Where Does Nash Rank Among The Greatest PGs Of All Time?

Except that you mention an example of another player causing a "team turnaround" that wasn't actually a turnaround. Nash took a 29-win team and turned them into a 62-win team without that team making a coaching change or any other roster changes. Every player in the rotation suddenly had a career year when Nash arrived.

And Steve Nash has not had just one great season. He won two MVPs. He's been great for the last 6 years at least.

 

That 2006 heat team was pretty stacked.

 

Isiah lovers, your arguments are an insult to the other players on those Pistons teams.

Dumars: Incredibly talented offensive and defensive player. He not only won MVP of the 1st Finals but also was the major force in shutting down Jordan 2 years in a row.

Rodman: Best 1v1 defender of the late 80's and early 90's.

etc.

I would take either of those guys over Amare any day.

This "leadership" thing about Isiah is completely subjective. Based on how they've performed after their playing careers, I'm inclined to believe that Dumars was more important to Pistons psyche than Isiah.

Joe D built the 2004 championship team. Isiah is the reason we were able to fleece New York at the trade deadline this year.

 

Nash lovers, your arguments are an insult to Amare, Marion, Johnson, and the other players on the Suns.

The "leadership" thing about Nash is completely subjective.

So, now you're gonna use post-playing career as a leadership criteria? Is that why Magic was so successful as a coach and Jordan was so successful as a GM? Geez, man, you're burying yourself in stupid arguments. How hard is it to understand that there's no way Nash is head-and-shoulders above Thomas, that it is perfectly understandable how they would be evenly ranked, and that it is very easy to understand how Thomas is a better all-around player?

This is absolutely ridiculous- it's like trying to argue with the Iraq Minister of Information:

You're saying that Detroit had a much, much more talented team than the Suns? B.S. Amare Stoudamire, while not being as good as Dumars, was definitely a much more potent offensive threat while being much weaker defensively. Go look at the numbers, something which seems to be anathema with you.

You're saying that Thomas wasn't a leader on that team? Well, this just proves that you didn't follow the Pistons as closely as you claim to- there are numerous accounts from Laimbeer, Salley, Rodman, Microwave, Dumars, Mahorn, etc. that, although they prided themselves on their team, that Isiah was unquestionably the leader of that team. Do a little research- you'd be surprised what you'd find. But that would mean you'd have to put your bias against Thomas out of the way, which would probably be very difficult for you.

There's not a huge, huge gap between Isiah and Nash. But Isiah is, when looking at all factors involved, including individual and team performance, the better overall player. For now. When Nash retires, we can easily revisit the argument and see if it's different.

 

Regardless of what people think, I found Bill Simmons' little write up recently on Nash to be very appropriate for this thread.

Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part2/100416&sportCat=nba

 

My point about leadership is this: you can't rate it objectively. You can assert that Isiah "led" his Pistons team, but as I said it's subjective. I did not say Nash is a better leader. I said that "leadership" is a stat that should be ignored since we can't evaluate it fairly.

So, if you indeed want to make this a numbers argument, then here are their individual stats. I focus on %-based stats because raw stats like total assists do not account for pace changes, which are different from the 80's game and for the current game.

To keep it simple, let me just quote career stats. Interestingly, Isiah retired when he was only 34 years old, while Nash is still playing at 36.

PER TS% eFG% ASST% TOV% STL%
Nash 20.2 .605 .556 40.3 18.8 1.3
Thomas 18.1 .516 0.465 37.4 16.8 2.5

What we see is that Isiah has a slight edge in TOV% and a big edge in STL%. Their ASST numbers are close enough that there's no point in giving Nash an edge. The main story is that Isiah's TS% and eFG% are actually not much above average, despite his rep as a scorer. Meanwhile Nash's are essentially the best in PG history. Nash also has a significant edge in PER.

I sense the counterargument is Isiah 2:0 on championships. Of course that's true, but then you get into the leadership argument again, which we can't resolve.

 

you maybe right
Thought Shaq and Zo weren't SHAQ AND ZO

Rocket River

 

One other thing about why it's hard to ascribe too much credit based on leadership: teams do have coaches too.

