Comparing Lillard to Thomas

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I suspect that there are numbers somewhere out there in the ether that demonstrate it's easier for opponents to stop Thomas from scoring if they really try, whereas Lillard is tougher.  Also, subjectively, it seems to me that Lillard has more frequent 30+ point performances.

Those are just hunches, though.  I'm open to the possibility that's my bias in favor of a player who's taller and more widely recognized as a star.

You could be right. I appreciate your openness about potential bias.

I could be bias about a Celtic player, but part of that is my nature to argue against the bias against the celtics on this celtic blog. It seems like no matter how many stats indicate our Celtics players are good, we always want to trade them away and/or we always have a "grass-is-greener" mindset.

For me with Isaiah, I look at the fact that two teams passed on him pretty readily before we were able to get him, and when he was on the open market, he was only able to get $7.5 million.  Whereas Lillard is considered a franchise player. 

What to conclude from that?  Either all the teams in the league are wildly undervaluing Isaiah Thomas, or there is a reason for the disparity in how the two players are valued around the league, not to mention how the players are viewed by non-local media.

I try to assume that all of the people outside of Boston aren't just simpletons who don't put any thought into their evaluation of players beyond how tall they are or how many points they score.  Assuming that's true, where is the disconnect between what you're seeing in the numbers and what GMs and observers are seeing?   It's a fascinating question, because Thomas has been really good for the Celts pretty much since he arrived.

Great question. It's not his production. I don't think it's his personality, at least from what I've seen and heard.

Is it the same reason that many Boston fans don't see him as a Star?

He had great college stats. He was feisty, he hit game winning shots, and he led his team well.
Why didn't he get picked higher than 60? Why did the Kings give up on them (well, maybe that isn't a good question)? Why didn't he get more on the open market?

I think there are a lot of people who cannot get over the 5'9'' (listed) height. There is a lot of bias around the NBA about height. But CBS is on record as saying he doesn't care about length, but he cares about speed and skill. This is probably the reason why Thomas succeeds under CBS, because he looks at his skills and production on the court, not his height.

This is probably also the reason why we got him on the best non-rookie contract in the NBA.

[DarkAzcura]

I suspect that there are numbers somewhere out there in the ether that demonstrate it's easier for opponents to stop Thomas from scoring if they really try, whereas Lillard is tougher.  Also, subjectively, it seems to me that Lillard has more frequent 30+ point performances.

Those are just hunches, though.  I'm open to the possibility that's my bias in favor of a player who's taller and more widely recognized as a star.

You could be right. I appreciate your openness about potential bias.

I could be bias about a Celtic player, but part of that is my nature to argue against the bias against the celtics on this celtic blog. It seems like no matter how many stats indicate our Celtics players are good, we always want to trade them away and/or we always have a "grass-is-greener" mindset.

For me with Isaiah, I look at the fact that two teams passed on him pretty readily before we were able to get him, and when he was on the open market, he was only able to get $7.5 million.  Whereas Lillard is considered a franchise player. 

What to conclude from that?  Either all the teams in the league are wildly undervaluing Isaiah Thomas, or there is a reason for the disparity in how the two players are valued around the league, not to mention how the players are viewed by non-local media.

I try to assume that all of the people outside of Boston aren't just simpletons who don't put any thought into their evaluation of players beyond how tall they are or how many points they score.  Assuming that's true, where is the disconnect between what you're seeing in the numbers and what GMs and observers are seeing?   It's a fascinating question, because Thomas has been really good for the Celts pretty much since he arrived.

I wouldn't go as far as saying every team undervalued him and everyone outside of Boston is dumb, but I would lean towards the former over the latter in your second paragraph.

His height led him to being drafted 60 which is completely fair. I'd have reservations about that also.

