Isiah Thomas vs Steve Nash - Who was the better player?

[RRR3]

Yes it does. It proves his lack of D, as well as his teammates, cost the Suns games. And if you really want first hand proof, watch the Suns/Spurs series from '05. The extra coverage Phoenix sent to help Nash resulted in Duncan putting up games of 15, 16, and 15 rebounds. Had Nash been able to handle Parker, we might have seen a different outcome.





I am easily one of the most knowledgable posters here. You are simply a Nash homer and the fact that you use one statistical argument and use it as holy numbers shows you know nothing. Funny how you accuse me of using the ring excuse while you use stats that only show one end of the court. You my friend, failed miserably.





Nothing is worse than people that rely on stats without watching the games.

How does it prove "his lack of D"? Those stats are close to Terry's career scoring averages. Now, don't get me wrong, Nash is trash (lol I rhymed!) on defense, but I am just pointing out that you citing Terry scoring right around his average while being guarded by Nash isn't a very good way to prove Nash sucks on defense.

[SunsCaptain]

Well there is no hope for him and I realize it is pointless arguing with delusional people on the internet...to the ignore list for awhile.

But don't worry I'll remove you at some point...If I see you are contributing well.

Stay classy!

[D.J.]

How does it prove "his lack of D"? Those stats are close to Terry's career scoring averages. Now, don't get me wrong, Nash is trash (lol I rhymed!) on defense, but I am just pointing out that you citing Terry scoring right around his average while being guarded by Nash isn't a very good way to prove Nash sucks on defense.

Terry was getting open looks. In fact, he should have put up more. The series against Parker was more obvious.

Well there is no hope for him and I realize it is pointless arguing with delusional people on the internet...to the ignore list for awhile.

But don't worry I'll remove you at some point...If I see you are contributing well.

Stay classy!

@ you calling me delusional. You will be going on my ignore list and not coming off. Stay in school, kid. You're one that can't afford to miss a day.

[Jasper]

Isiah Thomas, no question. I love Nash, but Isiah would've gotten at least one of the Suns teams to the Finals.

purely speculation

---------------
Isiah Thomas is slighted on this board because of his GM , coach debacles.
But he was an elite PG that did everything very well.
However he at times did not have good sportsmanship.

---------------
Nash 100% is a good sportsmanship guy , weak in his younger days as a defender...
BUT both players could play in any era and be dominate.

I'll tak Zeke because of his rings.
(If you put Nash on that same team , why wouldn't he win two rings as well)

[DaPerceive]

p
I'll tak Zeke because of his rings.
(If you put Nash on that same team , why wouldn't he win two rings as well)

How does that make him a better player? If we are comparing all-time lists, careers, etc. then that would matter, but we are simply just comparing who was the better player between the two so it shouldn't play a factor at all. It's not like Nash was ever the reason why the Suns came up short anyways. Nash always did his part; I can't say the same for his teammates though.

While people are ripping on Nash's defense, how much better do you guys think Isiah was defensively? Isiah was not a good defender either.

[Jasper]

How does that make him a better player? If we are comparing all-time lists, careers, etc. then that would matter, but we are simply just comparing who was the better player between the two so it shouldn't play a factor at all. It's not like Nash was ever the reason why the Suns came up short anyways. Nash always did his part; I can't say the same for his teammates though.

While people are ripping on Nash's defense, how much better do you guys think Isiah was defensively? Isiah was not a good defender either.

I watched Zeke his whole career , kind of first hand , because of the central division , Bulls and Buck games.
People remember Zeke's floor general prowl's ,, but he was a much better defender than most posters on here realize.
He was very disruptive in passing lanes , double teams as well as steals.
He broke up fast breaks , while Nash just filled a defensive lane.

The two rings I consider a difference , because he was the floor general of two championship teams.

Nash isa HOF'r as well with his MVP2

[WoGiTaLiA1]

Nash's defense was horrible and it certainly hurt them in the playoffs but that also doesn't make him the reason they lost. They lost because their entire team was horrible defensively, sure Nash deserves the majority of blame on that as the team leader and standard setter, but he isn't THE reason they never made the finals.