 

No, the counterarguments are several:

1. Who is the better defensive player?
2. Why should all-time totals not count? I mean, if we're going to go by pure percentages, Chris Paul probably has better numbers than both. I'm not saying percentages can't be used, but all-time totals should be a factor, as well.

Here's something else to think about, also. Look at Isiah's assist average and totals. Not only did he have a season in which he averaged 13.1 assists per game (1984-1985), more in a single season than Nash has ever reached, but he also has a career 9.3 assist average over his career which was entirely with the Detroit Pistons. I don't know about you, but I think it would be much harder to achieve those numbers for an obviously defense-oriented team like the Pistons of the 80s as opposed to D'Antoni's Suns of the 2000s.

As far as Nash's longevity, he has played exactly 1 more season (14) than Isiah (13). The whole late-bloomer excuse is crap- why should Isiah be "penalized" in this aspect because he started off by averaging 17 points in his rookie year and 22 the next. Was Steve Nash injured those first 4 years? Nope. Just wasn't good enough at the time. So, even though Nash has 1 more year over Isiah, Thomas has more career assists, more points, and more steals. And he achieved his assist totals with the Pistons, a much lower-scoring team than the Suns of the 2000s.

 

Oh, I completely agree. Nash is up there, no doubt. Top 10 point guard, definitely. For various reasons, could definitely make an argument for top 5 and it would definitely be reasonable. Less reasonable is to put him ahead of Thomas, although he does have advantages over Thomas- he just falls short in enough categories right now to be below Isiah. And he's not cracking the top 3 of Magic, Stockton, and Robertson anytime soon. Think of it this way- although I don't agree, some would rank the all-time centers as such: Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Shaq, and Olajuwon (I think Olajuwon could go as high as #1). But is ranking Dream #5 here an insult? Absolutely not. Neither is putting Nash at 5. He may very well be in the top 4 or 3 when it's all said and done, but ranking Nash #3 all time is much more about the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately argument, and the fact that he's currently playing, than anything else.

 

Isiah. No argument there. I already conceded his stl%.

Chris Paul is the man, yes. If he lasts then he'll probably surpass both.
PER TS% eFG% ASST% TO% STL%
Paul 25.6 0.570 0.503 46.8 13.2 3.4

Nash actually shoots significantly better than Paul (who shoots noticeably better than Isiah). The most obscene thing about Paul is his incredibly low TO% and crazy high STL%.

Anyway, regarding all-time totals, there's really not much point in comparing Isiah and Nash since they are pretty similar. I only brought that up since Thomas's early retirement would tend to boost his % numbers.

Asst % accounts for this, as it's assists per basket. Nash actually assists a higher fraction of his teams scores than Isiah.

Again, I only mentioned the career longevity because it influences the interpretation of the %. I don't see any better judge than the % numbers above. If you want to quibble about absolute totals differentiating Nash and Isiah, then bring on your "Robert Parish was the best center of alltime" arguments.

 

IMHO, Nash would be top 10 but not top 5.

 

I'll end it with this: if I had to choose between Isiah in his prime and Nash, I'm taking Thomas without blinking. If I had to pick a point guard, regardless of era, to lead my team, I'm choosing Magic, then the Big O (even though I rank Stockton higher, I can't take a Jazz alumni #2), then Stockton, then Thomas, then I'm either taking Nash, Kidd, Payton, or Frazier- I would have to seriously think about that one, though. The top 4 are without question, for various reasons.

On a personal note, and this really can't be used in a debate, I think Isiah was a much fiercer competitor than Nash and a better clutch player. If my goal is to win a championship, I'm choosing Isiah, not just because he helped his team win 2, but also because I'd feel he has the take-over-the-game ability to push my team further towards that goal than Nash. I can't even begin to list how many 80s games I've watched, and I've of course been watching the NBA since 2000, and my judgment of Isiah vs. Nash is not only based on the numbers, and the team success, but what I actually witnessed. Really, based on that alone, Isiah was clearly better- and I would venture to say very underrated- maybe due to size, maybe due to the whole Bad Boys thing, but I think he was much, much better as a player and competitor than even the great numbers indicate. So, Intergalactic, at least you provided criteria and made a great case for Nash- totally respect that and I do see your point. But that other person who said that it was a ridiculous argument to put Thomas over Nash except for team success, that's a fool w/o a clue.