With the Kings, he went into free agency as a 20/6 guy on a team that won less than 30 games, and he was still short. I'm guessing front offices looked at him as a big numbers on a bad team kind of player, but the issue with that is the Kings have terrible management, and their leadership is questionable to go along with their coaching. His 20/6 year in Sac was also the first year he proved he could scale up his production so there were probably questions about whether he could re-produce that elsewhere (which he has at this point).

Then with Phoenix...well, that was just dumb of them. They had three starting caliber point guard on one team. Completely failed experiment and that's not the fault of Dragic, Bledsoe, or IT. There was no consideration for fit whatsoever when putting that roster together.

Looking at the situations, you can kinda understand where mistakes were made by front offices so I'd say it's a little of both (more so on the front offices). I think if his contract was redrawn up after three seasons of 20/6 production (like Lillard), he would see similar contract numbers as Lillard and make about 12-15 million a year. It was really circumstance more than anything that led to him being undervalued in free agency and then traded off of the Suns. It's unfortunate for him but very fortunate for us and our cap.

[PhoSita]

I suspect that there are numbers somewhere out there in the ether that demonstrate it's easier for opponents to stop Thomas from scoring if they really try, whereas Lillard is tougher.  Also, subjectively, it seems to me that Lillard has more frequent 30+ point performances.

Those are just hunches, though.  I'm open to the possibility that's my bias in favor of a player who's taller and more widely recognized as a star.

You could be right. I appreciate your openness about potential bias.

I could be bias about a Celtic player, but part of that is my nature to argue against the bias against the celtics on this celtic blog. It seems like no matter how many stats indicate our Celtics players are good, we always want to trade them away and/or we always have a "grass-is-greener" mindset.

For me with Isaiah, I look at the fact that two teams passed on him pretty readily before we were able to get him, and when he was on the open market, he was only able to get $7.5 million.  Whereas Lillard is considered a franchise player. 

What to conclude from that?  Either all the teams in the league are wildly undervaluing Isaiah Thomas, or there is a reason for the disparity in how the two players are valued around the league, not to mention how the players are viewed by non-local media.

I try to assume that all of the people outside of Boston aren't just simpletons who don't put any thought into their evaluation of players beyond how tall they are or how many points they score.  Assuming that's true, where is the disconnect between what you're seeing in the numbers and what GMs and observers are seeing?   It's a fascinating question, because Thomas has been really good for the Celts pretty much since he arrived.

I wouldn't go as far as saying every team undervalued him and everyone outside of Boston is dumb, but I would lean towards the former over the latter in your second paragraph.

His height led him to being drafted 60 which is completely fair. I'd have reservations about that also.

With the Kings, he went into free agency as a 20/6 guy on a team that won less than 30 games, and he was still short. I'm guessing front offices looked at him as a big numbers on a bad team kind of player, but the issue with that is the Kings have terrible management, and their leadership is questionable to go along with their coaching. His 20/6 year in Sac was also the first year he proved he could scale up his production so there were probably questions about whether he could re-produce that elsewhere (which he has at this point).

Then with Phoenix...well, that was just dumb of them. They had three starting caliber point guard on one team. Completely failed experiment and that's not the fault of Dragic, Bledsoe, or IT. There was no consideration for fit whatsoever when putting that roster together.

Looking at the situations, you can kinda understand where mistakes were made by front offices so I'd say it's a little of both (more so on the front offices). I think if his contract was redrawn up after three seasons of 20/6 production (like Lillard), he would see similar contract numbers as Lillard and make about 12-15 million a year. It was really circumstance more than anything that led to him being undervalued in free agency and then traded off of the Suns. It's unfortunate for him but very fortunate for us and our cap.

Fair points.  You could be right.  It's not like there haven't been plenty of examples over the years of GMs making dumb decisions with little reason beyond how tall a player is, or how many wins their last team had with them on the roster.

[DarkAzcura]

I suspect that there are numbers somewhere out there in the ether that demonstrate it's easier for opponents to stop Thomas from scoring if they really try, whereas Lillard is tougher.  Also, subjectively, it seems to me that Lillard has more frequent 30+ point performances.

