goalposts and the arguments to suit your impossible narrative. Isiah is the better player. He won more as the focal point of his team and had better numbers.

Paul supporters said you couldn't use the championsjips because Isiah had a better team.

Paul supporters said he was more efficient than Thomas which made him better. I said Paul plays for his efficiency stats ... not stat padding. I said he was careful with his shots and passing.

Then it was raised if he was so concerned about efficiency why did he take mid range shots. The answer is he is shooting within his range and is making on balance and open 2s.

The last poster said his percentages showed he was a better shooter and ballhandler and admitted he was criticised for playing slow in the half court and left easy scoring chances on the table.

So if this guy is a better shooter and handler than Isiah and has al worse team why doesn't he shoot more in an effort to win? This indicates he either a) doesn't care about winning, b) can't perform any better, or c) could do more if he sacrificed efficiency for results. All how it shows that Isiah was better in his era than Paul in his and is the better player in a sport where the goal is winning.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Per possession, Chris Paul scores more points on less shots, gets more rebounds, more assists, more steals, and has less turnovers. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Isiah has “better numbers”? The only category where he outperforms Paul is blocks and Paul’s a much, much better overall defender. Just because Isiah put up slightly better bulk numbers in an era with such high pace and weak defense that his team literally scored 186 points in an NBA game and barely won doesn’t mean he had “better numbers”.

1) The fact that you think the 80s was weak defense throws your credibility out the window. The game where the Pistons scored 186 points...that was ONE game...so what? Out of the 9 highest scoring games in NBA history, 4 of them were played during Isiah's career and 3 of them were played during Paul's career. 4 to 3, I don't think that's a statistically significant difference, do you?

Higher scoring numbers in the 80s had much more to do with better offense than weak defense. The 80s was the pinnacle of unselfish, team play, passing, ball movement, hitting the open man, giving up a good look at the basket to get a teammate open for a better one, pushing the ball quickly in transition to score before the defense gets set. Better shot shot selection, working the ball inside for quality looks from the post, or guys hitting quality looks from the mid range area. Players were more fundamentally sound. The rise of the And-1 mixtape tour in the early 2000s resulted in youth players picking up tons of bad habits, kids came up through the ranks practicing half court shots, alley oops and bouncing the ball off an opponent's head, plays they could never do in a real game. You also had the rise of AAU, the amount of AAU teams in the circuit grow exponentially. It went from a small number of AAU teams who spent more time practicing the fundamentals and played in less games to way more teams, playing tons of games (often times 2 or 3, if not more games in a day) and very little practice of the fundamentals. Not to mention more times in the league, so talent across the league watered down, etc.

Defenses in Paul's era you can't touch the offensive player, no hand checking, no hard fouls, defensive 3 seconds so no big men waiting in the paint to contest shots, etc.

2) Higher pace in the 80s would actually help to explain why Isiah had lower efficiency. The more possessions per game = more tired/fatigued the players get from having to keep up with a faster paced game (not to mention less advancements in strength and conditioning, nutrition, sports science that modern players benefit from, modern players also are less tired/fatigued because there's more days off in between games, less physical play, etc.) so if players are more tired/fatigued it would help to explain lower efficiency.

[iggymcfrack]

You lot keep shifting the goalposts and the arguments to suit your impossible narrative. Isiah is the better player. He won more as the focal point of his team and had better numbers.

Paul supporters said you couldn't use the championsjips because Isiah had a better team.

Paul supporters said he was more efficient than Thomas which made him better. I said Paul plays for his efficiency stats ... not stat padding. I said he was careful with his shots and passing.

Then it was raised if he was so concerned about efficiency why did he take mid range shots. The answer is he is shooting within his range and is making on balance and open 2s.

The last poster said his percentages showed he was a better shooter and ballhandler and admitted he was criticised for playing slow in the half court and left easy scoring chances on the table.

So if this guy is a better shooter and handler than Isiah and has al worse team why doesn't he shoot more in an effort to win? This indicates he either a) doesn't care about winning, b) can't perform any better, or c) could do more if he sacrificed efficiency for results. All how it shows that Isiah was better in his era than Paul in his and is the better player in a sport where the goal is winning.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Per possession, Chris Paul scores more points on less shots, gets more rebounds, more assists, more steals, and has less turnovers. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Isiah has “better numbers”? The only category where he outperforms Paul is blocks and Paul’s a much, much better overall defender. Just because Isiah put up slightly better bulk numbers in an era with such high pace and weak defense that his team literally scored 186 points in an NBA game and barely won doesn’t mean he had “better numbers”.

1) The fact that you think the 80s was weak defense throws your credibility out the window. The game where the Pistons scored 186 points...that was ONE game...so what? Out of the 9 highest scoring games in NBA history, 4 of them were played during Isiah's career and 3 of them were played during Paul's career. 4 to 3, I don't think that's a statistically significant difference, do you?

Higher scoring numbers in the 80s had much more to do with better offense than weak defense. The 80s was the pinnacle of unselfish, team play, passing, ball movement, hitting the open man, giving up a good look at the basket to get a teammate open for a better one, pushing the ball quickly in transition to score before the defense gets set. Better shot shot selection, working the ball inside for quality looks from the post, or guys hitting quality looks from the mid range area. Players were more fundamentally sound. The rise of the And-1 mixtape tour in the early 2000s resulted in youth players picking up tons of bad habits, kids came up through the ranks practicing half court shots, alley oops and bouncing the ball off an opponent's head, plays they could never do in a real game. You also had the rise of AAU, the amount of AAU teams in the circuit grow exponentially. It went from a small number of AAU teams who spent more time practicing the fundamentals and played in less games to way more teams, playing tons of games (often times 2 or 3, if not more games in a day) and very little practice of the fundamentals. Not to mention more times in the league, so talent across the league watered down, etc.

Defenses in Paul's era you can't touch the offensive player, no hand checking, no hard fouls, defensive 3 seconds so no big men waiting in the paint to contest shots, etc.

2) Higher pace in the 80s would actually help to explain why Isiah had lower efficiency. The more possessions per game = more tired/fatigued the players get from having to keep up with a faster paced game (not to mention less advancements in strength and conditioning, nutrition, sports science that modern players benefit from, modern players also are less tired/fatigued because there's more days off in between games, less physical play, etc.) so if players are more tired/fatigued it would help to explain lower efficiency.

This is a terrible argument. Try watching an actual regular season game from the '80s. You had to go like 5 feet inside the 3-point line for anyone to even guard you unless you were Jordan or Bird. The complicated schemes for rotation after rotation to keep well spaced teams full of good shooters from getting open looks from 3 were decades away. The average NBA defender probably runs like a mile a game now just trying to avoid giving up shots that weren't even contested in the '80s. Saying the '80s were the pinnacle of team play, ball movement and shot selection is like saying the 1800s were the pinnacle of chess strategy. That's how far behind they were. I know you don't believe me, but I challenge you to just watch ONE QUARTER of any '80s regular season game and tell me I don't have a point. They're all over YouTube.

[Lost92Bricks]

Defenses in Paul's era you can't touch the offensive player, no hand checking, no hard fouls, defensive 3 seconds so no big men waiting in the paint to contest shots, etc.

This would make CP3 an even better defender. He would average over 3 steals every year if he could legally handcheck and play physical on the perimeter.