Question is easy though, Thomas was better at just about everything in a more competitive era, better leader and defender by a long way, better scorer and on a par as a playmaker.

It's a shame that being such an awful GM and first class asshole off the court makes people diminish his achievements on the court to the point that people will make this comparison.

Steve Nash is basically the opposite of Isiah, really nice guy who is genuinely hard to dislike who has played in some great systems to put up gaudy numbers and has never really been good enough to dislike because he kills your team either. It will probably result in him being remembered as a much better player than he ever actually was.

[D.J.]

Nash's defense was horrible and it certainly hurt them in the playoffs but that also doesn't make him the reason they lost. They lost because their entire team was horrible defensively, sure Nash deserves the majority of blame on that as the team leader and standard setter, but he isn't THE reason they never made the finals.

He's not the sole reason, but a big part. When you need extra coverage because you can't guard Tony Parker of all people, that's just pathetic. And this was '05 Parker.

Question is easy though, Thomas was better at just about everything in a more competitive era, better leader and defender by a long way, better scorer and on a par as a playmaker.

That about sums it up.

It's a shame that being such an awful GM and first class asshole off the court makes people diminish his achievements on the court to the point that people will make this comparison.

The die hard fan knows Isiah > Nash, asshole or not. Truthfully, I really struggle to put Nash on my top 10 all-time PG list. I personally have Zeke at 4.

Steve Nash is basically the opposite of Isiah, really nice guy who is genuinely hard to dislike who has played in some great systems to put up gaudy numbers and has never really been good enough to dislike because he kills your team either. It will probably result in him being remembered as a much better player than he ever actually was.

Agreed. I've met him. Very likeable guy, but joining Phoenix elevated his numbers as it did with quite a few others.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The Suns interior defense was a bigger problem, imo, and in general, their coach(D'Antoni isn't going to coach an above average defensive team). Very few could have made those Phoenix teams as good as Nash did offensively, and whatever negatives he brought defensively came nowhere near outweighing the positives he brought offensively. He definitely wasn't the reason they didn't make the finals, he was the main reason they were as good as they were. The point guards who were better enough defensively to make that team noticeably better at that end, weren't good enough offensive players to match what Nash brought, particularly the way that team was built.

Nevermind that Phoenix was a really weak rebounding team.

[Go Getter]

Nash would have been horrible on Daly's Pistons. I don't think Laimbeer, Rodman, and Dumars would have respected his lack of defense.

People are really trying to say that Zeke wasn't a better defender than Nash?

[Go Getter]

The Suns interior defense was a bigger problem, imo, and in general, their coach(D'Antoni isn't going to coach an above average defensive team). Very few could have made those Phoenix teams as good as Nash did offensively, and whatever negatives he brought defensively came nowhere near outweighing the positives he brought offensively. He definitely wasn't the reason they didn't make the finals, he was the main reason they were as good as they were. The point guards who were better enough defensively to make that team noticeably better at that end, weren't good enough offensive players to match what Nash brought, particularly the way that team was built.

Nevermind that Phoenix was a really weak rebounding team.

Disagree.

They played that style of ball largely due to Nash and it never reaped anything because defense is more important than offense.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Disagree.

They played that style of ball largely due to Nash and it never reaped anything because defense is more important than offense.

Defense is not more important than offense. They're equally important. Most teams that win titles are good in both areas, some better offensive teams, some better defensive teams, but in general, it usually takes being good at both ends to win. The Suns were a legit title contender, but the Spurs were just better and the Suns also had some misfortune(Amare's injury in '06, suspension in '07 and to a lesser extent, Johnson's '05 injury).

[G.O.A.T]

Defense is not more important than offense. They're equally important. Most teams that win titles are good in both areas, some better offensive teams, some better defensive teams, but in general, it usually takes being good at both ends to win.

Individually, I'd say defense is more important because the vast majority of NBA guys have been elite scorers at the high school, international or college level. That said Nash's impact for the positive on offense is greater than his impact towards the negative on defense.

[brisbaneman]

Nash is the better one-one-one, individual player but point guards don't win championships so i'll take Isaiah.

[Spue]

I will take zeke