Those are just hunches, though.  I'm open to the possibility that's my bias in favor of a player who's taller and more widely recognized as a star.

You could be right. I appreciate your openness about potential bias.

I could be bias about a Celtic player, but part of that is my nature to argue against the bias against the celtics on this celtic blog. It seems like no matter how many stats indicate our Celtics players are good, we always want to trade them away and/or we always have a "grass-is-greener" mindset.

For me with Isaiah, I look at the fact that two teams passed on him pretty readily before we were able to get him, and when he was on the open market, he was only able to get $7.5 million.  Whereas Lillard is considered a franchise player. 

What to conclude from that?  Either all the teams in the league are wildly undervaluing Isaiah Thomas, or there is a reason for the disparity in how the two players are valued around the league, not to mention how the players are viewed by non-local media.

I try to assume that all of the people outside of Boston aren't just simpletons who don't put any thought into their evaluation of players beyond how tall they are or how many points they score.  Assuming that's true, where is the disconnect between what you're seeing in the numbers and what GMs and observers are seeing?   It's a fascinating question, because Thomas has been really good for the Celts pretty much since he arrived.

I wouldn't go as far as saying every team undervalued him and everyone outside of Boston is dumb, but I would lean towards the former over the latter in your second paragraph.

His height led him to being drafted 60 which is completely fair. I'd have reservations about that also.

With the Kings, he went into free agency as a 20/6 guy on a team that won less than 30 games, and he was still short. I'm guessing front offices looked at him as a big numbers on a bad team kind of player, but the issue with that is the Kings have terrible management, and their leadership is questionable to go along with their coaching. His 20/6 year in Sac was also the first year he proved he could scale up his production so there were probably questions about whether he could re-produce that elsewhere (which he has at this point).

Then with Phoenix...well, that was just dumb of them. They had three starting caliber point guard on one team. Completely failed experiment and that's not the fault of Dragic, Bledsoe, or IT. There was no consideration for fit whatsoever when putting that roster together.

Looking at the situations, you can kinda understand where mistakes were made by front offices so I'd say it's a little of both (more so on the front offices). I think if his contract was redrawn up after three seasons of 20/6 production (like Lillard), he would see similar contract numbers as Lillard and make about 12-15 million a year. It was really circumstance more than anything that led to him being undervalued in free agency and then traded off of the Suns. It's unfortunate for him but very fortunate for us and our cap.

Fair points.  You could be right.  It's not like there haven't been plenty of examples over the years of GMs making dumb decisions with little reason beyond how tall a player is, or how many wins their last team had with them on the roster.

Yeah like I said it kinda sucks for him, but it's great for us.

You know what may be a fun hypothetical? What if IT were drafted by the Celtics like Ainge originally was planning on doing?

11-12 - probably doesn't get many minutes at first, but after the Ray injury and Bradley's promotion to the starting lineup, he carves out a bench role giving the Celtics 8-11 PPG similar to what he did with the Kings. Doesn't get many minutes in the playoffs, but possibly gets a short role after the AB injury. Don't think he would have significantly altered the results of the Miami series but who knows! We did lack the extra punch that even rookie IT may have been able to provide for half a quarter.

12-13 - probably keeps a similar bench role as to what he had at the end of the previous season and gives the Celtics 10-12 PPG, but after Rondo's injury, steps it up and gives the Celtics 14-16 PPG in his absence. With actual ball handling on the team, the Celtics actually get past the Knicks in the first round only to lose in the second round.

13-14 - KG and PP still traded, Rondo still recovering, IT plays himself into a 20/6 guy as the main guy in Stevens lineup. Rondo comes back, IT's role diminishes but not significantly. Celtics finish with 30-35 wins instead of 25 and do not draft Marcus Smart. IT gets 10-12 million in free agency because of his better rep on a Boston team that made the playoffs in two of his first three years.