 

I'm not going to waste time looking at irrelevant data where Nash came off the bench or was part of a set offense (where he wasn't the first option). Let's compare their best 6 year span where they each ran the team. For Nash, it's his 2nd stint w/ the Suns, and for Isiah, its the 84-89 seasons.

In those spans, Nash has shoots better from the field, shoots far better from the 3 pt line and ft line, has more assists, and has fewer turnovers.

Isiah has the better defensive stats (steals, blocks, rebounds), but the effects of a defensively weaker pg can be mitigated by a defensive-minded center. Let's not forget that Nash is also clutch. If the game is going down to the wire, you can bet that the ball will be run through Nash.

Essentially, Nash is superior to Thomas in the majority of statistics that are important for a PG. Not only that, but Nash's accolades (2 MVP's) are more impressive than Isiah's.

So for their most effective years, if Nash is superior statistically and has better individual accomplishments, then the only way that a Thomas/Nash comparison has any legitimacy is if you look at team accomplishments (Pistons' 2 championships).

 

yet nash never made it to the finals.....

 

1. Why is offense more important for a point guard than defense?
2. What statistics are important for a point guard, besides assists (which Isiah has more of than Nash and a higher career average, to boot)? If we're going to look at rating a select group of seasons, how about 3 instead of 6? Tell you what, I'll compare the last 3 seasons between Chris Paul and Nash, prove to you that Paul was a better point guard, and then say, "Now, based on that, Chris Paul should definitely be ranked as a top 3 point guard!!!"
3. If Nash is clutch, why hasn't he proven it in the playoffs when it really counted?
4. Why should it be irrelevant data for the first 4 seasons? Should it be held against Thomas that he was a great point guard right from the start, heck even in college (national championship with the Hoosiers)?
5. The most important question of all: how much basketball did you watch between 1984 and 1990? How much between 2004 and 2010? That will really answer it all right there.


Go type in Best Point Guards of All Time and see exactly where the majority of people think Thomas ranks and where Nash ranks. Thomas is consistently ranked between #3 and #5, whereas Nash is usually at about #8, and in some polls, he isn't even in the top 10. Are you going to call all the ESPN analysts fools? How about all the fan polls? Go look it up- whether it's ESPN, The Sporting News, Bleacher Report, or any of the other 15 sites with these fan, player, and sportswriter polls, Isiah is almost always ranked top 5. Did he fool us somehow?

No. For someone who was critical of cherry-picking, man, you've got several bushels. Let's ignore looking at both players' entire career, let's just "cherry pick" the best seasons. Let's ignore looking at defense, let's "cherry pick" offense and say that shooting percentage is a much, much, much better statistic for a point guard (it should rank like this, according to you: Top Criteria for a Point Guard: 1. Assists, 2. Field Goal Percentage, 3. Free Throw Percentage, 4. 3 Point Percentage, 5. Overall Points, 6. Steals, etc. Sure, because it's obvious that a great point guard has to be better offensively than defensively, because of the center argument, right?).

Let's just look at it this way so we can end the debate:

CRITERIA FOR RANKING STEVE NASH LIGHT-YEARS AHEAD OF ISIAH THOMAS:

1. Better shooter.
2. Led the Phoenix Suns to a 32-game regular season turnaround.
3. 2 MVPs.







4. Less assists than Thomas
5. Lower career assist percentage than Thomas
6. Lower scoring average than Thomas
7. Less points than Thomas
8. Less steals than Thomas
9. Less blocks/rebounds than Thomas
10. Less consistent career than Thomas
11. Less championships than Thomas (2-0)
12. Less NBA Finals appearances than Thomas (3-0)
13. Less assist average in his best season than Thomas (13.3-11.9)
14. Less playoffs stats than Thomas (playing only 5 less playoff games than Thomas)
15. Less 1st Team All-NBAs than Thomas
16. Less All-Star appearances than Thomas
17. Less Finals MVPs than Thomas 1-0)
18. Less all-time records than Thomas
19. Less Hall-of-Fame inductions than Thomas (1-0) :grin:
20. Less overall greatness than Thomas.


