Rishkar wrote:Yeah, I'm 18 and never got to watch IT play live. I edited the poll to add more options, I never realized how many people rank Thomas so highly. He has the advanced statistics of Earl Monroe, placed 69th in POY shares (right next to Penny Hardway), only finished top 5 in MVP voting one in the second weakest era of shotclock basketball, didn't make Ben Taylor's top 40 careers in NBA history, and placed significantly behind all the players originally included in the poll in the 2020 top 100 project (where he is yet to be even nominated this year). As a genuine question, besides being the best player on the historically deep Pistons squad's championship runs, where was he elite? Why would he be ranked this highly, or do people just rank rings really highly? His number's are underselling his impact, so what was he doing that didn't show up in a stat sheet?
He did make Ben Taylor's top 40 list per the Fall 2022 update fwiw (39th). There's a podcast episode about it.
I will try to give a genuine answer/opinion from going on an old game binge. I grew up watching late 90s/early 2000s and only went back to watch a bunch of old games in the 80s out of interest in the Celtics/Lakers/Pistons era, and I was impressed:People do rank rings highly, and people sometimes forget the Detroit roster depth fit around him well. They also attribute a lot of the team's success to his leadership. That said, his overall profile is of an elite two-way slashing point guard who stepped up under the spotlight, who scored because he had to, but was an elite playmaker, scrappy defender, and effective team leader.
For me watching, I would say stats don't tell the full story in multiple ways. For basic stats, we can use steals, assists, and shooting efficiency as good examples. On paper they are just numbers... but:
-
Steals can be overrated because of people gambling and screwing up their coverages. But a lot of IT's steals were just straight up on-ball rips or successful swipes/ball pokes, not diving for risky interceptions or trying to sneak up on someone. And he was generally pesky on the ball, played hard in the playoffs, and made the right rotations.
-
Assists can sometimes be inflated, the "Rondo assist" or Stockton getting something from a Karl Malone post-up and all that. But most of IT's assists were from good playmaking (like slashing and drawing in defense then dropping it to someone in the dunker spot), pick and pop (with Laimbeer for example), and showing great court vision with difficult passes (occasional fast outlets, bullet pass between defenders to cutters). There was nobody he could just dump the ball to and let them work. Some might argue the Pistons should have done that more through Dantley in 88, but choosing a more dynamic offense vs iso ball is a topic for another day. Dumars was a better shooter for sure but didn't really have as much speed or handles to create his own shot, even if he could do it decently at times.
-
IT's shooting efficiency was quite low, but there's a difference between a chucker who ignores open teammates vs someone who will force a bad shot when there aren't clear better options available (and sometimes makes difficult ones anyway). IT was very much more in the latter category, so that's why a lot of fans who watched him give him a pass for his shooting. It's not too unlike the discourse surrounding Kobe and why a lot of players still give him so much respect despite his more questionable efficiency numbers. Kobe was a better scorer and worse (though underrated) passer/playmaker than IT who did actually chuck at times, but I think you get the idea.
This sounds like I'm saying his playoffs steals/assists were worth more than the average league steal/assist, and his mediocre TS% is more excusable than typical mediocre TS% players. And, well, that's exactly what I'm saying

. It's what I saw in his playoff games, and is probably why a lot of older fans who watch it are so quick to dismiss the stat arguments.
In addition:
-
Steps up in the playoffs, which the stats also show, and people respect that. I really think the "playoff Jimmy" analogy is apt for recent fans. It would be better if these "playoff risers" played at their best all season like some of the ATGs, but being a playoff riser is still better than being a regular season player.
- Pretty sure he had the
actual best handles for that era. Not saying this should necessarily weigh highly, but it definitely contributes to his image.
- He didn't truly beat Magic Lakers/Bird Celtics/MJ Bulls at their absolute peaks, but he
did beat all of them when they were still deep playoff-level/contending teams in the late 80s. This analogy isn't perfect, but if someone beat 2016 OKC + GSW in the west and then beat 2016 Cavs in the finals as the #1 offensive player on the team, they would have a special aura too.
-
He could impact the game even on bad shooting nights with hustle and IQ, and in this sense he is a clear cut above someone like Harden. Fans love hustle. People talk about some of his crazy scoring showings, but an underrated example is Detroit vs Washington game 5 in the 1988 playoffs. He shot 7/15 from 2 and 0/1 from 3 (2/2 FTs), but had 5 great steals (4 on-ball, 1 from a double) and 11 assists (1 turnover). One of my favorites from this game is watching him swipe the ball away from someone in front of him 1 on 1 on the fast break, and within like half a second he just outlet passes it to the other side of the court while falling out of bounds for an easy layup.
This might not convince you or everyone but hopefully it gives some perspective. He was an all-time two-way point guard, but with an extra edge when it mattered in the postseason that others on the list haven't typically shown.