Actually that wasn't that fun. No Marcus Smart and a 4-5 million more expensive IT. Obviously not everything would play out the way I said but it's interesting how specific team situations can potentially alter the perception of certain players and in turn their contract value.

[LilRip]

Pho, I don't think people are undervaluing IT4 (if ever, probably only slightly) and I think the differences between the 2 players stem from it being easier to stop IT and also how easy it is to build around Lillard.

Let's face it, CBS is a brilliant coach and he's put guys in positions to succeed. Evan Turner's resurgence is another great example of this. I think most (if not all) of our guys are overperforming under CBS. If you put our guys on another well-coached team (like the Spurs), they'll continue to do well. Put them in Charlotte (or Portland? or Philly?), and they will suffer.

I really think that if you switch IT4 and Lillard, I think IT4 will begin to struggle in Portland (if not his numbers, his efficiency will take a hit) and Lillard will continue to shine here in Boston, if not more so.

[DarkAzcura]

Pho, I don't think people are undervaluing IT4 (if ever, probably only slightly) and I think the differences between the 2 players stem from it being easier to stop IT and also how easy it is to build around Lillard.

Let's face it, CBS is a brilliant coach and he's put guys in positions to succeed. Evan Turner's resurgence is another great example of this. I think most (if not all) of our guys are overperforming under CBS. If you put our guys on another well-coached team (like the Spurs), they'll continue to do well. Put them in Charlotte (or Portland? or Philly?), and they will suffer.

I really think that if you switch IT4 and Lillard, I think IT4 will begin to struggle in Portland (if not his numbers, his efficiency will take a hit) and Lillard will continue to shine here in Boston, if not more so.

This isn't IT's first team, you know..he did pretty well for himself in dysfunctional Sacramento. I think you are overselling how easy it would be for other team's to stop him and giving too much credit to Stevens. IT is the one player who finally made Stevens' job a little easier, not the other way around. Before Thomas, Stevens was..I believe..41-87? Since Thomas, the Celtics are what? 35-21?

There is literally no evidence to what you are saying and everything actually points to the opposite considering he has now played on three different teams and played at similar production rates on all three with similar efficiency. If anything he is actually playing a tad bit worse right now than he did in his final year with the Kings, and it's still on par with Lillard.

Every player's efficiency takes a hit when you play with less talent. Lillard was a 56% TS guy the last couple years with LMA. Now he is a 54-55% TS guy with more of a role. He's taken a hit. IT was a 57-58% TS guy in Sac (Cousins) and Phoenix (Bledsoe + Dragic). He was actually a 57% TS guy for us in the remaining half of last year, but now he is a 54-55% TS guy this year. Fits the idea that if you play with less talent, your efficiency will take a hit. It has happened to Lillard in Portland, and it's not related to his height.

IT has already proven for years now that height has not significantly hurt his game on multiple teams, with many different players, and different systems. This isn't really something we should be questioning anymore. He will always be a 54-57% TS kind of player. It's who he is and we have 4+ years of data now, Stevens or no Stevens.

So yeah, he was definitely significantly undervalued in free agency, and it appears to me that was more circumstantial than anything which I pointed out a bit earlier. Pre-conceived notions about a player's height, "big numbers on a bad team" with only one year of 20/6 play, and dysfunctional franchise with limited national exposure all rolled into one. IT had no leverage going his way whatsoever in negotiations, and the Celtics (well Phoenix..) ended up with an all star type player on a great, undervalued contract as a result.

[LilRip]

Pho, I don't think people are undervaluing IT4 (if ever, probably only slightly) and I think the differences between the 2 players stem from it being easier to stop IT and also how easy it is to build around Lillard.

Let's face it, CBS is a brilliant coach and he's put guys in positions to succeed. Evan Turner's resurgence is another great example of this. I think most (if not all) of our guys are overperforming under CBS. If you put our guys on another well-coached team (like the Spurs), they'll continue to do well. Put them in Charlotte (or Portland? or Philly?), and they will suffer.