You win. #s 1-3 obviously supercede #s 4-20. Absolutely. Congrats.

You know, John Stockton obviously has a low opinion of Thomas, too:

http://blog.mlive.com/fullcourtpress/2009/09/isiah_thomas_to_officially_pre.html

Isiah Thomas to officially present John Stockton at Hall of Fame ceremony
By Justin Rogers | MLive.com
September 10, 2009, 12:17PM
In a somewhat surprising selection, former Utah Jazz guard John Stockton has selected Isiah Thomas to be his official presenter during his enshrinement into the Basketball Hall of Fame.

September 9, Salt Lake City Tribune: "I ran up against him once in high school and he changed my entire view of basketball," Stockton said. "We played in an AAU tournament and I have never seen anything like it."
Beyond the game, Thomas caught Stockton's attention with some good deeds.

"He's done some things behind the scenes that people don't know about," Stockton said. "I'm certainly not going to talk about them now ... but he's shown a lot of class."

 

Because a defensive big can compensate.

First of all, Nash's career averages are skewed downward due to his Dallas days. Secondly, Isiah may have more assists now, but not by the end of next season. Thirdly, shooting percentages and turnovers are also important statistics for point guards.

It seems obvious that when you're comparing Nash to anyone, you're referring to his 2nd stint with Phoenix.

He faced better teams than his own. All the clutchness in the world can't help a player if his team is outmatched.

When you're referring to Nash in a "GOAT" context, its clearly not referring to his first few seasons. Your continued attempts to include them just shows that you feel the need to manipulate data to prove your point.

Started watching in the late 80's. Does my age somehow alter Nash's shooting percentages or assist numbers?

They base their list on different criteria. Kidd is faulted b/c he never won a title. Of course Nash is going to be even lower in those lists b/c he never got to the finals.

As I've said, Nash didn't even sniff a "GOAT" list until he joined Phoenix for the second time. So why bother discussing his days before Phoenix when his Phoenix days provide an adequate sample size?

This should change by the end of next season.

This is due to his Dallas days. When he ran the offense in Phoenix, his assist numbers were higher than Thomas's.

Absolutely irrelevant. Shooting percentage is the more important than numbers. And Nash has much better shooting percentages than Thomas.

Yes, Thomas was the superior defender.

Nash played the way the coach wanted him to. There's nothing inconsistent about that. When they both had complete control of the offenses, Nash was consistently better than Thomas.

Like I said, Thomas's postseason success is the reason there's even a discussion. We all know Nash will be in the HOF so that's an irrelevant point. And Nash's MVP's trump any all-star appearances or all-NBA teams.

 

Complete and utter bulls**t. Let's see, using your he-didn't-make-the-Finals due to the teams he's played against, how about I argue this: Thomas didn't win an MVP between 1984 and 1992 because here are the individuals who did: Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and Michael Jordan. That's it. Put any top player in the 2000s against these three.

That's the fact. It's fortunate that there's even a discussion based on Nash's performance the last 6 seasons; otherwise, it would be completely ludicrous to compare Nash to Thomas, as Thomas was much better defensively, equal in assists, and slightly less offensively- and he did it all 13 seasons. Thomas clearly had the better career up to now, and was clearly a better player- you really should watch ESPN Classic for some old Pistons' playoff games- people who have watched both play know exactly what I'm talking about.


Like I said, congrats on your 3 criteria trumping the other 17. Well done.

 

First of all, the 3 criteria I listed do trump yours. So thank you, it is a job well done. Secondly, you can't deny that Nash earned his MVP's. Have you ever seen a turnaround of such magnitude that wasn't the result of injury? Thirdly, keep in mind that Nash was 30 when he joined Phoenix and was given the green light. If he were given the green light in his mid-twenties, who knows what his numbers could've been.

I agree that Thomas had a better career, but he isnt "clearly" a better player. And Thomas was more than "slightly less offensively" than Nash. The percentages speak for themselves.

 

Pistol. Pete. Maravich.

RIP