I really think that if you switch IT4 and Lillard, I think IT4 will begin to struggle in Portland (if not his numbers, his efficiency will take a hit) and Lillard will continue to shine here in Boston, if not more so.

This isn't IT's first team, you know..he did pretty well for himself in dysfunctional Sacramento. I think you are overselling how easy it would be for other team's to stop him and giving too much credit to Stevens. IT is the one player who finally made Stevens' job a little easier, not the other way around. Before Thomas, Stevens was..I believe..41-87? Since Thomas, the Celtics are what? 35-21?

There is literally no evidence to what you are saying and everything actually points to the opposite considering he has now played on three different teams and played at similar production rates on all three with similar efficiency. If anything he is actually playing a tad bit worse right now than he did in his final year with the Kings, and it's still on par with Lillard.

Every player's efficiency takes a hit when you play with less talent. Lillard was a 56% TS guy the last couple years with LMA. Now he is a 54-55% TS guy with more of a role. He's taken a hit. IT was a 57-58% TS guy in Sac (Cousins) and Phoenix (Bledsoe + Dragic). He was actually a 57% TS guy for us in the remaining half of last year, but now he is a 54-55% TS guy this year. Fits the idea that if you play with less talent, your efficiency will take a hit. It has happened to Lillard in Portland, and it's not related to his height.

IT has already proven for years now that height has not significantly hurt his game on multiple teams, with many different players, and different systems. This isn't really something we should be questioning anymore. He will always be a 54-57% TS kind of player. It's who he is and we have 4+ years of data now, Stevens or no Stevens.

So yeah, he was definitely significantly undervalued in free agency, and it appears to me that was more circumstantial than anything which I pointed out a bit earlier. Pre-conceived notions about a player's height, "big numbers on a bad team" with only one year of 20/6 play, and dysfunctional franchise with limited national exposure all rolled into one. IT had no leverage going his way whatsoever in negotiations, and the Celtics (well Phoenix..) ended up with an all star type player on a great, undervalued contract as a result.

My hypothetical has no historical evidence because it hasn't happened yet. IT4 has never been on a team where he was the focal point of the offense. Even on our current squad, since we have a high tempo offense that emphasizes sharing the ball. Meanwhile, Lillard has never had to carry a load as heavy as this.

We can look at stats and compare TS% or PPG and say they're the same, but I think the situation they're in matters a lot. Not to downplay IT4 because I think he probably deserves an all-star bid, but that said, I'd still take Lillard over IT4. I think it's easier to build around him, which again ups his value, whereas I don't even know if it's possible to build around IT4 as your franchise guy.

[DarkAzcura]

Pho, I don't think people are undervaluing IT4 (if ever, probably only slightly) and I think the differences between the 2 players stem from it being easier to stop IT and also how easy it is to build around Lillard.

Let's face it, CBS is a brilliant coach and he's put guys in positions to succeed. Evan Turner's resurgence is another great example of this. I think most (if not all) of our guys are overperforming under CBS. If you put our guys on another well-coached team (like the Spurs), they'll continue to do well. Put them in Charlotte (or Portland? or Philly?), and they will suffer.

I really think that if you switch IT4 and Lillard, I think IT4 will begin to struggle in Portland (if not his numbers, his efficiency will take a hit) and Lillard will continue to shine here in Boston, if not more so.

This isn't IT's first team, you know..he did pretty well for himself in dysfunctional Sacramento. I think you are overselling how easy it would be for other team's to stop him and giving too much credit to Stevens. IT is the one player who finally made Stevens' job a little easier, not the other way around. Before Thomas, Stevens was..I believe..41-87? Since Thomas, the Celtics are what? 35-21?

There is literally no evidence to what you are saying and everything actually points to the opposite considering he has now played on three different teams and played at similar production rates on all three with similar efficiency. If anything he is actually playing a tad bit worse right now than he did in his final year with the Kings, and it's still on par with Lillard.

Every player's efficiency takes a hit when you play with less talent. Lillard was a 56% TS guy the last couple years with LMA. Now he is a 54-55% TS guy with more of a role. He's taken a hit. IT was a 57-58% TS guy in Sac (Cousins) and Phoenix (Bledsoe + Dragic). He was actually a 57% TS guy for us in the remaining half of last year, but now he is a 54-55% TS guy this year. Fits the idea that if you play with less talent, your efficiency will take a hit. It has happened to Lillard in Portland, and it's not related to his height.

IT has already proven for years now that height has not significantly hurt his game on multiple teams, with many different players, and different systems. This isn't really something we should be questioning anymore. He will always be a 54-57% TS kind of player. It's who he is and we have 4+ years of data now, Stevens or no Stevens.

So yeah, he was definitely significantly undervalued in free agency, and it appears to me that was more circumstantial than anything which I pointed out a bit earlier. Pre-conceived notions about a player's height, "big numbers on a bad team" with only one year of 20/6 play, and dysfunctional franchise with limited national exposure all rolled into one. IT had no leverage going his way whatsoever in negotiations, and the Celtics (well Phoenix..) ended up with an all star type player on a great, undervalued contract as a result.

My hypothetical has no historical evidence because it hasn't happened yet. IT4 has never been on a team where he was the focal point of the offense. Even on our current squad, since we have a high tempo offense that emphasizes sharing the ball. Meanwhile, Lillard has never had to carry a load as heavy as this.

We can look at stats and compare TS% or PPG and say they're the same, but I think the situation they're in matters a lot. Not to downplay IT4 because I think he probably deserves an all-star bid, but that said, I'd still take Lillard over IT4. I think it's easier to build around him, which again ups his value, whereas I don't even know if it's possible to build around IT4 as your franchise guy.

Hmm not sure how much I agree with that. I mean fair enough, I have no issues if you want to take Lillard over IT. I did give Lillard the slight edge from a talent standpoint. It was the contract situation that swings this back into favor for IT for me.

Anywho what I don't agree with it is your assessment on IT not being a focal point for this offense. He is the only consistent creator we have, and every team that comes into town is watching film and game planning on how to stop IT from getting his offense going. I don't see why us having an emphasis on sharing the ball lessens the perceived load on IT. Both players are currently their team's only consistent high level shot creators, and both are pretty much producing and impacting their offenses to similar levels. If Portland doesn't have an emphasis on sharing the ball, they should probably look into it. I haven't checked out their AST% numbers, but if they don't share the ball as well as the Celtics, IMO, that shouldn't be a notch in Lillard's belt in a comparison against IT.

Fortunately we do have a way of comparing and quantifying the 'load' both players carry for their respective teams. IT had a 32% USG for the Celtics last year, and he has a 29.4% USG this season. Lillard in his first season without LMA has shot his USG up to 31%. Less than IT last year and a bit more this year. Both players roughly account for the same amount of plays contributed to their teams on a percentage basis. Their roles are really about equal.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Posted this a year ago. Since, Thomas has an All-star appearance and an extremely promising beginning to this year, along with a huge playoff performance and propelled a team victory.

I'm glad Thomas gets recognition. He deserves it. Here is the post i started today to appreciate him.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=88216.msg2208715#new

[mctyson]

I choose Thomas for 7 million a year over Lillard for 15 million a year any day, especially when their production is identical.

Whoa.

Take Lillard over Thomas 10 times out of 10. Lillard is taller, better shooter, and overall a far better offensive scorer.

1) He is not a better shooter, they are basically the same statistically.

2) "far better scorer" is also something not supported by their stats, not even close.

3) Portland is 13-17 right now.

4) Boston is better than Portland.

So why 10 times out of 10?

[jambr380]

I choose Thomas for 7 million a year over Lillard for 15 million a year any day, especially when their production is identical.

Whoa.

Take Lillard over Thomas 10 times out of 10. Lillard is taller, better shooter, and overall a far better offensive scorer.

1) He is not a better shooter, they are basically the same statistically.

2) "far better scorer" is also something not supported by their stats, not even close.

3) Portland is 13-17 right now.

4) Boston is better than Portland.

So why 10 times out of 10?

Well, to be fair, Monk posted his comment a year ago. This was before IT's all-star bid and official 'break out season.' While I assume most people would still give the slight edge to Lillard, it is still awfully close, even leaving contracts out of it. Ainge should continue to be applauded for coming up with that last second trade that McDonough regretted almost immediately after he agreed.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I choose Thomas for 7 million a year over Lillard for 15 million a year any day, especially when their production is identical.

Whoa.

Take Lillard over Thomas 10 times out of 10. Lillard is taller, better shooter, and overall a far better offensive scorer.

1) He is not a better shooter, they are basically the same statistically.

2) "far better scorer" is also something not supported by their stats, not even close.

3) Portland is 13-17 right now.

4) Boston is better than Portland.

So why 10 times out of 10?

Well, to be fair, Monk posted his comment a year ago. This was before IT's all-star bid and official 'break out season.' While I assume most people would still give the slight edge to Lillard, it is still awfully close, even leaving contracts out of it. Ainge should continue to be applauded for coming up with that last second trade that McDonough regretted almost immediately after he agreed.

I was going to post this too. To be fair, Thomas had not yet proven himself completely yet.

[mmmmm]

The bulk of the discussion in this thread is comparisons between Lillard and Thomas as of a full calendar year ago.

What is interesting is that their _career_ numbers are also eerily similar.   This had been noted in other threads and blogs so I'm not raising anything new.

First off, some bulk numbers:

DL has played 12773 regular season minutes compared to 11445 for IT.   IT lost the difference while he was in limbo in PHO.   That ratio accounts exactly for the difference in their total points scored (7676 for DL, 6877 for IT) as well as assists (2190 for DL vs 1974 for IT).   

So when we look at per-36 numbers for their careers, the similarities are striking:

DL vs IT
Scoring:  21.6 vs 21.6
Assists:   6.2 vs 6.2
TRB:  3.8 vs 3.1*
STL:  0.9  vs 1.2*
TOV:  2.8  vs 2.7*

Their career shooting & scoring efficiency numbers are also almost identical:

eFG%:  50.5  vs 50.3
3PT%:  36.9 vs 36.2
FT%:  87.4  vs 86.7
TS%:  56.3  vs 57.3

And finally, here are some of their career 'advanced' metrics:

PER:  19.9 vs 20.1
3PAr:  .409 vs .366*
FTr:  .308 vs .387*
AST%:  29.1 vs 29.2
USG%:  27.1  vs 26.2
WS/48:  .148 vs .154

It's easier to note the few real differences, which I've indicated with (*).   And those boil down to:  Lillard grabs slightly more rebounds and shoots more threes, while Isaiah grabs more steals, turns the ball over less and gets to the FT line more.

Other than that, you could argue they are the same player.   

[Vermont Green]

This is a great comparison.  It exposes perception vs. production.  Lillard is clearly perceived as a better player around the league but this shows that for production, there is not much difference.

I don't think height matters in this type of comparison.  Height is baked into the stats.  Thomas is shorter and should be able to be stopped more easily but he is not being stopped.  His rebounds and general defense stats are lower but made up for a little by steals.

I think if I had to choose, I would give a slight edge to Lillard but I may be falling into the same trap of letting his height affect my perception.  I think even the GMs look at IT and see more risk and are less likely to give him the money or trade for him over a more conventional player (in terms of size) like Lillard.  We are all guilty of "heightism" (like racism or sexism).  IT is proving me and them wrong though.  He just keeps on producing.